Genesis

For quite a while I've been struggling with the Old Testament God. Jesus is a nice guy, but the OT God seems to be on some power trip and isn't so nice. So I thought the best thing for me to so would be to read the whole thing. The whole Bible.

So, first up is Genesis.

Genesis 1 is the creation story. Creation poem maybe. This is my blog, so I can be honest; I don't understand how people can take the creation story (both Genesis 1 & 2) literally. I know plenty of people who do, and that's fine, they're allowed to, but when I read them I can't help but want to draw little illustrations and put it on the bookshelf next to 'How the crow became black.' I shall call it 'How the snake lost its legs.'

I don't believe in evolution fully, but I don't believe in the 6 day creation as it's written. Some people are all like "If you don't believe in that part of Genesis, how can you believe in the rest?" Well, a) because not believing that it's 100% literal doesn't take away its importance, b) are we even sure Genesis is written by one author? Coz it reads differently as you go along. c) Maybe that's a good question. Let's continue with Genesis.

I have some questions about Adam and Eve and the garden.

1) Wouldn't the tree of life still be there? Being the tree of life, surely it wouldn't die?

2) Eating the fruit opened our eyes to good and evil; surely that is a good thing? Otherwise we would have been living in ignorance of truth, and following God like robots. I don't understand how in Genesis 3:22 God says, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” He seemed disappointed that we would learn the truth. He wanted to hide us from that. LIE to us. And if that's not the case, if He had PLANNED for that to happen, that makes him even worse. He purposely made us sinners, so I can't really see any good in this Genesis God so far.

Now we get to the birth of Adam and Eve's children. God told them to be fruitful, and I don't really think they did a good job, since they only had 3 sons in 130 years. I'm assuming they had some daughters, but having 3 sons still seems like a bit of a failure if you're trying to start the race of humans. I believe there were more people on the Earth. Cain did seem a little fearful of other humans in Genesis 4:13

"Cain said to the LORD, 'My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.'

15 But the LORD said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him."

That just sounds like there's more than Mum, Dad, and a few younger siblings.

Then in Genesis, there's a whole lot of name-listing until we get to Noah. The flood story bugs me a bit, simply because it really makes God look like a failure. The Bible even says He REGRETTED making humans. How does someone ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING come to regret something?

And what in the world is a Nephilim?

Why did God suddenly decide it was okay to eat meat?

A question (or more) about Genesis 9:20 where Noah gets drunk and his sons walk in on him naked. First one of them sees him, then goes out and tells his brothers, then they come in and cover him up. When he wakes up he's all mad and stuff and curses the first brother.

Why did he curse him? Why was it a big deal? Why was his son punished when he was the idiot who got drunk and passed out naked in the first place? Why is this story even important?

I fail to see the importance of the name listing/cursing/blessing. It's just segregating nations/people groups right from the beginning.

Now we get to the tower of Babel, another story I find stupid. So, these people decide to build a really big tower, one that reaches the Heavens. God doesn't like that, so He changes their languages and they have to scatter.

Firstly, why hasn't God done that now, when cities try and build the tallest building ever? He obviously doesn't have a problem with tall buildings. Was it their attitude? Coz people have that attitude all the time and God doesn't confuse them by changing their languages, or interfere in that sort of way. And surely God knew that it was impossible for them to reach Heaven. I, once again, don't see the importance of this story besides some sort of folk tale to tell us how we got difference languages.

Now we get to the story of Abraham, and this is where it starts to read differently to the beginning of Genesis.

In the story of Abraham, and then the ones that follow, like Jacob, God blesses these people by making them nations, and continuing their family line. I don't understand this much.

Why does God seem okay with incest and extra-marital affairs, and extra wives in Genesis? I realise the law hasn't been given to Moses yet, but apparently God doesn't change, so why does He not seem to care? In fact, He's blessing these people.

There's clear favouritism from God. Sometimes it seems unfair, like the story of Esau and Jacob. Jacob did the dirty on his brother, but still seemed to be the favourite. And why was Rebekah in on it, lying to her husband Jacob? Was it just because she didn't like Esau's wives? And what's with Jacob's blessings? Why couldn't he bless both sons?

Also...was Esau born hairy? Coz that's gross.

Jacob's little love story was nearly sweet. Working for 14 years just to marry the woman he loved. It's ruined by all the other wives though.

I don't really have a lot to say about the rest of Genesis. I just don't understand the importance of these stories.
Was it to show the family lines of people from Adam and Eve?

I don't really see the importance of Genesis at all, besides the creation story, and even then, I don't even understand how God is good yet.

On to Exodus I guess.

Not having kids is a sin?

Not Having Babies, Not an Option

by J. Budziszewski


In a recent Boundless article, Dr. Budziszewski stated that one way to be impure within a marriage is to "refuse the gift of children." Additionally, I recently purchased and read Dr. B's helpful book How to Stay Christian in College. While I found most of the book easy to figure out, I was a little puzzled by Dr. B's assertion that "unless you're biologically incapable, never [having children] is not an option." I just wonder why "be fruitful and multiply" necessarily applies to every individual. My question to Dr. Budziszewski is, "What obligates every married couple to have children?" And also, does Dr.B's opinion on this issue have anything to do with his studies on natural law?

Jonathan Elifson
College of DuPage (Glen Ellyn, Ill.)

Dear Mr. Elifson,

Thanks for your excellent question. Here is the passage of How to Stay Christian in College to which you're referring:

Part three of the "Who can I marry?" question is that you have to marry someone who will make a good parent. Lots of young Christians get hung up on this point — they say "But what if we plan never to have children?" Sorry; unless you're biologically incapable, never is not an option. God commands spouses to be fruitful and multiply. It's one of the purposes of marriage, one of the ways that it glorifies Him. So if you're a man, you need to be looking for a woman who would make a good mother, and if you're a woman, you need to be looking for a man who would make a good father.

There are two ways to argue the point: One is from Scripture, which is sometimes called "special" revelation because it is given specially to the community of faith to guide us to Christ and safeguard us from error. The other is from natural law, which is sometimes called "general" revelation because it is made dimly available to every human being. I'll use both ways.

The scriptural reason why deciding not to have children is not an option for couples is that when God commanded us to be fruitful in Genesis 1:28, no exceptions were either stated or implied. On the contrary, not only in this verse, but throughout the Bible, children are viewed as a joyful gift, and barrenness as an affliction. To offer one's body to God as an occasion for His creation of a new human life is a profound expression of obedience, cooperation and trust. As Mary said to the archangel Gabriel on hearing that she was to bear Jesus, "I am the Lord's servant; let it be to me as you have said." And let us not forget that hers was a "crisis pregnancy" in an even deeper sense than the usual.

To argue from general revelation rather than special revelation is to appeal to considerations which can be known even apart from Scripture — although they can usually be found in Scripture too. Surprisingly, the Bible does not make the claim that nobody can know anything about God's moral requirements except by reading the Bible. In fact it tells of a number of other ways in which God has made them known, including the principle of the harvest (that every sin has consequences) and the plan of our physical and emotional design (the purposes that are plain from the way we are put together).

For example, even without referring to Scripture it is easy to see that having children changes us in a way we desperately need to be changed. For those who are called to celibacy God provides other means of transformation, but for those who are called to marriage, children are the plan. They wake us up, they wet their diapers, they depend on us. Willy-nilly, they knock us out of our selfish habits and force us to live sacrificially for others.

Children are a necessary and natural continuation of the shock to our selfishness which is initiated by marriage itself, for although it is true that the spouses can live sacrificially for each other, by itself this love is not enough; it turns too easily inward rather than outward to the world. You see, as time goes along, married folk who refuse to offer themselves to God for the gift of children become even more selfish than they had intended. Instead of two selfish Mes they merely become a single selfish Us, so they have really not got far outside themselves after all.

Does it have to happen that way? Yes. We were designed to live a certain way, and when we try to live in another, it doesn't work. Anyone can see that sex not only produces children but also brings about an exquisite enhancement of the unity of the spouses. What we dare not forget is that this is a package deal. By trying to separate the two purposes, seeking the unity but refusing the gift of children, we still get a kind of unity, but it goes bad; it ferments, turns sour, and begins to stink.

My criticism does not apply to infertile couples, who are childless through no fault of their own. But when we deliberately separate the intimate and the procreative sides of sex, we make ourselves like those ancient Romans who tried to separate the social from the nutritive side of dining. They served more food at feasts than anyone could digest, offering their guests peacock feathers for purging between courses.

These things have always been recognized among Christians, even in the ceremony of marriage. The modern refusal of the gift of children comes neither from faith, from hope, or from love. Nor does it come from "care for the earth" or any of the other secular nostrums that are offered in its defense. It is nothing but selfishness, the desire to have everything our way. Through marrying and having children, by contrast, we identify with all those mothers and fathers, all those mothers of mothers and fathers of fathers, through whose self-giving we ourselves have received the gift of life, and we pass that gift on into hands we do not see. We link ourselves with all past and all future generations, confident of the providence of the Lord our God, Who was, and is, and is to come.

Thanks again for writing.

Grace and Peace,
Professor Budziszewski

I decided to look up the issue of not having children because I lowered my desired amount of children from 5 to 0.

So apparently this is a selfish decision (not that it's really happened yet - I'm not married and haven't discussed it with my FH, if I have one).

I can see how it could be selfish, but I can see how it might also be good. Not personally, just people in general who make that decision.

Mmm question to Professor Budziszewski...does adoption count as having children? It's not being fruitful, it's looking after someone else's fruit.

I disagree with the Professor, but I'd like to know more of what they think - like contraception and stuff. If it's a sin to not be fruitful, it must be a sin to use contraception. So, then all of us should be having counteless amounts of children.

God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful coz they needed to. We don't need to anymore. I'm not saying we should all stop, but we don't have the responsibility of populating the Earth like they did.

I don't was 25 children. I don't want 12 children. I don't want 6 children. Is that selfish? Possibly a little bit - yes I wanna enjoy a tiny bit of freedom which would never come if you had 25 children (or even 6 :-P), but it's not entirely selfish. I don't want 25, or 12, or 6 (or many other numbers lol), because A) I believe in quality, not quantity (not saying you can't have both), and B) I don't think the world NEEDS me to have that many children.

If I have a child, or even a few children, I want to enjoy them. I know people can enjoy their children and have many of them, but I know myself and what sort of person I am, and I don't think I could do that. Is it selfish to want to enjoy God's gifts one at a time, like having a nice big break between the children - or having just one?

I've been talking like I will have kids, when this topic is no kids. But it's still related. If we're going to follow the be fruitful command, then I don't think we should use contraception. So the Professor's reasoning, to me, makes using contraception just as bad as not having children.

I might have 1, I might have 5, but I might also have 0. I don't have a problem with that, and if God does, then he can take it up with me.

- - -

Kinda separate, but just a thought - If it's okay for people who can't have children to not have children, does that mean it's okay for those who are born gay to be gay? I just don't understand the Professor's logic.

Greed, love, and awful people.

Greed makes people do awful things.
It makes me mad and sad and...yeah, just those.

Greed turns people into awful creatures.

Don't people have hearts?

Michael Jackson was one of the nicest, sweetest, loving humans I've never met (so I suppose I don't know those things for sure, but it's easy to tell by watching him and stuff), and people just took advantage of that. He loved people and people screwed him over FOR MONEY. How he managed to continue to love people is beyond me.

But I guess it was their loss and his gain, right? They didn't have love, but he did. He wins.

Making up rumours about someone is never a nice thing to do; we learn that in the school yard, but to accuse someone of being a child molester when you KNOW it's not true, just to get money out of someone, it's...awful.

Michael Jackson knew the truth. His friends knew the truth. It still would hurt though.

Greed makes people take advantage of people all the time. I hate it.
Poor kids in poor countries work for barely anything. They don't get paid fairly. People make money off their poverty. It's sickening.

Sometimes I hate people.

But then I don't. Because that's something that I have, that they (the greedy people) don't. They don't love. If they do, it's only selfish love. If they truly loved, they'd love the poor kids too.

The father who accused Michael of molesting his son killed himself. That tells me he had a sad life. Michael died knowing people love him. So maybe good wins in the end? I don't mean the man deserved to die sad and lonely, just that greed doesn't win in the end.

It's hard to say that about the poor kids and big corporations though. When are Nike going to lose? What about Nestle's CEO? He gets to sleep in a nice, warm, comfy bed, with a full stomach, while the people he's exploiting don't. Maybe they won't win in this life. Maybe God has something better in store for them in the next. Hopefully the CEO does too.

Okay, I blogged, I feel better.

I'll leave you with my favourite MJ quote:

"If you enter this world knowing you are loved and you leave this world knowing the same, then everything that happens in between can be dealt with."

I miss them :'-(

My proudest moment - When DT climbed onto my bed. Rookie would have loved that bed, but she never got to see it :-(




I miss DT and Rookie.

Sometimes I'm okay. I can think about them and smile. Every now and then I think about them and I get sad. Sometimes I feel guilty coz I feel like I miss DT more than Rookie, but I don't. I love them equally and I miss them both heaps, it's just that I know that DT is gone; I've been able to say goodbye. It sucks, but I know she's not coming back. I don't know where Rookie is, and while I think I'm probably never going to see her again, there's this teeny, tiny bead of hope that stops me from saying goodbye.

It also sucks that I can't cry to anyone about it, because no one would get it. They're just cats.

But they're not just cats. They were my best friends.

I didn't have many friends. I could probably count them all on one hand, and that's throughout my childhood. I was a loner with a dysfunctional home life. DT and Rookie were my best friends. I talked; they listened. They were always there for me and they made my life a fairly happy one. I enjoyed their company immensely.

I always said I didn't know how I'd live without them. I guess I'm finding that out now. It hasn't been so bad. Not that losing them didn't hurt. I'd do anything to get them back. I just mean that I guess they were with me when I needed them the most. At a time when I was lonely and had no friends. I have friends now. They fulfilled their purpose maybe? As hard as it is to see positives when I miss them so much, I guess that's one; not that they're gone, but that they were there.

I feel so stupid talking about cats in this way.

They were so much more than just cats.

Rookie made me feel so special because she loved cuddles. She was so affectionate it was sometimes annoying, but now I miss it. When Rookie was happy, she would start to dribble. It was kinda gross, but really, really cute. She also talked to me. I would talk and she'd meow back. That was my favourite trick with her. Sometimes it sounded like we were having a conversation.

DT was a snob. She was so independent, but she loved me and that made me feel special. She was so moody, but I could read her well. I loved it when she slept on my pillow. She usually slept on the end of my bed, but occasionally I would wake up and find her on my pillow. That was my most favourite way to wake up. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else though; she could be pretty dangerous. That's what made her special.

If Rookie is alive, I hope she's happy. I'm just worried because I know she loved me heaps, and I don't want her to think I don't love her. The way she left. I hope she knows. If someone else is looking after her, they'd better be treating her like a princess.

I wanna know what killed DT. She died during the heatwave. She didn't really wanna be inside, and I'm worried it's because of the kittens. I hope she didn't die of dehydration. Maybe it was a snake bite. I guess I'd feel less guilty if that was the case. That was a horrible day. I don't know what the date was because I don't like thinking about it enough to figure it out. It was in November, Saturday of the heatwave though (I think). Sunday that I found out.

A friend is a friend; doesn't matter what their exterior looks like.
They were my babies.

I hope I see them again in Heaven (I don't know what I believe about this. I do believe animals will be in Heaven, but animals what we knew...I dunno, but I'll hope it anyway).

I hope I made their lives as happy as they made mine. If they lived happy lives, then I could ask for nothing more.

My 21st

Everyone keeps asking me what I'm doing for my 21st, like it's a huge deal. This is Australia; 18 was the big one (I don't think I even have any photos from my 18th). Anyways, I think I wanna do something like Singstar and boardgames with friends, or a trip to Victor for the day with friends, but I have to wait until ROSALIE is free because she's BUSY on my BIRTHDAY like she ALWAYS is. It's MY day so she should have to work around ME but NOOOOOOOO stupid kids club and camp and family. I'm not important any more :-P

*Sigh* so ROSALIE had better find a time AROUND October 4th that she's free so I can do something. And I'm hoping she'll know to leave at least two days free so there's time for a sleepover (even though when I'm in Adelaide it's always a sleepover :-P )

So what do you think I should do? Victor THEN boardgames and Singstar? MMmmm. I love Victor.

Some family history.

Mum suggested I write down what I'd learnt while doing family history, so I will.

I'll start with the Lovedays.
Richard John Loveday was born in London, England in 1789. He married Ann Randall and they had eight children that I'm aware of. Their first son, Richard John Loveday was born in 1814, but died two years later and is buried in St Martin in the Fields, England, United Kingdom. I'm unsure if that's St Martin in the Fields, a parish abolished in 1922, or St Martin in the Fields, a pretty looking Anglican church in the City of Westminster. Either way, I'm going to assume the family was Anglican.

They had Ann in 1815, Elizabeth in 1817, Richard John (another one!) in 1818, Mary in 1825, George in 1827, Emma in 1829, and Caroline Sarah (or Sarah Caroline) in 1834. They were all born in England.

Richard John Loveday Jr (the one who didn't die or course), married Bridget Ann Shea (or O'Shea) in 1841.

Bridget was born in Limerick in Ireland in 1819 to William and Catherine Shea.

Richard and Bridget had three children while living in Ireland; Ann, born 1842; Richard, born 1844; and Thomas, born 1846. The family then moved to South Australia in 1847 on the "Royal George," probably for Richard's work. He worked as a surveyor. The couple had another daughter after their move to SA; Mary Elizabeth, who was born in 1850 at the Military Barracks, where they were living for a while.

Bridget died of breast cancer two years later, so Richard was left with four children aged 2-10 in a new country. He married Susannah Sadgrove in 1853 at the Turf Hotel, and they had nine children together (not all surviving though).

I'd list them, but they aren't important to my story, because none of them led to the eventual birth of me. Ann Loveday did.

Ann lived in Reedbeds with her family until she married Robert Alexander Rose (whom I will get back to later) in 1862. She was 20 years old, and he was a storeman from the area. I think they moved to Port Adelaide, but I'm not sure.

They had a daughter Ann in 1862 (I'm beginning to see a trend with this name!), followed by Catherine May in 1866. They had a son, Alexander Robert in 1869, but he died four days later. Another daughter, Edith Jane, was born in 1876, but she died when she was nine years old.

The family moved to Windsor and lived near Ann's sister. Here Ann had two more children; Richard John Loveday Rose in 1878, and Ellen Frances Emily Rose in 1881. Something I don't know a lot about, but was included in some information a distant cousin sent me was that, while Ann's children were growing up, Ann raised a orphaned baby girl, named Jane Hamilton.

I think Ann sounded like a lovely woman. She died of cancer when she was 69, in 1911, and is buried at the Dublin (SA) cemetery.

Anyhoo, before I move on, I'll go back to Ann's husband, Robert Rose, because I find the Rose family rather interesting. They were Scottish, and the Scottish are far more interesting than the English.

Robert Alexander Rose was born on Christmas day in 1841, to Robert and Catherine Rose. He had at least one sister, but I don't care because she doesn't lead to me :-P
Anyway, Robert Sr (too many Roberts in this family! - Funny coz that's also my mother's maiden name) is the son of Alexander Rose, of Scotland (I'd get specific, but it's not important. Highland Scotland though). And Alexander Rose is the son of Alexander Rose Sr. who is said to have been a fugitive from the Battle of Culloden. The Battle of Culloden was a battle for the royal throne between the House of Hanover and House of Stuart. I think. I believe the Roses were on England's side of Hanover, which I'll say is the good side because I don't like France :-P

Anyway, I find Scotland interesting because they had/have clans, which all have cool histories. They have their own tartans, mottos, and sometimes castles. I'm Scottish through a few different part of the family, but the Roses are the only ones I've traced back to a specific clan. The Rose clan. Not just through the name, but also where they were located in Scotland. The Rose motto is: Constant and true. The badge is wild rosemary, the lands are Strathnairn, Ross-shire, and the clan chief is Miss Elizabeth Rose of Kilravock. Most of that is boring, but the tartan is red, so that's good, because I like red. There is also a clan castle, Kilravock Castle, but it's not the coolest castle I've ever seen.

Anyways, back to it. So Ann and Robert Rose's youngest daughter, Ellen Frances Emily Rose (hey I like that name), was born in 1881 in Reedbeds (I don't even know where that is). She married Sydney Dean Roberts, and they had a bunch of kiddies, one being my grandfather Frederick Keith Roberts. He married Gran, they had my Mum, and Bob's your Uncle. Actually he's not, he's my Great, great grandfather ;-)

Mmm so that's the Loveday side. Loveday, near Loxton is named after us. Yeeeaaahh eat that. Also Loveday road in Windsor. Little bit of trivia, which isn't that interesting - Richard John Loveday surveyed the area of Burra. I lived in Burra when I was a kid. Coolies. Mmmmmm. Nope. I'm not actually expecting anyone to read up to here, so if you've made it this far, good for you.

I'm going to switch to my grandmother's side of the family now (still my mum's side though).

John Wylie and Mary Deans were the proud parents of Benjamin Wylie in 1752, in Canonbie, Dumfries, Scotland (lowland Scotland this time). Benjamin married Mary Hyslop and they had William Wylie in 1788, at Windyhill in Canonbie. He was baptised as a baby. I'm going to assume they were Presbyterian. I say that because A) They're Scottish, and B) While I was looking at ship records in the library, I saw 'PRES' or something similar-ish next to their religion. Doesn't really matter, but it makes for interesting little stories in my head, but we won't go into that.

William Wylie married Ann Young and together they had James (1811), Benjamin (1813), Ann (1815), Margaret (1817), Jane (1819, but died), Jane (1821), William (1823), Robert (1828), and Mary (1834). In 1853 William and Ann made their way to South Australia on the 'Shackamaxon'. I do believe most of their children had come before them. There was an infant named Benjamin Wylie on the ship with William and Ann. I'm going to assume it wasn't their son because they already had an older son called Benjamin who wasn't dead yet. Also, they were 65 while they were on the ship, so it's not likely the baby was theirs. Maybe it was a grandchild? Either way, it gets a bit sad because William and Benjamin died on the ship, probably of Scarlet fever. They, like the other passengers that died (10% of the 700 passengers died), were buried at sea.

Ann and William's son, John Wylie, came to SA on April 30, 1839 on the ship 'Fairfield'. He married Mary Brown, and they had Jane Wylie in 1842 in Long Valley, SA. Jane married Richard Fogden, who was one of nine children to Charles Fogden and Sophia Slater from England. They had come to Australia in 1838 on the 'Prince George'.

Jane and Richard Fogden had 12 children of their own, and adopted 3 more. At least two of those three children were most probably their grandchildren, born of their daughter Mary, who was unwed. One of her sons was born in the Destitute Asylum in Adelaide (not a nice place to be at all). Mary was probably there because the father of the children was either unknown, or she couldn't prove they were his, because men could just deny it and run off, leaving the women alone. Being an unmarried mother put you very, very low in society. I'm going to assume the boys had different fathers though, because they were born about 7 years apart. Unless she forgave the scumbag...

Anyway, Jane and Richard had another daughter who had a baby in the Destitute Asylum (boy they bred themselves some hussies, huh?), but I don't think that was their third adopted son, I think she kept him.

But neither of those girls lead to me. Their younger sister Edith May Fogden does. She married George Henry Young, and they had seven kids, one being Linda Ellen Young, who married Henry Leonard Manhire, and they had my grandma, who had my mum and then she had meeeeee.

I never met Linda Young, but my mother loved her a lot. She was a lovely Christian lady. She died before I was born, but I did get to meet Henry Manhire. I have pleasant memories of Crown Mints. I also remember comforting mum when he died. Apparently he wasn't a very nice guy though. I never know people aren't nice until someone tells me lol. From the stories I've been told, it really does seem like opposites attract. Linda and Henry. I wonder if they loved each other, or just stayed together because they had to?

So...from that I've learnt I'm 100% South Australian. Actually, this is only my mum's side, so I suppose it only tells me I'm at least 50% South Australian lol. Well I'm pretty sure I'm South Australian on my Dad's side too. I'll have to get the family info off of my Grandma at some point, so I can do that side. I used to be disappointed that I didn't have any convict history, but I suppose it's not too bad. Pretty boring that I'm only English, Irish and Scottish though. Nothing exotic there. Ooooh well. Also pretty boring religiously. Anglican and Presbyterian. I suppose there could be some Catholic in there somewhere, since some of them came from Ireland (the Republic side), but I doubt there was very much, and they probably weren't very devout, since most marriages once they came to Australia were in Anglican churches.

Well that was long and boring. Adios.

Xavier!

This is my nephew, and the most coolest little man in the world.
Xavier Kai Renfrey was born in Port Lincoln on the 21st of February, 2007. I got to meet him the very next day, on his sister Amali's 2nd birthday.

His father is my brother Daniel, and his mother's name is Tessa.

He was Christened at the Port Lincoln Anglican Church, and I am his God Mother :-D

He like the movie Wall-E!

When Amali was a bit over one, I said to Tessa that I wanted a nephew. A few weeks later she was pregnant, and I knew it was the nephew I'd asked for, and it was! So he's very special.