bcspace wrote:An example is the latest discussion asking you to support that everything published in church publications is to be considered doctrine by the church.
Already addressed. It apparently wasn't pleasing to you. It will never come in the form brade stipulates, and being intellectually dishonest, you and brade deny it's existence.
Ok, everyone, let's recap. The two bits of evidence bcspace has offered for the view he attributes to the Church do not imply that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine. Anyone familiar with elementary logic should be able to grasp that. Now bcspace has told us that the view that he attributes to the Church "will never come in the form [ I ] stipulate."
So just to be clear, I stipulate that to reasonably conclude that everything in official Church publications is official Church doctrine we would need some official statements that either (1) explicitly state that, or (2) imply it. And again, bcspace's only offered evidence so far does not imply it, and he hasn't offered any evidence that explicitly states it; even better, he now tells us it will never come.
