the sinfulness of animals

Hi,I'm not much of a theologist so I was wondering if any religious people could explain their view of what happens to animals at the final judgement.Animals appear to be fairly sinful, at least in terms of the Christian ten commandments. Theft and adultery are very widespread in nature. Do animals go to heaven or hell? Do they get judged?I want to preempt the argument that only human beings are judged because only they suffer from the original sin, and only they have knowledge of right and wrong. Some primatologists (I don't know how many) believe that a number of primates show some form of ethics. Franz de Waal would be a prime example. He believes that higher primates show guilt, reciprocity, empathy, obligations and rules, and that they therefore have a sense of what behavior is acceptable and what is not.If you believe that only humans suffer from the original sin, then why are non-human animals (which presumably still live in a state of grace) also apparently "sinful"? Are adultery and theft considered natural and acceptable, and a part of the state of grace, in God's eyes?If animals are exempt from judgement on the basis that they have no knowledge of right and wrong, and no knowledge of religion, then there is a simple way that evangelical Christians could guarantee that all human beings go to heaven. All they have to do is stop evangelizing. Allow Christianity to slowly decay, so that human beings know longer know about the word of God. That way, they will all be saved because of their animal-like ignorance. If you keep preaching to people, you are guaranteeing that many of them will indeed go to Hell, because many of them will not be converted by you.As I say, I am no theologist, so I am interested in what religious folk think about the sinfulness of animals. As a scientist I view our ideas of sin as a human construction, so I don't have to worry about whether what looks like rape in ducks, for example, is "sinful" or not. I know that it isn't sinful, and I know that it is incorrect to characterize the behavior of ducks in emotive human terms. But what do you think if you belive that morality is God-given and universal?Mickadded in edit: I would like add one further consideration to this thread proposal. I hope it isn't creeping in too many different directions.I often hear from religious sources that mankind's woes on earth are part of the "punishment" for his fall from grace. This happened recently when religious leaders in the US and Africa claimed that AIDS was a punishment for homosexuality. But it is also (I think??) part of the standard Christian view, namely that the fall from grace resulted in the punishment of painful labour for women and toil in the fields for men. If this is the case, why do many female mammals also suffer difficult labour? Why do all animals have to "toil" for their food? And why do simian primates also get AIDS?edited again, to change the title [mick]This message has been edited by mick, 03-28-2005 11:54 AMThis message has been edited by mick, 03-28-2005 11:55 AM

My bolds.I think the above "added by edit" needs to be deleted. Yes, it is creeping in too many directions.Offhand, the rest of the message seems OK, but you may wish to take a stab at tightening it up a bit more.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: Please post revised version as a new message. That individual message can be spun off to become the new topic message 1.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-28-2005 12:40 PM

Hi, should I post a new version below, or edit the old version?Thanks for your timemick

Post new below.BTW, you posted your question at the same time I added the edit answering it, in the previous message. AM

I wonder about your views of sin in animals. I am a very poor theologist with only a vague understanding of one religion (Christianity, by virtue of being brought up as a Christian). So I apologise in advance if my considerations are inaccurate or parochial.I want to start by describing the social behaviour of the alpine marmot, Marmota marmota. The marmot is a highly social and intelligent rodent that lives in a family group consisting of a pair of adults and their offspring. The marmot is therefore socially monogamous (i.e. a long-term pair bond between a specific male and female). Young are playful and all members of the family protect each other by taking turns to keep watch for predators, by grooming each other, and through the practice of parents and older siblings cuddling up to the young ones to keep them warm during hibernation. DNA paternity analysis reveals that around 20% of young within a family are not related to their mother's partner. This is because adult males who are not able to found a territory of their own adopt a "satellite" strategy, in which they hover around the edge of an existing territory and attempt to mate with the female of that territory when the male is absent. Males eject satellite males from their territory very vigorously, sometimes resulting in death of the intruder.So the humble marmot breaks at least three of the ten commandments: Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass [I'm paraphrasing].This leads me to my main point: Given that it breaks nearly one third of the ten commandments, is the behaviour of the alpine marmot sinful?I want to preempt the argument that only human beings are judged because only they have knowledge of right and wrong. Some primatologists (I don't know how many) believe that a number of primates show some form of ethics. Franz de Waal would be a prime example. He believes that higher primates show guilt, reciprocity, empathy, obligations and rules, and that they therefore have a sense of what behavior is acceptable and what is not (i.e. they have a sense of right and wrong).I also want to preempt the argument that only human beings are judged, because only human beings indulged in original sin. If you believe that this is the case, then animals must still be living in a state of grace as part of God's creation, and adultery and murder must be considered natural and acceptable, and a part of the state of grace. If, on the other hand, you believe that temptation into committing adultery or murder is the work of the devil, why does he waste his time in tempting animals which do not have immortal souls?As a scientist I view our ideas of sin as a human construction, so I don't have to worry about whether what looks like rape in ducks, for example, is "sinful" or not. I know that it isn't sinful, and I know that it is incorrect to characterize the behavior of ducks in emotive human terms. But what do you think if you believe that morality is God-given and universal?MickThis message has been edited by mick, 03-28-2005 01:58 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 03-28-2005 02:00 PM

bumping to inform the admins that I've revised my proposed topicmick

in response to jar,I'm not sure where this should go. The discussion might include some evolutionary biology but not necessarily. Perhaps "faith and belief" would be the best place.Actually, since this didn't get much interest from the admins, i don't mind if it is abandoned. That is, if you feel that it's not of interest. I personally am interested in the question, but it may be that other EVC people arent - i don't know. so i'll leave it up to you, and won't be too bothered if you don't promote this.mickmick

If no one responds then there wasn't much interest.headed for faith & belief.