I recently read that a few years ago the Russian parliament passed a bill making it specifically illegal for people to eat their pets.

Now if you stop and think this one through, you’d realize that the only reason that this legislation would have happened was this had to have been a problem.  I mean if nobody was eating their pets, there wouldn’t have to be a law preventing it. AmI right?

And then I wondered, “What’s a pet?”  Does this law mean that you wouldn’t be able to eat your pet chicken, and how would they differentiate between a “pet chicken” and just a plain ordinary “eating chicken”?

I’m not sure that all pets would make good eating.  But I wonder if the choice was to eat Fido or starve, what our decision would be?

Where am I going with this?  I’m not sure, but some things are too good not to share.  Wait.  I have it.  Have we taken the time lately to express thanks to the Father, not only that we don’t have to eat our pets to survive, but also that we haven’t even had to consider it?  The very concept of eating your pet is so foreign that it seems almost inconceivable, and that in itself is worthy of thanks.

Have a great week and remember: To see what is possible, you’ll have to attempt the impossible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *