Franklin Graham peppered Obama about ties to Islam

So I'm seeing a consensus here that the answer should be: Yes, the chickens have large talons. Am I right?

My family once had some chickens but they were not aggressive. One day when I was about 5 I set a steel trap and put some kernels of corn on the “flipper do” and watched as a big ole hen came running over to peck them off.

I got my …….. but we had fried chicken for dinner.



.

ohio county wrote:So I'm seeing a consensus here that the answer should be: Yes, the chickens have large talons. Am I right?

Not talons, .... spurs .... on the back of the lower part of their leg. And just the roosters which they use for determining dominance over the flock like a buck deer uses his horns.

When two roosters get into it, ..... the feathers and blood will fly and one may end up dead.


Fer instance, this dude can put a hurtin on you.

When I was a kid we had a rooster that would flog kids if they tried to walk past the henhouse.

He would not bother adults, only kids.

And you had to go past him sometimes so I would get a good run to go and try to get past before he could catch up with me.

And you thought you had outsmarted that ole' rooster, right, Sherm? And that ole' rooster probably thought that he had chased you away.

It was a 'win-win' situation.

Why would anybody keep a rooster that would terrorize the children? I don't get that.

My in-laws had a vicious bull that was some sort of an escape artist and didn't mind the electric fence. He was steak a bit sooner than originally planned.

I would love to have a restaurant that specialized in ornery animals like that.

I wish with all the technology they have today they'd figure out a way to grow me steak and pork and chicken in laboratories so animals wouldn't suffer for my benefit.

If the Good Lord didn't want us to enjoy animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat. I think I heard a Preston County preacher claim that once...

"Meat is murder. Tasty, tasty murder."

By the way, does the Bible proscribe human cannabalism?

No. The bread symbolizes Jesus' body, broken for the sins of men (and women). Obviously as Jesus first said this He was bodily seperate from the bread, He was talking about a practice to be done "in remembrance of me" as opposed to a physical change of the bread into human flesh.

Anyone, including 1st and 2nd century Christians, can tell the difference between a morsel of bread and human flesh.

I did not ask about did the Bible "prescribe" cannibalism, Sheik.

I asked if it proscribed (prohibited) human cannibalism.

SheikBen wrote:No. The bread symbolizes Jesus' body, broken for the sins of men (and women). Obviously as Jesus first said this He was bodily seperate from the bread, He was talking about a practice to be done "in remembrance of me" as opposed to a physical change of the bread into human flesh.

Anyone, including 1st and 2nd century Christians, can tell the difference between a morsel of bread and human flesh.

Catholics would disagree with you, as I'm sure you're aware.

Sure, Stephanie, but Zigy's question was directed at me, rather than the Catholics. I consider myself part of the catholic church but not the Catholic church. I'll bore you with what I mean if you're bored enough to care

Incidentally, Ziggy, I do not know of any specific prohibitions on human consumption of humans per se (although I do not know my Bible as well as I should) but I would wager that a human who has died is unclean for a period of time, after which he'd likely "go bad."

I know that there was an event during which the Israelites turned to cannibalism and shamed the king.

Sure, Mike. Lay it on me.

The catholic church would refer to anyone anywhere who trust in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection as the only event that personally makes them right before God. Some Catholics are certainly in this group. I do not believe anyone can be born catholic in the same way that they are born Catholic.

The Catholic church, however, is a religious institution with an elaborate theology that makes pronouncements that any given catholic (or Catholic, for that matter) would likely disagree with, be it transubstantiation, the infallibility of the Pope ex cathedra, etc.

When Ziggy asked about human cannibalism, I had to assume he was setting me up for a question related to the Lord's Supper. Concerns about cannibalism are one reason why many Christians strongly reject transubstantiation. At the other end of the spectrum are people who take the Lord's Supper flippantly.

When Ziggy asked about human cannibalism, I had to assume he was setting me up for a question related to the Lord's Supper.

Why would you have to assume that? Are we so paranoid that we presume some hidden purpose behind every comment or question?

Yes.

Ziggy,

I didn't think it was "dirty pool" at all. I enjoy sparring with you greatly.

However, I notice you didn't deny it:)

That I "didn't deny it" means nothing.

But if it helps you feel better, I was not trying to set you up. The question came to mind as the discussion was about eating the flesh of various creatures.

All those years of the Nicene Creed are ringing in my ears, Mike. At least I think that was the Nicene Creed, might have been the Apostles Creed, it's been years I get confused.

"We believe in one holy, catholic, apostolic church." I think I have that line right.

ziggy wrote:That I "didn't deny it" means nothing.

But if it helps you feel better, I was not trying to set you up. The question came to mind as the discussion was about eating the flesh of various creatures.

I was rather hoping that you were. Oh well.

I think it's Hitchens who goes from discussions of cannibalism to criticisms of the Lord's Supper. That you weren't going there is my mistake.