Companion Animals and Their Unique Place in Society–Part 4
- The Bible and The Chronicles of Narnia talk about companion animals
- What the Bible says about the function of animals in our lives
In Genesis chapter 1, God made male in His image, and after that provided man rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, and all the earth and every creeping thing on it. Dominion implies “control” or “sovereignty,” however what exactly God meant by it is open to some analysis. We do understand that human beings did not eat animal flesh till after the Flood. Noah was advised to take on the ark 2 of every unclean animal and seven of every tidy animal. Why did Noah need additionals of the clean animals? Some were for burnt offerings on an altar Noah built after the ark came to rest. However, God likewise informed Noah, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have provided you all things, even as the green herbs.” (Genesis 9:3).
Consider it. When Noah and his family disembarked from the ark, the earth was a wasteland. There were no crops, nor wild plants to be gathered for food. It was a matter of survival– consume the animals or starve. Exactly what the Bible does not tell us is whether Noah’s family and their descendants were expected to continue eating animals after their crops were established.
Over the history of civilization, lots of societies have needed to rely on the searching of animals for their survival– Stone Age people, before cultivation was discovered; the Native Americans, who had to follow the seasonal food supply; white pioneers, who settled in places where no crops had actually been planted; Eskimos, who reside in an environment too extreme for farming. Anybody who accepts that man is made in God’s image, which God has provided man dominion over animals, should be able to take that human survival takes top priority over animal survival. However whether it is appropriate for individuals, here in the flourishing West, to consume animals as a matter of choice, no one can declare to know for certain. As human survival ends up being much easier with time, we can pay for to raise the status of our animals, especially our buddy animals.
The talking animals of Narnia
C.S. Lewis is one of the most beautiful and understandable theologians ever. Both children and grown-ups enjoy his Chronicles of Narnia, an original illustration of Christianity. I am going to presume that my readers either have read the series, or, at the least, have enough familiarity with it that not a lot of background information is needed here. (If you haven’t– I recommend it!).
In The Silver Chair, earthlings Jill and Eustace, with their Narnian buddy Puddleglum, are the guests of some apparently congenial, however (unbeknownst to our heroes) computing giants who have been used by the evil White Witch to sidetrack them from their mission of releasing Prince Rilian from her chains.
As the protagonists enjoy their lunch in the joyous lack of knowledge, they overhear one of the giants boast about how he killed a Talking Stag for the meal. Jill, who remains in Narnia for the first time, initially does not realize the complete meaning of this. But both Eustace, who has been to Narnia before and has had a life-changing encounter with Aslan, and Puddleglum, who is Narnian-born, comprehend the significance of the murder of a Talking Animal for food. They are frightened and lose their hunger. And Puddleglum states, “We’ve brought the anger of Aslan on us.”.
God gave us dominion over animals. But sovereignty and control do not indicate senseless usage and abuse. Many individuals, in a clear conscience, exercise the option of consuming animals caught or raised for that purpose. My conviction is that there is a crucial distinction in between animals thought about “food” animals and that thought about “companion” animals. While our peasant or leader ancestors may have kept a cow for milking and ultimately when Bessie or Duchess waxed too old to be a valued manufacturer, she wound up on the dinner table; those individuals normally had fewer choices about what to eat than do 21st-century Americans.
The argument that humans have to eat animal items does not hold either Biblically or an evolutionarily. As we have seen, humans did not eat animals till after the Flood— maybe 1,000 years. If the Bible is to be taken literally, people in those days typically lived for hundreds of years. And if people did, in reality, descend from other primates, we are not meat-eaters since human beings are not geared up to either the teeth and jaw structure or the digestive system of meat-eating species. People consume meat for one of two reasons– they have nothing else to waste, or they merely wish to.
The alternative argument that a horse that has outlasted its usefulness “might as well” be consumed doesn’t work, either. Beloved pets are provided considerate burials, not unlike human beings, other than in the rare cases where the alternative is hunger. (Every trainee has become aware of the Donner Party.).
” We have brought the anger of Aslan on us.” That summarizes the idea of using companion animals for food.