Are Animals Sinful?

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 AdminPhat, 04-08-2005 10:32 PM

Hi prophex,Thanks for taking the time to reply. And good luck with the homework. I am very interested in this question, and I want to interrogate you (in a friendly manner, no spotlights or long leather coats).I agree with your first three paragraphs. Is this how Christians calculate the "value" of animals? Or is there anything more to animal life? Lots of animals are not helpful to human's living (though they are all probably useful for scientific purposes). We are not a part of nature? Can you provide a biblical reference for this view? Or is it your personal heresy? Are humans unnatural, or are we natural and the rest of the living world unnatural? Or are all living beings natural? Or are all living beings supernatural? What do you mean by "set apart"?Thankyou for the Voltaire quote, I think it is highly relevant. Do you think Voltaire was wrong when he said that? More importantly, can you tell me when he changed his mind?I appreciate your taking part in this debate.Mick

Hi prophex,I'm replying to you, but this is also a kind of general reply to the others. well personally I don't. I was under the impression that this view is shared by Christians. Only human beings can sin. As you say, humans are part of nature, but not quite part of it in the way that other animals are.I've heard it said that the consequences of original sin, or the fall, or whatever you want to call it, is the misery we as human beings suffer today. So after the fall, women were punished by painful labour, and men were punished by being required to toil in the fields. In Genesis this is stated like a curse:Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
Genesis 3:17-19 (NAS) [/quote]I've heard it said elsewhere on this board, for example, that pestilence etc. are part of the punishment for eating the apple. And we all know that some in the religious right say that AIDS, for example, is a punishment for homosexuality.If these are punishments for our sins, and animals are incapable of sin, then why do animals also suffer from diseases? Why do many female mammals have painful labor? why do all animals have toil in the fields for their food? Why do simian primates get SIV, the monkey equivalent of HIV?If animals don't sin, why are they being punished along with mankind?mick[added in edit] I just want to point out I'm curious about the religious views of EvC users on these questions. Personally I don't believe a word of it. But for people who do (i.e. you say you believe Genesis is basically correct) I was wondering what you think. I'm also interested in hearing about the different church views of these matters, i.e. the official doctrines of different churches including but not limited to christianity. I'm here to learn!This message has been edited by mick, 04-05-2005 01:05 PM

Interesting. Maybe this is why some religious folks have such a downer on evolution? Because you can't understand evolution if you just If one views animals as trivial, then perhaps evolution seems trivial as well. I guess that's the difference between a religious anti-evolutionist and a religious evolutionist. Jar, for example, would be the latter, in that he criticises the "human-centric" point of view. Whereas you are promoting a human-centric point of view?mick