The FRUkies are notorious for that. Fellow FReeper kiryandil said it well:
“Amazing how all our posts to these people go through a Slava Ukraini! re-interpretation filter and come out completely different than the way we put them in.” -kiryandil
Re “re-interpretation filter”.
That is a standard debate rebuttal tactic. A point of fact, or even an argument, is often neutral. Its probative value is in context. Switch the context and it often works just as well for the other side.
Your beef is, if it were uttered in fencing, about the same as complaining about the other guy doing a riposte. It is absurd.
Good late morning to you. The phrase seems quite apt. "So what you're saying is" is a cheap trick, and when one says in response, "that's not what I'm saying" an interlocutor often tries again a little later.
In this particular case and the one like it as Sarah Ashton-Cirillo invoked "God" but apparently not from the Christian tradition which includes Romans 1, using scriptural passages as if 155mm rounds for firing a salvo is not the most effective form of disputation.
Words have meaning(s). Scriptural exegesis has meaning. Political debate has meaning. With quoted sources and citations. Filtering meaning to 'mean' something else is an old game. And always new to those who are not aware of it as a gambit.