[PetroniusMaximus]

"I think you might want to try again taking into account my right to be whatever to hell I want to be."

Are you sure you are on the right thread? Please show me where I did that?



"Who put you in charge of the faith police. Which religions are on your list acceptable faiths?"

The ones that don't equate conservative Christianity with radical Islam. (for reference, see your post #213)

Say, are you A Rosie O'Donnell kind of Freeper???

"Rosie: Radical Christians pose Islamofascist threat (Rosie O'Donnell Moron Eruption Alert)"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1701019/posts

[spatso]

The point that I was making in post#213 that apparently has caused your irritation is:

"Your questions are thoughtful. One of the spooky feelings I get in reading this thread is how strident the position of the religious right has become on the issue of holy war. As I was reading your post it struck me that Christian and Islamic fundamentalism may share a common understanding of the coming rapture of end time. My fear is these guys are planning to take the rest of us with them. Perhaps the problems of modernity are not limited to the Islamic world."

I acknowledge that I may have been too cavalier and trivialized the beliefs of others. That was disrespectful and if you were offended I apologize.

Perhaps Benedict XVI said more graciously the point I was trying to make, "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God." In this definition, it is my understanding that Benedict believes logos means scripture interpreted through the window of reason. Further, he states, "the positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly." And, in terms of science and faith, Benedict suggests (writing as Cardinal Ratzinger), "In the world of science, biological evolution is the key interpretive tool used in understanding the history of life on earth."

The point I made was inconsiderate and I used poor judgment in dealing with this matter in a flippant way.