You wrote:
“So first, you do mention sincerity.”
No, I mentioned “sincere”. This is what you accused me of saying: “of stating sincerity only is necessary”.
I never said EVER, ANYWHERE that ONLY sincerity was necessary. I said:
“Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.”
That is an entirely different issue. You accused me of saying only sincerity mattered when I actually said sincerity can exist no matter what the medium used to communicate. Your accusation is about ONLY SINCERITY. What I actually said is about SINCERITY EXISTING. Those are not the same thing.
Again, actually deal with my words rather than making stuff up and falsely claiming I said something I never said.
I read over the rest of your reply and it’s filled with the usual distortions and outright fantasies.
1) Evangelization and its meaning is not going to be dictated by you. Deal with it.
2) “personal manners” nor “private discussion” are not threatened by this open letter. You apparently are.
3) Claveau bracketed “born again” as is proper. You don’t like that. It doesn’t matter.
4) The truth - in case you didn’t know - is always divisive.
Remember what Christ said about Himself?
5) You say, “I see no invitation here. I see rhetoric, confrontation and patronizing attitudes.”
Do you see this? “I invite you return to your Catholic roots and invite all “Bible Christians” to explore the truth of Catholicism.”
Now, you can claim, along with your hand wringing, that this is just platitudes, but then again, Claveau does this all his life. Doesn’t sound like a platitude. It is something he lives.
6) Prove Claveau can get personally in touch with Baldwin. Prove it. Don’t just claim it’s so. Prove it.
7) Again, your former faith is key.
8) And the personal attacks continue: “You and the writer’s attitude make me cheer for Baldwin now because with this debased method of discussion and condescension he should do his best to avoid the likes of your kind if it is representative of Catholic “evangelizers.” Muslims would be proud to have this kind of religious shakedown.”
Lent, when you get the courage to actually do what you insist Claveau should have done, you let me know. Also, be sure and tell me he responded. Otherwise, with your attitude what is the point of this? You are so filled with anger over your fallen away Catholic faith, so seething with rage and so ill equipped to carry on a simple conversation about a simple open letter, that this is pointless.
The letter stands. Hate it all you like. It stands. Baldwin may respond. He might not. But others, men of goodwill, will. They will become what you once were and what you have abandoned. Rage in the darkness all you like, Lent. Claveau will probably sleep just fine tonight. I know I will. You will be wringing your hands. I pity you. I will pray for you. I hope you will pray for me too.
Reading the mind of another poster and attributing motives to him are forms of "making it personal."
I never said EVER, ANYWHERE that ONLY sincerity was necessary. I said:
“Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.”
Sincerity as you decribed in the statement I quoted inevitability led to the reductio. I know you're now trying to argue out of that conundrum but too late.
That is an entirely different issue. You accused me of saying only sincerity mattered when I actually said sincerity can exist no matter what the medium used to communicate. Your accusation is about ONLY SINCERITY. What I actually said is about SINCERITY EXISTING. Those are not the same thing.
You missed the point (again). The reductio led to only sincerity mattered as you articulated it. That's your conumdrum. You stated and articulated it in the context of it existing "irrespective of medium used to communicate.". Well of course that is ridiculous as I demonstrated. You stated it. I didn't put any words in your mouth. You just didn't want medium to condition the sincerity. You wanted the sincerity to condition the medium. Maybe you should articulate you arguments better the next time.
Again, actually deal with my words rather than making stuff up and falsely claiming I said something I never said.
I did and you didn't like the results.
1) Evangelization and its meaning is not going to be dictated by you. Deal with it.
Neither by you or the writer thankfully.
2) “personal manners” nor “private discussion” are not threatened by this open letter. You apparently are.
They are threatened by pompous and patronizing screeds like this letter.
3) Claveau bracketed “born again” as is proper. You don’t like that. It doesn’t matter.
It would matter to Baldwin and to most evangelical Christians as it shows the writer is being a pompous #ss and patronizing.
4) The truth - in case you didn’t know - is always divisive. Remember what Christ said about Himself?
Truth may be divisive. It is not always devisive.
5) You say, “I see no invitation here. I see rhetoric, confrontation and patronizing attitudes.”
Do you see this? “I invite you return to your Catholic roots and invite all “Bible Christians” to explore the truth of Catholicism.”
The invitation is kindly declined.
6) Prove Claveau can get personally in touch with Baldwin. Prove it. Don’t just claim it’s so. Prove it.
How's this for a hand holding exercise: Post a simple note on the blog inviting Baldwin to discuss his faith with the blogger. Is that too hard? Too late now though the damage is done.
7) Again, your former faith is key.
It certainly is which helps me to more easily discern between divisiveness, schismatic discussion and genuine desire to converse about Christ. I see none of that in that writer's methodology and writing.
8) And the personal attacks continue: “You and the writer’s attitude make me cheer for Baldwin now because with this debased method of discussion and condescension he should do his best to avoid the likes of your kind if it is representative of Catholic “evangelizers.” Muslims would be proud to have this kind of religious shakedown.”
Well the truth hurts.
Lent, when you get the courage to actually do what you insist Claveau should have done, you let me know. Also, be sure and tell me he responded. Otherwise, with your attitude what is the point of this? You are so filled with anger over your fallen away Catholic faith, so seething with rage and so ill equipped to carry on a simple conversation about a simple open letter, that this is pointless.
I'm not filled with anger. Maybe disgust would be better representation of my position. Devisive and schismatic calling-out don't appeal to me. Furthermore the writer deserves no personal touch at this stage. Merely an FR response by the same medium and method he employed.
I pity you. I will pray for you. I hope you will pray for me too.
Don't pity me. Pity the poor attempt at "evangelization" undertaken by this writer. But I know you wont. Indeed you're proud of it. In any event we shall pray for one another as we are all enjoined to do. But I will not sit idly by and let doctrinal puffery count for constructive dialogue.