The Law of Nature
Pondering life, death, critters and creation.
Now that I'm in the early stage of the "winter-of-my-years," I find myself spending more and more time reflecting, pondering and cogitating over life and all of its complexities.
One of these complexities is one of the so-called laws of nature. That law is this: In order for anything to live, something must die.
What brought me to this point of reflection was the occasional letter from some irate animal-rightist who criticizes and condemns me for my choice of hunting and killing any given animal. I have to ask myself, "Why do they have such a problem?"
Within this law-of-nature, one of three scenarios must apply to humans: (1) we must kill it ourselves; (2) someone else must kill it for us; or (3) it must have died on its own.
If a person eats meat, the law applies; if a person is a vegetarian, it still applies.
Aaah, but you might argue that the vegetable plants or the fruit trees or the nut trees don't die; they live on. But wait, while that is true, the fruit, nut and vegetable that come from that plant do indeed die, and that's the part that man depends upon! Once that part is separated from the parent plant, it dies, just as if I cut my hand off of my body and I don't reattach it; my hand is effectively dead.
That, too, reflects the law of nature: When something within nature dies, nature itself doesn't die.
One of the criticisms that I hear is that hunters encourage and perpetuate game animals only to kill them, but isn't that true of people who buy their protein at the supermarket, or those who grow vegetables to harvest for a vegan to consume? I get a kick out of people who refuse to eat meat protein and get their protein from soybeans. Didn't someone grow and harvest (in this case, allow them to die) those soybeans in order for them to be consumed?
And even if we don't have a hand in killing it, it still has to die first before we consume it.
To consume doesn't necessarily mean that we eat it; there are other avenues.
For instance, we cut and gather firewood to heat our dwellings or cook our food. Either a live tree was harvested or we used naturally dead wood. In the latter case, when we gathered the dead wood and used it, a whole lot of parasitic life was destroyed in the process.
And even if our dwelling choice is entirely made of stone and metal, what about the cabinetry or the furniture? We humans still destroyed some form of life to make that end product.
Let me clarify: I define the term "to die" as "for something to cease being what it was originally."
In that context, even "extractive products" fall into that category. Iron ore becomes steel that is used in our autos and trucks and bicycles and whatever else we use steel in. Crude oil becomes gasoline for vehicles as well as synthetics for our clothing, footwear and a myriad of other products. And the list goes on.
I have some few friends who are animal-rightists. Even if they don't actually have a direct hand in killing some lifeform, or eating meat killed by others, they are duplicitous in some way where a life is taken.
For instance, one friend refuses to even kill a spider in the house, but he/she will look the other way as that spider kills and eats a fly caught in its web!
Another friend has cats, but is perfectly okay with the cats killing any mouse or rat that dares enter the house!
Along those lines, I find it enigmatic that another person will condemn me for killing an animal for sport and utilizing it in some way, as a violation of that animal's right to live, yet will champion the right of a wolf, coyote or any other predator to take away the right to life of its prey! Please explain the difference to me? Aren't we all part of the larger scheme of nature?
Another critic will eat so-called organic meat, and I advance to you, what is more organic than wild game?
Some of my critics don't eat "red meat" but think nothing of eating fish or poultry. Those creatures still had to die!
Or are they saying that it is perfectly okay to eat anything as long as they don't have a hand in taking its life but others do it for them?
Let's go to the real extreme in this argument (as if it isn't already): Many of us, including my critics, are cat and dog lovers. We buy canned and dry food for our pet companions. I challenge you to look at the ingredients list; it is full of byproducts of other critters that gave their lives so all of those dogs and cats could live.
This brings me to my final thoughts on the subject; some of which I have never thought of in this context before. When I think of it, these final thoughts probably sum up why I think it is perfectly all right to hunt and kill what I hunt. It is my rationale of why I love the outdoors in general.
I am, and have been, a born-again Christian for many years of my life; it is my choice to be so. I constantly read The Good Book and here is my argument.
First of all, in the book of Genesis, it says that everything was given to mankind for his/her use. Second, in the Old Testament it tells me that animal sacrifice was instituted for the benefit of mankind; the animal died to become the salvation of early man, instituted by a benevolent and loving Creator-God.
And yes, I choose to believe that a Triune God started everything and it wasn't by some "Big Bang." This Creator-God instituted the law-of-nature about which I'm speaking.
Oh, I will admit that this Creator-God concept does raise the profound question: Then where did God come from? I also admit, I simply don't know, but that is what faith is all about. I have faith in that; others have faith in a "Big Bang."
So what does all of this have to do with the law-of-nature, that for anything to live, something must die?
Well, as I pondered all of this, I realized that Nature, as we know it, conforms perfectly to the character of the Creator-God who made it.
I get this info from the New Testament that says that Jesus-The-Christ is part of that Trinity-God and is The Second Person of The Godhead, whose unique role was to be Creator of nature.
In accordance with this role and with another role He assumes, which is to be Savior of Mankind, He had to conform to His created law-of-nature of which I have been speaking.
The Good Book says that Jesus had to die for me. In order for Him to do this, He had to leave His role of Creator-Son and choose to become a man. Why? Because God cannot die; He is The Forever God! Man is the one who dies.
When Jesus carried all of my sins to the cross in my place, and died on that tree, then rose to life again as being part of The Godhead once more, His act gave me eternal life! In other words, He died so that I may live — the very law-of-nature!
So then, if this law was ordained by God, through His act towards mankind, then I can freely observe this same law-of-nature and not feel guilty about it in the least.
Whether you agree with me or not, that's your business; I don't have to answer for others, I just have to answer for me.
As always keep the sun forever at your back, the wind forever in your face, and may The Forever God bless you too!