I do not know how I could have qualified my comments about the second birth any more.
I must therefore conclude you are either being willfully obtuse for the purpose of maintaining your line of reasoning, or not bothering to read what I write, for you to imply I think being born again is thought by anyone to be a physical process.
As that initial premise is flawed, the rest of your restatement of Protestant reasoning is fatuous, and it still remains for you to answer the dilemma I posed.
Sorry, I am not trying to be cross-threaded with you...
Here is your quote:
You. can not, at least while maintaining any kind of intellectual integrity, claim your "second birth" is in any sense literal, while also denying my assertion consuming the bread and wine is literally consuming the Body and Blood, without cutting off the interpretational limb you're standing on. src
My first reaction to this quote is that it is comparative: One cannot claim a literal second birth without accepting literal body and blood, lest one cannot maintain the integrity of the fact. I am taking it literally (I am a fundamentalist after all). The obvious reply follows: I do not take the born again experience to be literal, ergo your statement is invalid... As I basically transmitted previously.
The only other thing I can see in this statement is a tangential comparative of the two experiences (*not* the literal sense), perhaps... But I suppose you would have fleshed that out in your definition, had that been what you were driving at...
Outside of that, I can assure you I am not feigning obtuseness - It must be the real thing. So maybe you'd be better served to haul out your crayons and draw me a picture. ; )