As I thought. You don't get the point of sincerity trumps all. Next.
Yes, it speaks to the fact that you are grossly unprepared for this conversation. 1) YOU do not decide what the common definition of evangelization is, 2) we don’t live in the first century anymore but in a post-Christian world where orthodoxy has been debased by Christians themselves who do not know any better and therefore need to be evangelized.
And neither do you decide. So unless the supposed orthodoxy of a definition is agreed upon to appeal to a common source which is not blatantly false is the best approach. You would decide the issue by getting into circular arguments based on Catholic theology. That presumes the answer and is not valid.
“May” reflects the fact that we don’t know all the circumstances while you keep pretending that you do. The simple fact is not only do you not know what’s going on here but you understand it even less.
May indicates and presumes an attempt to weasel out of an answer. It's like agnosticism - "we just can't know". I'm suggesting presumptions like that are predicated on recklessness and disregard for human responses. Just post a letter on the internet - that's your discussion methodology.
If you’re shouting over a great deal of noise to save my life, yes. There is no shouting in the letter either. It’s a letter. It makes no noise, no sound. Baldwin can ignore it if he wishes. I could hardly ignore your shouting in my ear.
The letter makes a lot of sound because it is on the internet , can be easily googled and is open for all to see without the necessity or indeed the desire to engage personally. That's the way of blogging and the internet - it's not the way of Christian association. That my friend is the new world order for discussion.
There are no absurd results - other than the posts by Claveau’s critics in this thread. Again, what are the absurd results? Baldwin will either be interested or not. How is either outcome absurd?
The absurd results is presuming that sincerity alone guides the method of discussion. You have no idea whether Baldwin would be offended at being called out, effectively as a wayward Catholic! Indeed the letter is so blatantly propagandist maybe he should have addressed it to Baldwin's pastor if he has one to engage in theological discussion rather than propaganda.
Yes, actually I would. I am convinced anything a Catholic does will draw fire from Protestants here at FR.
False. I never attacked the letter writer for his internal comments and indeed I stated that Christians should not engage in the bully pulpit by letter writing in public, in this case, as the message it sends is arrogance and chauvinism.
These are not Claveau’s personal issues and it is HIS letter. Also, Justin Martyr did NOT conduct himself as a gentelman according to you - nonsense!
No it isn't nonsense. Sheesh! The man has committed his whole life to evangelization. He is not a poser. I’m willing to bet he has accomplished more good in his life than anyone who labels him a poser.
Now you're presuming. Classic.
What accuser? This is what I mean when I say that your posts are angst filled. What accuser? Who is accusing who of any wrong doing in Claveau’s letter? Claveau never once accuses Baldwin of any wrong doing. Not once. Yet you talk about lack of spine and facing your accuser? Over what accusation? What are you talking about?
He's accusing him of living under false presumptions of Christianity. I thought that was clear enough by his quotation marks around 'born again' and his Catholic propaganda. If Baldwin was presumptively acting as a Christian according to what the letter writer thinks he should he wouldn't be wasting his time with him.
Again, Claveau is not hiding behind the internet. If he were he would not have listed his phone number at the bottom of the letter. You attack him and attack him and he has done NOTHING to you nor has he stated a single untruth. Why are you so angry over something that won’t effect you, won’t hurt Baldwin in the least and doesn’t even concern you?
Yes he is hiding. If he is so bold to put his phone number on the internet why does he think he needs to cloak his presumed propaganda with a letter rather than a verbal conversation. It is saying: 'I don't need to talk to you personally (fill in the blank why not) so I'm writing you a letter.' No I would say speak personally and don't use blogging as a method of communicating to a fellow Christian who apparently you are so concerned with coming back to the Catholic Church you can't bring yourself to deal with it on a man to man basis.
Secondly I'm not mad about anything, I'm responding to your posts. But I guess presumptions don't work both ways.
There is no reason to question the method, motive or anything in the letter. Nor have you given a single realistic reason to question any of those things. So far all you have done is post about your feelings.
Quite the contrary. I posted from an understanding of custom where Christians use to communicate face to face or at least voice to voice instead of their faith being subject to scrutiny by someone who is engaging in propaganda for the Church over the internet. You could care less. For you it's all about the message and to hell with how it's delivered.
You are attacking the letter, the author and yet you have no rational reason to do so.
Yes I have a rational reason and you don't care for it. That's simple enough. Even Protestant historians recognize there are ZERO contemporary records to show that the nailing of the 95 theses on the Wittenberg church door took place. Did you know that? ZERO.
The nailing of the theses whether it occurred or not was merely used a an example of what could have been done. You attenuated the example to get into an irrelevant issue of whether it occurred or not. That was not the issue. It was a simple assertion that you could make something public by posting it anywhere. I guess the point wasn't enough for you.
No point was missed, but clearly you make up fairy tales like “Catholic revisionist history” when you don’t like things people say. Again, the Wittenberg door story may be a myth. Accept the fact that it may be a myth. That doesn’t mean it is, but it certainly could be, Read Iserloh’s book. I read it almost 15 years ago and he makes a good case.
It may be myth and it may be the truth but that point was irrelevant! No, actually that is EXACTLY what I said: “It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.”
Now, how can I state something so clearly and yet you ask a question that clearly shows you believe I did the EXACT opposite unless you’re just not interested in what people actually say? You make the same mistake with Claveau’s letter. What he wrote is there in black and white and yet you come up with all sorts of things that clearly don’t apply.
How I can question? The issue is not how many people he was writing to but whether or not it came from a human being with his personal experiences and revelation of Christ. It wasn't a form letter to the church. You seem to have problems with simple terminology. Personal as opposed to impersonal. Yikes. If you have problems with this then I can see how you can misread motive and have little regard for issues such as methodology and form.
“You seem to have problems with plain meanings yourself.”
Quite obviously the problem is yours. ” No. There is no backtracking at all. Remember you used the bizarre example of this letter being a porn magazine. I am simply stick to common sense methods - including open letters which have been around among Christians since at least the time of Justin Martyr. You can only call upon bizarre Penthouse and shouting in someone’s ears as your rejoinder examples. Bizarre. Open letters are not bizarre.
Again you missed the point about methodology and manner of delivery so it doesn't surprise me you restated your error.
No, not at all. The two issues are separate as I already said: 1) If the press of today existed in ancient Rome, Paul would have used it to preach. 2) He wrote the letter to the Romans SECRETLY to protect their lives because they didn’t live in a free society.
And so then knowing subject A the Romans and subject B Paul's intention you surmised that open propaganda wasn't necessary. Do you know Subject A, Mr. Baldwin here, as to his state of acceptance of an internet letter? No of course you don't and you don't care. So don't make the same assumptions on how the message is communicated or should be without speaking to the subject A, here Mr. Baldwin. Would St. Paul ONLY speak to people in person or would he go ahead and use television if it existed in his day?
I feel certain that he would communicate personally before he made a grand show of it on some blog.
Oh, there we go - another personal attack because you have no argument whatsoever. An open letter is a perfectly acceptable form of communication on a religious issue when a public personality is addressed who has made his religion a public topic. He’s an actor. He has talked openly about his conversion and his beliefs and ministry. That means there is NOTHING wrong with addressing him in an open letter.
And you know Baldwin. You can presume to suggest that he doesn't need to be spoken to personally. That he likes to have his Catholic background now become the object of speculation and theological chauvinism particulalry by putting his stated belief under quotations. As I stated, that's not Christianity. That's religious propagandizing.
1) I have my friend’s phone number and can contact him anytime I choose. I doubt Claveau has Baldwin’s phone number and they have probably never met.
Boy for someone who stated he doesn't presume and in fact doesn't know you sure want to assume a lot.
No, Claveau is in the Body of Christ. Baldwin lacks the fullness of the faith and that is exactly why Claveau is urging him to look into the Church, the body of Christ.
Either Baldwin is in the Body of Christ or he is not. You can't be a Christian and not be in the Body of Christ. The writer called him a Christian.Baldwin is. How does that make him imperfect? Because he doesn't subscribe to Catholic ideology? Far from it. But that is not the point of this discussion as that will degenerate into schismatic discussions. As a former practicing Catholic myself, an altar boy even who had experience with the mass before and after Vatican II, who attended Catholic schools all his life, trained by priests and nuns as well, and someone who in the past regularly attended, I'm not prepared to call my Catholic brethren imperfect and need of propaganda. The point is using the internet to communicate to someone by name without even knowing or being alerted to something being published concerning you. That's not Christian - it's subscribing to blogging mentality without regard to personal circumstances. Especially someone who has not forsaken his Catholicism explicitly to subject him to being isolated in the virtual world and his faith taken to task I'm going to suggest to you will be counter-productive and not conducive to sensitive discussion.
“The phrase is in dispute to one who presumes to talk down to another Christian.” Incorrect. The phrase is in dispute between the Church and those who claim the term against her. Claveau, a member of the Church, presents the side of the Church to Baldwin and therefore writes the term correctly - as one in dispute.
Why doesn't the writer engage in a discussion with a theologian? Baldwin is a lay person who speaks about his faith. Again, putting quotes around a seminal part of his belief in a public letter is patronizing and arrogant.
You wrote:
“As I thought. You don’t get the point of sincerity trumps all. Next.”
You wrote: “Moreover you aren’t even prepared to acknowledge that the logical outcome of stating sincerity only is necessary leads to absurd results.” Huh?
Are you saying that I said only sincerity is necessary? Where did I say that? The truth is I never said anything like that at all. I just did a word search on the first 50 posts for “sincerity” and “sincere”. You use sincerity in your false claim several times. I never said what you claim I did. Why make things up?
What I wrote was this: “2) Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.” in post #22 if I remember correctly.
I never said all that mattered was sincerity. Why do you claim that I did?
“And neither do you decide.”
I didn’t.
“So unless the supposed orthodoxy of a definition is agreed upon to appeal to a common source which is not blatantly false is the best approach. You would decide the issue by getting into circular arguments based on Catholic theology. That presumes the answer and is not valid.”
No, the definition of evangelization is clearly broader than you have given it as shown in theology, history and lexicography.
“May indicates and presumes an attempt to weasel out of an answer. It’s like agnosticism - “we just can’t know”. I’m suggesting presumptions like that are predicated on recklessness and disregard for human responses. Just post a letter on the internet - that’s your discussion methodology.”
Like I said before - you really are wringing your hands in angst over this. “May” indicates that YOU DON’T KNOW. Why throw a fir over the word “may” when we both know why “may” is used?
“The letter makes a lot of sound because it is on the internet , can be easily googled and is open for all to see without the necessity or indeed the desire to engage personally. That’s the way of blogging and the internet - it’s not the way of Christian association. That my friend is the new world order for discussion.”
More of your hand wringing. We live in a technological age. There’s no reason why a public figure can’t be addressed in a public way when he has made his faith a public point.
“The absurd results is presuming that sincerity alone guides the method of discussion.”
Which I NEVER did. Again, I wrote: “2) Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.”
“You have no idea whether Baldwin would be offended at being called out, effectively as a wayward Catholic!”
Many people are offended by the truth. Some people are offended by the simplest and least offensive of things. If Baldwin is offended over this then let him say so. Claveau intended no offense as is clear.
“Indeed the letter is so blatantly propagandist maybe he should have addressed it to Baldwin’s pastor if he has one to engage in theological discussion rather than propaganda.”
Examples of Baldwin’s own “propaganda” were posted earlier. If Baldwin can make a case for his beliefs in TV and online why can’t Claveau make one for his beliefs to Baldwin in an open letter?
“False. I never attacked the letter writer for his internal comments and indeed I stated that Christians should not engage in the bully pulpit by letter writing in public, in this case, as the message it sends is arrogance and chauvinism.”
Sorry, but I don’t think you can label the contents of the letter as propaganda and then claim you have no problem with the contents. Make up your mind.
“Now you’re presuming. Classic.”
No. Labelling him as a poser - without any knowledge of him whatsoever is presumption. For me to determine that he - working his whole adult life to evangelize others probably has accomplished more good than you while you sit around and attack him calling him a poser is just common sense.
“He’s accusing him of living under false presumptions of Christianity.”
No. There is no accusation there. There is no criminal or moral fault there. There is no accusation nor is there any accusatory language involved. He INVITES him to learn more. Invite is not accusatory. Again, you are just making things up out of thin air.
“I thought that was clear enough by his quotation marks around ‘born again’ and his Catholic propaganda.”
Wow, look at the accusatory language in your post - “Catholic propaganda”. So, when a Catholic says something - apparently anything that is staunchly Catholic - it is propaganda? Oh, no, no accusation in that!
“If Baldwin was presumptively acting as a Christian according to what the letter writer thinks he should he wouldn’t be wasting his time with him.”
There is no wasting of time when addressing a Christian and encouraging to seek the fullness of the faith.
“Yes he is hiding. If he is so bold to put his phone number on the internet why does he think he needs to cloak his presumed propaganda with a letter rather than a verbal conversation.”
How would he have this verbal conversation? How would he get Baldwin to call him without an invitation - and this is one right there!
“It is saying: ‘I don’t need to talk to you personally (fill in the blank why not) so I’m writing you a letter.’ No I would say speak personally and don’t use blogging as a method of communicating to a fellow Christian who apparently you are so concerned with coming back to the Catholic Church you can’t bring yourself to deal with it on a man to man basis.”
Again, more made up nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual letter. It’s an open letter. Get over it.
“Secondly I’m not mad about anything, I’m responding to your posts. But I guess presumptions don’t work both ways.”
I don’t presume - it’s all over your posts.
“Quite the contrary. I posted from an understanding of custom where Christians use to communicate face to face or at least voice to voice instead of their faith being subject to scrutiny by someone who is engaging in propaganda for the Church over the internet.”
Incorrect. You posted your feelings without any supporting evidence. The simple fact is a face to face may be impossible here. Why don’t you get on a plane and have a face to face with Baldwin? Oh, I know, you have no desire to, but if you did, would it happen anyway? Would he speak to you? Would you even know where to go?
“You could care less. For you it’s all about the message and to hell with how it’s delivered.”
There is nothing wrong with a public figure being sent an open letter.
“Yes I have a rational reason and you don’t care for it.”
No, all you post is emotional stuff - it’s offensive (which you don’t know it will be offensive to him), it’s wrong, it’s not done by Christians (when it is done, has been done, etc.).
“The nailing of the theses whether it occurred or not was merely used a an example of what could have been done. You attenuated the example to get into an irrelevant issue of whether it occurred or not. That was not the issue. It was a simple assertion that you could make something public by posting it anywhere. I guess the point wasn’t enough for you.”
Luther supposedly was calling for a public debate to anyone in his university town or nearby. Claveau is trying to get the attention of a public figure to evangelize him by posting an open letter. How is Claveau supposed to get his attention? Are you going to determine that for him?
“It may be myth and it may be the truth but that point was irrelevant!
“How I can question? The issue is not how many people he was writing to but whether or not it came from a human being with his personal experiences and revelation of Christ. It wasn’t a form letter to the church. You seem to have problems with simple terminology. Personal as opposed to impersonal. Yikes. If you have problems with this then I can see how you can misread motive and have little regard for issues such as methodology and form.”
Start at the beginning then: why do you assume this letter of Claveau’s is personal and therefore must be kept private? Do you assume it is “personal and therefore must be private” because it is written by one man to another in name? Do you assume it is personal and must be kept private because of the contents?
In reality, none of that applies. An open letter is written for more than just the man receiving it - as was done by Justin Martyr’s apology. Its contents touch on issues that Baldwin himself made public on TV and online so there can’t be a problem there. So why the angst? Why the hand wringing?
“Quite obviously the problem is yours.”
No, not at all.
“Again you missed the point about methodology and manner of delivery so it doesn’t surprise me you restated your error.”
I never stated an error in the first place. You are not making any point about methodology that isn’t just emotional on your part. So far you have not posted any rational reason to oppose an open letter.
“And so then knowing subject A the Romans and subject B Paul’s intention you surmised that open propaganda wasn’t necessary.”
No, I surmised that getting everyone killed was not necessary. Have you forgotten that open persecution of Christians existed?
“Do you know Subject A, Mr. Baldwin here, as to his state of acceptance of an internet letter? No of course you don’t and you don’t care.”
Does it matter what his acceptance is? Seriously, can you make any case that it does? 1) Sharing the truth with someone is not wrong even if the truth is rejected. 2) You ask if I know if Baldwin would accept this letter. Do you know he would reject is JUST BECAUSE it is on the internet? 3) It wasn’t written just for him, but for those others who could learn from it.
“So don’t make the same assumptions on how the message is communicated or should be without speaking to the subject A, here Mr. Baldwin.”
Again, you have this weird fantasy that contacting Baldwin would be a breeze. What’s his home phone number? His cell? What’s his address? And if I called his house and literally spoke to the man, how would that help others like him directly? It wouldn’t. An open letter that will be seen, discussed and undoubtedly forwarded to him is a better way to make sure he gets the letter. You’re helping by all your hand wringing because you’re ensuring that more people see the thread and spread the letter. Thanks.
“I feel certain that he would communicate personally before he made a grand show of it on some blog.”
So he would never use TV? Are you serious? Then why did he bother writing? Wasn’t because he COULDN’T BE EVERYWHERE IN PERSON?
“And you know Baldwin. You can presume to suggest that he doesn’t need to be spoken to personally.”
No, can you attest otherwise, however? Please post all of your evidnece. What’s that? You have none? Imagine that. Again, you make this absurd and outright weird fantasy that people - anyone - can just magically talk to Baldwin in person whenever they want. Do you really believe that’s the case?
“That he likes to have his Catholic background now become the object of speculation and theological chauvinism particulalry by putting his stated belief under quotations.”
It was someone opposed to this letter in this thread who posted Baldwin’s thoughts on Catholicism. Baldwin made comments about the Catholic faith in public. So why can’t a Catholic respond in some way.
“As I stated, that’s not Christianity. That’s religious propagandizing.”
So, what were Baldwin’s comments? Propaganda, right?
“Boy for someone who stated he doesn’t presume and in fact doesn’t know you sure want to assume a lot.”
No. You said “Oh I see. So because he is a “public figure” and a Christian one at that, he is not entitled to the same courtesy of your friend.”
I have my friend’s phone number. I don’t have Baldwin’s. Do you? Does Claveau?
“Either Baldwin is in the Body of Christ or he is not. You can’t be a Christian and not be in the Body of Christ. The writer called him a Christian.Baldwin is. How does that make him imperfect?”
1) You can be a Christian and not in the Body of Christ. Protestants use the word “Church” in a way never intended by orthodox Christians. We use the term with its full meaning - that it is a human-theandric body and a concrete historical reality (h/t to Fr. Hopko, who would say I’m not in the Church either).
2) You can be a Christian and not believe in all orthodox beliefs. That would make you imperfect in beliefs.
“Because he doesn’t subscribe to Catholic ideology?”
Yes.
“Far from it. But that is not the point of this discussion as that will degenerate into schismatic discussions.”
Wrong. Schism is already here. Our discussions are not schismatic.
“As a former practicing Catholic myself, an altar boy even who had experience with the mass before and after Vatican II, who attended Catholic schools all his life, trained by priests and nuns as well, and someone who in the past regularly attended, I’m not prepared to call my Catholic brethren imperfect and need of propaganda.”
There is no propaganda in the letter, but all Catholics are imperfect in that they are fallen creatures. We all near to hear the gospel. I am a Catholic, went to Catholic schools, and know the Mass before and after Vatican II. And I know I and all Christians are imperfect in one way or another.
“The point is using the internet to communicate to someone by name without even knowing or being alerted to something being published concerning you. That’s not Christian - it’s subscribing to blogging mentality without regard to personal circumstances.”
No. Baldwin already made it clear he PUBLICLY speaks about his former faith and his currect faith on TV and online. This letter, therefore, is not wrong.
“Especially someone who has not forsaken his Catholicism explicitly to subject him to being isolated in the virtual world and his faith taken to task I’m going to suggest to you will be counter-productive and not conducive to sensitive discussion.”
Incorrect. His remarks - as posted by someone opposed to the letter - show he has forsaken his Catholic faith. Your suggestions, grounded as they are in errors, are meaningless to me.
“Why doesn’t the writer engage in a discussion with a theologian? Baldwin is a lay person who speaks about his faith. Again, putting quotes around a seminal part of his belief in a public letter is patronizing and arrogant.”
Claveau is interested in evangelizing Baldwin. Baldwin does not need to be a theologian to hear the gospel. You point makes no sense. You would have it that people can only talk to their exact peers? No lay person can speak to a theologian.
I am willing to bet the fact that you once were Catholic but no longer are has more to do with your angst then anything else.