Animals who are like humans
- Thread starter Confessor
- Start date
- Status
The difference is self awareness. Animals act according to their in-bred logic. Wolves go after the easy prey, dogs figure out how to get what they want, cats manipulate people into liking them, etc.
And they can exhibit something we might even take to be morality. They defend their young, sometimes they sacrifice themselves to protect the herd or pack, etc.
But I doubt that anyone can demonstrate that animals are consciously doing these things as a result of moral choice. God created them to act according to their nature, and their nature is not to understand in a reflective way.
And they can exhibit something we might even take to be morality. They defend their young, sometimes they sacrifice themselves to protect the herd or pack, etc.
But I doubt that anyone can demonstrate that animals are consciously doing these things as a result of moral choice. God created them to act according to their nature, and their nature is not to understand in a reflective way.
I should add to the above that there are many people who operate in the same fashion: that is, without reflection. That's the result of believing evolution.
Brother John
Puritan Board Sophomore
What about men who act like animals...
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
They're called animals in Scripture.
One could say that animals haven't yet been redeemed from the Fall, although sometime in the future, the lion will really lie down with the lamb, just like in the Garden, before there was killing.
With us, we still have our fallen nature, but the difference is that we've been redeemed, although we haven't yet seen what that will mean to our physical bodies. There's something inside we Christians that allows Christ like behavior. So what to do with nonChristians who display good behavior? That's more difficult, because with people there are those, like the people of Malta, who are of a better character than others, and it goes deeper than the training a good guide dog gets. Common Grace is a big and difficult subject.
TheFleshProfitethNothing
Puritan Board Freshman
Romans 1 and 2 show man as being worse than animals actually...if you put thought to it you will understand.
Theognome
Burrito Bill
How do the following facts tie together:
1. Man is made in God's image and therefore has a rational-moral nature.
2. Animals seem to act with compassion and possibly morality.
Animals, being part of a fallen world but not sinners themselves, will obey God's will in all circumstances. Thus, since we have a compassionate and moral God, the animals will reflect this- even when those who carry His image don't.
Theognome
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
It is against God's will that animals attack human beings, and there is the death penalty for them (which helps take dangerous behavior out of the gene pool). Animals don't always follow the will of God. We could probably think of a dozen other examples where animals don't obey the will of God.
How did you get from fallen to God reflecting?
Theognome
Burrito Bill
I disagree. There are Biblical examples of animals being used by God to punish the wicked. 2 Kings 2:24 is one such example, where bears mauled a large group of mockers. I challenge you to find a single example from Scripture of a disobedient animal. As far as reflecting, mayhaps not the best choice of words. Demonstrate may be more appropriate.
Theognome
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
The reason I ask this is because we had a guest lecturer at the university who was trying to promote more compassionate treatment towards animals. He cited pictures of mothers passionately protecting and caring for their young and told a story of a happy-go-lucky monkey who died within a week of his mother's death, apparently due to grief. Further, I love my dog and it really seems that she is truly emotional and compassionate towards her family. In fact, my mom has even told me she thinks that dogs' loyalty is an excellent reflection of our Father's faithfulness (capital "F").
My point is that it seems like animals genuinely represent emotions, and it seems far too simple and self-blinded to declare that we are just misperceiving them and they are really without any of that. I'm not saying this undermines the Bible or anything, but I'm asking how we ought interpret these in light of the fact that man alone is made in God's image. What exactly does being made in God's image entail? etc.
My point is that it seems like animals genuinely represent emotions, and it seems far too simple and self-blinded to declare that we are just misperceiving them and they are really without any of that. I'm not saying this undermines the Bible or anything, but I'm asking how we ought interpret these in light of the fact that man alone is made in God's image. What exactly does being made in God's image entail? etc.
Theognome
Burrito Bill
This was my point exactly. Animals do show us God's mercies, and are not in of themselves sinful. Indeed, if we place sin within animals, we undermine the whole Ceremonial Law- for only a sinless sacrifice is acceptable to God, and the livestock sacrificed to Him were inherently this. Physical blemishes were the only indicator of what to sacrifice and what not to.
As you stated, the key is representation. Animals can represent (just as they represented Christ in the OT) but cannot fulfill. The way they 'emote' does, as your mother so aptly pointed out, point us to the Lord.
Theognome
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
So would you say they have emotion and sentience, but no rational-moral nature? This would make sense without blurring the distinction between man and animal.
After all, it is entirely plausible that the perceived morality that animals have is purely pragmatic (e.g. "don't steal or you hurt yourself" rather than "You shall not steal. I am the Lord") and not based on holy justice.
After all, it is entirely plausible that the perceived morality that animals have is purely pragmatic (e.g. "don't steal or you hurt yourself" rather than "You shall not steal. I am the Lord") and not based on holy justice.
Theognome
Burrito Bill
We're on the same page. Animals do indeed show emotion, but do not demonstrate spiritual awareness. So yes, the obedience I speak of is not to the Ten Commandments (though one could argue this to some extent), but to the will of God as demonstrated in His creation.
Theognome
Theognome
Burrito Bill
I'd say you do have to, based on the argument you've presented. Exodus 21 does not in any way demonstrate sin on the part of the animal, only what must be done if a goring occurs. Did Christ decry sin on the tower that fell in Luke 13? Lots of people died there, too!
If I agree to your position, I'd also have to agree that animals have the will to obey or disobey God- something that only man can and does do. Indeed, if animals- even livestock- could be willfully disobedient, how would the levites know if the livestock they sacrificed were indeed sinless? Physical blemishes are no indication of sinlessness- Congress is chock full of examples of this.
God has shown in His word that he uses nature to demonstrate His mercy as well as His judgment; whether such instruments are men, merely animals or the inanimate. Such instruments, regardless of culpability, do bear consequences of the actions. For your use of Exodus 21 to stand, you'd have to put the act of sin on the animal, and it's just not there. Man is the sinner, and all creation suffers because of it.
Theognome
Theognome
Burrito Bill
Theognome
Burrito Bill
I already agree and clearly stated that animals- indeed all creation, fell in Adam. But to not obey the will of God is sin- something that you claimed they do-
So, which is it?
Theognome
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
No, you don't have to willingly sin to be fallen. The old guy who has cancer didn't necessarily sin, but it could very have been the results of the fall. The pit bull that rips a baby in half can be acting outside of the will that God has for His creation, but we don't need to bring in sin. Even when you (jokingly I'm sure) said a few hours ago that you occasionally have sex with animals, the animals have to die, but in that case the sin would be yours and the punishment would also extend to the animals, as that behavior is outside the will of God.
Theognome
Burrito Bill
Indeed, it was jokingly. But as you have stated, the blame for the sin falls with man, and not the animal. Critters, lacking souls, can only respond to the fallen dominion oppressed upon them. Else the goofcakes crying, 'Meat is murder!' would be right.
Theognome
- Status
