RE: Do animals ever "sin" (was something else)

Date: Tue Feb 05 2002 - 16:44:07 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Glenn makes front page of AiG today"

    Moorad wrote:
    > I am sure that in God's scheme of things, the laws that govern human
    > behavior is more associated with the notion of sin than the laws that
    > govern animal behavior. Humans, according to Scripture, were created
    > in the image of God and as such can offend God with their actions. I
    > am sure that is not the case with animals. Moorad

    Yes, that idea is more in line with a religious concept of "sin" that is
    defined by a revelatory social contract with a "higher power" as opposed
    to being defined operationally by observable behavior. While chimps (eg.
    Pan troglodytes in my earlier example), may lie, cheat & steal, they don't
    "sin". In contrast, those acts could be considered "sinful" in humans
    (& possibly in children and those with mental impairments as well).

    And I'm happy to work under such a definition. I just think it's important
    to note that if one defines "sin" in such a manner (i.e. divine fiat) there
    is little reason to diminish the evidence that other species may exhibit
    capabilities and behaviors somewhat similar to our own (e.g. planning, social
    calculation & etc.). I know that you, Moorad, don't do this but I've read
    other posts in this thread that lean that way. That an animal cannot "sin"
    doesn't mean that it cannot think ahead, feel distressed or happy, or try to
    calculate its optimal place within a social group. And just because we aren't
    necessarily "special" or unique within the animal kingdom in ways we once
    thought doesn't necessarily have any bearing on supernatural moral contracts.

    Tim Ikeda

    mail2web - Check your email from the web at .

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 05 2002 - 16:45:28 EST