You call that an addressing of the article's main arguments? That’s odd. I must have missed your defense of Paul’s anthropocentric presupposition of theism, of his incoherent repudiation of homosexuality, and of his assumption that Jesus’s sacrificial death expressed divine love and justice.
All I see in your comment are tedious strawmen and you hopping up and down on your hobby horse, pontificating about how philosophy differs from religion. Yeah, I’m talking about Paul’s epistles, not about all of religion or all of philosophy. Paul’s apologetics comes across as premodern and regressive compared to ancient Greco-Roman philosophy. You haven’t shown that that’s an unfair statement.
Marcus Aurelius didn’t write like Paul, did he? That’s because Aurelius was a Stoic philosopher, whereas Paul’s letters are hypocritical, obnoxious boasts about how a nonsensical theological creed is superior to all the world’s philosophy.
You strawman the argument about how the obnoxiousness is transferred to later fundamentalist Christians, since you ignore my argument from analogy with how children imitate their parents’ mannerisms.
You say I’m not being honest in comparing Paul to Plato since religious people are bound to sound different from philosophers. Not so. Eastern scriptures are far more philosophical and intellectually sophisticated than Western ones. Again, I’m talking here only about Paul’s epistles and specifically his letter to the Romans, so your hobby horse is more like a red herring.
You say the article’s arguments are logically invalid. But why don’t you demonstrate as much by showing that Paul proves God’s existence in Romans, by defending his condemnation of homosexuality, and explaining how Jesus’s death showed that God is both loving and just?