Saturday, October 13, 2007

God has Provided us with Animals

Animals play a huge role in our lives as a source of food for survival, companionship, entertainment, as well as many other purposes. It has been proven that the presence of animals brings happiness, helps with stress, lowers anger levels, and helps reduce the possibility of suicide in inmates. The animals seemed to help replace voids of family members and other companionship that these inmates have lost. It is evident that animals provide affection and other emotions that we cannot always receive from other humans.

The idea of humans having ownership and rule over animals is deeply rooted in religious tradition. In the Bible, God tells his people that he has provided them with animals to use for food and for pleasure. In the Genesis 9:2-3 it says, “All the wild animals, large and small, and the birds and fish will be afraid of you…I have given them to you as food, just as I have given you grain and vegetables.” It is evident that the Bible encourages its readers that the animals were put on earth by God for food, just like the wild vegetation.

The documentary showed the tradition in Spain of running and eventually killing a bull through the streets. Throughout the year there are more than four thousand of these traditional fiestas. These traditions of torture are done in the name of God or a celebration for God. Clearly, Christianity encourages the use and pleasure of animals, but do they encourage torture of animals? It is evident that in Spain, these torture sessions are traditional, so they argue that God and the Bible approve of it. But in the United States and other areas that have a vast population that practice Christianity, do not have traditions of torture. Perhaps, this torture is a part of the Spaniards culture and has been entwined with their religious beliefs.

1 comment:

David K. Braden-Johnson said...

A quick and relatively pain-free death (though rare) is clearly preferable to "torture." Yet that still leaves open the question of the moral appropriateness of the former act.