God Gave Us Animals to Eat

Argument #10 of 13

The Argument

For billions of people, morality doesn't come from philosophical reasoning—it comes from divine revelation. The Bible is explicit and consistent: God gave humans dominion over animals and permission to eat them. This isn't a minor point buried in obscure verses; it's foundational to the Judeo-Christian understanding of humanity's relationship with creation.

In Genesis 1:26-28, God says: "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals." This establishes humanity's authority over animals from the very beginning. After the flood, God makes it even more explicit in Genesis 9:3: "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

Jesus himself ate fish. Not only did he eat it, but he performed miracles involving fish—feeding 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish (Matthew 14:13-21), and again feeding 4,000 people with seven loaves and a few small fish (Matthew 15:32-39). After his resurrection, Jesus ate broiled fish in front of his disciples to prove he was physically present (Luke 24:42-43). If the Son of God ate animals, how can eating animals be morally wrong?

The apostle Paul addresses this directly in 1 Timothy 4:3-5, warning against those who "forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."

The entire sacrificial system in the Old Testament was built around animals. God commanded the Israelites to sacrifice lambs, bulls, and doves. The Passover lamb is central to Jewish identity and Christian theology. Jesus is called "the Lamb of God" precisely because animal sacrifice was understood as meaningful and ordained by God.

For a Christian, the moral question isn't "Is it okay to eat animals?" but rather "Who has the authority to determine morality—God or modern philosophers?" If you believe God is the ultimate moral authority, and God explicitly permits eating animals, then veganism isn't just unnecessary—it's potentially prideful, suggesting that human moral reasoning has discovered something God missed or got wrong.

The idea that eating animals is morally wrong or that humans have a duty to be vegan is not present in the Bible. These are modern interpretations that have no basis in the text. The notion that we should view animals as sacred beings with an inherent right to live free from human interference, or that killing animals for food is fundamentally immoral is a recent, secular invention that contradicts thousands of years of religious teaching.

The Response

Context on Biblical Dietary Laws

The Bible presents a clear progression on the ethics of eating meat, which forms the basis for the traditional Christian understanding that it is morally acceptable. This progression begins in the Garden of Eden with an initial plant-based diet (Genesis 1:29).

A significant shift occurs after the flood when God gives Noah and his family direct permission to eat animals for the first time (Genesis 9:3). Later, for the nation of Israel, God provides specific regulations under the Mosaic Law, distinguishing between clean and unclean animals, thereby codifying the practice of meat consumption (Deuteronomy 14:3-6).

The New Testament offers a broader affirmation of this freedom, as seen in Jesus's own action of eating fish after his resurrection (Luke 24:41-43) and in Peter's pivotal vision where God declares all foods "clean" (Acts 10:13-15).

The Apostle Paul solidifies this view, teaching that Christians can eat anything sold in the market (1 Corinthians 10:25) and that "everything God created is good," to be received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4-5).

This being true I think there is enough biblical evidence to suggest that eating meat is permissible.

From here I will make two points. The first is that even if the Bible condones eating meat, there is still a great unpassable ethical road to travel to arrive at how we treat animals in a factory farm. I will call this point 'Can we justify a factory farm?'

The second is that the bible has been used to justify practices that in today's world are not only unethical, but totally illegal. I'll call this point 'A warning from history'.

Can we justify a factory farm?

To say "Jesus ate meat, so factory farming is okay" is a severe logical error. The context is everything. Jesus was a carpenter, but it would be absurd to claim this as a blanket approval for clear-cutting the Amazon rainforest. The only shared element is "wood," while the entire process, scale, and impact are completely different. Similarly, the act of eating meat in the 1st century has almost nothing in common with the violent, industrial system of modern factory farming.

To see this clearly, let's turn to one of the most powerful metaphors in the New Testament: the "Good Shepherd." In John 10:11-13, Jesus makes a deliberate choice to identify with the Good Shepherd who shows compassion and contrasts himself with the "hireling" (a hired hand) who is indifferent to the animals' welfare.

The Good Shepherd, Jesus says, "lays down his life for the sheep." The hireling, in contrast, "cares nothing for the sheep" and abandons them at the first sign of danger.

Let's be clear: this parable is an allegory for God's relationship with humanity, not a literal lesson in animal ethics. One could even argue that a shepherd's care is purely utilitarian—he protects his flock simply because they are valuable assets. But this is precisely the point. The metaphor only works because the audience understands that a good shepherd's diligent care is a righteous model, while the hireling's indifference is a contemptible one. Jesus chose to align himself with the ideal of stewardship, not neglect, even if that stewardship was for practical purposes.

This choice of metaphor reveals an underlying value: compassion towards animals is a virtue. If animals were merely objects, the distinction between a caring shepherd and an indifferent hireling would be meaningless. The fact that Jesus uses this to represent divine love shows that such care is considered righteous. Why would he align himself with compassion if it didn't matter?

Now, which model does modern factory farming follow? It operates entirely on the principle of the hireling. It is a system built on total indifference to animal suffering, prioritizing profit above all else. The systemic cruelty, extreme confinement, and violence are the very embodiment of the hireling's mindset.

Therefore, one cannot use the Bible to justify a system that embodies the very indifference that Jesus condemned. The practices of modern factory farming are so far removed from the biblical ideal of stewardship that they fall into a category of systemic cruelty that is antithetical to the "Good Shepherd" model. The relationship to Jesus's actions is superficial; the spirit of the practice is something else entirely.

A Warning from History

History is filled with examples of people using scripture to justify atrocities. Verses have been twisted to defend slavery, racism, and the subjugation of women. This should make us extremely cautious about using isolated verses to defend a practice—especially one as violent as factory farming—that seems to contradict the Bible's overarching themes of mercy, compassion, and stewardship.

We have to be careful not to cherry-pick Bible verses to justify our own agendas, as has historically been the case.

Wrapping Up

Are you using your religion to justify more violence and cruelty than is absolutely necessary?

instead...

Shouldn't your religion be used to justify compassion, even when it's inconvenient?

The moral worth of a religion is revealed when its followers must choose between justifying violence or embracing compassion. Throughout history, the greatest atrocities—from crusades to inquisitions—have begun with the same act: interpreting scripture to excuse cruelty. When a faith is used to defend violence over mercy, it follows a dark and well-worn path.

This is the question that factory farming forces upon people of faith today. Will you use your religion to justify a system of industrial-scale violence, or will you use it to answer the call for compassion and stewardship? How you interpret your faith in the face of this cruelty defines its moral character for the modern world.