I know conservative Christians who have been going to the same nondenominational church since the 1970s, who believe that if they get led astray by a false doctrine they will wind up in hell, so they are apprehensive about believing anything that is different from what they are taught in church. And one thing they are taught is that Jesus ate fish and passover lambs and that he never did anything wrong his whole life, so it is difficult to convince them there is any moral problem with animal exploitation. There may be passages in the Bible that support veganism, say in Genesis, Daniel or Revelation, but what ultimately matters to them is the diet and actions of Jesus.
Given that with someone like this you cannot try to argue Jesus was a vegan or vegetarian or that their pastor is incorrect about anything in his interpretation of the Bible, or that the King James Bible is errant in any way, how can you veganize them?
Some people use an "in today's world, Jesus would be vegan because of the horrors and industrialized mass slaughter inherent in commercial fishing & factory farming" argument but this only encourages people to hunt, fish, engage in backyard farming or procure ostensibly "more humane" animal products, rather than supporting veganism.
A "vitamin argument" has occurred to me in the past that goes like this: Jesus and the people of his day needed the Omega 3s and other nutrients in animal products but we don't need them today because of the availability of supplements. So animal exploitation was necessary and therefore moral then but today is unnecessary and therefore immoral, or "a sin".
However, if a 1st century person needed the nutrients in animal products, they could have just engaged in entomophagy and ate locusts like John the Babtist. It makes sense that bugs who do not live very long would not evolve the ability to suffer, and if this is the case they are a more ethical choice than fish or lambs who clearly can suffer. And locusts and other insects deemed clean in Judaism contain all the nutrients required. So I don't think an argument from nutrients works.
I have seen an approach used that says the overall message in the Bible is one of compassion and even if Jesus ate meat, many revered Christians throughout history have gone vegan or vegetarian out of compassion, so you should too. This one can backfire because it is seen as placing yourself on a higher, more enlightened moral plane than Jesus.
So none of these strategies seem any good as far as a moral argument. The moral argument seems to be a bust.
I am hesitant to use a health or environmental slant because they can both lead to people just eating more chicken, which is better for human health and the environment than beef, but leads to more suffering because chickens are smaller and worth less per individual. And I'm also hesitant to use an environmental angle because they're also climate change deniers who regard environmentalism as a satanic, competing religion and I don't want to get into it. The health argument seems to be the most robust argument to use with them, even if it does have the potential of going wrong and leading to more chicken use.
Given that with someone like this you cannot try to argue Jesus was a vegan or vegetarian or that their pastor is incorrect about anything in his interpretation of the Bible, or that the King James Bible is errant in any way, how can you veganize them?
Some people use an "in today's world, Jesus would be vegan because of the horrors and industrialized mass slaughter inherent in commercial fishing & factory farming" argument but this only encourages people to hunt, fish, engage in backyard farming or procure ostensibly "more humane" animal products, rather than supporting veganism.
A "vitamin argument" has occurred to me in the past that goes like this: Jesus and the people of his day needed the Omega 3s and other nutrients in animal products but we don't need them today because of the availability of supplements. So animal exploitation was necessary and therefore moral then but today is unnecessary and therefore immoral, or "a sin".
However, if a 1st century person needed the nutrients in animal products, they could have just engaged in entomophagy and ate locusts like John the Babtist. It makes sense that bugs who do not live very long would not evolve the ability to suffer, and if this is the case they are a more ethical choice than fish or lambs who clearly can suffer. And locusts and other insects deemed clean in Judaism contain all the nutrients required. So I don't think an argument from nutrients works.
I have seen an approach used that says the overall message in the Bible is one of compassion and even if Jesus ate meat, many revered Christians throughout history have gone vegan or vegetarian out of compassion, so you should too. This one can backfire because it is seen as placing yourself on a higher, more enlightened moral plane than Jesus.
So none of these strategies seem any good as far as a moral argument. The moral argument seems to be a bust.
I am hesitant to use a health or environmental slant because they can both lead to people just eating more chicken, which is better for human health and the environment than beef, but leads to more suffering because chickens are smaller and worth less per individual. And I'm also hesitant to use an environmental angle because they're also climate change deniers who regard environmentalism as a satanic, competing religion and I don't want to get into it. The health argument seems to be the most robust argument to use with them, even if it does have the potential of going wrong and leading to more chicken use.
