I don't think it's quite fair to ask me to go back and repeat stuff I've already posted. I've already taken up too much of my day involved in this thread, being for the most part the lone respondent to multiple other posters.
But as I believe you asked in good faith, this is from my post #7 (my first post to the thread):
“With the possible exception of No. 1, these really aren’t lies, but rather beliefs with which the author now differs.”
As I've said more than once, No. 1 goes to the interior state of a person's mind rather than to an affirmation of a religious belief or doctrine. There are any number of ways for someone to understand the first “lie,” but some folks might decide straightforwardly that in asserting the first statement, they're lying.
sitetest
A pretty good reflection on the vulnerability of your apologetics than anything else, IMO.
You could mount a whiny case for unfairness to fair consideration.
You could also go for the transparent alibi of a conspiracy mounted to unfairly malign you.
I suggest the later. It seems to fit your style.