Premise: Sin is the domain of moral actors - angels, and humans.
Fact: 8% of male sheep look for sex only with other males.
What possible conclusions can we reach? One is that the Fall affected all of nature, and so unnatural things happen in nature as a result of our sin.
But homosexuality is interesting, in that the desire is listed in Romans as an offshoot of man's turning away from God. "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator— who is for ever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Can the same be said of sheep? Were they given over to the same shameful lusts for the same reasons?
How do we deal with animals who behave in ways that are immoral? When chimps attack and kill each other, seemingly out of anger; when rams look for sex with other rams; when monkeys pay for sex?
If the biology is the same, do we simply say that as moral creatures, we do not have the excuse - we are expected to control our passions. What other alternatives might there be?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Interesting thoughts. I would begin with the question: Did rams ever attempt to have sex with one another before the fall? i.e. Are animals held to moral standards at all? Do they have a conscience and will as we do? If they don't, can they be held to decisions that they make? If all dogs go to heaven then they would be held responsible. If all dogs don't go to heaven then they don't have a will and therefore can't do right or wrong. Then again, when Adam and Eve are clothed by God an animal is killed and maybe the assumption is that animals of all kinds were never meant to die. Sin brought ugliness to the entire creation, not just humanity. Just random thoughts.
Do animals have a will? They seem to behave as though they do. Some even seem to have a culture.
Elephants are known to visit the skeletons of dead elephants they knew, "caressing the skeletons with their trunks." They are also known to put dirt and grasses on the bodies of the dead (interestingly, they have been seen to do this with the skeleton of one other creature, and this creature has a fascination with blogging). Elephants raised in isolation become unpredictable, tempermental, and can sure seem angry.
Is it possible for animals to have will without responsibility? To choose to do X instead of Y without moral guidance/consequences? That seems the most likely middle ground for me.
However, arguments that homosexual sex is "unnatural" might need to develop a definition other than "that which does not occur in the natural world." Because sheep aren't the first species other than man to do this.
To me, a key idea you referenced is whether certain actions are "natural."
The idea that something is natural is often used to suggest that it is "right" or "correct." The underlying idea there, is that if one is made a certain way and did not choose to be a certain way, it can't be wrong. This is another example of the mistake of trying to derive a normative statement from a descriptive one.
Paul anticipates this in Romans saying that 'some of you will say, if God made me this way, how can I be punished?' (paraphrase). Paul's response is that God is sovereign and can make things any way he wants, including making things 'evil' so as to become vessels of wrath.
I'm definitely not committed to any particular sequence of events as to how people and/or sheep came to have gay sex. It seems like the kind of speculation that leads to silly, yet vociferous, controversy. I guess I have more freedom to be non-commital as both a non-pastor and a non-literalist.
I post it mostly to try and see other points of view. The research in the article led to much controversy, because this is a sensitive topic.
I think the church today has at best a disproportionate stance on homosexuality, when love and care for people that were cast out is so very important to Jesus' ministry.
And to do my part to punch holes in the argument that it is "unnatural, therefore wrong." At least the argument that "it is in the Bible, therefore it is wrong" has some substance that can be argued intelligently. If that's the stance you take, don't weasel around with why you take it.
i love the last comment you left, dave. this is interesting subject matter, and i appreciate the way you're seeing it.
Post a Comment