I have and you disagree. I don't know how you convinced me otherwise because I didn't see it.
No. I said medium. That means type of communication here, not type of porn.
The medium, platform, methodology, let's not quibble over the point of the assertion. You would object to his using the platform/medium/methodolgy of communication through Penthouse. I'm assuming he could skip all the dirty articles and pictures and get right to the letter. I simply stated that medium or the how and the manner of communication does make a difference. You said it doesn't as long as the writer is sincere. I gave you the reductio ad absurdum of that argument. You missed the point or maybe you were not prepared to accept the inevitable result of that argument.
Evangelization is not just preaching to the lost. It can and is preaching to those who identify themselves as Christians but who lack the fullness of the faith.
Actually, without getting in Biblical hermeneutics, or parsing Greek, or an explicitly Protestant/Catholic source let's take the good old Wikipedia definition:
Evangelism is the Christian practice of preaching the Gospel of Jesus to non-Christians. I thought the author admits he was Christian?
Because it may be impossible.
Where. Where do you get "it may be impossible." Either it is or it is not.
Maybe yes, maybe no. You don’t know and neither do I.
And you don't care and I do
No, it is done to evangelize - just as it is obvious.
No it isn't "obvious".
You don’t know. And it is not essential. Thankfully Justin Martyr did not follow your tact.
It's not essential to you and you don't care you already stated that.
That would be absurd - much like your hand-wringing angst over this simple letter.
Not hand wringing over anything. I question the motive and you don't. If I'm hand wringing why spend this time responding? Likely because you believe you need to provide an apologetic for it.
No, there is nothing deficient about my understanding of St. Paul’s letter.
1) There was no such thing as the Roman press, and if there was, Paul - with his great zeal for souls - would have used it.
Indeed there wasn't. My comment was made to suggest that public responses akin to the internet were possible. In fact like Luther he could have had his Christian brothers nail it on a piece of wood in town (or a door to stay with the historical analogy) so that the Roman Christians could find out that he was writing to them. Instead it's hand delivered.
2) It was not a personal letter because it was not written to one person but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”. He wrote the letter to the whole CHURCH of Rome.
It was a personal letter to the Church. What? Do you want to call it an impersonal letter to the church?
3) He wrote the letter in secret. It was not a personal letter. It was a secret letter. It was written in secret to protect the faithful. And it still wasn’t a personal letter of the sort you imagine.
Now you're contradicting yourself. Either it was ok to make it public or not. You just stated above that Paul would have used the Roman press openly if it was available.
How would you know? Also, there doesn’t have to be a physical reason impeding a meeting. That’s just your personal oddity on this. The open letter is about evangelization. Souls will be converted no matter what. The author probably composed the letter because bringing fallen away Catholics back to the Church has been a special concern of his:
So he and you are reckless as to the distribution and publishing of this letter. You could care less whether Baldwin prefers to have personal communication rather than be called out? I see. Thanks for the subtle methodology. And by the way, his use of quotation marks over born again" is rather crude and cynical shot at that phrase in the context of Baldwin. Baldwin states he is a born again Christian and the author, instead of accepting the genuiness of that phrase to Baldwin prefers to treat it in a patronizing way. Nice.
You wrote:
“The medium, platform, methodology, let’s not quibble over the point of the assertion. You would object to his using the platform/medium/methodolgy of communication through Penthouse. I’m assuming he could skip all the dirty articles and pictures and get right to the letter. I simply stated that medium or the how and the manner of communication does make a difference. You said it doesn’t as long as the writer is sincere. I gave you the reductio ad absurdum of that argument. You missed the point or maybe you were not prepared to accept the inevitable result of that argument.”
My argument was sound and your attempt at reductio ad absurdum was just absurd rather than meaningful. I said medium - as in open letter - and not as in published in a smut magazine. That is not reductio ad absurdum. It is merely absurd.
“Actually, without getting in Biblical hermeneutics, or parsing Greek, or an explicitly Protestant/Catholic source let’s take the good old Wikipedia definition:”
Wikipedia? Oh, here we go.
“Evangelism is the Christian practice of preaching the Gospel of Jesus to non-Christians. I thought the author admits he was Christian?”
Sorry, but that is not all evangelism is. 1) The Bible was written when there were really only Catholics and non-Christians. Today, the situation is different. Today, not only do non-Catholic Christians need to be evangelized but even lapsed but baptized Catholics. http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/
“Where. Where do you get “it may be impossible.” Either it is or it is not.”
Again, unless you know all the circumstances, “may” is the proper word. Do you know all the circumstances? No, you don’t.
“And you don’t care and I do”
I don’t care because it is essentially irrelevant.
“No it isn’t “obvious”.”
Yes, it is. The author clearly states that’s what he’s doing.
“It’s not essential to you and you don’t care you already stated that.”
It is not essential, period. The letter has been released whether you like it or not, thus, it is not essential, period.
“Not hand wringing over anything.”
Yeah, actually that’s exactly what you’re doing. These repeated angst filled posts are hilarious examples of someone getting upset over something that not only has NOTHING to do with him, but something that won’t be a big deal in the first place.
“I question the motive and you don’t.”
The motive is listed in the letter. There’s no reason to doubt it.
“If I’m hand wringing why spend this time responding?”
I always oppose absurdity wherever I find it. And the belligerence, anger and sheer paranoia expressed in responses to this simple letter are truly absurd.
“Likely because you believe you need to provide an apologetic for it.”
True, but many good things such as Christianity are regularly defended here. The real reason why I responded is simply this: those attacking the letter are over-reacting and wrong.
“Indeed there wasn’t. My comment was made to suggest that public responses akin to the internet were possible. In fact like Luther he could have had his Christian brothers nail it on a piece of wood in town (or a door to stay with the historical analogy) so that the Roman Christians could find out that he was writing to them. Instead it’s hand delivered.”
All mail was hand delivered - especially if you were trying to remain secret. Also, be careful of the Wittenberg door analogy. There is ample reason to believe that is a myth.
“It was a personal letter to the Church. What? Do you want to call it an impersonal letter to the church?”
It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.
“Now you’re contradicting yourself. Either it was ok to make it public or not. You just stated above that Paul would have used the Roman press openly if it was available.”
No. Paul would have used the Roman press to EVANGELIZE if such an open press existed. The Letter to the Romans was a secret one to protect himself and them from the Roman authorities. If, however, Paul could have used the Roman press - if such a thing existed - then he would have used it. I made no contradiction at all.
“So he and you are reckless as to the distribution and publishing of this letter.”
There is nothing reckless about the letter or its distribution. It’s an open letter. Look at the word you’re using here “reckless”. And you say you’re not wringing your hands in angst? Reckless?
“You could care less whether Baldwin prefers to have personal communication rather than be called out?”
He’s a public figure who openly talks about his faith on TV. There is no logical reason to believe this would offend him. Again, why are wringing your hands in angst over this letter?
“I see. Thanks for the subtle methodology. And by the way, his use of quotation marks over born again” is rather crude and cynical shot at that phrase in the context of Baldwin.”
No, it isn’t. The use of quote marks is perfectly good simply because the term is in dispute as to its meaning and course.
“Baldwin states he is a born again Christian and the author, instead of accepting the genuiness of that phrase to Baldwin prefers to treat it in a patronizing way. Nice.”
Incorrect. Claveau merely uses quote marks to show the phrase is in dispute not that Baldwin’s conviction is unreal.