You're becoming tedious now, aren't you? Why don't you write the articles you think should be written? While you're doing that I'll have added to the hundreds I've written--on many aspects of philosophy, religion, history, and politics--this particular article which isn't on all of Christianity, philosophy, or naturalism, but very specifically on Paul's epistles and on the Christians who take them to be of central importance and who therefore mimic their obnoxiousness.
There's no unfair comparison, though, in this article. Plato and Aristotle may not be as secular as late-modern secularists, but that's irrelevant since they're separated from us by many centuries. No, the relevant comparison is between ancient philosophy and Paul's style of theological ranting. That's why I focus a little more on contrasting Romans with Lucretius's Epicurean poem. Read those side by side and ask yourself which is more philosophical, rational, naturalistic, humanistic, and indeed modern. The answer jumps off the page.
The same is true, of course, for Plato and Aristotle. They were philosophers who wrote about many things, including religion. Plato wrote dialogues to give various sides a fair hearing. His metaphysical picture isn't theistic. The First Cause for him is a monistic "good" about which he says precious little. Aristotle was a deist rather than a theist, but the naturalistic, reductionistic, and analytical character of his thought is all over his writing and it stands in stark contrast to the parts of Romans I consider in the article.
I'm aware that some Christians are more philosophical than others. But why muddy the waters when you can focus on what's been hiding in plain sight, namely on the egregious barbarity of Paul's prejudices which clearly infects the attitudes of a great many late-modern Christians? Why not focus on that rather than on your hobby horse. Or have you forgotten that I was the one doing the writing here, and I'm the one who knows best what other topics I've covered elsewhere?
It's not a surprise, by the way, that methodological naturalism was the type at issue in the article. Again, I was talking about the styles of writing and the modes of thinking: philosophy versus theology, and reason versus faith/authority/prejudice. Plato or Aristotle and Paul clearly belong on the opposite sides of those dichotomies, as is apparent from their writings. That was my only point there. Whereas Paul is too frequently read in conjunction with the rest of the Bible, you get a fresh perspective when you read him next to real philosophers like Aristotle or Lucretius.
As for Aquinas, I side with his late assessment of his work, after he had his religious experience, when he called his systematic pseudo-philosophizing so much "straw."
Here's a list of my other articles, by the way: