| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Dr Tam" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2005 10:02:18 PM |
| Object: |
Creation |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4408187.stm
A European team claims to have obtained the first direct image of a planet
beyond our own Solar System.
The "extrasolar planet" is said to orbit a star called GQ Lup - thought to
be like a young version of our Sun.
Similar claims have been made in the past, but sceptical scientists believe
the pictures merely show objects that share the same view in the sky.
The GQ Lup object is far more certain claims Ralph Neuhaeuser's team in the
journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.
GQ Lup and its companion are located in a star-forming region about 400
light-years away.
Dr Tam
.
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
14 Apr 2005 01:06:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:58:28 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:37:06 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:31:15 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:15:22 GMT in alt.atheism, Bible Bob (Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:20 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:42:28 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2005 14:00:55 -0700, (Kenny Leong)
wrote:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<jbtl51tft9pptkadhdn2c5lu678m88tk0i@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:32:25 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
Did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save all the native flora
and fauna that does not naturally exist elsewhere on the planet or
didn't he?
Enquiring hearts and minds want to know.
Are you upset because you couldn't bring yourself to
admit that I made a true, scientific statement?
Explain how adam and eve were able to produce africans and chinese...you dumb dumb.
Pastor Dave Raymond
Kenny
Kenny,
Adam (Str. 120) and adamah (Str. 127) are from adam (Str. 119) and
means ruddy, or red. As the saying goes birds of a feather flock
together so that using Mendalls Law it would not be hard to come up
with different colors in a few generations.
How many generations?
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Ned,
Don't know.
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
Oh dear.
Do you understand the implications of what you've just said?
Best Regards,
Therion "Euthyphro" Ware.
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Ned
Not if you understand it
In what way? From where I'm standing it certainly seems to be entirely
arbitrary.
Ned
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
13 Apr 2005 05:37:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:37:06 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Ned Kelly
<republican@email.com> spake thusly:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:31:15 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:15:22 GMT in alt.atheism, Bible Bob (Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:20 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:42:28 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2005 14:00:55 -0700, (Kenny Leong)
wrote:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<jbtl51tft9pptkadhdn2c5lu678m88tk0i@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:32:25 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
Did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save all the native flora
and fauna that does not naturally exist elsewhere on the planet or
didn't he?
Enquiring hearts and minds want to know.
Are you upset because you couldn't bring yourself to
admit that I made a true, scientific statement?
Explain how adam and eve were able to produce africans and chinese...you dumb dumb.
Pastor Dave Raymond
Kenny
Kenny,
Adam (Str. 120) and adamah (Str. 127) are from adam (Str. 119) and
means ruddy, or red. As the saying goes birds of a feather flock
together so that using Mendalls Law it would not be hard to come up
with different colors in a few generations.
How many generations?
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Ned,
Don't know.
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
Oh dear.
Do you understand the implications of what you've just said?
Best Regards,
Therion "Euthyphro" Ware.
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Your ignorance is astounding.
1) At the time of the first generations, there was no
law against incest.
2) At that time, they didn't have the danger that we
have from family members having children together.
3) When this changed, God gave us this law.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
14 Apr 2005 02:28:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:37:01 GMT in alt.atheism, Pastor Dave (Pastor
Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:37:06 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Ned Kelly
<republican@email.com> spake thusly:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:31:15 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:15:22 GMT in alt.atheism, Bible Bob (Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:20 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:42:28 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2005 14:00:55 -0700, (Kenny Leong)
wrote:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<jbtl51tft9pptkadhdn2c5lu678m88tk0i@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:32:25 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
Did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save all the native flora
and fauna that does not naturally exist elsewhere on the planet or
didn't he?
Enquiring hearts and minds want to know.
Are you upset because you couldn't bring yourself to
admit that I made a true, scientific statement?
Explain how adam and eve were able to produce africans and chinese...you dumb dumb.
Pastor Dave Raymond
Kenny
Kenny,
Adam (Str. 120) and adamah (Str. 127) are from adam (Str. 119) and
means ruddy, or red. As the saying goes birds of a feather flock
together so that using Mendalls Law it would not be hard to come up
with different colors in a few generations.
How many generations?
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Ned,
Don't know.
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
Oh dear.
Do you understand the implications of what you've just said?
Best Regards,
Therion "Euthyphro" Ware.
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Your ignorance is astounding.
1) At the time of the first generations, there was no
law against incest.
2) At that time, they didn't have the danger that we
have from family members having children together.
3) When this changed, God gave us this law.
Which is to suggest that the law of God is determined by circumstance
and hence what's right and wrong is similarly determined. Is that
really what you want to say?
Further, in the specific instance of incest you're also suggesting
that the sole reason for the prohibition is the danger of producing
genetically damaged children.
So I presume you think that incest where there's no possibility of
producing children is acceptable and a, say, sterile brother should be
permitted to marry his sister, and so on.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
13 Apr 2005 08:01:21 PM |
|
|
In article <8m7r51lm5e89vlf124m5c6bf8s03mj7cqa@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:37:06 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was pulullating from the housetops, Ned Kelly
<republican@email.com> spake thusly:
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Your ignorance is astounding.
First cast the beam out of thine own eye.
Poster Dave has pontificated here in ways which have reavealed his own
astounding levels of ignorance in many areas he is pretending to be
expert in.
These areas include, but are not limited to, astrophysics and evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
14 Apr 2005 01:10:39 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:01:21 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <8m7r51lm5e89vlf124m5c6bf8s03mj7cqa@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:37:06 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was pulullating from the housetops, Ned Kelly
<republican@email.com> spake thusly:
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Your ignorance is astounding.
First cast the beam out of thine own eye.
Poster Dave has pontificated here in ways which have reavealed his own
astounding levels of ignorance in many areas he is pretending to be
expert in.
These areas include, but are not limited to, astrophysics and evolution.
Now its normative moral theory and/or moral philosophy. Mind you, this
comes as no suprise to me.
Ned
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azrael" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
14 Apr 2005 04:51:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:37:01 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
<----snipped-nothing of important--->
<---snipped some more that apparenetly wont be answered by BB or
PD--->
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Ned,
Don't know.
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
Oh dear.
Do you understand the implications of what you've just said?
Best Regards,
Therion "Euthyphro" Ware.
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Your ignorance is astounding.
1) At the time of the first generations, there was no
law against incest.
Okay
2) At that time, they didn't have the danger that we
have from family members having children together.
What danger would that be? They would be closer related seeing as the
very limited number of people at the time (3 after cain killed able)
then there is now so I have less geneticly in common with my cousin
than cain has with eve and technically since me and my own sister have
a larger amount of gentic background material to draw from we should
be much safer than cain sleeping with EVE since 1/2 of his genetic
material comes from her henceforth thier child would be 3/4 Eve.
ADAM:adam
EVE: AE : aE
eve: Ae : ae
Although technecly since A&E have no other genetic material being the
first and all except eve is part adam so our chart must be like this;
ADAM
EVE(A) AE(A)
then Cain becomes AE(A)
Cain{AE}(C=AEa)
EVE(A) AEEca
Pick one of the four above and we get Cain:
Cain(AE)
EVE AEEE
eve AEee
I may be slightly off here biology not being my strongest subject. It
seems to me that any off spring would be a haven for genetic problems
due to the lack of genetic material to draw from, mutations would run
rampent and even with any females produced since they carry some of
the males genetic traits the two x chromosones (ie the Eve legacy)
would be primarily dominate gentic mutations would manifest at an even
higher rate. This seems very dangerous to me.
3) When this changed, God gave us this law.
I'm guessing Biology is not your strong point either, but it would
seem that genetic defects from incest would have doomed the family of
Adam and Eve if this occured as stated in previous posts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T N Nurse" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
14 Apr 2005 07:12:24 AM |
|
|
In article <4ecs51pu7dp48dm61ubhfeddeq38532avt@4ax.com>,
Azrael <god@my.computer.palace.com> wrote:
[..]
ADAM:adam
EVE: AE : aE
eve: Ae : ae
Although technecly since A&E have no other genetic material being the
first and all except eve is part adam so our chart must be like this;
ADAM
EVE(A) AE(A)
then Cain becomes AE(A)
Cain{AE}(C=AEa)
EVE(A) AEEca
Pick one of the four above and we get Cain:
Cain(AE)
EVE AEEE
eve AEee
I may be slightly off here biology not being my strongest subject. It
seems to me that any off spring would be a haven for genetic problems
due to the lack of genetic material to draw from, mutations would run
rampent and even with any females produced since they carry some of
the males genetic traits the two x chromosones (ie the Eve legacy)
would be primarily dominate gentic mutations would manifest at an even
higher rate. This seems very dangerous to me.
Hence the sudden appearance of the Land of Nod, east of Eden, and the
sudden appearance of all the people there who are warned against
harming him. So where did they come from? Cain then goes on to build the
first city, named Enoch after his first son. So where did his wife
suddenly appear from?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
14 Apr 2005 07:29:38 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:51:26 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, Azrael
<god@my.computer.palace.com> spake thusly:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:37:01 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
<----snipped-nothing of important--->
<---snipped some more that apparenetly wont be answered by BB or
PD--->
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Ned,
Don't know.
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
Oh dear.
Do you understand the implications of what you've just said?
Best Regards,
Therion "Euthyphro" Ware.
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Your ignorance is astounding.
1) At the time of the first generations, there was no
law against incest.
Okay
2) At that time, they didn't have the danger that we
have from family members having children together.
What danger would that be? They would be closer related seeing as the
very limited number of people at the time (3 after cain killed able)
then there is now so I have less geneticly in common with my cousin
than cain has with eve and technically since me and my own sister have
a larger amount of gentic background material to draw from we should
be much safer than cain sleeping with EVE since 1/2 of his genetic
material comes from her henceforth thier child would be 3/4 Eve.
ADAM:adam
EVE: AE : aE
eve: Ae : ae
Although technecly since A&E have no other genetic material being the
first and all except eve is part adam so our chart must be like this;
ADAM
EVE(A) AE(A)
then Cain becomes AE(A)
Cain{AE}(C=AEa)
EVE(A) AEEca
Pick one of the four above and we get Cain:
Cain(AE)
EVE AEEE
eve AEee
I may be slightly off here biology not being my strongest subject. It
seems to me that any off spring would be a haven for genetic problems
due to the lack of genetic material to draw from, mutations would run
rampent and even with any females produced since they carry some of
the males genetic traits the two x chromosones (ie the Eve legacy)
would be primarily dominate gentic mutations would manifest at an even
higher rate. This seems very dangerous to me.
3) When this changed, God gave us this law.
I'm guessing Biology is not your strong point either, but it would
seem that genetic defects from incest would have doomed the family of
Adam and Eve if this occured as stated in previous posts.
Your calculations are off, since they are not based on
the scenario and you omitted an important fact.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "T N Nurse" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
14 Apr 2005 07:34:27 AM |
|
|
In article <5fos51lvn0pp5up4mkvstrhlkivjmvufr4@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:51:26 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, Azrael
<god@my.computer.palace.com> spake thusly:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:37:01 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
<----snipped-nothing of important--->
<---snipped some more that apparenetly wont be answered by BB or
PD--->
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Ned,
Don't know.
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
Oh dear.
Do you understand the implications of what you've just said?
Best Regards,
Therion "Euthyphro" Ware.
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Your ignorance is astounding.
1) At the time of the first generations, there was no
law against incest.
Okay
2) At that time, they didn't have the danger that we
have from family members having children together.
What danger would that be? They would be closer related seeing as the
very limited number of people at the time (3 after cain killed able)
then there is now so I have less geneticly in common with my cousin
than cain has with eve and technically since me and my own sister have
a larger amount of gentic background material to draw from we should
be much safer than cain sleeping with EVE since 1/2 of his genetic
material comes from her henceforth thier child would be 3/4 Eve.
ADAM:adam
EVE: AE : aE
eve: Ae : ae
Although technecly since A&E have no other genetic material being the
first and all except eve is part adam so our chart must be like this;
ADAM
EVE(A) AE(A)
then Cain becomes AE(A)
Cain{AE}(C=AEa)
EVE(A) AEEca
Pick one of the four above and we get Cain:
Cain(AE)
EVE AEEE
eve AEee
I may be slightly off here biology not being my strongest subject. It
seems to me that any off spring would be a haven for genetic problems
due to the lack of genetic material to draw from, mutations would run
rampent and even with any females produced since they carry some of
the males genetic traits the two x chromosones (ie the Eve legacy)
would be primarily dominate gentic mutations would manifest at an even
higher rate. This seems very dangerous to me.
3) When this changed, God gave us this law.
I'm guessing Biology is not your strong point either, but it would
seem that genetic defects from incest would have doomed the family of
Adam and Eve if this occured as stated in previous posts.
Your calculations are off, since they are not based on
the scenario
Then please show the correct scenario and suitable calculation.
and you omitted an important fact.
What fact would that be?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
14 Apr 2005 01:15:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:29:38 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:51:26 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, Azrael
<god@my.computer.palace.com> spake thusly:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:37:01 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
<----snipped-nothing of important--->
<---snipped some more that apparenetly wont be answered by BB or
PD--->
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Ned,
Don't know.
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
Oh dear.
Do you understand the implications of what you've just said?
Best Regards,
Therion "Euthyphro" Ware.
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Your ignorance is astounding.
1) At the time of the first generations, there was no
law against incest.
Okay
2) At that time, they didn't have the danger that we
have from family members having children together.
What danger would that be? They would be closer related seeing as the
very limited number of people at the time (3 after cain killed able)
then there is now so I have less geneticly in common with my cousin
than cain has with eve and technically since me and my own sister have
a larger amount of gentic background material to draw from we should
be much safer than cain sleeping with EVE since 1/2 of his genetic
material comes from her henceforth thier child would be 3/4 Eve.
ADAM:adam
EVE: AE : aE
eve: Ae : ae
Although technecly since A&E have no other genetic material being the
first and all except eve is part adam so our chart must be like this;
ADAM
EVE(A) AE(A)
then Cain becomes AE(A)
Cain{AE}(C=AEa)
EVE(A) AEEca
Pick one of the four above and we get Cain:
Cain(AE)
EVE AEEE
eve AEee
I may be slightly off here biology not being my strongest subject. It
seems to me that any off spring would be a haven for genetic problems
due to the lack of genetic material to draw from, mutations would run
rampent and even with any females produced since they carry some of
the males genetic traits the two x chromosones (ie the Eve legacy)
would be primarily dominate gentic mutations would manifest at an even
higher rate. This seems very dangerous to me.
3) When this changed, God gave us this law.
I'm guessing Biology is not your strong point either, but it would
seem that genetic defects from incest would have doomed the family of
Adam and Eve if this occured as stated in previous posts.
Your calculations are off, since they are not based on
the scenario and you omitted an important fact.
And what, pray tell, is that?
Ned
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azrael" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
16 Apr 2005 07:51:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:29:38 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:51:26 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, Azrael
<god@my.computer.palace.com> spake thusly:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:37:01 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
<----snipped-nothing of important--->
<---snipped some more that apparenetly wont be answered by BB or
PD--->
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Ned,
Don't know.
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
Oh dear.
Do you understand the implications of what you've just said?
Best Regards,
Therion "Euthyphro" Ware.
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Your ignorance is astounding.
1) At the time of the first generations, there was no
law against incest.
Okay
2) At that time, they didn't have the danger that we
have from family members having children together.
What danger would that be? They would be closer related seeing as the
very limited number of people at the time (3 after cain killed able)
then there is now so I have less geneticly in common with my cousin
than cain has with eve and technically since me and my own sister have
a larger amount of gentic background material to draw from we should
be much safer than cain sleeping with EVE since 1/2 of his genetic
material comes from her henceforth thier child would be 3/4 Eve.
ADAM:adam
EVE: AE : aE
eve: Ae : ae
Although technecly since A&E have no other genetic material being the
first and all except eve is part adam so our chart must be like this;
ADAM
EVE(A) AE(A)
then Cain becomes AE(A)
Cain{AE}(C=AEa)
EVE(A) AEEca
Pick one of the four above and we get Cain:
Cain(AE)
EVE AEEE
eve AEee
I may be slightly off here biology not being my strongest subject. It
seems to me that any off spring would be a haven for genetic problems
due to the lack of genetic material to draw from, mutations would run
rampent and even with any females produced since they carry some of
the males genetic traits the two x chromosones (ie the Eve legacy)
would be primarily dominate gentic mutations would manifest at an even
higher rate. This seems very dangerous to me.
3) When this changed, God gave us this law.
I'm guessing Biology is not your strong point either, but it would
seem that genetic defects from incest would have doomed the family of
Adam and Eve if this occured as stated in previous posts.
Your calculations are off, since they are not based on
the scenario and you omitted an important fact.
What important fact am I missing? If in fact Cain slept with his
sister and not Eve then it would look something like this:
ADAM
Eve(A) AE(a)-Cain
all of their children would be AE(a), so:
Cain{AE(a)}
Unnamed
female{(AE(a)} AA(a) : AE(a)
AE(a) : EE(a)
So AA(a) is essentially Adam
AE(a) are esentially Cain and this unamed women
EE(a) is Essentially Eve
How can you cliam that thier would not be gentic defects? Granted
there is more to this than whats stated above but there is no other
genetic information to draw from, So all the genetic traits availible
(good and bad) are being recycled with in this family and yet no
problems stem from this? Thats hard to accept.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
14 Apr 2005 06:58:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:29:38 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Your calculations are off, since they are not based on
the scenario and you omitted an important fact.
And you're going tell anyone the 'important fact' unless they agree
with you.
Got it, Weasel.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ra1nLover" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
15 Apr 2005 07:54:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:37:01 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:37:06 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Ned Kelly
<republican@email.com> spake thusly:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:31:15 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:15:22 GMT in alt.atheism, Bible Bob (Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:20 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:42:28 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2005 14:00:55 -0700, (Kenny Leong)
wrote:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<jbtl51tft9pptkadhdn2c5lu678m88tk0i@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:32:25 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
Did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save all the native flora
and fauna that does not naturally exist elsewhere on the planet or
didn't he?
Enquiring hearts and minds want to know.
Are you upset because you couldn't bring yourself to
admit that I made a true, scientific statement?
Explain how adam and eve were able to produce africans and chinese...you dumb dumb.
Pastor Dave Raymond
Kenny
Kenny,
Adam (Str. 120) and adamah (Str. 127) are from adam (Str. 119) and
means ruddy, or red. As the saying goes birds of a feather flock
together so that using Mendalls Law it would not be hard to come up
with different colors in a few generations.
How many generations?
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Ned,
Don't know.
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
Oh dear.
Do you understand the implications of what you've just said?
Best Regards,
Therion "Euthyphro" Ware.
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Your ignorance is astounding.
1) At the time of the first generations, there was no
law against incest.
So Sayth, Dave?
2) At that time, they didn't have the danger that we
have from family members having children together.
LOL, this is RICH! Now human genetics are different in a mere 5000
years or so! Can you tell us chapter:verse where your bible speaks of
genetic mutations when syblings breed (or daddy-daughters, such as Lot
and his girls)?
3) When this changed, God gave us this law.
When did it change? What law are you speaking of?
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
14 Apr 2005 01:09:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:37:01 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:37:06 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Ned Kelly
<republican@email.com> spake thusly:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:31:15 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:15:22 GMT in alt.atheism, Bible Bob (Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:20 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:42:28 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2005 14:00:55 -0700, (Kenny Leong)
wrote:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<jbtl51tft9pptkadhdn2c5lu678m88tk0i@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:32:25 +1200, while Pastor Dave
was preaching from the housetops, Post Colonial Boy
<mimir@iconz.co.nz> spake thusly:
Did Noah discover New Zealand in order to save all the native flora
and fauna that does not naturally exist elsewhere on the planet or
didn't he?
Enquiring hearts and minds want to know.
Are you upset because you couldn't bring yourself to
admit that I made a true, scientific statement?
Explain how adam and eve were able to produce africans and chinese...you dumb dumb.
Pastor Dave Raymond
Kenny
Kenny,
Adam (Str. 120) and adamah (Str. 127) are from adam (Str. 119) and
means ruddy, or red. As the saying goes birds of a feather flock
together so that using Mendalls Law it would not be hard to come up
with different colors in a few generations.
How many generations?
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Ned,
Don't know.
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
Oh dear.
Do you understand the implications of what you've just said?
Best Regards,
Therion "Euthyphro" Ware.
The implications being that Gods laws are "morally right" because "God
says so". That sounds rather arbitrary...and less than perfect.
Your ignorance is astounding.
<laughter>
You're making a big assumption here.
1) At the time of the first generations, there was no
law against incest.
This begs an important question and was the point of me asking the
question in the first place...that important question is:
Are God's laws are "morally right" because "God says so" or are they
morally right independant of God's viewpoint and he is pointing them
out?
Your answer begs that question by claiming that they weren't wrong
because the law hadn't been made...that is nothing more than mindless
legalism.
2) At that time, they didn't have the danger that we
have from family members having children together.
How do you know that? Has genetic science changed since then?
3) When this changed, God gave us this law.
When was that then? Can you be precise?
And...you're still begging the question above.
Ned
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
14 Apr 2005 05:17:47 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<8m7r51lm5e89vlf124m5c6bf8s03mj7cqa@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:37:06 +1200, while Pastor Dave
1) At the time of the first generations, there was no
law against incest.
Your 'god' was definitely a sick little puppy. While we're at
it.....you're a sick little puppy too.
2) At that time, they didn't have the danger that we
have from family members having children together.
But your 'god' caused it all.
3) When this changed, God gave us this law.
Actually...your god caused all of it. He/she/it should punish
him/her/itself.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Kenny
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Duck" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
16 Apr 2005 06:35:24 AM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
*If I create Genesis fundamentalism can I ride my sister on religious
grounds?
Duck
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Duck" |
|
| Title: to Bible Bob |
16 Apr 2005 06:59:59 AM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
I was going to write this to the Pastor but since he's obviously a
troll I'll direct it to you instead. I notice you've spent quite a bit
of work on your site so I'll take it you're serious about what you
believe.
1: Since God knows the future, why would he create a toy (Earth) that
would kill his son in the future? Would you?
2: Why put the tree in the garden in the first place instead of a nice
fountain? Again especially when he knew the outcome.
Your answer to 2 is going to be of course free will.
3: Is Heaven and Hell a choice of free will? Is that not a gun to our
head?
4: Even if Adam and Eve had the choice of free will, how does that
justify the billions of his children losing theirs because of their
one decision.
5: If heaven is a place without sin, how did Satan come to be? Angels
going bad???
6: If you allowed a demonic mass murderer onto the streets, whos
accountable?
7: Why consider Jesus' (by choice) crucifixion important to us when
many more have died far worth deaths for either professing to believe
in him or the opposite?
8: If you're manager of a company and knowingly let problems continue
to appear (though you could easily stop it) would you blame your
employees?
Since proof for a God is non existent and also a pointless argument
can you apply some logic to his supposed word?
Duck
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duck" |
|
| Title: Re: to Bible Bob |
24 Apr 2005 07:51:39 AM |
|
|
"Duck" <duckkayak@'microsoftsemailservice'.com> wrote in message
news:4260fefb@x-privat.org...
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
I was going to write this to the Pastor but since he's obviously a
troll I'll direct it to you instead. I notice you've spent quite a
bit of work on your site so I'll take it you're serious about what
you believe.
1: Since God knows the future, why would he create a toy (Earth)
that would kill his son in the future? Would you?
2: Why put the tree in the garden in the first place instead of a
nice fountain? Again especially when he knew the outcome.
Your answer to 2 is going to be of course free will.
3: Is Heaven and Hell a choice of free will? Is that not a gun to
our head?
4: Even if Adam and Eve had the choice of free will, how does that
justify the billions of his children losing theirs because of their
one decision.
5: If heaven is a place without sin, how did Satan come to be?
Angels going bad???
6: If you allowed a demonic mass murderer onto the streets, whos
accountable?
7: Why consider Jesus' (by choice) crucifixion important to us when
many more have died far worth deaths for either professing to
believe in him or the opposite?
8: If you're manager of a company and knowingly let problems
continue to appear (though you could easily stop it) would you blame
your employees?
Since proof for a God is non existent and also a pointless argument
can you apply some logic to his supposed word?
*Guess he doesn't agree with logic then, no answers as yet. No other
mystical friends wanna stab at it?
Duck
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: A question for Pastor Dave |
13 Apr 2005 05:49:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:15:22 GMT, Bible Bob
<biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
snip
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:20 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Ned,
Don't know.
Incest wasn't wrong till it became wrong.
Thanks, but I'm already an atheist.
Good grief.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ned Kelly" |
|
| Title: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
13 Apr 2005 12:57:40 AM |
|
|
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
.
|
|
|
| User: "Evilution IDphreak" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? Southerners are excused from this discussion... |
28 Jan 2008 08:35:07 PM |
|
|
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Yes, of course BUTT that would have been the 1st gen of inbreds since no one
"fucked" to bring about Adam and Eve, we are god's children afterall, the
lil'bASStyrd baby jesus was tho... Ever thought why god had to impregnate
(rape, molest thru incest) a child? Why couldn't the christ-stain god just
make more A&E's since HE already had, we are god's children are we not, or
are we ALL jsut foster children of Mother Nature? (lol) If what the babble
says is true then you and I and Pasteurized Dave are related ('xcuse while I
go puke)...
And EVEN *IF* they (A&E) *were* (white according to paintings) how did we end
up with so many different ethnic races? Through EVOLUTION and/or BESTIALITY
offspring of course...that is *IF* all in babble-yawn were fact to which
little-to-none is either of course too...
Isn't that wrong according to God?
It's not wrong according to the christ-stain god nor is it by their bASStyrd
loving followers of today
Ned
--
Jesus, Son Of God (and Da'Virgin Mary) raised by STEPdad Joseph, is nothing
buttaholy bASStyrd...which reminds me...just who is the grandFATHER of the
baby bASStyrd anyway?
--
Great link BTW > > > --------------------vvvvvv------------------
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
Great link BTW > > > --------------------^^^^^^------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nebulous" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? Southerners are excused from this discussion... |
29 Jan 2008 01:25:02 AM |
|
|
"Evilution IDphreak" <sciencelies@christdies.com> wrote in message
news:pMGdnQQ-
The Troubles of Matthew Mahoney
In a little town in Devonshire, in the mellow September moonlight,
A gentleman passing along a street saw a pitiful sight,
A man bending over the form of a woman on the pavement.
He was uttering plaintive words and seemingly discontent.
"What's the matter with the woman?" asked the gentleman,
As the poor, fallen woman he did narrowly scan.
"There's something the matter, as yer honour can see,
But it's not right to prate about my wife, blame me."
"Is that really your wife?" said the gentleman.
"Yes, sor, but she looks very pale and wan."
"But surely she is much younger than you?"
"Only fourteen years, sor, that is thrue."
"It's myself that looks a deal oulder nor I really am,
Throuble have whitened my heir, my good gintleman,
Which was once as black as the wings of a crow,
And it's throuble as is dyed it as white as the snow.
Come, my dear sowl, Bridget, it's past nine o'clock,
And to see yez lying there it gives my heart a shock."
And he smoothed away the raven hair from her forehead,
And her hands hung heavily as if she had been dead.
The gentleman saw what was the matter and he sighed again,
And he said, "It's a great trial and must give you pain,
But I see you are willing to help her all you can."
But the encouraging words was not lost upon the Irishman.
"Thrial!" he echoed, "Don't mintion it, yer honour,
But the blessing of God rest upon her.
Poor crathur, she's good barrin' this one fault,
And by any one I don't like to hear her miscault."
"What was the reason of her taking to drink?"
"Bless yer honour, that's jest what I oftentimes think,
Some things is done without any rason at all,
And, sure, this one to me is a great downfall.
'Ah, Bridget, my darlin', I never dreamt ye'd come to this,"
And stooping down, her cheek he did kiss.
While a glittering tear flashed in the moonlight to the ground,
For the poor husband's grief was really profound.
"Have you any children?" asked the gentleman.
"No, yer honour, bless the Lord, contented I am,
I wouldn't have the lambs know any harm o' their mother,
Besides, sor, to me they would be a great bother."
"What is your trade, my good man?"
"Gardening, sor, and mighty fond of it I am.
Kind sor, I am out of a job and I am dying with sorrow."
"Well, you can call at my house by ten o'clock to-morrow.
"And I'll see what I can do for you.
Now, hasten home with your wife, and I bid you adieu.
But stay, my good man, I did not ask your name."
"My name is Matthew Mahoney, after Father Matthew of great fame,"
Then Mahoney stooped and lifted Bridget tenderly,
And carried her home in his arms cheerfully,
And put her to bed while he felt quite content,
Still hoping Bridget would see the folly of drinking and repent.
And at ten o'clock next morning Matthew was at Blandford Hall,
And politely for Mr Gillespie he did call,
But he was told Mrs Gillespie he would see,
And was invited into the parlour cheerfully.
And when Mrs Gillespie entered the room
She said, "Matthew Mahoney, I suppose you want to know your doom.
Well, Matthew, tell your wife to call here to-morrow."
"I'll ax her, my lady, for my heart's full of sorrow."
So Matthew got his wife to make her appearance at Blandford Hall,
And, trembling, upon Mrs Gillespie poor Bridget did call,
And had a pleasant interview with Mrs Gillespie,
And was told she was wanted for a new lodge-keeper immediately.
"But, Bridget, my dear woman, you mustn't drink any more,
For you have got a good husband you ought to adore,
And Mr Gillespie will help you, I'm sure,
Because he is very kind to deserving poor."
And Bridget's repentance was hearty and sincere,
And by the grace of God she never drank whisky, rum, or beer,
And good thoughts come into her mind of Heaven above,
And Matthew Mahoney dearly does her love.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
13 Apr 2005 11:03:55 PM |
|
|
Ned Kelly <republican@email.com> wrote in message news:<26dp519vilf6hddh3n3ijv2mmtlkidc1au@4ax.com>...
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
He won't answer that because that's how he arrived as well.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michilín" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
17 Apr 2005 01:06:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Get a grip. Nowhere does the Bible say they were related.
Rice-Christian!
Michilín
Cho teomadh ri
Coibhi Draoidh
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
15 Apr 2005 06:17:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Who came first Henry Ford or the Ford?
Incest came to be when it came to be. It wasn't incest when it wasn't
incest but became incest when it became incest.
Intercourse for the sake of making babies was not incest. Incest is
from the Latin incestus - sexual impurity, a word that came into
existence a long time after Adam and Eve. What Adam and Eve and their
offspring had was not sexual impurity (so long as it was done God's
way). By the time of Noah, sexual impurity came to be and problems
began to arise. By the time of Moses, it became necessary for God to
modify the rules of life so that man wouldn't mess things up anymore
than they already had. But, God's commandments were to Israel and did
not affect the Gentiles who continued to do their thing.
Today it is forbidden by law. Not for the reason everybody thinks;
but because it is a government conspiracy to limit the number of
skeptics, agnostics, atheists and liberals. I hear that Sheila
Jackson Lee (TX) Major Owens (NY) and John Lewis (GA) are so
concerned that they plan a bill that will bar skeptics, agnostics,
liberals, and atheists from marrying. Personally, I think they are
going a little bit overboard; but that may be because they are known
for their overboard and out of this world comments.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus DabASStyrd" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
28 Jan 2008 09:22:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Who came first Henry Ford or the Ford?
Incest came to be when it came to be. It wasn't incest when it wasn't
incest but became incest when it became incest.
Intercourse for the sake of making babies was not incest. Incest is
from the Latin incestus - sexual impurity, a word that came into
existence a long time after Adam and Eve. What Adam and Eve and their
offspring had was not sexual impurity (so long as it was done God's
way). By the time of Noah, sexual impurity came to be and problems
began to arise. By the time of Moses, it became necessary for God to
modify the rules of life so that man wouldn't mess things up anymore
than they already had. But, God's commandments were to Israel and did
not affect the Gentiles who continued to do their thing.
"do their thing?... is that a bib-lick-all term? lmao...
Today it is forbidden by law. Not for the reason everybody thinks;
but because it is a government conspiracy to limit the number of
skeptics, agnostics, atheists and liberals. I hear that Sheila
Jackson Lee (TX) Major Owens (NY) and John Lewis (GA) are so
concerned that they plan a bill that will bar skeptics, agnostics,
liberals, and atheists from marrying. Personally, I think they are
going a little bit overboard; but that may be because they are known
for their overboard and out of this world comments.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
--
Jesus, Son Of God (and Da'Virgin Mary) raised by STEPdad Joseph, is nothing
buttaholy bASStyrd...which reminds me...just who is the grandFATHER of the
baby bASStyrd anyway?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nebulous" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
29 Jan 2008 01:28:33 AM |
|
|
"Jesus Da'bASStyrd" <KErnestinenitty@speedband.com> wrote in message
The Troubles of Matthew Mahoney
In a little town in Devonshire, in the mellow September moonlight,
A gentleman passing along a street saw a pitiful sight,
A man bending over the form of a woman on the pavement.
He was uttering plaintive words and seemingly discontent.
"What's the matter with the woman?" asked the gentleman,
As the poor, fallen woman he did narrowly scan.
"There's something the matter, as yer honour can see,
But it's not right to prate about my wife, blame me."
"Is that really your wife?" said the gentleman.
"Yes, sor, but she looks very pale and wan."
"But surely she is much younger than you?"
"Only fourteen years, sor, that is thrue."
"It's myself that looks a deal oulder nor I really am,
Throuble have whitened my heir, my good gintleman,
Which was once as black as the wings of a crow,
And it's throuble as is dyed it as white as the snow.
Come, my dear sowl, Bridget, it's past nine o'clock,
And to see yez lying there it gives my heart a shock."
And he smoothed away the raven hair from her forehead,
And her hands hung heavily as if she had been dead.
The gentleman saw what was the matter and he sighed again,
And he said, "It's a great trial and must give you pain,
But I see you are willing to help her all you can."
But the encouraging words was not lost upon the Irishman.
"Thrial!" he echoed, "Don't mintion it, yer honour,
But the blessing of God rest upon her.
Poor crathur, she's good barrin' this one fault,
And by any one I don't like to hear her miscault."
"What was the reason of her taking to drink?"
"Bless yer honour, that's jest what I oftentimes think,
Some things is done without any rason at all,
And, sure, this one to me is a great downfall.
'Ah, Bridget, my darlin', I never dreamt ye'd come to this,"
And stooping down, her cheek he did kiss.
While a glittering tear flashed in the moonlight to the ground,
For the poor husband's grief was really profound.
"Have you any children?" asked the gentleman.
"No, yer honour, bless the Lord, contented I am,
I wouldn't have the lambs know any harm o' their mother,
Besides, sor, to me they would be a great bother."
"What is your trade, my good man?"
"Gardening, sor, and mighty fond of it I am.
Kind sor, I am out of a job and I am dying with sorrow."
"Well, you can call at my house by ten o'clock to-morrow.
"And I'll see what I can do for you.
Now, hasten home with your wife, and I bid you adieu.
But stay, my good man, I did not ask your name."
"My name is Matthew Mahoney, after Father Matthew of great fame,"
Then Mahoney stooped and lifted Bridget tenderly,
And carried her home in his arms cheerfully,
And put her to bed while he felt quite content,
Still hoping Bridget would see the folly of drinking and repent.
And at ten o'clock next morning Matthew was at Blandford Hall,
And politely for Mr Gillespie he did call,
But he was told Mrs Gillespie he would see,
And was invited into the parlour cheerfully.
And when Mrs Gillespie entered the room
She said, "Matthew Mahoney, I suppose you want to know your doom.
Well, Matthew, tell your wife to call here to-morrow."
"I'll ax her, my lady, for my heart's full of sorrow."
So Matthew got his wife to make her appearance at Blandford Hall,
And, trembling, upon Mrs Gillespie poor Bridget did call,
And had a pleasant interview with Mrs Gillespie,
And was told she was wanted for a new lodge-keeper immediately.
"But, Bridget, my dear woman, you mustn't drink any more,
For you have got a good husband you ought to adore,
And Mr Gillespie will help you, I'm sure,
Because he is very kind to deserving poor."
And Bridget's repentance was hearty and sincere,
And by the grace of God she never drank whisky, rum, or beer,
And good thoughts come into her mind of Heaven above,
And Matthew Mahoney dearly does her love.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
15 Apr 2005 09:36:17 PM |
|
|
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Who came first Henry Ford or the Ford?
Incest came to be when it came to be. It wasn't incest when it wasn't
incest but became incest when it became incest.
Intercourse for the sake of making babies was not incest. Incest is
from the Latin incestus - sexual impurity, a word that came into
existence a long time after Adam and Eve. What Adam and Eve and their
offspring had was not sexual impurity (so long as it was done God's
way). By the time of Noah, sexual impurity came to be and problems
began to arise. By the time of Moses, it became necessary for God to
modify the rules of life so that man wouldn't mess things up anymore
than they already had. But, God's commandments were to Israel and did
not affect the Gentiles who continued to do their thing.
Today it is forbidden by law. Not for the reason everybody thinks;
but because it is a government conspiracy to limit the number of
skeptics, agnostics, atheists and liberals. I hear that Sheila
Jackson Lee (TX) Major Owens (NY) and John Lewis (GA) are so
concerned that they plan a bill that will bar skeptics, agnostics,
liberals, and atheists from marrying. Personally, I think they are
going a little bit overboard; but that may be because they are known
for their overboard and out of this world comments.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
Well said Bible Bob.
Adam and Eve was in purfect health and there were no laws regarding
incest at the time.
Bible Studier
.
|
|
|
| User: "LewDcryzÝ" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
28 Jan 2008 09:22:30 PM |
|
|
Bible Bob <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
Who came first Henry Ford or the Ford?
Incest came to be when it came to be. It wasn't incest when it wasn't
incest but became incest when it became incest.
Intercourse for the sake of making babies was not incest. Incest is
from the Latin incestus - sexual impurity, a word that came into
existence a long time after Adam and Eve. What Adam and Eve and their
offspring had was not sexual impurity (so long as it was done God's
way). By the time of Noah, sexual impurity came to be and problems
began to arise. By the time of Moses, it became necessary for God to
modify the rules of life so that man wouldn't mess things up anymore
than they already had. But, God's commandments were to Israel and did
not affect the Gentiles who continued to do their thing.
Today it is forbidden by law. Not for the reason everybody thinks;
but because it is a government conspiracy to limit the number of
skeptics, agnostics, atheists and liberals. I hear that Sheila
Jackson Lee (TX) Major Owens (NY) and John Lewis (GA) are so
concerned that they plan a bill that will bar skeptics, agnostics,
liberals, and atheists from marrying. Personally, I think they are
going a little bit overboard; but th | | | | |
