What do you call post #162, then?
Cothrige, #162: ...the initial editing on the posting of the article was, I think, perhaps intentionally deceptive. But, when people want to believe something badly enough they will grab anything they can and twist whatever comes along to their own ends.
How do you know this? How are you able to glean the intentional inward motives of strangers you don't know? Doesn't Scripture say that only God knows the inward heart -- that man looks @ only what's going on on the outside? (1 Samuel 16:7)
Here you condemned Alex Murphy for being "intentionally deceptive" -- and then you act all offended when somebody points out that this spirit of condemnation is found on your keyboard breath...and then you proceed to repeatedly accuse me for pointing out this breath on you -- that I'm being "false."
Tell us, Cothrige, how are you able to discover inward motivations of strangers? Perhaps you'd like to apologize to Alex Murphy now?
To quote what do you told SkyPilot in #246: "You simply cannot have it both ways, and suggesting otherwise is just making egregious assumptions based on personal bias and prejudice."
So if SkyPilot can't have it "both ways" -- why are you able to have it both ways? If you accuse SkyPilot of "making egregious assumptions based on personal bias and prejudice" what egregious assumptions about Alex Murphy did you make in post #162? Were they based upon "personal bias" toward Alex Murphy based upon previous posts by Alex Murphy? Or what?
Certainly to claim you know the inward motivations of a poster is a rather large assumption, is it not? And to claim they are intentionally being deceptive is egregious, is it not?
What do you call post #162, then?
A dodge on your part? Otherwise, your claim would have to be that, in post #162, I 'condemn Protestants for not reading John 6 as "real."' That was, after all, what you said. Not that I condemned Alex Murphy for editing the initial post, but for a particular attitude about John 6. And, even if I had accused Alex Murphy of something, or even condemned him, would that mean that I 'condemn[ed] Protestants for not reading John 6 as "real"'? Hardly. You can't demonstrate either claim.
One very juicy irony in this is that this entire post only supports my statements regarding your persistent refusal to address the actual content of the comments and article, which was the reason for my usage of your accusation as an example in the first place. You grab onto imagined intents or actions, imply novel meanings not inherent in the text, or simply assume wildly about what a person simply must believe, and then argue all of those things. You are tilting at windmills in your own mind. Please do try to actually read the posts and then consider well whether you can contribute something useful before commenting.