Are Animals as innocent as we think?

[handy]

Hey Handy and all...

Here is a couple of quickies to ponder over:

Why was man given dominion over the animal "kingdom"?

When was man given dominion over the animal "kingdom"?

and just for the fun of it:

Who killed the first animal?

Good questions. I'll tackle the last two first:

When was man given dominion over the animal "kingdom"?
Right after he was created. Genesis 1:29

Who killed the first animal?
God did, to provide a prover 'covering' after Adam and Eve sinned. This 'covering' is vital to understanding the idea of a blood sacrifice. This is the first sacrifice, much like the last sacrifice, in that both involved an innocent being killed for the sins of another.

Now, your first question I think is rather thought provoking:
Why was man given dominion over the animal "kingdom"?

Is there an easy answer to this? Does the bible tell us why?

 

[Vic C.]

Ooh, interesting. LOL

We all agree dominion was before the Fall.

We all agree that the sacrifice was after the Fall and most will agree as to why. I found it interesting that (maybe subconsciously - ;-) ) you called the animal innocent.

LOL, I don't have a objective answer to #1 either. 8-)

 

[handy]

I found it interesting that (maybe subconsciously - ) you called the animal innocent.

Innocent, in this instance, that it had not committed the sin for which it was being killed. :wink:

However, the fact that animals were the sacrifices for sin until Christ does lead one to think that they are after all innocent of the stain of sin. Which means that my dogs are just filled with joie de vivre rather than sin when they look at me and then delibrately run off to roll in the stinky mud.

Of course it wasn't joie de vivre that prompted Star to spray us with hmmm....nameless fluids. It wasn't even defensive. She was just an angry heifer.

But, why did God cause us to have dominion over the earth. Perhaps, being made in His image, we needed some outlet for the authority that is part of His image. Another inherent characteristic of God is His loving care, and again, perhaps the earth was meant to be lovingly cared for as an outlet for this Godly trait in us as well.

Frankly, it may be easier to discover how many licks it takes to get to the Tootsie roll center of the Tootsie pop than to understand why God gave us dominion over this earth.

 

[Lewis]

Well handy, I would say that animals don't sin. But here is a hard one sometimes certain dolphins engage in homosexual behavior, and so does a few more species of animals another one a certain species of bird, I forgot which one. But would you call this sin ? Does these animals have sense enough to know that this is a sin ? the dolphin and bird thing is old news, but here is a link I found.
Homosexuality in marine mammals
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights ... e-gay.html

Wild dolphins off Brazil engage in homosexual behavior
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights ... phins.html

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nimal.html

 

[handy]

If animals are innocent, I don't think the fact that many animals engage in homosexual behavior should be viewed as sin, any more than when babies and toddlers engage in sexual play should be considered sin. Let's face it, physically, it feels very good. Without knowledge of God's boundries regarding sexuality, there is no sin.

It's not just dolphins, BTW. Here on the farm, my kids had the fast track to sexuality simply because of the animals. The young ones are constantly mounting each other, boys on boys, girls on girls. I've yet to figure out why a heifer will mount another heifer. Bunnies too. Rabbits have a reputation that is very well deserved. A young male rabbit will mount just about anything that happens to be in the vacinity. I guess they are all just playing around, engaging in behavior because it feels good.

I know a lot of those who want to justify homosexual behavior try to point to animal behavior as proof that somehow homosexuality is OK. What they are forgetting is that God places boundries on humans that He doesn't on animals. This is true whether animals are sinful or innocent. We simply do not have any information to make a judgment that because Flipper and Frankie have a good time, then it's OK for us as well. If animals do sin, then it very well may not be OK for them either.

 

[Lewis]

Handy Wrote
I've yet to figure out why a heifer will mount another heifer. Bunnies too.

 

[Drew]

Without knowledge of God's boundries regarding sexuality, there is no sin.

I do not agree with what appears to be the generalization of this statement, namely that without law (knowledge of God's boundaries), there is no sin.

Paul writes that without the Law there is no transgression. Transgression, for Paul, is not the same as "sin".

We know that Paul believes that sin exists even in the absence of "Law". From Romans 5:12-14, we have:

"12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."

Granted, this text also says that sin is "not taken into account" where there is no Law. But I think it is clear that Paul thinks that sin exists in the absence of Law. So animals do sin, I would say.

I also think it is pretty clear that Paul believes that sin has infected the entire cosmos (including animals). And I think we need to heed Jesus statement to preach the gospel to all creation.
And I do not think this is not an "important issue". We need to figure out what it possibly means to "preach the gospel" to trees and rabbits, not dismiss the need to do so.

 

[Vic C.]

Interesting stuff there Lewis... thanks. I will have to look deeper into this and check the root sources out a bit. I wasn't aware of the dolphins. I do know they, male and female, are know to mate for life, grieve if their mate is lost and do not re-mate.

There is controversy with these studies though. This is from the National Geographic link you posted:

... The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.

"The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing," says National Geographic Ultimate Explorer correspondent, Mireya Mayor. "You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males."

Well, perhaps, in a roundabout way, they are seeking males, suggests primatologist Amy Parish.

She argues that female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy which in turn influences breeding success. Parish says, "Taking something that's nonreproductive, like mounting another femaleâ€â€if it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success." ...

 

[handy]

Sometimes I think humans overanalyze things abit. Fun, isn't it! :-D

In the Garden of Eden, there were basically two things that God gave us to occupy our time: sex and eating. God told Adam and Eve, "Be fruitful and multiply, and since you'll work up an appetite doing that, I've given you all these wonderful plants and trees to eat of." (paraphrased version of Genesis 1:28-29) It can certainly be assumed that the animals were in on this rather cushy assignment as well. For we see the repititon of 'after its kind' (killer phrase for evolution) in the creation story, and in Genesis 1:30 the food is for the animals as well.

Food and sex are necessary to all with nephesh in order to fulfill our prime directive "Be fruitful and multiply." Because these are such basic needs for all living creatures that have nephesh, God, in His goodness, made both of these things pleasurable. And, because both of these things are pleasurable, after the Fall, they are both regulated. There are strict commandments regarding both our sexuality and our eating habits.

These commandments are directed towards people, but animals exhibit behaviors which violate God's commandments. As we see, there are gay dolphins and lesbian Japanese macaques, and the bunnies are just out of control. The animals also eat each other, a direct consequence of the Fall, as all with nephesh were created to be vegetarian. And, as I sit here with my breakfast, after feeding the herd, I can personally attest to the gluttony of even herbivores. If I don't string the hay out far enough, some of the younger ones are in real danger of being gored if they don't back up and let the older ones eat until they are finished. (And, it's not because they are starving, we have the fattest cattle in our valley.)

Genesis 6:11-12 seems to be a key verse: "Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth."

I don't think we can assume that all flesh means just all men, because God both destroyed the animals, and yet saved a remnant of the animals. And the first covenant He made after the flood was also with the animals as well as with the humans.

Now, as to Mark 16:15. We need to keep in mind that the context of the passage is the Great Commission, which is to both preach the gospel all nations and baptize all believers. Drew, I know you are sincerely struggling with what this passage means, but I doubt you would suggest that we baptize the cat. (I wouldn't recommend it! :wink: )

I think we can discover the true meaning of this passage by studying the other text regarding the Great Commission. Matthew 28:19 seems to make it clear that Mark 16:15 is simply saying to go into all creation, in other words, throughout the world, making disciples and baptizing them.

One thing to consider is that many of the earliest manuscripts end Marks Gospel at verse 8. Verses 9-14 are only on the later manuscripts. However, it's clear from examining ancient documents that the message in verses 9-14 must have been part of Mark's original Gospel. I think a logical explanation is that somehow or another, the end of the Gospel was lost, and later copyists paraphrased what was known to be included. This could explain why the wording of the Great Commission seems a bit strange to us in Mark's Gospel, but perfectly clear in Matthew's. If you do a study on the language of Mark 16:15, you can see that the verse can just as easily be translated, "preach the gospel to all creation" which can easily mean to "all the earth." Which is exactly how my Bible translates this verse. The KJV is a great translation, but sometimes we can get better clarity with other translations as well.

 

[Lewis]

Handy, that was a great post, luv ya, sister.