A Long Island man stopped his car and got out to help an injured dog on the street. But another car accidentally hit him and killed him. The dog was taken to a shelter. Then the dog survived and the man died.
Your actions illustrate the compassionate care that many people give to animals, including you. He risked his life out of great respect for wildlife. Was the course correct?
Some people would say "no" emphatically. For example, at a meeting in an English town, a member of the Road Safety Committee spoke of the danger when drivers turned to avoid dogs and said:
"If people could walk directly on the dog, a lot of people could injure themselves if necessary ... We have become so sentimental about the animals that a driver instinctively turns around so as not to notice there is a line of animals. 'waiting for the bus ... on the sidewalk ... Five of the 42 accidents in the neighborhood in one month were caused by dogs. My blood was boiling. "
But it wasn't just his blood that was boiling. Many onlookers were outraged by his views on wildlife.
Yes, strong feelings for wildlife are common. What about hunting, for example? Some people vehemently condemn it as brutal, meaningless and inhuman. Others consider it perfectly normal to kill an animal for food or fur. What should a person think? What balanced point of view can you have?
As you can see, every situation has its own unique aspects and circumstances, so it doesn't make sense for anyone to give a "sincere" answer. However, there is a basis for a balanced view of wildlife. What is the basis?
The animal creator
A balanced view of wildlife is not based on the personal opinions or feelings of an imperfect person, no matter how sincere. Instead, it is the perception (and principles) of the creator of wildlife whose vision is perfect.
After producing the animals that lived on the land, in the sea and in the earth's atmosphere, “God has seen all that he has created and he sees! it was really good. “So animals are good. They play an important role in our earth cycle. You are a living example of the wisdom of God. But how God thinks people should treat animals?
We can better understand the law that God gave to the Israelites. He asked that they be compassionate and only when it came to animals. Think of a few examples. A bull and a donkey would not ride together as they would carry the less affected ones. Like humans, animals have had a day of rest. It would be cruel to torment him with food that he cannot eat. In addition, God said, "Good people will take care of their animals, but bad people will be cruel to theirs." It is obvious that God cares about animals.
Does this mean humans shouldn't kill animals, like foraging for food or being given hides or skins? And what exactly is the balanced view of animal death?
The life and death of animals.
The Creator gave birth to humans and animals. But how long would they live? Researchers report that humans appear to have the potential for infinite life, so researchers are amazed at the death of humans. The Bible is correct. It is said that the Creator gave the first humans the possibility of living forever. Death only came because they rebelled. But what about animals? You cannot consciously rebel against God; However, they live alone for a long time and then die. Therefore, it is evident that the Creator never intended individual animals to live forever. For them, death was natural.
So, it is obvious that a person should not feel their life or death as if they are a different person, even though a person may look a lot like a pet. But apparently some do.
But how do you find it appropriate and balanced in the light of the Word of God? What importance or what cost should he attach to the death of an animal since the Creator never intended that animals live without death? According to the balanced view of the Bible, the Israelites did not have animal cemeteries.
Hunting: what is balance?
When it comes to wildlife, one of the most controversial aspects is hunting. One of the main reasons is that there is a lot of surplus. For example, a few years ago, ten hunters in Czechoslovakia killed 9,359 hares, 7,245 patridges and 5,089 pheasants in six days, a total of 21,693. These men may have loved you. But such an obvious massacre distracts many from the hunt.
Hunters armed with a wide range of weapons, from shotguns to nets and traps, kill more than 200 million birds a year. . . The slaughter of birds reached such proportions that it caused profound changes in the environment. With millions of birds being destroyed or not flying over Italy, insects and parasites are multiplying uncontrollably. This means that farmers use large amounts of insecticides to protect their fields and disturb nature's balance. . . . About 7,000 people are believed to be killed or injured each year in Italy, when hunters shoot each other rather than their prey.
Some hunters kill just to get trophies to command and show. Hunting is little more than an "ego trip" for them. Others surrender to the joy of killing. It could be true? God's interest in animals, as evidenced by his law, would clearly avoid taking wildlife for trophies or to amuse animals for sports. On the contrary, the Bible condemns one of the first rebels against God, Nimrod, who apparently played sports and possibly killed animals and humans.
However, an impartial reading of the Bible shows that the Creator is not opposed to the idea of killing an animal for food. After the flood, Jehovah God said to Noah, the ancestors of the entire human family: “All living animals that move can be your food. . . . Only the flesh with your soul, your blood, you can not eat. Was it a turning point in God's perspective on wildlife? No, because, as we noted, he did not predict that animals would live forever.
Consequently, Jehovah God did not forbid the Israelites from hunting or fishing. What he prescribed was that a hunter should shed the blood of a dead animal, which would help the hunter to meditate on life and to realize that the (blood) life of the animals also comes from God. God also encouraged respect for wildlife through the law that forbids taking the life of a mother bird with her eggs or chickens. The mother, who would have been easier to catch because of her attachment to her children, had to flee. This would enable him to have more descendants and avoid the risk of extinction of the species.
There are many biblical references on how to catch birds and fish in the net. Even Jesus Christ, who chose fishermen as apostles, sometimes engaged in limited fishing activities.
However, you should know that many people think that the search for food is only justified when no other food is available. If you can buy food, does hunting show contempt for wildlife?
A biblical account of Isaac and his sons helps to assess the problem. Esau, Isaac's son, provided food for hunting. Isaac once told him to "go to the field and hunt" because Isaac said "I am a fan". Was the deer the only one available? No, because on this occasion Jacob prepared a delicious dish for two sons for his father. In the same way, a person today may prefer to eat venison, even if he can buy more meat in a store. You may be opposed: "What's the difference between eating venison killed by a hunter or meat killed by a butcher?" Or someone who hunts or fishes feels that they can get food when they walk through the forest or near a stream.
But if a person wants to hunt, he must be aware of the dangers. One of these dangers is that you can gradually develop a thirst after the murder. How many hunters who started looking for food enjoy the "joy of killing" and now show a blind contempt for wildlife? Colonel Charles Askins, a great hunter of wildlife, noted: "Hunting is a kind of glorious addiction that acts as a narcotic with all the ubiquitous [poppies]." Could this be the effect on you?
Furs and skins
However, some men hunt animals for their fur. They use them not only as trophies for the development of the ego, but also as skin or fur. For this reason, does killing an animal largely ignore wildlife? Mistake?
A valid objection to the perfect slaughter of wild animals to preserve their skins is the impact on the animal population. For example, before the arrival of European settlers, the North American beaver population was between 60 and 100 million. But by the turn of the century, due to excessive harvesting, they were almost extinct to fill the fashion for beaver hats and skins. What about the extinction of leopards, cheetahs and tigers due to the demand for “trendy” fur?
Of course, there is no excuse that a passing fad or fad leads to the extinction of all forms of wildlife. When the Creator gave man power over animals, He could not greedily extinguish the work of God! Should respect for wild animals consider that it is at least wrong to kill an animal for its fur or its fur?
Again, the Bible offers a balanced view. This shows that animals were at the service of man. Early in human history, the Creator himself used animal skins to attract the first pair. I was wrong? Of course, it would be unbalanced to criticize God for this. And later, it was the Creator who gave the instruction to be part of his holy shrine: "You must make a cover for the tent of red fur and a cover of sealskin over it." Likewise, the scriptures show that true worshipers used animal skins for clothing and other things.
Therefore, the Bible does not in any way require that you avoid clothing or other useful items made of leather or fur. Obviously, whether a person prefers to avoid fur or animal fur is a personal matter. For a balanced view of wildlife, I would also advise each individual to consider whether they should purchase clothing or something made from the skin (or other parts of the body) of an extinct animal.
Protection of life and property?
Sometimes a person is faced with the decision to kill an animal that is a predator or a parasite. What is a balanced view of it?
Indeed, you must assess each case for yourself based on your own facts. For example, think: would you be any different from wildlife if you killed a cockroach or a mouse entering your kitchen? Most humans would easily destroy such a creature as it is likely to eat or contaminate human food or spread disease. But what about a fox or a wolf that sometimes kills a chicken or a sheep?
However, this can lead to unbalanced extremes. The Bible does not encourage killing all foxes or bears just because some of them caused trouble. The Australian Tasmanian Wolf has been hunted and killed since being born of a sheep until it appears to be extinct. There is a lot of controversy in the United States over a similar issue. Many sheep and ranchers believe that wolves and coyotes can be killed en masse because they endanger domestic animals and livestock. On the other hand, many conservationists and environmentalists believe that the damage to sheep and cattle is minimal and does not justify the removal of wildlife, which is important for "the balance of nature". What happened in parts of Brazil and Argentina illustrates this point. Villagers killed by feral cats and owls were considered predators. The result? The houses were occupied by mice carrying disease.
Yes, the problem is complex. It is simply not possible to provide a complete solution that applies equally to all cases. But it really helps to have the guidelines of balance in the Word of God. This allows a human to see that animals can be killed to protect human life and property. However, it must be reconciled with the Bible's great respect for wildlife. Therefore, a personal decision must be made. Other related issues should be treated in the same way.
