steveorino

Not to me ... what a disgrace to my father's good name steveOrino

I agree with Darius and Skyrad. This is really horseshit, and the bigotry behind it isn't even thinly-veiled. Enough already. Add me to the list of those that agree. Equating wacko fundamentalist Muslims to all of Islam is like equating Fred Felps and Timothy McVeigh to all of Christianity. Darias and Skyrad's only mistake is when confronted with acts of Islamist terrorists, rather than point out how they are not like the majority of Muslims, they bring up the crusades, Ireland, etc. Unfortunately by doing that they are giving creedance to those who lump all believers of one faith into a messy whole. steveOrino

Now that is one great shot!!! The eyes say it all. steveOrino

Gas jumped from $1.97 to $2.09 two days after the election in Tulsa. steveOrino

From MAtthew Henry commentary on Ez 28 Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary > (Read all of Ezekiel 28) Related Commentaries Ezekiel 28 Matthew Henry’s Commentary Chapter Contents The sentence against the prince or king of Tyre. (1-19) The fall of Zidon. (20-23) The restoration of Israel. (24-26) Commentary on Ezekiel 28:1-19 Ethbaal, or Ithobal, was the prince or king of Tyre; and being lifted up with excessive pride, he claimed Divine honours. Pride is peculiarly the sin of our fallen nature. Nor can any wisdom, except that which the Lord gives, lead to happiness in this world or in that which is to come. The haughty prince of Tyre thought he was able to protect his people by his own power, and considered himself as equal to the inhabitants of heaven. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ others The Adam Clarke Commentary Chapter 28 The first part of this chapter relates to a King of Tyre, probably the same who is called in the Phoenician annals Ithobalus. He seems to have been a vain man, who affected Divine honours. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible Chapter 28 Chapter Overview A prediction of the ruin of the king of Tyre, verse 1-10. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I know you claim to be an atheist, but you sound much more like a fundamental Baptist preacher with your biblical interpretations.

You might not say that satan was perfect but the bible does... Satan was an angel (Isaiah 14: 12) A great number of theologians including myself believe that passge does not refer to Satan, but to the king of Babylon, read the entire passage steveOrino

a better transalation of the Hebrew word "tamiyn" that is translated in the KJV as "perfect" is "without blemish" He was created without blemish but rebelled. steveOrino

First thing a theologian should do is ask what is the purpose of this book? If it is to be a science or history book than it should be held up to standards set for science and history books. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed. It is my opinion that the purpose of the Bible is to point us to Christ as a means to be made whole. (sometimes the Greek word for being made whole, sousa is interpreted as "saved") -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also agree here. However, I disagree that the only way to become "whole" is through Christ. (You haven't made this claim, AFIK.) I think different religions accomplish this for different people. One is not better than another. Personally, I prefer the Eastern religions that lack deities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- steveOrino

Ok then, but why did God not just simply place a glowing cross in the sky, that way we would all know that he exists and not just blindly hope so.... #1 Without faith you cannot experience God. Don't ask me why I have no answer other than that was how he planned it. (Heb 11:6) #2 Even then people would attribute it to something else, say a flying spaghetti monster. steveOrino

I didn't say Satan or anything was a perfect creation. Being created in a perfect state was a mistatement. It was a world without rebellion. My bad .. . steveOrino

sure steveOrino

See, i don't buy this. The natural laws that God created like gravity and two things can't occupy the same place at the same time dictates accidents wil happen. My personal experience says God seldom intervenes into HIs natural laws. To say all things are God's will is not correct theologically. Can you please list these "natural laws". Now your not getting confused with the 4 known forces are you? 1. Gravity 2. Electromagnetic 3. The Strong Force 4. Weak Force I don't know what it is called, but I described it above. steveOrino

A great restaurant (more like an upscale bar/grill) in Anchorage was "Harry's" named in honor of the old codger. I wonder if it is still there? It was near Benson & C Street. steveOrino

First thing a theologian should do is ask what is the purpose of this book? If it is to be a science or history book than it should be held up to standards set for science and history books. It is my opinion that the purpose of the Bible is to point us to Christ as a means to be made whole. (sometimes the Greek word for being made whole, sousa is interpreted as "saved") steveOrino

Let me hasten to say although it is literature and literary rules should apply, it doesn't mean it is false in its purpose. steveOrino

I agree. As I said earlier, whether it is divinly inspired or not, it is literature and should be read as such. steveOrino

I'm not a creationist, but didn't Mt. St. Helens teach us nature can produce immense results in a fraction of a second? steveOrino

Wow, so deep. steveOrino

It is a strawman because your creating your own idea of divine attributes. It would not stand in ANY theology class I know of from the most conservative fundamentalist to the extreme liberal higher criticism. Again knowing what we choose is not the same as choosing for us. Ask any parent. steveOrino

See previous posts on "strawman" If an omnipotent diety wants to give free will to his creation -- he can't?? Explain why, please. steveOrino

Its not that your opinion doesn't matter but it should be seen it the light that it has -- as one who has an opinion about an area they are not involved in. How do I know you have not owned a business? You do not recognize that while YOU may skydive for fun, the DZO has bills to pay. Your suggestion he eat his increased cost illustrates you are not aware of the limitations on the income f the "typical" DZO. Yes, if DZs are discriminating against the fatties they are able to get away with it. IMHO we treat too many skydives as an amusement park ride. That is another debate. BTW, you are not the only one who thinks it is unfair and some of them are TIs. I 'm glad we are able to disagree agreeably.

Do they check everyone somewhere? For the life of me, I'd see that a logistical nightmare, but maybe it could be done. Or we could profile and check the people who have committed the crimes in our air and PC be damned. steveOrino

You are not a TI or a DZO. By your opinion, it is a pretty good conclusion you have never owned a business either. Yet, you feel your opinion on these matters ... matter. steveOrino

See, i don't buy this. The natural laws that God created like gravity and two things can't occupy the same place at the same time dictates accidents wil happen. My personal experience says God seldom intervenes into HIs natural laws. To say all things are God's will is not correct theologically. steveOrino

Our DZO did not always compensate the TMs for heavies and no one complained. I believe the DZO understood what the extra wear and tear was doing to his gear and figured it was also creating extra wear on the TMs. So recently he added a scale and the heavy tax. Our lighter TMs take the heavies. I weigh #225, so I usually get the lighter ones. No one expected it, demanded it, but everyone here was grateful for the consideration. steveOrino