I never keep ice cream in the house because I have no will power that way, but it sounds so good.
I only buy one pint of ice cream at a time in order not to go crazy. I'm hoping DH finished this pint off so I'm not tempted to eat any more.
If it weren't for the slight "Child, you've got to learn to eat sometime!" panic, it would be hilarious.
Babies are weird.
Lily wipes spoon on hand. Puts to mouth. Decides that there's still too much apple on spoon, and wipes on hand again before happily chewing on the now-foodless utensil.
I hope Lily does learn to enjoy foods soon, but this image is just too cute.
And of course, while we were eating dinner, she was LURCHING towards the Forbidden Pasta.
Weirdo! Such a weirdo.
[link] (more pics.)
The pediatrician kept bugging my friend about it, but her daughter was growing so no one worried that much.
Yeah, my worry's not so much about growth (as she still seems to be growing nicely) as it is about her food situation when I eventually go back to work and she's in daycare. Obviously, I can't detach the boobie and send it with her. I was hoping she'd take to the sippy cup, but no such luck yet.
Cute, biteable toes and I love the glasses!
And, well, there is one population that the "proof" might be useful for - the true agnostics. We're few and far between, and even the most neutral of us actually lean in one direction or another, but we profess lack of knowledge. Every little bit of extra knowledge helps. Is this proof convincing to me? I don't know. But it's not arguing against something I disbelieve, it's merely arguing for something i don't yet believe. Or, rather, don't convincingly believe any more. That makes it a truly interesting question.
I would just like to point out, that this is not limited to 'true' (whatever that means) agnostics. As both a fervent believer and a firm atheist, I found these questions fascinating. I would also note that I consider myself an atheist, but I don't have any trouble accepting the agnostic tag either; I don't pretend to know in either direction.
The thing is, if you logically prove the existence of God, you have to answer the Problem of Evil: Why is he so MEAN?
No, you don't, because there's nothing illogical about the notion of a disinterested creator. One of the reasons why I don't think 'Creator' is a sufficient criterion to call something God. Not in the sense of being worthy of worship anyway.
However, I love the theodicy question. I'm not convinced that a loving God is vulnerable here (trying to apply value judgments to empirical observations doesn't exactly lead to the most philosophically watertight positions), but the apologetics become fascinating.
That's fine for humans, but what about the non-human cruelty/pain/evil in the world? Animals (don't have souls in Christianity) aren't sentient enough to choose or to count their blessings.
This is true. There are few easy deaths in the natural world. I've come across those who believe that it was Adam and Eve's fault, that nothing was killing anything else in the Garden of Eden.
Over the years I've been surprised to run into Christians who don't believe this - that you can get into heaven if you're not a Christian. That confused me, as I always saw that as one of the central tenets of Christianity. Now I'm wondering how widespread these various beliefs are. So, do most Christians believe that all non-Christians will go to hell?
I'm going to say no, because it's an article of faith in the Roman Catholic Church (half of all Christians) that a person need not be Christian to be saved. How
likely
they think that situation to be, of course, varies widely.
My old FAC believed (in the days of their full freak) that basically the only people being judged right now were those called into the FAC (which was a pretty small number). (The Bible
also
says, John 6:44 IIRC, that no one can come to Jesus except the Father draw him. So there's a real tag team thing going on there.) They believed that after Christ's return, everyone else would be raised from the dead, and make their decision after seeing Christ for themselves and experiencing Christ's rule. At that point the decision was considered to be prtty easy, so ultimately my FAC believed very few people were going into the lake of fire.
I am very amused to see that the discussion of tiaras has just bumped God to the sidelines. Tiaras must be one of the Bitches trump cards or something.
Hee. I have no opinions on tiaras. I'll stop now.
I had no idea Bauhaus was still around.
Are they the ones that did a Ziggy Stardust cover? Me either.
Also automorphisms, which is where my brain gets stuck.
Wasn't that what the Japanese called the Transformers? That's the problem with the sentence! There's more than meets the eye!
Um. Hi everyone!
Weapon of Mass Cutieness!
Plei, if it's any consolation, my friend was driving to her daycare twice a day for nursing her 8 month old and could NOT get her to take the bottle or cup for love or money. When my friend had to go on a three day business trip, she was agonizing over it and what to do about breastfeeding. He pediatrician told her to go on the trip and have a couple of glasses of wine. The baby would adapt. Baby dealt with it pretty well. Mom drank a whole bottle.
Am SO ded from the cute.
Would someone write my teacher and explain why my paper is gonna be late? Just attach that picture, I'm sure she will understand.
both a fervent believer and a firm atheist
You believe in something you don't believe in? I'm confused.
I was thinking about God recently and I was struck with an idea--what if God exists and isn't omnipotent? What if God's creation has spun out of his control? What if God despairs at the fecklessness of his children and gnashes his teeth in rage over the atrocities performed in his name but is powerless to affect either? Are there any religions that believe that God created the universe but it got away from him and now he's just making the best of it the way we all are?
You believe in something you don't believe in? I'm confused.
they were at different points in his life