Been thinking about theology a lot lately, and I’m wondering why aren’t animals considered sinful by Biblical standards? Couple of points:
First, the fundamentalists I know say that all people are born sinners through no effort/mistake of their own; fair enough, but if we rule out individual responsibility, and with it the sentience and cognizance necessary to chose to be born a sinner, then such a passive state of being could apply to animals as well. If no understanding of one’s condition is required to be sinful, then animals are prime candidates for original sin.
Secondly, the fundamentalists I know say that ignorance is no excuse for violating the laws of God and, therefore He will judge the nonChristians of the world just as if they knowingly chose spiritual rebellion. If ignorance is no excuse for wrong behavior then this shoots down the animals kingdom’s entire defense which is nothing other than ignorance to the enth degree. If, hypothetically, killing a baby is wrong and ignorance is no excuse then it stands to reason that God would send a lion to Hell for manslaughter the same as He would a human murderer. After all, ignorance is no excuse and killing a child is wrong. Right?
Thirdly, the proof I’ve been offered that we humans are all sinners is that none of us are living by God’s initial design for our lives. This original and perfect plan excluded pain and death. By this thinking, young earth creationists claim carnivores previously were herbivores. It seems to me the animal kingdom (what with all of its carnivores and all) isn’t operating based on God’s original plan any more than humanity is. Doesn’t this mean the animal kingdom is as “fallen” as the human realm? And if the animal kingdom is “fallen” it strikes me as plausible that it should be punished for the same reason “fallen” man should be punished.
In closing, if living apart from God’s original perfect will is wrong, ignorance of one’s doing so is no excuse, and one needn’t necessarily choose sin to be born a sinner, why aren’t animals going to Hell too? They’re as imperfect as the rest of us.
True that, but they do have volition. Or so it would seem. And it’s the whole volition *thang *that’s screwing the rest of us. Isn’t there having will an indication that they do have souls?
ETA: the difference between volition and soul appears to be that of temporality vs. eternality. Correct?
In the Church of God in Christ, in which I grew up, I believe the doctrine is that animals are, in fact, laden with sin and suffering because of the offense of Adam (Eve’s didn’t really matter). But they’ll not be damned after death, lacking eternal souls.
Not to most flavors of Christian theology. I’m sure somewhere out there is a church teaching that animals have souls and go to Heaven or Hell like the human folk do. You might want to find and ask them. To most Christians, your question is like asking if my cat would be better off installing Windows XP or Linux when he doesn’t own a computer.
Animals, as part of the overall Creation, experience suffering and turmoil as a result of Man who allowed sin to enter the world. All creation groans under the weight of sin. The reason that animals eat each other is the same reason we have hurricanes and floods: earth has been corrupted by sin.
In the end, creation has been redeemed just has mankind has been. It will be restored (just as we will be) and perfect, and “the lion shall lie down with the lamb.”
The short answer: animals do not have Free Will, they were not created in the image of God, and do not have the ability to sin.
What if I designed a computer that showed true artificial intelligence (after all, all our brains are are computers - our brains give us our “will”)? Would it now have a soul?
I think this is an inescapable flaw in your premise.
You also have to be careful of the body/soul dualism when talking about humans. They’re not separatable, in classic Christian theology. Our physical selves are as much a part of “us” as our spiritual selves, so whether animals have souls or not is kind of a red herring.
Of course all animals are sinful. Otherwise, He wouldn’t have killed off most of them in the Flood.
Which reminds me-how did he kill off the fish? Were fish spared because they were without sin?
Not sure it does. But I suspect it could because both seem to be “alive” in some sense that I can’t articulate.
Great question. Honestly, I have no idea. But I don’t think it’s fair (and, yes, I’m one to bitch about fairness) to say that God created both people and animals with inherent nature/desires and that this intuitive part of man led us to sin but that animals are incapable of sinning. If people are created with innate cravings (and I’ve never met a theist who didn’t believe this) then we don’t have free will any more than an insect does. I think.
Many of the fish would have died too; perhaps most. Salt-water fish are vulnerable to changes the salinity of the water in which they live. I’ll have to dig up a cite.
I realize this is a joke, but even taking the Noah story at face value, there is no indication that the animals were destroyed because they were sinful any more than my house must be sinful because God let it burn down.
At the very least, all religions and sciences I know of consider animals amoral. Without a concept of morality, they cannot really be said to “sin”. It is beyond them to understand it by thier very nature.
I once heard a creationist who studied the works of Kent Hovind claim the fish died “because it was the wrong type of water and they couldn’t breathe.” I’m not sure if Hovind actually believes this or if this was just one of his young zealots going beyond his teaching.
You’re missing the important point that humans were made in the image of God, with the ability to choose between right and wrong. Even the most intelligent animals are incapable of that. A dog can choose to disobey you, but does not have a conscience and does not experience shame for being disobedient.
Related question: how can something amoral be corrupted by sin? This seems to be a contradiction. The amoral by its very nature can’t be corrupted. It just is what it is. The amoral might be next to that which is corrupt or even be surrounded by it, but to be corrupt itself necessitates immorality. Case in point: the animals peaceful desires changed to violent ones after the Fall. This isn’t a matter of amoral beings being surrounded by corrupted man, this is a matter of animals themselves having their own nature corrupted. Strikes me as sin by any other name.
