My post with the notorious single-quote made no attempt to 'prove you wrong'. I was answering your cogent comment about the need for useful definitions of sexual misconduct. I gave you an answer from 'the book etc. etc.'
In a reply, that never acknowledged the quote or its possible utility to the OP, you yourself stated that 'the book etc. etc.' was "fatuous". I agreed then and now.
THEREFORE, shouldn't any further grousing about it be directed to your co-religionists?
>IMO, to show who gave "The Bible" in a physical sense is an unnecessary thing to argue."
Again, a better knowledge of your Church's own history would show you that this is naïve at best. Read the history leading up to Trent. [It's Reformation-driven, did you know that?] And, the physical sense was addressed by Paul, at Rom 3:1,2.
Again, a better knowledge of your CCC would show you that it is, in fact, not 'argued' any more. For you, it's dogma.
It's true there are many ways of spreading one's religion. We began house to house; still do. Lu 5:42; Acts 20:20
We also use books*, recordings, the internet, whatever reaches people. Mt 24:14 And, this is all the result of taking seriously what churches have long called and recognized as "the Great Commission" of Mt 28:19,20. Would it be wrong interpretation to call it a commandment?
One method we have never used is that of Urban II or Innocent III.
*It has been said that the codex, a book-like device that replaced manuscript rolls even before Gutenberg, was invented by Christians to aid their work. Perhaps. They were certainly early adopters.