First post I said:
"By over defining ourselves we make a simple question require all of us to have a Ph.D. in semantics, linguistics, and etymology.
... I guess my point is that we can always push for definitions until we are blue in the face, but let's don't look away from what we generally mean by God."
Second post I said:
"I don't want to give the impression that it is meaningless to ask for a definition of God, I think it is a good question if a long discussion is to ensue. However, I think that definitions can benefit and they can hinder discussions... I think such a question doesn't necessarily require a definition of each and every word. Perhaps 'God' is so ill-defined that it is impossibly vague and that we need definition everytime someone uses the word, but I don't think it falls into that category. True, every word with enough scrutiny falls into that category, but we have to have a cut-off at some point and proceed with the discussion. This requires a little flexibility and a little tolerance. ... The question to me is what is a reasonable cut-off according to the context of the question. This is a value judgement that each of us must make (and the person who poses the question must eventually specify)."
There is no contradiction or retraction from the first post. I was acknowledging the point that Aurino was making (in the second), but the acknowledgement included a reiteration of the first post (e.g., "but we have to have a cut-off at some point and proceed with the discussion").