BF2S Forums Search

this place is still alive...

videos and demos mean nothing. let's see what the finished product looks like.

easy barbecue ribs
serves 3-4 people

pork ribs are one of the easiest and tastiest foods to make. however, due to the interior of the rib rack being bone, the layer of meat can be quite thin. this makes it easy to overcook and dry-out the ribs. this is easily prevented with aluminium foil.

=================================
you will need:

1 rack (~3 lbs) PRIME pork babyback ribs (prime will ensure adequate fat, which will form the sauce)
1 bottle barbecue sauce of your choice. sweeter sauces work well with pork.
salt
pepper
sugar
cayenne powder
large roasting pan with deep sides
aluminium foil

============================
preparation:

preheat oven to 350 degrees

pat ribs dry with paper towel

apply pepper and cayenne powder generously to both the bone and meat sides of the ribs. gently pat with hands to form crust.

add salt and sugar to taste. one small pinch per pound of ribs should be enough, do not oversalt.
depending on the sauce you have, you can use more or less sugar, or none at all.
with a typical supermarket barbecue sauce i might add 3 tablespoons or so of sugar.

put ribs in roasting pan, meat side up. the bone should curve away from the pan surface, like a little arch. this forms a natural roasting rack that allows jiuces to run free.

pour barbecue sauce over ribs. you don't need to use the whole bottle, just enough to cover all the meat. i usually end up using about half a bottle.

cover pan with foil. doesn't need to be super tight, but make an effort to do a good job. the foil will prevent the ribs from drying out.

put pan on middle rack in oven and bake for 90 minutes.

======================================

OPTIONAL

if you like your ribs a little drier, you can finish them under the broiler.

take pan out of oven.

remove the foil from the pan to expose ribs.

turn oven to broil, and wait until it gets hot.

put pan back in oven for 5-8 minutes.

==================================

cut ribs into small racks of 3-4 bones each. there will be plenty of saucy liquid in the pan, spoon over ribs and serve.

the fat and juices from the ribs mix with the seasonings and barbecue sauce, forming a sweet, spicy, rich sauce that is irresistable.

the meat should be extremely tender and fall right off the bone. you will not need a knife or fork.

how many pubes would you tolerate in your mouth while eating out a girl before shoving off and telling her to go shave first?

that must smell wonderful

Poseidon wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

I definitely do. XBL and the controllers are where I feel MS excels. Which is good, because the original Xbox controller was fucking terrible.

And as stated, the DualShock's triggers feel like marshmallows.

The controller is the one area where, hardware wise, MS excels IMO.

you obviously don't play anything that requires the use of a d-pad, or rapid button sequences. [i.e. tekken]

of course tekken isn't available for the 360[yet], but any fighting game has the same issue.

the 360 has possibly the worst controller you can make for a good fighting experience.

No, I don't play Tekken or SFIV or any other fighting game. I have no interest in them whatsoever.

To base a controller as a whole based on how it deals with one minor genre is pretty odd though.

how is it odd to base my evaluation of a controller based on how it performs with the games i play?

fighting games require very responsive controls. most other games do not. no one gripes about the ps3 or 360 controller for GTA because it doesn't need super tight controls, and the differences are negligible anyway.

arcade stick > dual shock > 360 controller

Red Forman wrote:

you know what else is original? referencing a terrible tv show for teenagers.

i tried some 50% alcohol sorghum spirits while i was in asia.

it tasted like burning rectum and got me hammered.

also, i fucking hate anise flavored anything. licorice, jagermeister, absinthe. disgusting.

ptsd is obviously real, it's been documented as far back as ww1.

that said, it's not always easy to tell if someone really has it. diagnosing psychological illness is laughably arbitrary sometimes.

there's almost 100% chance at least some veterans are faking it for benefits.

Red Forman wrote:

i didn't post anything of value. i'm leaving now.

fixed.

ph1shman420 wrote:

hoppy microbrews > boring lagers all day...but you silly euros wouldnt know shit bout dat

as if hoppy beer and microbrews were exclusively american.

i prefer chimay red to duvel.

Poseidon wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

You like XBox's controller better than PS's??? Ever since the Dual Shock came to the PS1 I've thought it was the best controller ever. I was so glad when they realized this and didn't change the design for the PS2, and then the PS3.
The buttons just feel better (I prefer the flat face to the nubs), the triggers feel better, and ffs the joysticks are aligned properly.

I definitely do. XBL and the controllers are where I feel MS excels. Which is good, because the original Xbox controller was fucking terrible.

And as stated, the DualShock's triggers feel like marshmallows.

The controller is the one area where, hardware wise, MS excels IMO.

you obviously don't play anything that requires the use of a d-pad, or rapid button sequences. [i.e. tekken]

of course tekken isn't available for the 360[yet], but any fighting game has the same issue.

the 360 has possibly the worst controller you can make for a good fighting experience.

ph1shman420 wrote:

american beer

fixed

what are your favorite drinks?

beer/wine/liqueur/spirits/cocktails, anything you like. be specific.


beer:
hoegaarden
other wheat beers/hefeweizen
malty > hoppy
sake qualifies as beer as well

wine:
strong red like cabernet sauvignon
prosecco
eiswein when i can find it

liqueur:
irish cream
cinnamon schnapps
don't drink a lot of these tbh

spirits:
i like cognac

Vilham wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

the slim ps3 is supposed to be more efficient.

consumes 1/3 less power.

redesigned cooling system.

cell processor is now 42nm instead of 65 nm.


having said all that, i think the new design is butt ugly. plus you can't install linux on them.

thanks but no thanks.

o noes i cant install gimped versions of linux

lolwut?

ubuntu works.

next mmorpg i want to play is blade and soul.

it looks bloody amazing.

also, pay to play mmos are nothing like free to play ones. the experience is almost completely different.

the slim ps3 is supposed to be more efficient.

consumes 1/3 less power.

redesigned cooling system.

cell processor is now 42nm instead of 65 nm.


having said all that, i think the new design is butt ugly. plus you can't install linux on them.

thanks but no thanks.

been playing coh off and on since beta.

1v1 is best. 2v2 is ok, anything bigger is a clusterfuck. fun for a laugh only.

had to take a break for a few months due to working out of town. i probably suck now.

time to get smurfung.

let's set up bf2s coh events so we can all meet up and play, maybe once or twice a week.

are there a lot of players online for the pc version?

what kind of controllers are you using?

is it peer to peer or centralized network play?

i want to buy this, not sure if i want to go pc or ps3. if tekken 5 is any indication, playing online on ps3 might be shite.

on the other hand, playing games like this is kind of the reason i even have a ps3. plus i would be able to get a nice arcade stick for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLPyvkTUF0w

brings back the classic platform gameplay of super mario bros

supports 4 player coop

new powerups include some kind of spinny propeller suit, and an ice suit that lets you freeze enemies

best new feature: what i am calling the 'girlfriend carry'. you can pick up other players and carry them on your shoulders, apparently without much, if any, loss in mobility. this means that you will no longer be hampered by your girlfriend's ineptitude. if she can't get past that tricky jump, you can just pick her up and get both of you across. this is a great boon to the casual players that the wii has all but monopolized.

12/f/taiwan wrote:

How often do you lie and how well are you at it?

I LIE WIF WOMENS ALL TEH TIME AN IM EXTREMELY WELL AT IT

god is there anyone here who isn't a sucker for tourist cowshite?

if i was going to nyc and got advice like this thread, i'd be pissed.

he ate an animal he's not legally barred from eating.

not news.

/thread

who gives a shit if your car is 0.08 seconds faster or can pull an addition 0.01g on a corner.

wannabe racecar drivers are funny as fuck. you aren't a racer and you don't have a race car. so you can peel out of the green light ahead of all the minivans and old women. i bet your pen0r is huge.

driving is about fun. i have more fun when my car looks awesome and impresses all the jailbait scene whores. i am not interested in racing and could give two shits about performance.

lowing wrote:

You touch on everything EXCEPT the UNDENIABLE truth that CHRIST DID NOT teach or practice violence. MUHAMMAD DID!. CHRISTiana follow the teachings of Christ and Muslims follow the teachings of Muhammad.

Now, I have never said so called Chirstians do not commit violence in the name of Jesus, they do HOWEVER regardless as t ohow they justify it, JESUS did not teach or condone violence. This is the EXACT opposite of Muhammad and Islam.

each time i show how christ preached violence with quoted scripture, someone tells me that apparently being in the bible and being sanctioned by the church isn't enough for it to be considered a christian value.

so instead i fall back to UNDENIABLE basic tenets of christianity that are inherently violent, which you never addressed. and here you go, coming full circle to bug me about christ's teachings.

this is basic rhetoric, ignoring your opponent's points which you can't refute, in the hopes that no one will notice you redirecting the conversation. as far as i am concerned, if you don't address my arguments point by point, you are conceding each point you drop.

OH AND I BETTER ADD SOME CAPS FOR EMPHASIS.

be physically active every day, it will increase your appetite.

calculate your daily calorie needs and make sure to eat more calories than you use.

always get a full night's sleep.

eat breakfast, and have a snack before bed.

gaining weight is so much easier than losing it.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Do some research on the Law of Armed Conflict (specifically the Geneva and Hague conventions).

Civilian casualties during a military action do not automatically make the action a war crime.
Illegal combatants lose most of their protections.
When the US sends missiles at people's homes it is because they have been identified as combatants (almost always illegal combatants).  It is acceptable to target combatants.

civilian casualties don't automatically make an action a war crime, but they are subject to review, and a percentage of them would doubtless qualify.

not to mention that the geneva conventions forbid the use of mercenaries, who are considered illegal combatants and cannot engage in hostile action. almost all of the 'security contractors' that are in iraq right now would qualify.

again, the winners make the rules. as long as the us can enforce its will, it doesn't have to worry about breaking any silly conventions.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

But unless the fetus is capable of surviving outside the woman then the fetus is incapable of excerising any rights and therefore it has none.

the earliest pre-term survival was an infant born at 21 weeks. so rape fetuses are protected after this point from being aborted?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Second, the exercise of individual rights extends to the point where that exercise begins to infringe on the rights of another individual.

some rights are inherently at odds with each other. my right to own that rock is directly opposed to your right to own that rock. my right to spew hateful speech is directly opposed to your right not to be abused. someone had to decide in each case whose rights were more worthy.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

No group defines society, no group defines the nations morality, mobs have no rights and might does not make right, we all come to the same table as individuals.

i pretty much disagree with everything in that sentence.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

You can't have it both ways, either you're a socialist or you have to put your trust in individual rights, there is no middle ground.

how's that for a bipolar thought? better debunk it.

Kmarion wrote:

You yourself are willfully ignoring passages. Highlighting only the ones that seem to agree with your message. You're Ignoring the current teachings of Christianity. I see a great bit of hypocrisy here.. in your preaching. Read the rest of the book. It is relevant.

no, i am not ignoring anything. i am well aware that the bible contains plenty of variations on 'the golden rule.'

it's not relevant to my point, which is that the bible contains as much violent themes, teachings, and potential as the koran. again, unless i missed the pope's announcement that the old testament, and all of the violent stuff in the bible is no longer valid, it is implicitly endorsed by Christianity.

and i stand by my point that the basic underpinnings of christianity are inherently violent. no matter how we play with scripture there's no denying it.

the koran also contains plenty of passages that tell people to be nice, which the islam-bashers here are content to ignore.

FEOS wrote:

War is generally not waged on people...it is waged on capabilities of nation states. The capabilities that are targeted depend on the objective of the operation.

plenty of wars are waged against people. see westmoreland's strategy in vietnam, the iran-iraq war, the japanese invasion of china, etc etc. when the 'capabilities' of a nation is mainly its manpower, you can bet on the war being waged on people.

FEOS wrote:

For example, a factory that makes munitions. It is a legal target. The people that work there are not. There is a distinction. You can attack the factory while they are there if it is the only way to achieve your objective. But proportionality has to be taken into account. Conversely, you cannot attack the workers at their homes in order to take out the factory.

i don't think anyone has ever followed this rule. the US certainly isn't above sending cruise missiles to people's homes to kill targets, families and neighbors be damned.

FEOS wrote:

The same criteria apply for random government workers. If not for the method of attack used, the attack on the Pentagon would've been legitimate. But the hijackers were essentially using human shields (the passengers on the plane)...which is a violation of multiple international conventions.

like my example above, if it were a bomb that happened to catch a bunch of random people in its blast, would it be any less of a terrorist attack?

FEOS wrote:

As to your last point: yes, war is ugly. And at some levels, the differences become irrelevant to the individual(s) on the receiving end. But intent and targeting processes make all the difference from a legal/moral perspective. Granted, that doesn't lessen the horror of war at the tactical level...but it does differentiate legal actions from non-legal actions.

what is 'legal' is defined by the side that wins. let's pretend that al-qaeda manages to get the us to surrender. you can bet there would be war-crimes trials for all the civilian deaths caused by us bombs. but all of those are legal as long as the us is winning.

a moral imperative is completely different, it applies regardless of the winner in a conflict, assuming you prescribe to that system of morality.

Turquoise wrote:

I didn't use a ratio.  I simply said, "if the government targets outnumber the non-governmental ones."

let's replace the plane that hit the pentagon with a rather large bomb, large enough to cause damage to the surrounding areas. it kills exactly 1001 people - 501 of which are federal employees, the rest are non-government civilians. by your definition, that would not be terrorism.

Turqioise wrote:

Technically, you could use my definition to say that wasn't terrorism if you look at that crash by itself.  More Pentagon employees died than plane passengers.  However, you're still overlooking all of the civilians who died from the WTC crashes and the Harrisburg crash.

When taking into account all 4 planes and all 3 buildings, clearly more civilians died than government employees.

i actually WAS referring only to the pentagon crash, i was careful to be specific.

Turquoise wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

can i extend your argument to collateral? if an american bomb kills both enemy combatants and innocent civilians, i am going to assume it's justified. well then as long as an attack on us soil kills some government employees, it's not terrorism even if none of the people involved are military personnel. considering how many civilians are government employees, you could pretty well drop bombs anywhere.

Not true, unless you're talking about D.C.

i am talking about everywhere there are federal employees, which is all major cities and plenty of minor ones. then there are military installations and bases, transportation, energy, and heavy industry, all of which are either directly or indirectly controlled by the feds. then you have contractors like halliburton and boeing, which receive substantial government funding. you could even count universities and research labs that get federal grants.

now, sticking to your rule of killing more government employees than 'others', you would be justified in launching attacks anywhere there is even a single federal employee, as long as the number of 'others' is less than the number of government workers killed.

that would mean, yes, you pretty much could drop bombs everywhere.

boy, if i didn't quibble over definitions on the interwebs, i wouldn't know what to do with myself.

Far more civilians died than government employees in that crash.

um wut? everyone who works in the pentagon is either a federal employee or on federal payroll as a contractor. they are at least as much government employees as postal workers are.

plus, i didn't see you outlining an acceptable ratio of 'governmental' to 'non-governmental' deaths.

Accidents don't count as terrorism.

can i extend your argument to collateral? if an american bomb kills both enemy combatants and innocent civilians, i am going to assume it's justified. well then as long as an attack on us soil kills some government employees, it's not terrorism even if none of the people involved are military personnel. considering how many civilians are government employees, you could pretty well drop bombs anywhere.

A conventional force engages in war.  Only a nonconventional force can engage in freedom fighting or terrorism.

patent nonsense. the only definition of war is organized aggression. what is conventional and unconventional changes with the times, and what is unconventional can easily become conventional. moreover, who's to decide what's 'conventional'? the side that has more planes and bombs?

this thread needs

so you are saying that it is acceptable to wage war against postal workers, office clerks, census workers, anyone on the government payroll? that's quite a huge percentage of the civilian population. even garbage collectors are municipal workers.

the plane that hit the pentagon wouldn't be an act of terrorism in that case. the people on board were collateral to the real intent of the task - the us government.

i guess if you restrict the definition of terrorism to be narrow enough, it wouldn't ever technically happen, so it really doesn't matter if it's justified or not.

as for hitler and churchill, they are different people. they fought wars for different reasons. but their methods were the same. both bombed the other guy's country, civilian and military, as much as they could manage. that's my point about war - it's only a method to achieve some goal. it's ugly and people die, but there's no difference in war, only in the politics behind it.

Its the lack of or total disregard for respect for the individual that is missing from the whole choice debate. In fact, most debates, from abortion to homo rights run off the rails when people refuse to respect "others" individal rights and their rights to self determination. Individuals must be able to make choices free from the enforcement of other peoples prejudices if we are to life in a free society of individuals.

the whole point of law is to curtain some individual rights in order to guarantee certain other individual rights. allowing a 'free choice' = supporting abortion, because some percentage of women will always choose it. in a moral debate like this, you can't hide behind 'free choice', you have to justify that the negatives of your position are outweighed by the positives.

what are the negatives and positives of supporting the abortion of rape fetuses?

we are pitting one life against another: the fetus against the mother. almost everyone here [predictably] argues in favor of abortion, which is unsurprising given the adolescent male majority here.

this implies at least one of the following:

[1]you think the fetus isn't a person therefore its life is less valuable than the risk to the mother
[2]you think the fetus IS a person, but its life is less valuable than the risk to the mother
[3]it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not, the mother always gets to decide

in case of [1], what do you define as a person then? when does a fetus become a human being? there can be no real policy made unless you provide a clear criterion.

in case of [2], you would be under burden of having to justify why one person's life is less valuable than another

in case of [3], you have to show that the woman's right to choose is more valuable than the fetus's life

keep in mind we are talking about rape cases exclusively.

what about US bombs that miss their mark and hit only civilians?

or hit the right mark, which was a civilian target all along due to faulty intelligence?

these actions certainly cause enough terror to fulfill my definition.

how about the us bombing campaign against japan in ww2? napalm attacks in vietnam? all of these have been justified for one reason or another, but they are clearly indiscriminant killing of 'non-governmental' people.

i don't even know what 'governmental people' means. postal workers are government employees, is it ok to shoot them?

war is war. stop trying to differentiate good war from bad war.

human action as inspired by scripture always involves interpretation, whether literal or metaphorical.

it's amusing how people will discount the violent themes in the bible for frivolous reasons.

'it's in the old testament so it doesn't count'
'it's in revelations so it doesn't count'
'it is a teaching of one of the apostles so it doesn't count'
it might as well be 'i don't agree with it so it doesn't count.'

as if it made any difference. did christ reject the old testament as untrue? does the modern church reject the teachings of paul, or the act of revelations?

or is it simply convenient to willfully ignore those passages in the bible that are at odds with your conviction that christianity is peaceful?

the central theme of christianity is that mankind's sins can only be redeemed and forgiven through violence. god, as an omnipotent being, is unable [or unwilling] to absolve humans of their inherent evil, to the point that he had to resort to ritual human sacrifice to do it.

there is also the inherently violent threat of damnation, as in 'believe in what i say or i will torture you for eternity.'

these are the core beliefs of christianity. compare that with other religions where man can achieve apotheosis through self-actualization [like buddhism] and the contrast is stark, even obvious.

all this word mincing is pointless. what makes one religion peaceful and another one violent? the writing is open to interpretation and we can sit here and argue all day without getting anywhere.

if a religion is full of violent teachings, but no one has ever been harmed as a result, would you call that a violent religion?
how about if a religion doesn't explicitly instruct violence, but millions of people have been killed in its name, would that qualify as a violent religion?

i would sure as fuck call the second one violent. christianity [and judaism] have caused at least as many deaths as islam. all three are violent.

Spark wrote:

What exactly do you mean by terrorism? If you mean "bombings, shootings etc" then there are a few situations when that could be seen as "acceptable".

But if you mean straight-out terrorism as in terror-ism, then never (as terrorism by definition is a tool of oppression and persecution)

no one will give you a real definition of terrorism.

if you take it at face value and define TERRORism as actions that cause TERROR then bloody well a lot of things are terrorism, and quite a few of them could be justified.

chuyskywalker wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

not dictating IS dictating. the law either allows it or forbids it.

Immensely untrue, and a basic logical fallacy. Such ruling could be at least ternary, not binary.

1. No ruling. There simply are no laws about the matter.
2. Disallow. There are laws forbidding the practice.
3. Guarantee. (Bill of rights ring a bell here?) A woman's right to an abortion is guaranteed.

The government most certainly could chose to abstain from this judgement allowing each individual (woman and doctor) to make that decision which is right for them(#1). This is the approach I favor.

I would be equally upset if doctors were forced to perform abortions (#3) as I would be if abortion was made a crime (#2).

* Of course, this whole argument is moot depending on when your belief system equates life to begin.

** Not that either argument has ever, EVER been settled one way or the other.

to me, laws are abridgments of natural rights, equating #1 and #3.

in any case, the OP was a binary situation. straddling the issue does not create interesting debate.

@kimmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

yes i admit the title is a bit ... colorful. attention grabbing and all that, you know.

Harmor wrote:

The real question I have is if a woman rapes a man or tricks a man into get her pregnant if she should be forced to have an abortion...

lolwut

if the woman wants to have a child there's no sense in forcing an abortion. just don't make the guy pay child support.

LividBovine wrote:

I will use the same argument I did many moons ago:

If you were a Muslim, would you feel comfortable living in a predominately Christian country?

If you were a Christian, would you feel comfortable living in a predominately Muslim country?

I am simply stating there is a difference now that cannot be ignored.

i've been to turkey. it's a great country to live in for anyone.

i'm not a christian, but there were other christians there.

i think some people tend to forget that between 6-8 of the world's top ten muslim countries aren't in the middle east, depending on how you classify the middle east. any risk to yourself is a lot less dependent on being christian and a lot more dependent on being a westerner.

lowing wrote:

but His teachings were not of violence and intolerance

ignorant lowing is ignorant.
and reading-handicapped.

Krappyappy wrote:

the bible wrote:

when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (2 Thess 1:7-8)

[Christ will destroy] every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25)

I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.  As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27).

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth.  I did not come to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34-35)

plenty more where those came from. don't pretend that christianity is all lovey dovey turn the other cheek. there is no 'twisting' necessary, only a literal interpretation.

i have shown throughout this thread how christ's teachings have been used to commit acts of violence. you are special, but not special enough to warrant repeating myself.

lowing wrote:

...
Get back with us when you use the teachings of CHRIST to show how violent CHRISTians are. Christ's teachings and actions are not in line with the violent acts committed in his name. Unfortunately, Mohammed's teachings and actions are very much in line with those acts committed in the name of Islam. Now you know the difference.

get back with me when you've read the thread.

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

does a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape have the right to an abortion?

the fetus is innocent and would be punished for events out of its control in the event of an abortion.

the woman is also innocent and is asked to risk suffering, injury, and death to carry the fetus to term, as well as the emotional and financial costs associated with it.

whose interests should be protected?

Society.

What you say about the woman is true, and the baby as well.

But unless there is a solid apparatus in place in to care for the child then it is probably better for society that another sociopath angry child is not set loose to perpetuate the problem.

By the way, that is some tasty bait you are throwing out tonight. +1

Pretty much.  I lean in the abortion direction as well.

let's assume that the goal of society is to maximize justice.

it is not the fetus's fault that it is the product of rape. it is also not the fetus's problem that society doesn't have the infrastructure necessary to care for it.

it would be unjust to punish the fetus for either of these reasons by aborting it.

=JoD=Corithus wrote:

I believe abortion should only be applicable under extreme circumstances, this being one of them, although even in this situation, birth and than adoption would be preferable.  I don't believe it's the governments place to regulate this one way or the other, either to outlaw the act or to support or validate it in any way shape or form.  It simply isn't the governments right to dictate on this issue, or many others they seem so found of forcing their involvement in.

not dictating IS dictating. the law either allows it or forbids it.

Kmarion wrote:

No, the vast majority of modern Christian worship the new testament. You're quoting the old. Maybe look at the whole book? .. like the most recent stuff?

fine.

bible wrote:

I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.  As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27).

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth.  I did not come to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34-35).

i think what you mean by 'interpretation' is 'willfully ignore.' i don't deny that many christians don't lead violent lives. but they are also not adhering to the word of god.

many muslims do the same.

ATG wrote:

Bah, Christians are not laying waste to cities atm, or cutting the heads off Muslims.

close enough.

this sums up my point nicely.



i am making a moral equivalence of islam and christianity.

christianity is the same religion it ever was. what's changed is the underlying culture of the west independent of religion [human rights, etc]. however, it is still the same murderous tool that leaders use to galvanize their people it always was, no matter how we quibble over the headlines that islam generates today.

ATG wrote:

Again Champ, we are talking about current events, or past grievances?

If it is the past, all we can do is say " sorry 'bout that, " and move forward.

It's odd; for me, I am becoming at the same time open to The Word, and more and more despising of religion and the ills it has brought to the world.

well when someone says 'islam is a religion of violence' i take it to refer to the religion as an ideological entity, which would include everything associated with it past and present.

again i quote scripture

ezekial 35:4 wrote:

I will lay thy cities waste, and thou shalt be desolate, and thou shalt know that I am the LORD.

modern christians still worship this. christianity doesn't get a free pass just because the deaths it caused happen to lie in the past. it's still causing plenty of death and destruction today.