I didn't say you made accusations. I inquired about the relevance of the question.
By “attack” do you mean any criticism of which you do not approve?
That depends. By "defend" do you mean being insufficiently critical to suit you?
Why do you refuse to give a straight answer to a simple question?
Because I don't owe you any answers. I certainly haven't gotten an answer to the first question I posed, and you aren't the least bit concerned about that.
Indeed, apparently you do wish only to discuss heresy within the narrow confines of Christianity (not even considering the greater accurateness of acknowledging the wider context of Judeo-Christian Tradition in pursuit of the narrow propagandist talking points to which you obviously wish to confine yourself), and to restrict yourself further to the Euro-centric margins of Thirteenth Century RC doctrine.
The comment was made early in the thread, in the context of the posted article. If you don't like that it didn't address every context that was explored by everyone else before and after that, that's just too bad. You can go pound sand.
The Gospel of tactica: “Because I don't owe you any answers.”
Back at ‘ch.
The first question you asked me was post #13: a sadly transparent attempt to change the subject. In post #22 You complained that I took “17 paragraphs” to answer your sadly transparent attempt at subject changing.
According to a famous (or perhaps infamous) troll, I now know the answer should have been, “I don’t owe you any answers.”