So, how about that local sports team?

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.

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!

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

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.

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"?

Can you start by explaining where you see a difference between "X loves" and "X gives love"?

I guess we're at an impasse. And that I shouldn't have used the word navel, since it's sending you in a direction of assuming self indulgence on the part of my deity.

The difference between loving and giving love is -- well, giving. That's been my whole point. The whole being suffused with warmth and affection for anything that might or might not ever exist? I'm good with. You're not, therefore an all loving god needs either to give to something, or something to give love to.

I don't know, and I guess I won't because you won't explain.

I've got nothing new to add to my point.

In summation: I do not feel you need an object to be loving, and I don't believe that there's anything inherently loving in creating an object. Now, if we're talking about a giving, all-loving, all-powerful god, I see your connection as having traction. But you don't seem to understand I can separate loving from giving, and I have no idea how you expect me to convince you, if you refuse to believe me.

Same point I made at the top.

Thanks, DX.

The grading is responsible for me not being able to read "23" and "24" apart.

I hope I get the date of this LA event correct: Kat, I hope your first non-vacation day is as best as it can be for a non-vacation day!

I don't think this has been linked here, so: National Geographic's WildCam Africa.

Currently featuring monkeys and warthogs. It's neat.

I'm totally shocked this isn't Fox.