> > BG: Your interpretation sounds something like The Velveteen Rabbit, in which a child's love gives a toy's existence meaning
> >
>
> Well, your reference sounds something like Toy Story 2, in which a child's love gives a toy's existence meaning... (Okay, so now we know where Pixar got the plot from ;-)
>

I thought about the Toy Story connection, but i figured i'd play like i was really intelligent and well-read by using the the older one. Interestingly enough, i don't have a copy of TVR in printed form, and the quote i copied from the back of the video box (my mom's a kindergarten teacher, which provides a perfect alibi bor my love of children's literature--Did i mention i'm reading through the complete works of Hans Christian Anderson at present?), and the VIDEO just happens to have been produced by ABC, another subsidiary of Disney, who produced Toy Story 2. I love it when a conspiracy comes together! (Egads! What a run-on sentence!)

But i think i've bade clear before how much i love Toy Story.

> > The continuing metaphysical question: Is a person (or thing, perhaps) significant because God loves one, or does God love one because one is significant?
> >
>
> I would say "both" answers are correct...

Point is, the philosophical debate will remain unresolved.

>
> > Believing in the Creator, i think existence confirms significance, because a thing could, otherwise, have been left unmade.
> >
>
> That is a circular argument, but I think I can appreciate the sentiments expressed. :-)
>
> Wolfspirit

Yeah, i live for circularity. I figure, "Hey, the earth spins in circles, so why shouldn't we?" &'D

Penny *a lover of philosophy, but a horrible student thereof* stamp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~