to rants page.

The idea that Life is sacred is one of the axioms I've come up with. It seems, on some level, to be self-evident. It also seems to be something which is reflected in a large number of religious systems, so it's an axiom I can be fairly comfortable with. Life, as I use it here, is that period of time between birth and death (those being two of the metabolic processes mentioned above). Note that Life may or may not be congruent with existence - that is a discussion for another day. I'm talking about 'flesh time' here, pure and simple.

My original premise was that Life is sacred, and that those metabolic processes which make up life are neither good nor evil, and are not, in and of themselves, divine - the Whole being more than the sum of the Parts, as it were. I'm now leaning towards each of those processes being in some sense sacred in and of themselves, but that gem of wisdom hasn't fully crystallized in my mind yet.

The recognition of the functions of life being neither good nor evil came out of my reading about Buddhism. The conclusion there is that causing pain or death to another creature was a bad thing, but that eating plants was fine because, presumably, they feel no pain. Having read Madeline L'engle as a child, I wasn't convinced that plants do not feel pain. This would mean that there is NOTHING a human being can eat which doesn't cause some other living being death and pain. It leads to the conclusion that animals (at least) are inherently evil, and that their life is inherently evil, because it is dependent upon the destruction of life, which is inherently good. Logical paradox. Flawed axiom.

Therefore, death is NOT inherently evil. Let's go with accepting Death as is a part of Life, and seeing what happens from there.

How about murder? The deliberate taking of a human life to further selfish ends? I think that can be taken as an example of Evil. I'm not sure if it's axiomatic, or subject to proof, but it's a good, intuitive data point. How about taking a non-human life to further selfish ends? How does one define 'selfish' in this context, when we've already acknowledged that killing in order to eat (or to survive in general) is not evil? Remember that 'evil' is a set of actions, events, and circumstances which sets off a purely instinctive reaction. It's a tangle I haven't worked out yet. Perhaps the key is the respect and recognition of the sacredness of *both* lives involved. My need to eat, to preserve my own life, is as sacred as the need of my prey (animal or plant) to avoid death. If one must die for the other to live, then there should be a formal recognition of that, and a reluctance to take life for other, lesser things.

Hm... working towards a religions conviction for free range agriculture here. It does fit in with my instinctive values. Unfortunately, it's way out of touch with my bank balance... :(

How about leather? Shelter is a need, but is leather OK if not taken from food animals? Remember, that plants share equally in the sacredness of life - if killing for clothing is wrong then we're either nudists or wearing synthetics constantly (with all the environmental implications thereof). Again, there ought to be a respect for the source of our clothing.

Animal testing? Certainly with respect for the test subjects, and an eye towards the value of what their suffering brings. The alternative being distributing products without testing and demonstrating their safety to humans, and history tells us that many manufacturers are all too willing to put our safety on the line. More about the line between lives of plants, animals and humans in another article.

Back to Death.

Recently I've read about a number of tragic deaths, some involving young children. As always, some person has tied it in with God.

Before I began this line of religious thinking, I always thought about God (in this context) as a fiction invented for the purpose of giving us a sense of comfort. Railing against God because one, personally, didn't find it comforting was, at least, inventing a place to put one's anger at the unfairness of life. At the same time, the idea that there was this paternal figure arbitrarily 'calling home' our loved ones was annoying and rather creepy.

Now that I've begun to use the word 'God' in my own personal belief system, the disconnect is still there. God is that which understands all. From this understanding comes a certain amount of power (at least, in our experience as humans it has always been the case), but there is no reason to believe that God has infinite power, and certainly not to think every event which happens is the result of God's will. I can see no reason to believe that God caused these deaths. I have every reason to believe that God understands them. Perhaps, turning to God, we can gain understanding of what happened, and through that understanding grow to be stronger people.