Subject: Re: How important are humans to God?
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:58:41 +1100
From: Gordon Coleman <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Just sticking my oar in for a moment...

Daniel McLean wrote:
> 
>  wrote:
> 
> >  > >> Some passages which come to mind immediately are:
> > >> (a) God's covenant with all the animals in Genesis 9:8-17;
> >
> > Only that God would not wipe out life completely. In the same
> > chapter God affirms that humans may eat animals (9:3) and that
> > humans life is particularly precious because humans are made
> > in the image of God (9:6).
> 
> I realise I approach the Bible in a slightly different way than you do
> Peter, but it seems to me a questionable argument that the Bible claims that
> humans are made in the image of God.  Personally, I don't like the image of
> God concept much at all - I can't see that it is that meaningful to us in
> our day.  What exactly makes us like God that we do not share to some extent
> with some of the animal species?  Some say intelligence, ability for
> relationship, or a spiritual element.  Well animals clearly have
> intelligence, they relate and I think it would be difficult to prove that
> both humans have spirits and animals don't.

Of course, this comes back to whose work the Bible is: that of the human
authors only, or in some way under the inspiration (and with the
imprimatur) of the Creator God?  If the latter, then it's not a question
of whether we like or dislike the "image of God" concept, but rather one
of *how* humans share (in some special way) the image of God.

Of course, I realise that this is at the core of (some of) your
contention with modern Christian thought: *is* the Bible divinely
inspired...?

> It is understandable that the ancients may have used the concept to
> understand why humans seem different to animals, particularly in their
> religious culture where anthropomorphism thrived - see Genesis ff.!  As such
> it is maybe best to understand the whole image of God idea somewhat
> historically and metaphorically.

See above.

> > >> (d) The Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 6:25-30
> >
> > Doesn't this say the opposite to what Daniel is getting at?
> > That humans are far more valuable to him than animals or plants.
> 
> That does seem to be the underlying presumption of the passage - ie. if the
> birds are fed and the lillies/grass clothed, HOW MUCH MORE then will God
> provide for humans.  But importantly too, the passage was intended to talk
> about God's provision for humans and that they should not worry, not to
> outline a doctrine regarding the relative 'order' of created species.

Quite true.  And yet it *does* indicate a special care on the part of
the Creator for his creation - grass and birds included...

> > On the other hand, there are many Bible passages affirming the
> > special position of humans: e.g. made in the image of God;
> > God's special care for human life (Gen 9:6); God's revulsion
> > at human sacrifice but acceptance of animal sacrifice;
> > Jesus came as a human; Matthew 6 (above); etc.
> >
> > I'd go so far as to say that the special status of humans is
> > one of the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. If a new set
> > of "The Fundamentals" comes out in 2015, perhaps they'd
> > put that one in...
> 
> I agree that that is a presumption in the Bible, however perhaps it reflects
> an over-valuing of human life, rather than the way it actually is.  To
> consider that God may not be really broken up by the to's and fro's of our
> lives and deaths may assist in a more coherent understanding of God in terms
> of the problem of evil.
> 
> > Daniel MacLean wrote:
> >
> > 
> > >I certainly think that breaking down the enormous categorical
> > separation of
> > >human and non-human life on our earth is a step forward in living in an
> > >ecologically sound way.
> >
> > Maybe ecologically sound, but ethically disastrous.
> >
> > It is not possible to preserve all other life: we have to eat
> > for a start. (Was it Steve Wright who said: "What do you do
> > with an endangered animal which only eats endangered plants?"?).
> 
> You would try to sustain both the endangered animal and the endangered
> plants it eats.  I'm not necessarily advocating vegetarianism, so much as
> rightful respect for our environment and the non-human species and a
> possible recognition that our lives are not the be-all and end-all to God.

I think there's another important point here (and this is the reason for
my writing)...  I see a difference between humans taking animal life
(which I think is appropriate - after all, we gotta eat!) and humans
driving certain species to extinction.  As a scientist, I have no
problem using animals for research purposes - animal experimentation
(like it or not) underlies much of the advances in modern medicine, in
particular in areas such as pharmaceutical treatment, development of new
surgical techniques, and understanding the underlying causes of (and
therefore developing cures for) diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy.

BUT... I think the onus is on us to do so responsibly, and with a mind
to wider responsibilities also.  As a Christian, I look to God's command
to the first humans (in Genesis 1) to rule over the created order as
giving us the *right* to cultivate (and to weed), the right to raise
livestock etc.  But I also see it as laying upon us the onus to
responsibly manage and care for our environment.

Environmentalism need not be grounded in some mystical sense of union
between humans and creation.  An appreciation of human sovereignty (as
outlined in Genesis) should likewise instil in us that sense of
responsibility to care for, maintain and uphold the diversity of life as
it exists on our planet.
 
> > So if we "[break] down the enormous categorical separation of
> > human and non-human life on our earth", the result would *not* be the
> > raising of the value of animal and plant life (not to any great degree
> > anyway), but the *devaluing* of human life. We are already seeing this
> > with some people seriously calling for the culling of human babies who
> > do not meet certain physical criteria.
> 
> That would represent an extreme in the spectrum I think.  With a bit of
> common sense, I think we could quite easily 'devalue' human life somewhat -
> not entirely and increase our 'valuation' of animal life.

I agree with Peter here - it's not a question of *devaluing* human life
(I think the results of that would be catastrophic) but to highlight the
value and importance of animal life, and our responsibility to maintain
that diversity while managing to feed ourselves adequately.

Cheers,

Gordon