Yours is an excellent example of the tautological reasoning I DID originally cite as the basis for the arguments that you and your dishonest ilk would offer:
"I think I am OK, therefore what I think is OK must be so."
The corolary being:
"I deem you not OK therefore you are wrong."
You think my position is wrong, therefore you attack my life of twenty-five years ago. To do so, you choose to defeat totally imaginary (read "false") arguments you project by presumed association, with no supporting evidence (not exactly smart, is it?). Meanwhile, you selectively ignore the thesis I have repeated at least twice because you can't disparage that. You never ask what it was that returned that life to one that is excellent, preferring to offer the original downfall when I ignored God's laws as proof that the argument (that to do so is perilous) is logically flawed.
If you are representative of your ideological cohorts, then perhaps I waste my time.
Your dishonest and, frankly, pathetic means bretray your moral and intellectual frailties, thus proving one of my points: Pursuit of excellent reading material for children is preferable to offering them Harry Potter with it's enticing justifications for repudiating some of the essential moral and intellectual foundations of Western culture, offering instead a paragon that disparages that culture as stupid; i.e., "Muggles." It is an ethic that regards entertainment as joy, gratification as satisfaction, and the projected superiority of self-justification as an objective of achievement.
It doesn't look to me like it serves you very well.