Once again, if you’d quoted the whole of my post instead of extracting half a sentence and then replying as if the rest had never been written, the answer to your question would have been obvious.
For the benefit of you and anyone else who may be unaware of your mendacity, here are your posts with the contexts restored and emphasised:
There is nothing at all in my post to say I would be more attracted to the GAE theme than to “allegory”. By quoting my comment that I wouldn’t be part of the Biologos audience but omitting the follow-up that I’d be somewhere else that is neither Biologos nor GAE, and by asking why I would be “attracted to the GAE theme”, you have given the impression that I expressed a preference for GAE, when I did not.
Your misrepresentation would have been obvious if you had included the whole of my comment. That is quote-mining.
I explicitly told you what the false impression was - that I would not be attracted to Joshua’s GAE group. You omitted to quote that part of my post in your reply.
I also said that your question was loaded, a further indication of the false impression you were giving, but you omitted that too.
Not quoting the part of a post that answers the question you then ask might be accidental if done once, but when done twice in succession, when accompanied by other omissions that assist the concealment, and when achieved by quoting only fragments of sentences, it starts to look deliberate.
That is why I am now dismissing you as yet another quote-miner.
If you can satisfactorily explain why you omitted those (half-)sentences from your replies, I will reverse that decision. But I doubt you will even try.
You’re the one being evasive, and intentionally vague. Nor is it just on this occasion; there are many, many others.