Well I'm not sure if I was unclear, but when I said that there was a dichotomy between naturalistic and religious Greeks, I wanted to show that that extended into philosophy as well, not that philosophers represented naturalism.

In terms of my contention that philosophy, and thus theology, engender foolish questions, I was hoping to have made that case throughout the paper. So the notion that theology is basically just a sub-discipline of philosophy, and that academic philosophy uses dialectics in a way that is ultimately bound to fail, etc. When I say that early Christians did not import philosophy, I meant that the biblical authours such as Paul did not, rather than early Christianity. I should have been more clear about that.

What is a philosophical argument about metaphysics other than unsubstantiated belief with no basis in testable fact? Is this not an obvious fact about any claims from metaphysics? My comment that they "simply thought about metaphysics" is a fair summary of Aristotle's comments about early philosophers as far as I am concerned, and it applies to later philosophical musings about metaphysics as well. If you have some kind of evidence I am wrong, maybe you could put that forward instead of just calling me ignorant. I think my understanding of philosophy is advanced as far as it needs to be in order to dismiss its value to the Christian faith.

The fact you cannot offer any comments about my critique of certain specific fields of science seems to reveal your ignorance rather than mine. You call my remarks ignorant, but have no evidence for this assertion, then you write that there's no need for further comments proudly. Are you trying to say that your belief that these fields of science are testable, is a given fact and does not require any kind of critical analysis or evidence? Is this your dogma? Is it part of your faith?

I hardly think sola scriptura is an institution of the church. We can see from the scriptures that they are God breathed and good for teaching, correction, etc (2 Tim 3:16). This is an essential element of Christian faith. The multitude of Christianities that exist originate from people taking their inferences from scripture, turning it into an essential doctrine, then running with that to produce more arguments and doctrines. That was part of what I tried to get across in the essay, though I guess you did not get that.

I do think you got a bit angry at some of the statements I made and felt defensive. Is it possible you missed my point because you were out to disprove me, rather than reading what I wrote? I am willing to admit I might have tried to make too many points in this paper.