Seven Deadly Heresies Speech Is Now Doctrine

[_Buffalo]

Bump for bcspace

[_Runtu]

Bump for bcspace

If he posts at all on this thread, it will be to remind us that he won and that we're just sore losers.

[_Equality]

Indeed. And frankly, if it is not the Church as it is that is being defended, what is it that is at stake? The ego of the defender, I wager.

Mopologetics is spiritually corrosive.

Ego is the reason bcspace has walked away from this thread claiming some sort of victory for having simultaneously insisted that church publications are doctrine and that some church publications are not doctrine. I'd call that a pyrrhic victory if there were any victory in it.

A prophecy: sometime in the not-too-distant future, bcspace will bring up his opinions about doctrine and completely ignore that his position has been thoroughly discredited. If someone does bring it up, he'll wave it off, claiming victory and saying that only the spiritually blind and evil would think his position doesn't hold water.

Prophecy fulfilled: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23258&p=583152#p583152

[_bcspace]

Still waiting for evidence that the Church has stated intellectual property is a mark of doctrine.

[_Runtu]

Still waiting for evidence that the Church has stated intellectual property is a mark of doctrine.

In other words, I was right: you do not know what the IRI copyright is or what it means. Not my problem. You are the one who has to support the ridiculous assertion that not everything the church publishes is official and thus consistent with doctrine. I asked you two simple questions, and you've ignored them. Why? Because you know you can't answer them.

At least you're not lying about me, like you did just now in another thread.

[_J Green]

Well, whatever else he did or didn't accomplish, I can thank BC for creating an opportunity for me to share lunch and a great conversation with Runtu. Good man, that Runtu.

Cheers

[_Runtu]

Well, whatever else he did or didn't accomplish, I can thank BC for creating an opportunity for me to share lunch and a great conversation with Runtu. Good man, that Runtu.

Cheers

I had a wonderful time, and it was a pleasure talking to you. Thanks for coming down here to Provo to meet me. We need to do it again.

[_Blixa]

Well, whatever else he did or didn't accomplish, I can thank BC for creating an opportunity for me to share lunch and a great conversation with Runtu. Good man, that Runtu.

Cheers

I had a wonderful time, and it was a pleasure talking to you. Thanks for coming down here to Provo to meet me. We need to do it again.

It's great when this board enables this, instead of enabling trolls.

[_Runtu]

It's great when this board enables this, instead of enabling trolls.

J Green is a very impressive man, and I was truly honored to meet him.

[_J Green]

Still waiting for evidence that the Church has stated intellectual property is a mark of doctrine.

Aren't we still waiting for evidence that the Church has stated that publication is a mark of doctrine? Could we start there? Perhaps, as you have suggested before, we could look at the CHI as a test case of your "doctrine" thesis. Or even Duty to God.

Regards