That's my whole point. I do, and have.
When, and how?
I don't see that all-loving has to involve giving, therefore I don't get the beneficence link.
So someone can love without giving love?
Out. For. A. Walk. ... Bitch.
Spike ,'Selfless'
Natter .38 Special
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
billytea - Aug 23, 2005 8:21:42 pm PDT #778 of 10002
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
§ ita § - Aug 23, 2005 8:23:37 pm PDT #779 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
When, and how?
I do right now. I'm not sure how to give you the insight into my brain to prove this to you, so you can either take my word for it, or dismiss it outright.
So someone can love without giving love?
Are you equating creating the universe to giving love, or is the universe created so that there's something to give love to?
billytea - Aug 23, 2005 9:08:05 pm PDT #780 of 10002
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
Are you equating creating the universe to giving love, or is the universe created so that there's something to give love to?
Neither at the moment, I'm asking about your conception of love and if it is congruent with the conception that Swinburne etc mean when they say 'all-loving'.
Volans - Aug 23, 2005 9:36:42 pm PDT #781 of 10002
move out and draw fire
Do the other major religions have an all-powerful, all-loving God?
Obviously Judaism does. Or at least the "all-powerful" part. I don't know if YHWH would be considered "all-loving." I defer to people who've actually studied the tenets of Judaism for this one.
Islam does: pretty much every part of the Koran starts with "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful"
If you count Baha'i as a major religion, then it does, as it's an outgrowth of the monotheistic religions.
I don't think any other of the majors do though.
Jesse - Aug 24, 2005 3:01:48 am PDT #782 of 10002
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
So, how about that local sports team?
Nilly - Aug 24, 2005 3:02:55 am PDT #783 of 10002
Swouncing
Poking head to post that it's Franny's birthday! Can you believe that she's two years old already? Happy birthday, Franny! And happy day to mommy Burrell as well.
Theodosia - Aug 24, 2005 3:11:56 am PDT #784 of 10002
'we all walk this earth feeling we are frauds. The trick is to be grateful and hope the caper doesn't end any time soon"
I'll defer talk of my local sports team to Nutty, who can actually name all of the players (and their batting averages, country of origin, English fluency, arrest records, and emotional quirks) and how each of them would do locked in a squash cage with a cheetah.
My new stove gets hooked up to the gas this morning, and then I will be literally cooking with gas! Woohoo!
DXMachina - Aug 24, 2005 3:34:59 am PDT #785 of 10002
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Nilly, your calendar is off. Franny's birthday was yesterday.
Kat "If the Apocalypse Comes, Beep Me" Aug 24, 2003 3:58:47 pm PDT
§ ita § - Aug 24, 2005 3:52:41 am PDT #786 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I'm asking about your conception of love and if it is congruent with the conception that Swinburne etc mean when they say 'all-loving'.
Well, tell me more about Swinburne's definition -- I think I've been consistently clear that my definition doesn't match yours. I don't know his.
As for etc -- Bob Bob has already offered that I'm not alone in thinking creation isn't required, so at least I have some company.
And then you can go back to explaining your point.
billytea - Aug 24, 2005 4:02:54 am PDT #787 of 10002
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
Well, tell me more about Swinburne's definition -- I think I've been consistently clear that my definition doesn't match yours. I don't know his.
His relates to an all-loving god, not an all-loving navel-gazer. I'm not sure what needs explaining here.
And then you can go back to explaining your point.
But as yet, I don't have an objection I can seriously engage with. Can you start by explaining where you see a difference between "X loves" and "X gives love"?