"You are quoting a passage from Ephesians which has nothing to do with faith, where Paul is talking about the oneness of the household of God and the unity of Jews and gentiles in Christ, in order to try to demonstrate that my point about naivete was wrong."

No, I simply pointed out that Christ is the cornerstone of our faith…not naivete (like you said)…to demonstrate that your point about naivete was wrong (because it is).

"My point was not a theological statement, it was a statement in
response to your "naive" response to my statements on the
intellectualization of faith."

No offense, but I think that’s nonsense.  I realize you may not have been trying to make a "theological" statement, but you made a claim about something being the cornerstone of an entire system of faith. If that isn’t a "theological" statement, then I don’t know what is. If you don’t mean to make such a claim…then don’t. Find a different way to say it. For instance, "I think such naivete is essential to our call as Christians." Either way, I’d agree with you that it is within a certain context (approaching God with humility and trust) and not so much in others (understanding and discernment) simply because this is what the NT narrative seems to reveal on the subject.

"He never asked us to affirm truths of a New Testament that did not even
exist while he was walking the earth.  He simply asked of us to become
like children. Easy to understand in both historical and cultural
context; no seminary training needed, no education, no Hewbrew and
Greek studies."

True enough. He didn’t ask "to affirm truths of a New Testament that did not even exist." Indeed, He did ask us "to become like children." I’d argue that such affirmations of truth claims wouldn’t have been relevant to a culture that had the Torah shoved down their throats from birth. They knew the truth claims (or at least they should have) and when they didn’t Jesus consistently pointed them back to the Scriptures. He certainly asked us "to become like children," but He also asked and commanded us of so much more. It is only easy to understand in the historical and cultural contexts if a person knows the history and the culture. Without those contexts, the passage has essentially no meaning to us. However, within the context, IMHO the meaning becomes quite clear. Today a person could read "become like little children" and think, "Man, I just got through playing a video game with a six year old who told me to lick his balls." Kids can be bratty and immature (as I’m sure they were back then), but the points of Jesus references to children were that they were the lowest of low in Hebrew society and that they were open and trusting. Simple.

"You can leave it at that - the context does not demand an interpretation other than literal - when you are stepping over and are attempting to tell me why "become
like little children" has some sort of complex meaning associated with
it that I am somehow missing, you are proving my very point. "

I’m not saying the context demands something other than a literal interpretation. All I’ve done is advocate a literal interpretation. However, the interpretive question "What does it mean to become like little children?" is one worthy of recognition. When Jesus said that, He had something in mind. He was conveying meaning. All I want is to know what that meaning was. I’m not telling you that this meaning is something complex. I believe the context tells us exactly what that meaining was. This meaning is quite simple to find and it is itself quite simple. There is no complexity.

"I would like to know why you believe that "Ultimately the Christian
faith comes down to two things really: doxis  (doctrine) and praxis
(practice)."  What basis is there in the New Testament for this
 statement?"

Is this not true for any worldview? Is it not fundamentally true? Ultimately they come down to two things: how you act and what you believe (i.e. what you do and why you do it). Even if one were to argue (as some conservative evangelicals would) that one of the things that sets Christianityapart is that you don’t "do" anything (it’s all about grace), they still abide by that truth.

Q: "What do you do?"

A: "Nothing."

Q: "Why don’t you do anything?"

A: "Because we don’t believe we have to."

Also, I remember demonstrating (at least trying to) that the two were really two sides of the same coin, that the two only seem to be inextricably intertwined. This is not a practice in biblical exegesis. It is purely philosophical.