I was the same way when I was a child and my daughter is the same way
but since it took me almost 16 years to have my first baby
when my wife and I were together she slept with us all the time and now that were divorced she still sleeps with me when I have her on the weekends and I get her every weekend because my X would rather
party with her new boyfriend and thats just fine with me
anyway my daughter and I both have problems with our legs hurting at night,mainly after a busy day of hiking or running or sometimes they just ache in the knees we both take a little ibuprofen about half hour before bed and that seems to help a lot
and about the sleeping with you I'm not sure what to tell you
my daughter doesn't sleep with her mom anymore and when she stays with me,even if she falls asleep in her room she usually climbs in my bed sometime in the middle of the night and since i'm still single its not a problem right now
anyway,your daughter being only 2 probally feels more secure sleeping with you at this time and she'll probally grow out of it
what might help is having some of her friends over for a slumber party,maybe not at this age but in the near future it will get her used of being a little more independent,maybe lol

Yeah, like when I post stuff like this from research on the Bible, people just ignore it:

2) The first set of stone tablets was given to Moses at a subsequent trip up the mountain (Exodus 31:18). In this farcical story, Moses petulantly destroyed those tablets when he saw the people worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:19).

3) So he went back for a replacement. God told Moses: "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." (Exodus 34:1) Here is what was on the replacement tablets (from Exodus 34:14-26):

1) Thou shalt worship no other God. 2) Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. 3) The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. 4) Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest. 5) Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks. 6) Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God. 7) Thou shalt not offer the of my sacrifice with leaven. 8) Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning. 9) The first of the firstfruits of thy land shalt thou bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. 10) Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Keep this in mind next time you are tempted to boil a goat. This list differs, obviously, from the one in Exodus 20 (was God's memory faulty?), but it is only this list that is called the "Ten Commandments": "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exodus 34:28)

I think i was probably asking for the opinion of others rather than working out why it is that i do it. I dont often get involved with religion, so i am more interested in the reasons of people such as yourself, Abra, Krimsa, Morningsong, Feral, Tribo(where is he?!). i.e the people that argue(for want of a better word) day in day out about the same thing.

Huge fan, had a copy weeks before it came out and was pretty stoked.

I've seen them a total of 3 times, the first time was on The Joshua Tree tour, the 2nd and 3rd were from the elevation tour. The first show was in april of 2001 (pre-9-11) and then the 2nd was here in Austin in November after all the chaos had happened. I'm hoping to catch them again if they come through here :)

As far as the album itself, I really like their last 2 since they went back to a lot of the people they worked with in the 80's for the producing and such. They got a little obnoxious there for a while with the whole Zoo Tv thing and all that madness, I missed that tour on purpose actually as I heard they weren't playing older songs on it. They played a TON of older stuff when I saw them at that November show here, it was pretty sweet. I've been listening to them since before cd's were popular, I still have several of their albums on cassette

Have you seen them live? If not, their US tour starts in the fall, I would highly recommend trying to go if you can afford it. You don't really get Bono and the band until you see it live. I saw them for the 1st time in 83 or 84, one of their first tours. That was when I truly became rabid Last show I saw was their All that You Can't Leave Behind Tour, I miss them. Gonna try to be able to afford to see them when they come in September.

Actually, it does not sound nutty to me. U2 has always been an incredibly spiritual (and political) band. Much of their music, especially the stuff not played on mainstream radio, is about their struggle with God, spirituality, religion, the human soul, the state of humanity, etc. And, they practice what they preach, which is refreshing. They are the band that got me politically active in college and opened my eyes to the fact that there is so much more to life than what we see right in front of our faces on a day-to-day level.

Thanks everyone for your advice, I'm going to try some of it out. I took her in the room for her nap today and she wouldn't sit still for a book, so I made sure there was nothing noisy in the area, pretended to be asleep for about 10 minutes and she finally got bored and crawled up there with me. And fell asleep within 15 minutes. So maybe it'll work for bed time. Thanks again!

I bet that's an amazing sight. For those of us not fortunate enough to be able to get that far away from land, the high deserts of the southwest are about as good as it gets. Wide open and far from city lights. Also, any good mountain top will do in a pinch. You usually don't get quite as wide a view in the mountains thought. Both of these have the advantage of being at higher altitudes where there is less atmospheric distortion.

The best thing about not getting married is that you always avoid divorce lawyers

Marriage is Bull$hit.

But the only reason gays would like to get married is so they can enjoy certin legal benefits marriage has to offer, like tax breaks and wills and such.

Plus, if two people love each other then why not?

As I said, it is realy only the religious that care.
Religion has always hated what it does not understand.
It despretly tried to keep the blacks down, and when that faild it now sets it's sights on the gay community.
And when that fails (and it will).
They will move on to the next group to hate and oppress.

I study and work in the IT world. I can remember from my studies of electronics how energy never really disappears, it just transforms into a different form of energy. It seems to make a lot sense on a larger scale also.

Isn't the whole institution of marriage based in religion anyway? Are we moving toward a culture without marriage? Given the high and growing rate of divorce the next logical step would be the social dissolution of lifelong pair bonding.

This is true David, but ultimately this philosophy only makes sense in a pantheistic view. In that case, we are God.

It makes no sense to speak about an 'infinite' God and simultaneously hold that we are 'seperate' from that God.

If God is infinite, then we are part of God. That's pantheism.

However, in that view it would make no sense to say that our lives are only meaningful if there exists "a god" because in that view we are a direct manifestation of "god".

Once the pantheisic view is accepted there is no longer a need for an infinite regression of gods over gods becasue all is God. God is all that exists. Period.

God doesn't 'give' meaning to anything. God IS everything. And there is nothing other than God.

Once the pantheistic view of God has been accepted all problems disolve into nothingness because there is no 'external' reference frame that needs to be justified.

We are not 'external to God' and God is not 'external to us'.

Therefore Plato's entire concept of the God's passing judgements on the pious nature of external beings is a moot point.

Plato was thinking non-pantheistically in this particular instance. He was clearly asking the question based on a concept that spirit and flesh are distinctly different entities. (i.e. The Gods are judging 'others' to be pious or non-pious).

So my original answer was a take-off from Plato's point of view.

Yes, I agree with you David. Once pantheisism is considered the concept becomes moot.

Great to read your posts!

You're always spot on.

Socrates generates a formal dilemma from a (deceptively) simple question: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (Euthyphro 10 a) . . . If right actions are pious only because the god(s) love them, then moral rightness is entirely arbitrary, depending only on the whims of the god(s). If, on the other hand, the god(s) love right actions only because they are already right, then there must be some non-divine source of values, which we might come to know independently of their love. from http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2d.htm