*scratching my head in confusion*
Ok, if that is what you say, then why did you say that I was wrong in post 11 when I said the same thing. Strange logic you have.
btw - if the law was that they had to throw away a picture of my mother (living) or my long deceased beloved father, then I would have no problem resting in the sovereignty of God knowing that He alone is my peace and joy, and not a picture or a relic of someone or an inert bottle of something or other. For in Him we live and have our being. In Christ alone.
There is no strange logic at all. I highlighted the word God in my post to differentiate between the supposed agents of any miracle. Your italicization of my quote obliterates the italics I myself used for the word "God." I ascribe any miracle coming from the use of the water to God, while you ascribe any claim of a miracle to the water itself. We Catholics do not make the mistake of supposing that the water would be anything more than an instrument in conveying God's miraculous favor, just as the mud that Jesus used to give sight to the blind was just His instrument in that circumstance.
Oh, for Pete's sake! It was only an analogy. Don't be so overwrought. All I was saying was that the woman wanted to keep the water from being profaned, so she drank it. Forget the airport part, then. You would protect a picture of your mother or father from being profaned by someone who sought to destroy it or spit on it or some such, far beyond any effort another person would have undertaken to secure the same picture of *your* parent. The whole point was to get you to try to view things from another person's POV, even if you don't have the same emotional attachment. That's ALL there was to it. Trumpeting your unstinting loyalty to Christ alone (while commendable!) was not particularly a relevant reaction. Read the point to the analogy, don't simply compel it to formulate the punchline to your Statement of Faith. We all presume you are a sincere Christian.