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

quote:

---

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?

---

Well, I don't think that so much focus on the seemingly sinful nature of animals in nature matters. Animals are insignificant in the realm of sin, morals, and breaking "human" standards of what sin is, does not mean anything within this world.It's ridiculous to view animals in this way, they are apart from our standards of ethically sound living. If one were to look at the bible as truth, as I do, It becomes easy to understand that the ten commandments are irrelavent in this situation. They were written as a code for humans.The Marmot cannot understand these guidelines, the analyzing of it's actions would not apply. The marmot's purpose is put into the spotlight, it seems to be about survival, in facing the conditions of nature, rather than the thought that goes into something spiritual as the ten commandments are.The marmots lifestyle may be helpful to human's living, and may help researching for scientific purposes. Other than that, the marmot knows not of humans, evil, and what should or should not be done. The marmot cannot be saved, it is a creature of nature. This is where we, as humans are set apart. The marmot has purpose in survival, and in the marmot hapiness most likely does not exist.Although I would like to put in a quote from a famous philosopher, Voltaire. It goes against my philosophy on the matter, but is equally inspiring and actually an amazing testimony to the love that exists in his soul, and his doubts on immortality. It may not be as relevant as I thought, but it is still a very nice quote.

quote:

---

Why do mankind flatter themselves and that they alone are gifted with a spiritual and immortal principle?... Perhaps from their inordinate vanity. I am persuaded that if a peacock could speak he would boast of his soul, and would affirm that it inhabited his magnificent tail.

---

It is noted that Voltaire later changed his mind on the matter.ugh, on to the homework.This message has been edited by prophex, 04-04-2005 07:26 PM

---

Thanks for giving me the oppurtunity to leech knowledge off of all you guys.

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

quote:

---

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).

---

I guess you would have to ask all the Christians in the world.That's how I decided to proceed.

quote:

---

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"?

---

Woah.
Of course we are part of nature, not fully but physically. Spiritually, and mentally we are seperate, would you disagree? (By the way, I have already been here, lets get to the morals animals have to follow if possible, and why.)

quote:

---

Can you provide a biblical reference for this view? Or is it your personal heresy?

---

I believe that the bible is truth, including Genesis.

quote:

---

What do you mean by "set apart"?

---

Humans are above and beyond the animal kingdom, Christianity is something a marmot simply cannot be a part of.

quote:

---

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 have no date, but here are some excerpts detailing it in- "The Story of Philosphy" - Will Durant.

quote:

---

If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.

---

-Voltaire.He later wrote an article, aptly titled, "Theist" proclaiming his stance. Very long excerpt, here's a sentence,

quote:

---

To do good is in his worship, to submit to God, is his creed.

---

Of course it is out of the full context, but you can probably find it online somewhere for free.To get back on the OP, Do you think that animals sin?

---

Thanks for giving me the oppurtunity to leech knowledge off of all you guys.

Let me begin by saying that IMHO, animals other than humans don't sin. I have to try to make it clear that position only reflects a human centric point of view. It's possible that as we learn more we may find that animals believe they sin, but we are far from being at that stage of understanding.From there, let me try to address your points. No. First, the Ten Commandments were not given to Marmots so they would not be bound by them anyway. Again, from our Human Centric POV, it is only Humans that are judged. The fact that other critters show some understanding of right and wrong has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not humans will be judged.The lesson to be learned from the Genesis story of the Tree of Knowldge is that Humans are charged with a knowledge of right and wrong and so are expected to do right. If other critters also develop a knowledge of right and wrong I imagine they will also evolve their own moral system. But the two incidents are not directly related. The issue of whether or not an act is natural has nothing to do with right and wrong, or sin. Kiling someone is certainly a natural act, but it is also a sin. Again, most Christian churches abandoned the concept of Original Sin long ago. For one thing, it's certainly not needed, we are fully capable of sinning enough for each generation and don't need the advantage of a headstart.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yet, the Flood destroyed man and animals because they were violent ("the earth is filled with violence through them") and corrupt ("all flesh had corrupted their way") which we might, I think, rightly imagine to be a violation of the "Law of God." Decrees against violence and corruption were certainly not first conceived in Moses' time. If the Law did not exist before the flood, then what is the standard by which we judge corruption? I favor that point of view, but it would seem that the author of Genesis takes the animals to be worthy of drowning. Whether they violated the law on their own (mating with the neighbor's ox; stealing the neighbor's grass; goring the neighbor) or were enticed to do so by their master (staked out on the neighbor's turf) they are nonetheless included in the general condemnation and the general destruction (the Flood). I agree that it is a sin under specified circumstances but certainly not a sin in every case; otherwise one might sin by refusing to kill ... when the LORD God himself commands it. Yes?db

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Yada, yada, yada.It's a myth, a fable, a tale. Never happened so has nothing to do with anything. Myth, fable, tales.No!But there certainly are times that killing is not a sin.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And yet, you pontificate AS IF Christian morality is based in something other than Myth, Fable, and Tales.Am I to assume that you are Working Within the Myth? It doesn't sound like it, but if you are, then why not assume that I am doing so as well. If, on the other hand, you take the Tree of Knowledge to be Myth, and the Flood to be Fable, then why accept the Ten Commandments as fact?And why assume that human morality is unique? Perhaps there are Marmot Missionaries who promote love and tolerance. How would we know? Their code is unwritten: It is an oral tradition comprised of whispers and whistles; and so far, no one I know, has learned to translate that ancient tongue. db

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

If you will read what I posted you'll find I proposed just that. I don't say it's unique, I say we look at it from a human centric point of view. If you mean the tale of how they were delivered, what makes you think I accept it as fact?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

you stated "The Marmot cannot understand these guidelines, the analyzing of it's actions would not apply."I can't understand these guidelines either, therefore they must not apply to me either.
for more on why I can't understand these guidelines look no further than the preachings of Grorge CarlinGEORGE CARLIN ON THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
from "Complaints and Grievances" (HBO special)Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.Let's start with the first three:I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE METHOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAINTHOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATHRight off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHERObedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.THOU SHALT NOT STEALTHOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESSStealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRYTHOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFEOnce again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODSThis one is just plain fuckin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:THOU SHALT NOT KILLMurder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.&Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

quote:

---

If animals don't sin, why are they being punished along with mankind?

---

The lives of "animals" are trivial. Besides scientific research. Focus on humanity.

---

Thanks for giving me the oppurtunity to leech knowledge off of all you guys.

Who's George Caplan? (is he the comedian that everyone i know tells me is funny?)Why should his opinion matter?Why does it matter more than what you think? And where are your thoughts on the ten commandments? Or do you completely agree with him, because... He's "George Caplan."I also would like some evidence linking the ten commandments to politicians/politics. As you, or George say, by the end of the post I was't sure.(Your post was meant to be funny, and it was... sort of, but it's just stupidity and the attempt to get laughs off of some less than well thought out commentary on the TC's.}This message has been edited by prophex, 04-05-2005 11:21 PM

---

Thanks for giving me the oppurtunity to leech knowledge off of all you guys.

quote:

---

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:

---

Man is imperfect, man sins. More people have been killed for the sake of other men then of claims to be of God, and to have him at your back.Check out one of George's commandments, thou shall not kill I suppose. If this is of God, as Moses believed, and as do I, then it seems to contradict your view on God's love of murder.

---

Thanks for giving me the oppurtunity to leech knowledge off of all you guys.

An obvious ad hominem.This message has been edited by Troy, 04-05-2005 11:24 PM