# Appropriateness of Animal Anthropomorphism?



## russelljohnson (Mar 3, 2005)

I wanted to ask the members of this forum for their opinions regarding the appropriateness of something I often see in children's literature (both Christian and non-Christian).

It is animal anthropomorphism -- having animals (and today, even vegetables) doing things, such as talk and wear clothing, that only humans do. Since only man is made in God's image, and man is the only creature whom God gave the ability to talk and whom God clothed, it seems to "cheapen" man's unique place (dominion) in God's created order.

In addition, I would imagine that it breaks down mental barriers to the theory of evolution. I would think that a child who has grown up immersed in stories with animals acting as only humans do, would find evolution more plausible than one who has not.

I realize that God caused Balaam's donkey to talk (Number 22:30), but that is certainly not normative. There is even Jotham's parable of trees talking (Judges 9:7-15), and Jehoash's word picture with a talking thistle (2 Kings 14:9), but again, those are certainly not normative.

Have any of you read, seen, or heard any discussion of this, or have any thoughts of your own on this?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 3, 2005)

First of all, welcome to the Puritan Board! 

I too have wondered about this so I will be interested to see what responses you may get. 

I am a fan of Disney animated movies/characters like Winnie-the-Pooh but movies like _Bambi_ for example trouble me with their animal-centered perspective compared to that of man. 

But it's an issue that I haven't fully thought through. Thanks for asking the question!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 3, 2005)

I always act like my cat is talking and it is pretty funny. Oh boy, some of the things it says.


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2005)

Christ as a hen, gathering chicks under the wing.

Like anything else, it's fine unless it's not fine due to context and content.

I'm in agriculture, and I just told my Pastor the other day how much I love the vineyard analogies in Scripture.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 3, 2005)

though I guess this horse don't talk 

[Edited on 3-4-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 3, 2005)

On a serious note though, I don't believe that you can say that it wasn't normative. Many cultures (and if you consider that the Jewish ppl were affected by them) have used Animal Anthropomorphism to tell stories, make analogies, etc.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 4, 2005)

Well Jesus had Balaam's Donkey talk!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 4, 2005)

George Orwell's _Animal Farm_ is a classic. 

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/


----------



## Puritanhead (Mar 4, 2005)

You mean animals can't really talk?


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Mar 4, 2005)

> I realize that God caused Balaam's donkey to talk (Number 22:30), but that is certainly not normative. There is even Jotham's parable of trees talking (Judges 9:7-15), and Jehoash's word picture with a talking thistle (2 Kings 14:9), but again, those are certainly not normative.



I see what you are saying when you state that Balaam's donkey's talking wasn't normative. We cannot draw from this story the principle that donkeys can talk. However, I don't think you can place the parable of the trees and the thistle in the same "not normative" category, since these are both fictional, while the donkey is not. And as the issue at hand is whether or not the fictional use of talking animals/plants is okay, I think this is relevant. What you have with the parable of the trees and the thistle is biblical plant anthropomorphism. Whether it's "normative" in the sense that it is the typical biblical way of making a point doesn't seem to be the issue. Does something have to be "normative" to be acceptable? Do we have a biblically normative way of telling stories?



> In addition, I would imagine that it breaks down mental barriers to the theory of evolution. I would think that a child who has grown up immersed in stories with animals acting as only humans do, would find
> evolution more plausible than one who has not.



This seems to make sense from an adult perspective, but I'm not sure if it would really affect children in this way directly. Anthropomorphisms have been around a lot longer than the theory of evolution... If anything, fantastic stories can help children learn to distinguish fantasy from reality, a good skill to apply to the evolutionary myth. Also, evolution, in my eyes, doesn't seem to raise the status of animals at all (as anthropomorphic stories do) but rather lowers the standing of humans by placing them in the same category as animals... But I don't know, you may be right. Has anyone done a study on this?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 4, 2005)

Well animals use a form of speech to communicate humans have many languages to communicate and yet we do so. Whats the difference? 

blade


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > I realize that God caused Balaam's donkey to talk (Number 22:30), but that is certainly not normative. There is even Jotham's parable of trees talking (Judges 9:7-15), and Jehoash's word picture with a talking thistle (2 Kings 14:9), but again, those are certainly not normative.
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 5, 2005)

Aesop's _Fables_ is another classic. 

http://www.literature.org/authors/aesop/fables/


----------



## Readhead (Nov 18, 2005)

I really don't like the whole talking animal thing - but I think that it may just be a personal thing. I've never sat down to seriously gather my thoughts about it. 

I do think it is important however to draw a distinction between human beings and animals as regards faith and salvation. And I feel that many of the Christian books that use the Anthropomorphism really shouldn't be using talking animals to explain these things. 

I think that some of these books are not really explaining or teaching about faith but perhaps more about values and morals. I've looked at the Veggie tales and it was a while ago but if I remember rightly they had the story and the moral tale and then a bit of bible tagged on at the end. This has been done I think with the videos etc. so that televsion stations can show the material and then cut out before the end and avoid the Scripture.??

Someone mentioned however that scripture reference to Jesus comparing himself to a chicken gathering her chickens under her wings. There is a non Anthropomorphism story that illustrates this very well by Patricia St. John - The safe place - beautiful classic 1940's style illustrations - it's published by Christianfocus. www.christianfocus.com

It is one of my favourite scripture that and this is one of my favourite children's books.

Enjoy.

Readhead


----------



## CalsFarmer (Nov 18, 2005)

This becomes a problem when the method becomes the means and the standard for teaching. I personally have a real problem with children learning morals from talking vergtables. 

Imagine: Oh yeah the aspargus said we must share!!! Veggie Tales should be sent to the trash heap. I have expressed this opinion more than once to other christian mothers. Its no wonder I lose friends soooooo quickly.


----------



## gwine (Nov 18, 2005)

> Veggie Tales should be sent to the trash heap.



Or the compost pile. Might as well make some use of them.


----------



## Readhead (Nov 23, 2005)

Good to hear such strong opinions - and yes - I agree with the compost heap - or possibly the stock pot? Give vegetables their due - boil them down, add some chicken bones and they can be quite tasty! Yum, yum. 
But not for teaching truth eh?
What I find even more annoying than the vegetables sharing is the idea that the donkey in the stable can talk about God sending his son, or that a rabbit can have any understanding of salvation. I actually think that whole approach is dangerous and heresy.
Readhead


----------

