Sometimes the news is more like Ripley's Believe It or Not than anything else KWIM? This week's whale attack and the subsequent death of a trainer at Sea World falls into that category. Why a whale with previous aggressive incidences which involved death was still performing and interacting is a mystery to me. I must confess though that I've been fascinated by the responses of the animal rights contingent and the public that supports them. Everywhere they have vociferously expressed that in no way should the animal be held responsible for the attack. Why not? Because the animal cannot be held responsible for its actions the same way a person could. This is an interesting position for a group that has sought to increasingly blur the line between man and animal. Yet here in this situation they are drawing a distinct difference between the two. I guess it must be because no matter how much anyone tries to deny or work around it, deep inside we all know that there is an unbreachable gulf between man and animal. Man is a special creation of God, unique in that he was made in HIS image.
So who is responsible? Ex. 21:28 and 29 speak wisdom for this situation. If a man had an ox that gored someone, the ox was to be destroyed and the owner would be aquitted of blame. However, if the ox had previously gored or shown a tendency to aggression with his horns and the owner hadn't kept the ox isolated then the ox was to be destroyed and the man stoned. IMO the animal was destroyed in the interest of protecting people, and the owner was responsible for what he knew.
