Re: RELIGION Salatin's comment on Chicken Souls for the Soup

[Guest guest]

On 2/1/08, Wanita Sears <wanitawa@...> wrote:

> If you haven't read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Pollan I

> recommend it highly. Pollan and myself both weren't impressed

> by Salatin's statement that his chickens had no souls.

>

> Guess that's the difference between farmers that fully respect the

> lives they nurture, that nurture them and businessmen.

What was his evidence? He disected one and couldn't find it?

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > If you haven't read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Pollan I

> > recommend it highly. Pollan and myself both weren't impressed

> > by Salatin's statement that his chickens had no souls.

> >

> > Guess that's the difference between farmers that fully respect the

> > lives they nurture, that nurture them and businessmen.

>

> What was his evidence? He disected one and couldn't find it?

>

> Chris

When Pollan asked Salatin his perspective after a chicken slaughter

day Pollan participated in Salatin said chickens have no soul. I'll

have my food happy and free of hierarchial species thought and/or

manifest destiny please.

You can't prove a chicken has a soul. Can prove that souls have a wide

spectrum and differ dramatically.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

On 2/2/08, Wanita Sears <wanitawa@...> wrote:

> > What was his evidence? He disected one and couldn't find it?

> When Pollan asked Salatin his perspective after a chicken slaughter

> day Pollan participated in Salatin said chickens have no soul. I'll

> have my food happy and free of hierarchial species thought and/or

> manifest destiny please.

If Salatin's chicken gets treated well, is it that important whether

Salatin personally believes the chickens have souls?

> You can't prove a chicken has a soul. Can prove that souls have a wide

> spectrum and differ dramatically.

I was asking what his evidence was that chickens do *not* have souls.

If you can't prove a chicken has a soul, how can you prove they differ?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> If Salatin's chicken gets treated well, is it that important whether

> Salatin personally believes the chickens have souls?

It is that important. Marginalizing the chicken as less somehow

disrespects it's life, purpose and whatever created it's existence,

imo. Remember I'm the daughter of a butcher and meat cutter.

>

> I was asking what his evidence was that chickens do *not* have souls.

No evidence was given.

>

> If you can't prove a chicken has a soul, how can you prove they differ?

Reference was to human souls that evidently differ regarding what is

eligible to have a soul.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> I think that as long as you specify on the application that you¹re a chicken,

> it¹s cool

>

>> >

>> >

>>> >>

>> >

>>> >> If Salatin's chicken gets treated well, is it that important whether

>>> >> Salatin personally believes the chickens have souls?

>> >

>> > It is that important. Marginalizing the chicken as less somehow

>> > disrespects it's life, purpose and whatever created it's existence,

>> > imo. Remember I'm the daughter of a butcher and meat cutter.

>>> >>

>> >

>>> >> I was asking what his evidence was that chickens do *not* have souls.

>> >

>> > No evidence was given.

>>> >>

>>> >> If you can't prove a chicken has a soul, how can you prove they differ?

>> >

>> > Reference was to human souls that evidently differ regarding what is

>> > eligible to have a soul.

>> >

>> > Wanita

>> >

[Guest guest]

Need a new box to check like not a human or just one of the tools.

Wanita

> >>> >>

> >> >

> >>> >> If Salatin's chicken gets treated well, is it that important

whether

> >>> >> Salatin personally believes the chickens have souls?

> >> >

> >> > It is that important. Marginalizing the chicken as less somehow

> >> > disrespects it's life, purpose and whatever created it's existence,

> >> > imo. Remember I'm the daughter of a butcher and meat cutter.

> >>> >>

> >> >

> >>> >> I was asking what his evidence was that chickens do *not*

have souls.

> >> >

> >> > No evidence was given.

> >>> >>

> >>> >> If you can't prove a chicken has a soul, how can you prove

they differ?

> >> >

> >> > Reference was to human souls that evidently differ regarding

what is

> >> > eligible to have a soul.

> >> >

> >> > Wanita

> >> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

is a Bible-believing Christian, and Genesis teaches that only

humans have souls, only humans are created in the image of God. In the

biblical worldview, this in no way demeans other creatures or allows

for humans to treat them unjustly, but gives them their rightful place

in the created order (a good essay on this topic is Pollution and the

Death of Man by Francis Schaeffer). , when speaking to a broadly

secular audience, doesn't make his beliefs a primary place of battle,

especially when he is speaking to issues of farming and ecology;

obviously, that upsets some and encourages others, but probably the

reason he gave no justification for why chickens don't have souls is

the same reason at SSAWG he didn't comment on the age of the earth but

merely said " it is old " ... it is not that he doesn't have justification

for his view, but that it is not pertinent to the issues at hand from

his POV.

Just my thoughts from having read his books, heard him speak, and

talked with him some, and finding this thread somewhat entertaining.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your input.

>

> is a Bible-believing Christian, and Genesis teaches that only

> humans have souls, only humans are created in the image of God. In

the

> biblical worldview, this in no way demeans other creatures or allows

> for humans to treat them unjustly, but gives them their rightful

place

> in the created order (a good essay on this topic is Pollution and the

> Death of Man by Francis Schaeffer). , when speaking to a

broadly

> secular audience, doesn't make his beliefs a primary place of battle,

> especially when he is

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> is a Bible-believing Christian, and Genesis teaches that only

> humans have souls, only humans are created in the image of God.

Where does Genesis teach that only humans have " souls " ?

If you Google, " Do have souls? " you can find a number of articles on

Biblical exegesis supporting the fact that they do.

Here are a couple, though the second also includes Roman Catholic teachings:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448

http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

In Hebrew, the word translated as " soul " is nephesh, which is used

repeatedly with reference to animals. Animals may not have an

immortal soul, but a soul nevertheless. " Soul " is not to my knowledge

equated with being created in the image of God.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Mac, famous Christian author, used to preach that

animals had souls and would go to Heaven.

>

> Hi ,

>

> > is a Bible-believing Christian, and Genesis teaches that only

> > humans have souls, only humans are created in the image of God.

>

> Where does Genesis teach that only humans have " souls " ?

>

> If you Google, " Do have souls? " you can find a number of articles on

> Biblical exegesis supporting the fact that they do.

>

> Here are a couple, though the second also includes Roman Catholic

teachings:

>

> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448

> http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

>

> In Hebrew, the word translated as " soul " is nephesh, which is used

> repeatedly with reference to animals. Animals may not have an

> immortal soul, but a soul nevertheless. " Soul " is not to my

knowledge

> equated with being created in the image of God.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

I will have to study the matter a bit (it has been a while so I broke

out my Hebrew Old Testament) to have an informed position on the

exact use of that word. From my POV, I have no problem with animals

having souls as long as that does not mean they deserve " equal "

status with humans, for the OT clearly teaches that we are both like

and unlike the created order because we are made in God's image,

something nothing else in creation can say (for instance, if animals

and humans were " equal " in value, etc.., then we would all have to be

vegetarians to be consistent)

Moreso, I was pointing out 's thinking on the subject since that

seemed to be the initial impetus for the thread on this topic, the

lack of explanation as to why he said what he said in OD by Pollan. I

will take a look at those articles and respond if I think there is

more to be said;) Thanks for your thoughtful replies

>

> Hi ,

>

> > is a Bible-believing Christian, and Genesis teaches that only

> > humans have souls, only humans are created in the image of God.

>

> Where does Genesis teach that only humans have " souls " ?

>

> If you Google, " Do have souls? " you can find a number of articles on

> Biblical exegesis supporting the fact that they do.

>

> Here are a couple, though the second also includes Roman Catholic

teachings:

>

> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448

> http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

>

> In Hebrew, the word translated as " soul " is nephesh, which is used

> repeatedly with reference to animals. Animals may not have an

> immortal soul, but a soul nevertheless. " Soul " is not to my

knowledge

> equated with being created in the image of God.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

I think it depends on what doctrine you follow. Being a Christian I believe

they have souls but not spirit.

Allyn

_____

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of haecklers

Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 9:12 AM

Subject: Re: RELIGION Salatin's comment on Chicken Souls for the

Soup

Mac, famous Christian author, used to preach that

animals had souls and would go to Heaven.

>

> Hi ,

>

> > is a Bible-believing Christian, and Genesis teaches that only

> > humans have souls, only humans are created in the image of God.

>

> Where does Genesis teach that only humans have " souls " ?

>

> If you Google, " Do have souls? " you can find a number of articles on

> Biblical exegesis supporting the fact that they do.

>

> Here are a couple, though the second also includes Roman Catholic

teachings:

>

> http://www.apologet <http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448>

icspress.org/articles/448

> http://www.all- <http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html>

creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

>

> In Hebrew, the word translated as " soul " is nephesh, which is used

> repeatedly with reference to animals. Animals may not have an

> immortal soul, but a soul nevertheless. " Soul " is not to my

knowledge

> equated with being created in the image of God.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

After consulting the BDB and a few other resources, it is clear that

the word nephesh is used to refer to animals and people and that the

word can be translated as " souls, " but it is also clear that even if

animals are said to have " souls, " their souls are very different than

human souls - for instance, their is no evidence that they are

eternal (all of the following are based on the OT; aka, these

statements assume we are using the OT and NT as the basis for drawing

conclusions. Obviously, that is in and of itself a debatable point

and probably the more basic issue, but an assumption that seems

appropriate given the trajectory of this thread).

They are also not morally accountable to God (they receive no

commands, for instance and make no appearances in texts referring to

the final judgment, though they do appear in the new heavens and new

earth), nor are we prohibited from killing them (which we would be if

they had souls akin to ours since we are clearly prohibited from

murdering other people) and they are not prohibited from killing one

another (though most scholars agree that killing and death in the

animal kingdom is a post-Fall problem and that creation was not meant

to be this way, just as killing and death for people is a post Fall

problem). Thus, while we can use the word soul for animals it seems

to have lost all real force - it means little more in the OT than

saying the animals are a living thing, have life force (see the BDB

for instance), in a manner somewhat akin to people, while other texts

and words clearly emphasize the difference between people and the

rest of the created order.

I don't think you can go the route of soul/spirit (the debate over

are humans, and I guess we could also include animals, a dichotomy of

body and soul, or a trichomoty of body, soul, and spirit), since I

think that their is very good evidence that the biblical authors see

people as unified wholes, not pieces that can be divided up other

than for the time (and again, this is not the way things are supposed

to be but a product of the Fall) between death and resurrection

during which people groan to be reunited with their bodies.

This doesn't mean animals are ours to mistreat, abuse, etc... because

as pretty much everyone agrees, you cannot mistreat the earth or any

part of it and not also damage yourself. There is a unity to

creation that cannot be gainsayed, but there is also heirarchy and

diversity. Moreover, such behavior is clearly prohibited by the OT

(such as Gen 1:26-28... when God gave Adam and Eve dominion, he

certainly did not intend for them to pollute, factory farm, etc...)

Here is a semi-thorough article that I think hits most of the

important points.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448

A good book on the di/tri position of human nature is Body, Soul, and

Life Everlasting. I would get the author's name, but we just moved

and my books from seminary are mostly still in boxes...

You all are enjoyable dialogue partners (and probably help to keep

others very sharp for when we have to battle our common foes;)

[Guest guest]

On 2/8/08, ALLYN FERRIS <aferris7272@...> wrote:

> I think it depends on what doctrine you follow. Being a Christian I believe

> they have souls but not spirit.

What do you make of Ecclesiastes, then?

" Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the

beast goes down to the earth? " Ecclesiastes 3:21

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> After consulting the BDB and a few other resources, it is clear that

> the word nephesh is used to refer to animals and people and that the

> word can be translated as " souls, " but it is also clear that even if

> animals are said to have " souls, " their souls are very different than

> human souls - for instance, their is no evidence that they are

> eternal. [snip]

I agree with that.

> They are also not morally accountable to God (they receive no

> commands, for instance and make no appearances in texts referring to

> the final judgment, though they do appear in the new heavens and new

> earth), nor are we prohibited from killing them (which we would be if

> they had souls akin to ours since we are clearly prohibited from

> murdering other people) and they are not prohibited from killing one

> another (though most scholars agree that killing and death in the

> animal kingdom is a post-Fall problem and that creation was not meant

> to be this way, just as killing and death for people is a post Fall

> problem).

It seems quite different to say " My chickens have no souls " than to

say " My chickens are not morally accountable for their behavior before

God and will not be present at the Last Judgment to account for their

actions. "

> Thus, while we can use the word soul for animals it seems

> to have lost all real force - it means little more in the OT than

> saying the animals are a living thing, have life force (see the BDB

> for instance), in a manner somewhat akin to people, while other texts

> and words clearly emphasize the difference between people and the

> rest of the created order.

Perhaps you are conferring a certain degree of force on the word

" soul " that doesn't belong to it? I am not the one who chose to use

the word " nephesh " in reference to animals, and the authors of the

Bible certainly have prominence in the choice of words over whoever

translated the modern English versions. It seems the word should have

whatever force was originally given to it.

> I don't think you can go the route of soul/spirit (the debate over

> are humans, and I guess we could also include animals, a dichotomy of

> body and soul, or a trichomoty of body, soul, and spirit), since I

> think that their is very good evidence that the biblical authors see

> people as unified wholes, not pieces that can be divided up other

> than for the time (and again, this is not the way things are supposed

> to be but a product of the Fall) between death and resurrection

> during which people groan to be reunited with their bodies.

I agree, and I think a lot of the Greek pagan philosophy about

soul/body dichotomy and the Cartesian " ghost in the machine " often get

falsely attributed to Christianity, even though they are not

Judeo-Christian.

> This doesn't mean animals are ours to mistreat, abuse, etc... because

> as pretty much everyone agrees, you cannot mistreat the earth or any

> part of it and not also damage yourself. There is a unity to

> creation that cannot be gainsayed, but there is also heirarchy and

> diversity. Moreover, such behavior is clearly prohibited by the OT

> (such as Gen 1:26-28... when God gave Adam and Eve dominion, he

> certainly did not intend for them to pollute, factory farm, etc...) [snip]

I agree. Ann Coulter's interpretation of the Biblical concept of

stewardship, " go forth and rape the earth, " is hardly present in the

text or in Christian tradition. Patristic (fathers of the church)

tradition consistently teaches compassion for animals, which itself is

rooted to some degree in the Old Testament, and depending on how much

weight you give to some of the books included in the Septuagint but

excluded from the Jewish Hebrew canon, God has compassion for animals:

" The compassion of man is for his neighbor, but the compassion of the

Lord is for all living things. " Sirach 18:13

Christians have a responsibility to imitate God (Ephesians 5:1) and

extend their compassion likewise.

Chris

[Guest guest]

The whole discussion sounds like the Fall, really - only Adam and Eve

ate the fruit from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the

animals, so only humans are to be held accountable for their use of

the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Animals, not being able to

differentiate between good and evil are innocents. Yet the rules

against boiling a calf in its mother's milk and allowing the Jews to

break Sabbath to help an animal in trouble seem to speak of animals

having an awareness, feelings, and some value as a " person " . If it

was just a " dumb " animal, who cares if the calf is boiled in its

mother's milk?? The assumption there is that the emotional life of

the mother is due some respect and consideration.

>

> Hi ,

>

> > After consulting the BDB and a few other resources, it is clear

that

> > the word nephesh is used to refer to animals and people and that

the

> > word can be translated as " souls, " but it is also clear that even

if

> > animals are said to have " souls, " their souls are very different

than

> > human souls - for instance, their is no evidence that they are

> > eternal. [snip]

>

> I agree with that.

>

> > They are also not morally accountable to God (they receive no

> > commands, for instance and make no appearances in texts referring

to

> > the final judgment, though they do appear in the new heavens and

new

> > earth), nor are we prohibited from killing them (which we would

be if

> > they had souls akin to ours since we are clearly prohibited from

> > murdering other people) and they are not prohibited from killing

one

> > another (though most scholars agree that killing and death in the

> > animal kingdom is a post-Fall problem and that creation was not

meant

> > to be this way, just as killing and death for people is a post

Fall

> > problem).

>

> It seems quite different to say " My chickens have no souls " than to

> say " My chickens are not morally accountable for their behavior

before

> God and will not be present at the Last Judgment to account for

their

> actions. "

>

> > Thus, while we can use the word soul for animals it seems

> > to have lost all real force - it means little more in the OT than

> > saying the animals are a living thing, have life force (see the

BDB

> > for instance), in a manner somewhat akin to people, while other

texts

> > and words clearly emphasize the difference between people and the

> > rest of the created order.

>

> Perhaps you are conferring a certain degree of force on the word

> " soul " that doesn't belong to it? I am not the one who chose to use

> the word " nephesh " in reference to animals, and the authors of the

> Bible certainly have prominence in the choice of words over whoever

> translated the modern English versions. It seems the word should

have

> whatever force was originally given to it.

>

> > I don't think you can go the route of soul/spirit (the debate over

> > are humans, and I guess we could also include animals, a

dichotomy of

> > body and soul, or a trichomoty of body, soul, and spirit), since I

> > think that their is very good evidence that the biblical authors

see

> > people as unified wholes, not pieces that can be divided up other

> > than for the time (and again, this is not the way things are

supposed

> > to be but a product of the Fall) between death and resurrection

> > during which people groan to be reunited with their bodies.

>

> I agree, and I think a lot of the Greek pagan philosophy about

> soul/body dichotomy and the Cartesian " ghost in the machine " often

get

> falsely attributed to Christianity, even though they are not

> Judeo-Christian.

>

> > This doesn't mean animals are ours to mistreat, abuse, etc...

because

> > as pretty much everyone agrees, you cannot mistreat the earth or

any

> > part of it and not also damage yourself. There is a unity to

> > creation that cannot be gainsayed, but there is also heirarchy and

> > diversity. Moreover, such behavior is clearly prohibited by the

OT

> > (such as Gen 1:26-28... when God gave Adam and Eve dominion, he

> > certainly did not intend for them to pollute, factory farm,

etc...) [snip]

>

> I agree. Ann Coulter's interpretation of the Biblical concept of

> stewardship, " go forth and rape the earth, " is hardly present in the

> text or in Christian tradition. Patristic (fathers of the church)

> tradition consistently teaches compassion for animals, which itself

is

> rooted to some degree in the Old Testament, and depending on how

much

> weight you give to some of the books included in the Septuagint but

> excluded from the Jewish Hebrew canon, God has compassion for

animals:

>

> " The compassion of man is for his neighbor, but the compassion of

the

> Lord is for all living things. " Sirach 18:13

>

> Christians have a responsibility to imitate God (Ephesians 5:1) and

> extend their compassion likewise.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Eckankar teaches that we are Soul and animals are Soul, too.

eckankar.org

--- In , " Masterjohn "

<chrismasterjohn@...>

wrote:

>

> Hi ,

>

> > is a Bible-believing Christian, and Genesis teaches that only

> > humans have souls, only humans are created in the image of God.

>

> Where does Genesis teach that only humans have " souls " ?

>

> If you Google, " Do have souls? " you can find a number of articles on

> Biblical exegesis supporting the fact that they do.

>

> Here are a couple, though the second also includes Roman Catholic teachings:

>

> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448

> http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

>

> In Hebrew, the word translated as " soul " is nephesh, which is used

> repeatedly with reference to animals. Animals may not have an

> immortal soul, but a soul nevertheless. " Soul " is not to my knowledge

> equated with being created in the image of God.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, and the Christian Bible teaches that the soul of man goes to heaven or

hell while the animal soul returns to the earth to become dust. It doesn't

thrill me to say that as I have 8 parrots and 2 dogs I dearly love. The

proof-text used for this is in Ecclesiastes. On the other hand, the BIble

is basically silent other than its admonitions for " righteous men to care

for their beast " and warning that even the most tender of care from some

people toward their animals is still cruel. There are also verses in Job

12 - beautiful verses about " teach the animals and they will tell

you........ " , as well as Romans 8 which talks about all animals being under

the curse and longing for the return of Christ. It's a long way of saying,

maybe they'll be in heaven, maybe they won't. As a follower of Christ, it's

not mine to say because He alone is the Creator and it isn't anyone's to

judge.

Sharon

On 2/8/08, carolyn_graff <zgraff@...> wrote:

>

> Eckankar teaches that we are Soul and animals are Soul, too.

> eckankar.org

>

>

> >

> > Hi ,

> >

> > > is a Bible-believing Christian, and Genesis teaches that only

> > > humans have souls, only humans are created in the image of God.

> >

> > Where does Genesis teach that only humans have " souls " ?

> >

> > If you Google, " Do have souls? " you can find a number of articles on

> > Biblical exegesis supporting the fact that they do.

> >

> > Here are a couple, though the second also includes Roman Catholic

> teachings:

> >

> > http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448

> > http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

> >

> > In Hebrew, the word translated as " soul " is nephesh, which is used

> > repeatedly with reference to animals. Animals may not have an

> > immortal soul, but a soul nevertheless. " Soul " is not to my knowledge

> > equated with being created in the image of God.

> >

> > Chris

> >

>

>

>

--

Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

[Guest guest]

Of course that brings in the murky ground of whether plants and rocks

have souls, as many " animist " religions believe. Native Americans

believed you could sometimes talk to a tree, and even Harrod

Buhner says the spirit of plants tells healers how to use the plant

for medicinal purposes, and that all plant-based cures are a result

of either God Himself or the spirit of the plant telling the healer

which plant to use for what and how to do it (smoke, tea, etc.).

Then there's that Japanese fellow who thinks water has an awareness

and will change structurally if it is around love versus

anger/hatred.

Yeah, I put it all in my " I don't know " file.

> > >

> > > Hi ,

> > >

> > > > is a Bible-believing Christian, and Genesis teaches that

only

> > > > humans have souls, only humans are created in the image of

God.

> > >

> > > Where does Genesis teach that only humans have " souls " ?

> > >

> > > If you Google, " Do have souls? " you can find a number of

articles on

> > > Biblical exegesis supporting the fact that they do.

> > >

> > > Here are a couple, though the second also includes Roman

Catholic

> > teachings:

> > >

> > > http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/448

> > > http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

> > >

> > > In Hebrew, the word translated as " soul " is nephesh, which is

used

> > > repeatedly with reference to animals. Animals may not have an

> > > immortal soul, but a soul nevertheless. " Soul " is not to my

knowledge

> > > equated with being created in the image of God.

> > >

> > > Chris

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> --

> Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you

will

> have plenty to eat.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- " haecklers " <haecklers@...> wrote:

> Native Americans believed you could sometimes talk to a tree, and

> even Harrod Buhner says the spirit of plants tells healers

> how to use the plant for medicinal purposes, and that all

> plant-based cures are a result of either God Himself or the spirit

> of the plant telling the healer which plant to use for what and how

> to do it (smoke, tea, etc.).

Yes, I think it's an interesting question to contemplate where our

thoughts come from

Do they just magically come out of nowhere? Could there be a source

or sources beyond the chemistry of our brain? Is it just random brain

chemistry?

Where do the great inspirations come from? Is it just pure luck? Or

is there some more fundamental process occurring that is an integrated

part of nature and being?

Are our thoughts even influenced by our diet?

As you can tell, I have more questions that answers

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> Are our thoughts even influenced by our diet?

Based on my experience, I think that the content of thoughts is mostly

influenced by past experience and volition, while the more general

phenomena of mental stability, ability to control and direct thoughts,

ability to broaden or narrow thoughts, etc, is heavily influenced by

diet.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>As you can tell, I have more questions that answers

That's because there is only one answer! Yahweh!

Re: RELIGION Salatin's comment on Chicken Souls for the

Soup

--- " haecklers " <haecklers@...> wrote:

> Native Americans believed you could sometimes talk to a tree, and

> even Harrod Buhner says the spirit of plants tells healers

> how to use the plant for medicinal purposes, and that all

> plant-based cures are a result of either God Himself or the spirit

> of the plant telling the healer which plant to use for what and how

> to do it (smoke, tea, etc.).

Yes, I think it's an interesting question to contemplate where our

thoughts come from

Do they just magically come out of nowhere? Could there be a source

or sources beyond the chemistry of our brain? Is it just random brain

chemistry?

Where do the great inspirations come from? Is it just pure luck? Or

is there some more fundamental process occurring that is an integrated

part of nature and being?

Are our thoughts even influenced by our diet?

[Guest guest]

On 2/9/08, Kathy Dickson <kathy.dickson@...> wrote:

> >As you can tell, I have more questions that answers

> That's because there is only one answer! Yahweh!

Really? No way!

Get out! :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> That's because there is only one answer! Yahweh!

>Really? No way!

Yahweh Yes way!

Re: Re: RELIGION Salatin's comment on Chicken Souls for

the Soup

On 2/9/08, Kathy Dickson <kathy.dickson@...> wrote:

> >As you can tell, I have more questions that answers

> That's because there is only one answer! Yahweh!

Really? No way!

Get out! :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- <oz4caster...> wrote:

> > As you can tell, I have more questions than answers

>

--- Kathy Dickson <kathy.dickson@...> wrote:

> That's because there is only one answer! Yahweh!

OK, I guess chicken souls must be Yahweh then.

I was wondering about that

Now I can eat chicken full well knowing that it is Divinely inspired.