coralsnayk

Her lineage (both parents) are from Eastern European working lines, meaning she has a rather straight back, which doesn't slope toward her tail much at all. She's a sable, intact, as I plan to breed her when she's of age, and with complete veterinary oversight. I do not have her height measurement, but she's already rather larger than the older shepherds at the dog parks. According to her vet, she's not overweight, and is, indeed, still growing.

Peanuts are NOT nuts, but legumes. Why do people with tree-nut allergies also have automatic allergies to peanuts, and yet NOT to other beans that are closely related? Is it a psychosmatic guilt by association?

I have a video that I'm editing and would like to get each frame as a still. Is there a software (preferably free) that does this?

If so, and after everything healed... is there a difference in sexual sensation? Better or worse?

I'm doing research on the subject. I, like many other guys, was circumcised as an infant. I lucked out in that I didn't have a botched procedure despite the fact that I had no choice in the matter. For better or ill, I think it's best to not cut chunks out of kids in this way unless it's medically compelling to the well being of the individual child.

I'm not talking about a guy who's in denial.. I'm talking about a straight guy who is secure in and certain of his sexual orientation, who, both before, and after the realization, genuinely regarded and continues to regard himself as straight. So, therefore, I'm not necessarily talking about a physical or sexual attraction.

If anyone has any experience or insight, I'd appreciate a reply. With that in mind, I will ask a few further questions. Did the friend find out? Were the feelings reciprocated? And, if the friend didn't/doesn't know, what is likely to be the result of revealing this to him?

Sincere responses, please. Hateful replies will be reported. No trolls!

My nephew is getting married in the Catholic Church. I am no longer a Catholic, and being gay, I am not allowed to legally marry. However, this event is not about me; it's about him and his happiness, so I will attend because I love him.

Now, I have absolutely no doubt that within a few years, there are likely to be children on the way. Obviously, I have no objection to this and would love my nephew's children just as I love him.

I do not, however, intend to participate or witness any baptisms. I do not feel this is the same kind of milestone in one's life as a marriage. Marriage is not inherently a religious event; baptism is.

Am I wrong in thinking that attending a baptism would be hypocritical of me? The point of attending is to bear witness to a sacrament (something I don't acknowledge), and to affirm that such a thing is good and necessary. Obviously, I don't feel that this is so. Would anyone in a similar position feel the same way?

How do snakes which hibernate NOT drown when the water behind the Mississippi river's levee rises each spring? Even in hibernation, they still have to breathe. The snakes are back there.. their hibernation holes fill with water. It is too cold for them to move, so they can't vacate, yet they don't drown, and they're back year after year. They don't cross the levee en masse, prior to hibernation, or this would be noticed as the levee is literally right in my back yard.

I have been told that they don't really hibernate, they're just sort of stay in a brumation daze. BUT, I used to keep native snakes in captivity and I KNOW that when they get too cold, they are immobile, and can't simply move to safety mid-winter. I was also told they hibernate in trees, not necessarily below ground. But many of the trees that are thick enough for them to hide in are 1) NOT below the frost line.. insufficient protection from the cold. and 2) Below the water line, so they would go underwater.

IDEAS?

A Bill of Rights guarantees that our lawmakers do not have the power to establish religions. On the whole, this works to protect everyone and deprive no one.

The dilemma is, a criminal organization now known as The Churcy of Scientology has found a safe harbor in this loophole of government neutrality. They are able to conduct their criminal practices and hide behind the veil that the law offers them. As a result, non-members may not scrutinize the illegal and unethical practices that the crime syndicate conducts, and members sign legally binding contracts that prevent disclosure of such things. Former members are harassed and persecuted if they try to do so.

Do our laws give us the power to define what IS and IS NOT a religion? How do we accomplish this without infringing upon the spirit in which the 1st amendment was established? Clearly, there must be a way to protect ourselves against criminal opportunists without sacrificing our basic rights.

Thoughts?

My question is not a trap, and I don't intend to castigate anyone for their answer, as long as they DO answer the question, and don't castigate me for asking it.

The scenario is this. Your child, whom you raised into adulthood, became successful and happy in his/her chosen career and then, one Christmas eve, right after opening presents said, "Mom/Dad, I love you both very dearly. But here's the thing... I'm gay."

And now the QUESTION: How would you feel and react in both the short term and the long term, following their honest revelation?

Even if it didn't happen at Christmas, if anyone out there has a story which can accompany and illustrate your answer, please share it if you feel comfortable doing so.

Christianity's premise is that humans, who were created by God literally, as stated in the book of Genesis, with Adam and Eve, require redemption by Jesus for the original sin that Adam and Eve committed and their fall from grace, passed on to all of their descendants.

With Vatican II, and possibly even before, the Catholic Church's position is that the story of Adam & Eve in Genesis is figurative - not lieral, and acknowledges that humans are what science says we are, the current form of an unbroken evolutionary process.

My QUESTION IS... If we did not inherit original sin from Adam & Eve, since they did not exist, and since our history of "sin" is no worse than the "misdeeds" that other animals inflict on one another, WHAT THEN, is the Church's reason for claiming that REDEMPTION (by Jesus or otherwise) IS EVEN NECESSARY?

I am a former Catholic, and would love to know the answer to this.

I have always been interested in Bigfoot. I am convinced such an animal exists and that Roger Patterson's 1967 film shows exactly that. If nothing else, I'd like to go on a camping excursion, one of those package deals, if only to see that part of the country. Has anyone on Yahoo answers done so?

Since vaccinations are the result of Medical Science which is built upon many sciences, including evolutionary biology, are such things not an affront to fundamentalists who insist, INSIST that not only is evolutionary theory wrong (ooh, it's JUST a theory) but that evolution itself which anyone may observe(and most people have observed), is not a fact?

If viruses and bacteria do not evolve within their strain populations to become resistant to various drugs, and indeed, the human immune system, why would people ever need flu shots or vaccinations beyond childhood? If the pathogens are not changing and adapting, doesn't a single vaccine in early childhood not provide all the assisted immunity one needs?

So how many people who deny the fact of evolution would choose to abstain from adulthood vaccinations since these medicines are indirect products of evolutionary theory?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071210/od_nm/evolutio...

To me, this is like a Church Pastor finding out his deacons are satanists. They are legally free to have that religion, but it doesn't at all fit the needs of the job.

Likewise, someone who expects to work in the field of the biological sciences who does not understand (because he has a vested religious interest in not understanding) evolutionary theory cannot possibly fit the job. Belief need not apply. It would be like hiring a pilot who agrees to handle the controls of the airplane because he can pass a simulator test, but doesn't accept that the airplane really exists.

I would like to see what people think about this.

Does anyone think he took the job in order to dare people to say something to him, a kind of "in your face" statement?

Theoretically, would a Gay Chrisitan break up with his boyfriend if the boyfriend didn't believe in God?

Please note that there are Christians who are openly, or otherwise, gay. They find no incompatibility between the two. So anyone saying, "There are no REAL Christians who are gay", is ignorant and in denial. So, with that caveat in mind, I would like to hear some thoughts on this.

So, here we see that God didn't like what his chosen people, whom he decided to rescue from Egypt, were doing. He was ready to kill them off and strike a new deal with Moses instead, putting aside his covenant with Abraham. (Since God is all knowing and knew they were going to do this, why not just leave them in Egypt?)

Anyway, Moses basically tells God to calm down and not kill his chosen people, reminds God that he would be breakins his end of the covenant if he kills them, and so changes God's mind. It says that God repented of the EVIL he was going to do.

Well tell me, is there not a passage in the bible that says the Lord is the same for all time ? Something like, "Surely, I, the Lord, do not change."... So how then would he change his mind? Is his will not perfect? And the implication that God was going to do evil also flatly states that God is not all good. If God wasn't really going to do that, then the bible says he lied, making an empty threat like that.

I have looked through the cult literature of Creationist/ID websites, and I cannot find any documented employment of the scientific method in any of them. Yet they CLAIM to do science.

The ones that assert that they can demonstrate scientifically that Creationism (or rather, Fundamentalist Christian Creationism) is correct, always start with an assertion, not a natural observation. Strike 1.

But then, even starting with an assertion, they do not reveal what empirical testing has been done to falsify the assertion (Strike 2).

Then, only to add insult to injury, they continue and do not have any observed or verifiable evidence, they only repeat the same assertion from another source, the Bible. (Strike 3).

Wait.. maybe I had them at Strike 1.

They often go on to attack claims that science does not make and therefore scientists do not defend, (rocks evolving, or humans from modern great apes), instead of claims that science does make and can defend.

Do any do science???

If Noah's Global flood destroyed the world's biosphere by covering all the land, except for Noah and his family, and the animals that they took on the Ark, then can one explain how animals began to populate the Americas, which are and have been geographically isolated (via water) from the rest of the world? Did the great masses of pit vipers migrate through the Bering Sea from Asia?(never mind that none of them occur above the Arctic circle) People could have taken boats. Birds could have flown (most of them).. What about sloths? Did Noah Make the rounds and drop animals off when the waters receded? Yeah, and about that, where did the waters go? Even if both poles thawed, the world would still not be totally submerged.

For those who were not spared agony and death in the concentration camps, was it because they didn't pray hard enough? Or that they prayed and were told "no"?

Does that mean that once again, "God" knew their real needs better than they did and decided that their lives were not real needs? Or does it mean that God had condemned them?

If that's the case, and the Nazis killed them off, does that mean the Nazis were the hand of God?

Does it not make more sense to just admit that God, if it exists, had and has no hand in this world, and that people do terrible things and may or may not get away with it?

Many of my people were killed.. the gays.

Shortly after hurricane Katrina, and while I was volunteering time and efforts to help displaced people, I ran into some local Scientology cult members in Baton Rouge. They were supposedly volunteering time to help the displaced people, which, had it been true, would have been a laudable goal. When one began to speak to me about their organization, I had a few questions, because at the time I had NO IDEA what Scientology was. I thought it was a service organization that advocated the sciences. (Laugh, it's ok).

When the cult member began telling me a few basic ideas, it became apparent that money was on the outer rim of the topic, but never far from sight. When I mentioned in passing that I had lost everything in the hurricane, including my job, I noticed that he lost something himself, the interest to continue speaking to me. But not before he asked me if I was a criminal. Hmm. Pot. Kettle. Black. Later, I heard him speaking to another victim, the term "liquid assets" came up

If God "answers" prayers with, "Yes", "No", or "Perhaps", how is that any different from the outcome of wishing on a four leaf clover? Since the frequency of the given answers "No" being the most common, does not change, why even pray?