u/Wooden_Passage_1146

I have four cats one of which can eat anything so she’s less it a factor. My boys are the issue. They’re all seniors. For years I had fed Purina One Sensitive Systems to limit vomiting. It worked quite well until my orange male developed a urinary blockage on it twice. We switched to Iam’s urinary health as the Purina urinary health seemed to cause vomiting.

I fed this for years until my black cat developed diabetes and my white cat developed liver issues. I switched to Fancy Feast Pate and not only has the switch caused my diabetic cat to go into remission, the white cat’s liver enzymes have improved enough to also go into normal levels since the switch.

My fear, however, is if Fancy Feast Pate puts my orange cat at risk for another blockage. Feeding separate is theoretically doable but practically not always possible. Does anyone have advice or know the best way forward? If it helps I often add a touch of water can to “rinse” and add it to the pate mushed with a fork.

Is my cat going into remission? We had a low glucose event today where he was acting drunk and walking in circles. I tested his blood and his sugar read 47 mg/dL (2.6mmol) I called the vet and they had me give him some treats and a touch of Karo syrup then bring him in.

At the clinic his number was 100 mg/dL and we decided to put a Libre 3 plus on. They instructed me to skip is insulin tonight (usually 1.5 units of vetsulin) and see what his numbers were in the morning.

I’ve been watching his numbers closely tonight and they seem to be between 54-116. He’s not had any insulin and I’ve made sure he’s had something to eat (I switched to Fancy Feast ever since he was diagnosed 5 weeks ago)

But why are his numbers still dropping so low if the insulin dose was last given more than 15 hours ago? I thought the Vetsulin would be out of his system by now.

For context I am from a transitional zone between the North Midland and Inland North dialects in the United States. In the greater Fort Wayne area. From what I gather I seem to lack the Northern Cities Vowel Shift but I also have a few unmerged vowels that other people around here do not have.

For instance I pronounce caught and cot distinctly with cot having the same vowel as taco. While caught is lower in the throat. For me “on” rhymes with Dawn, which sounds different than Don. My significant other merges these two so caught and cot both use the “a” in taco vowel. I attribute this to the fact he grew up in the city limits and I came from a more rural area just to the north.

I’ve tried to listen to myself say words like goose or loose to see if I front the vowel. But I cannot tell. The only thing I seem to be able to hear that I do not do is make it sound like “ew”. I have a coworker who lived in Tennessee for a while before coming back to Indiana. She pronounces food like feud/fewd or dewd for dude which I noticed as different than how my significant other or I would say it.

I’m reading the book Tudor by Leanda de Lisle. She seems to be suggesting the specific accusation against Anne of incest with her brother may have had origins of a previous accusation Anne had made against Charles Brandon.

“The evidence against Anne and her remaining co-accused was extremely weak, as even Chapuys was moved to comment. According to one of the judges the adulteries had been revealed by a former lady-in-waiting 'who shared the same tendencies' as the queen and had described Anne's crimes on her deathbed in 1534. But how did this confession reach Cromwell two years after the woman had died?
The answer may lie in the fact that her family were clients of Anne's old enemy, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, widower of Henry's sister, the French queen. Here was a man always ready to oblige the king, and who disliked Anne. Wyatt blamed Brandon for his arrest and the accusation that Anne had committed incest with her brother suggests revenge for her accusation in 1531 that Brandon had slept with ‘his own daughter'.” Page 205

I don’t believe homosexuality is a sin. When it comes to St. Paul, he did not understand sexual orientation as a concept the way we do now. In St. Paul’s time, sexual relations with another man indicated that the man’s sexual passions had grown so strong he could no longer satisfy himself with women alone. St. Paul lived in the Greco-Roman world where pederasty and other immoral practices that were normalized by Roman society, while St. Paul likey did view all same sex relations as immoral, we must understand that he filtered his writings through that worldview, the same worldview where he tells slaves to obey their masters.

I believe in Progressive Revelation [Proverbs 4:18]

The Patriarchs didn’t even know God’s name [Exodus 3:13-14] until God reveal it [YHWH] to Moses.

Hebrews 7:12, “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.”

Hebrews 8:6–13, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

So clearly things can change because Hebrews literal says a change in the law as well. The Law=The Torah (i.e. the first 5 Books of Moses)

Such as circumcision being required and eternal [Genesis 17:10–11; Leviticus 12:3; Exodus 12:48; Deuteronomy 10:16] until it wasn’t [Acts 15:1–2; Romans 2:28–29; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 5:6, 6:15; Colossians 2:11]. And dietary restrictions were obligatory [Leviticus 11:1–8] until they weren’t [Mark 7:18–19]. So the prohibitions like in Leviticus [Lev 18:22, 20:13] are no longer applicable for modern Christians anymore than mixed fabrics [Lev: 19:19] as the text itself makes no real distinction between ceremonial, moral, etc laws but is instead a later interpretation of the text.

John 16:12–13, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…” So there is more truth to come!

In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, the Church discerned through the Holy Spirit which laws still applied. That sets a precedent for re-evaluating laws in light of the Spirit’s leading.

I’m not saying Scripture isn’t inspired, only that we shouldn’t treat it as if it were free from all deficiencies. As for why God didn’t simply reveal to St. Paul that Leviticus was outdated is because we see in Romans 1:26-27 some cultural assumptions sneak their way in as God works with people in their ignorance [Acts 17:30]. God permits deficiencies for reasons known only to him. He had permitted slavery yet didn’t have St. Paul condemn it, and we know the immorality of such a barbarous practices. God didn’t override all cultural limitations at once. [Exodus 21:2–11, Exodus 21:20–21, Leviticus 25:44–46; Colossians 3:22–4:1; 1 Peter 2:18–20; 1 Timothy 6:1–2; Titus 2:9–10] are all examples.

As we know, there is no male or female in Christ Jesus [Galatians 3:28] and in other places in the Bible male-male love was portrayed quite positively [2 Samuel 1:26]. As was loving devotion between women such as Ruth and Naomi [Ruth 1:16–17]. Many modern scholars believe the author of the story of David and Jonathan deliberately ensures the story functions as an and/both story of political/royal power along with homoerotic undertones that could be missed under plausible deniability, as is a common historical tactic as is evidenced by Victorian love letters written between women.

Asking for involuntary celibacy isn’t in the same spirit as the Bible which tells us it is not good for man to be alone [Genesis 2:18] and while Eve made Adam happy, we know sexual orientation is not a choice, so we don’t need to read prescriptively into the text that one way means only way. Involuntary celibacy is an impossible requirement as even those who chose it struggle. St. Paul himself positions marriage as a safeguard to passion [1 Corinthians 7:9]. Historically, in the Eastern Church, there were unions, considered to be “celibate”, called Adelphopoiesis, which was a same sex ceremony tradition to unite together two people of the same sex (normally men) at the altar in a church-recognized relationship analogous to a “brotherhood”. Which does show same-sex unification ceremonies are not outside the bounds of Christian/Catholic Tradition or precedent.

Just like how we developed our understanding of the horrors of slavery, we will be led by the Holy Spirit to develop a more inclusive faith as God desires all to be saved [1 Timothy 2:3–4].

I’m sorry if this isn’t the right place to ask this. To provide somewhat of a backstory, I grew up in a relatively happy family. My mom is Catholic while my dad is not. They were married in the Church and raised us kids Catholic and sent us to Catholic school.

I had just graduated high school when my mother decided to have an affair and ask my dad for a divorce. My dad begged her not to leave but she had decided she was unhappy and wanted out of the marriage.

While the man she remarried wasn’t the man she had an affair with, he’s decided he wants to join the Church. My mom went ahead and sought out an annulment which she managed to obtain. My dad had told me he had no intention of fighting her on it.

To be quite honest I’m devastated. It brings up all those old feelings all over again. For many years I’d held onto the idea that even if the family I grew up with broke apart at least my parents had been married in the eyes of God.

Now it feels like my entire childhood has been erased and the person who decided to leave is the one God sided with and it’s been incredibly painful. I don’t know how to cope with this. Has anyone else experience their parents’ marriage annulled or have any experience l dealing with such events?

Hey everyone, I've been banging my head against a brick wall with my ancestor and could really use a second set of eyes.

I am looking for the parents of Alice Mae Gibson. She was born around 1852 in Boston, Suffolk County.
The earliest I can find her is in the 1870 federal census. She was 18 years old and living as a domestic servant with the Joseph R. Hathaway family down in Fall River (Bristol County, MA).

Shortly after that census, she married Francis Wayland Lawrence in Nov 1870, in Fall River. Her marriage record lists her parents as William and Mary Gibson, and says they were both born in Massachusetts. That is literally all the information I have on them.

Truth be told, I'm an amateur at this. I've been scouring FamilySearch and Ancestry but I keep coming up blank. I cannot find a William, Mary, and young Alice in the 1855 Massachusetts state census or the 1860 federal census. I'm guessing William and Mary might have passed away when she was young, which might be why she ended up living with the Hathaways as a servant.