Looking at the argument that St. Francis of Assisi presents, it looks like the argument does not follow. I believe that the conclusion you are looking for is to act compassionately to animals. I have rearranged your argument to fit that.

1. If something is weak and helpless, Jesus told people to be kind and compassionate to it
2. Animals are beings that are weak and helpless
3. Therefore, Jesus told people to be kind and compassionate to animals.
This conclusion is inferring that Christians should listen to and obey Jesus. In this way, Christians would have the responsibility to act compassionately to animals as well a weak and helpless people.

However, I would have to disagree with the first premise of this argument. I do not think that Jesus requires us all to be compassionate to everything that is weak and helpless. I do believe that humans have a certain responsibility to tend to the earth and to be good stewards of it, but I do not think that they are required to be compassionate to it. Compassion needs a certain level of sympathetic consciousness as well as the desire to alleviate that pain which I do not think is required upon us for every living being.

When looking at the question of how one would act in this kind of compassion, I would imagine that if animals are on the same level of significance that humans have if they are equally ‘beings that are weak and helpless’, they would need to be treated in the same manner. In this way, as Jesus instructs to care for and love one another, animals lives would want to be cared for and loved to the extent of our abilities. This would most likely result in not eating them or harming them unless it was for a greater purpose.

“If you think about it there are many living things in our world: humans, plants, and animals.”

@princessofdarkness
If you include plants into the equation as beings that are weak and helpless as well, then I the constraints on human life would probably be extreme. There would be no food as most all of our food sources would be ineligible to be eaten. I believe that these actions would be far beyond Jesus’ commandments for us.

princessofdarkness,

I'll use Abecedarian's reformulation of your argument to continue the discussion, though I disagree with his counterargument that we are not to be compassionate to everything that is weak and helpless:

"1. If something is weak and helpless, Jesus told people to be kind and compassionate to it
2. Animals are beings that are weak and helpless
3. Therefore, Jesus told people to be kind and compassionate to animals."

I agree that we should be kind and compassionate to animals, and I think you offer some good suggestions as to how we should go about that. It seems wise to not kill for sport, but only for necessity (be it for nutrition, for clothing, etc.). Granted, one could argue the extent of our necessity to eat meat at all. It certainly seems unnecessary and not at all compassionate to harm animals through any sort of abuse, such as pit bull fighting or greyhound racing. Yet, even there the lines are blurred – horse racing seems to be acceptable and everyone argues about the importance or lack thereof of zoos and aquariums.

However, these sorts of disagreements are not only pertinent to weak and helpless animals – the same sorts of arguments are had regarding impoverished people across the globe. Life is complex! So, I don't think the difficult nature of determining how to be compassionate should dissuade us from pursuing compassion towards the weak and helpless.

Yet, if we look at what Jesus said and did on this earth, there is a certainly a distinction between his comments about animals and his comments about people. While I think your argument is still valid, I do see Abecedarian's point that it would be a bit difficult to consider plants, animals, and people as equally weak and helpless and in equal need of compassion (particular if we consider "compassion" to be defined in such a way that requires abstaining from eating said plants and animals and humans...there seems to be a delineating feature there). So, it seems there needs to be a clarifying argument that explains the difference in one's compassion to animals and to humans (I'll ignore plants for the moment, as they weren't the primary focus of your post):

1. If humans were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27) and animals were not created in the image of God, then humans are distinguished from animals.
2. If humans are distinguished from animals, then we have the freedom to treat humans differently than animals.
3. If we have the freedom to treat humans differently than animals, then we can show compassion to humans differently than how we show compassion to animals.
4. So, if humans were created in the image of God, then we can show compassion to humans differently than how we show compassion to animals (1, 2, 3 HS)

I look forward to your thoughts!

Genesis 1: 28-30. God gave us the right to do with the animals as we see fit. And after Noah he gave us the right to consume them. So the God dose not say how to treat the animals.

As Christians. To paraphrase a famous remark (Burke?), it's not what a book tells me I may do, but what the Christian heart of me tells me is right to do. And that Christian heart does not confine itself to the understandings and practices of a passed time, but informs itself as best it can as to current - modern - understandings, and struggles to act accordingly. For example, most of us are in a position where we can appreciate and understand the beasts of the wild as magnificent creatures, certainly beings of worth. Thus, the recreational sport-hunting killing of them is immoral - and ridiculous given the equipment such "hunters" often use.

What might the rule be? Sympathetic, empathetic compassion. Which even leaves room for some humor. Can you say hippopotamus (and not smile)?

Christianity ideally ties one to vegetarianism, with eggs and milk coming from humanely raised animals who aren't slaughtered after giving up their usefulness. If you look at most interpretations of what Eden or Heaven are like, that's what they depict as well. Lion lying with the lamb and rivers of milk and honey and all that.

One good example is Milton's Paradise Lost. Adam and Eve are vegetarians before the Fall.

“Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” - Proverbs 12:10

Throughout the bible there is a battle between humans having dominion over the earth, and humans being stewards of the earth. The biblical belief is that humans differ over animals due to the “soul” we have. “He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nose...” Genesis 2:7. This seems unique to the creation of humans. And within the bible it also states that “All flesh is not the same...” 1 Cor 15:39.

However since Christians believe everything created by God is perfect, and an extension of his splendour. 1 Timothy 4:4 “For everything God made was good...”. A Christian belief would be to at least have regard/respect for animal existence, and therefore treat them justly/kindly.

Right. The lion will lie down with the lamb, but the lion will sleep a lot better than the lamb...

Lions and lambs is not from Genesis, it's from Isaiah. And just checking on that, he pairs wolves and lambs, not lions and lambs. (I thought it was lions, too.)

There are a bunch of references to wild beasts in the same context:

Job 5:23
For you will have a covenant with the stones of the field, and the wild animals will be at peace with you.

Isaiah 2:4
Then He will judge between the nations and arbitrate for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer take up the sword against nation, nor train anymore for war.

Isaiah 65:25
The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but the food of the serpent will be dust. They will do no harm nor destruction on all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

Ezekiel 34:25
I will make with them a covenant of peace and rid the land of wild animals, so that they may dwell securely in the wilderness and sleep in the forest.

Hosea 2:18
On that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that crawl on the ground. And I will abolish bow and sword and weapons of war in the land, and will make them lie down in safety.

Whether these OT passages are referencing an off-world paradise or this-world paradise, not sure. Probably a this-world paradise, remade to be like Eden.

In Acts 10... Peter is presented with a variety of food, and told (by God) to kill and eat. Peter objects to the order (typical of Peter) but is overruled by God. "Look, jackass, When I say something is good enough for you to eat, you had jolly well better eat it. Or else."

Wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

In this passage, all food laws are annulled. This passage ties into one of the problems of the early church: Gentiles were joining, and they didn't observe Jewish food laws. And Jews, by and large, weren't joining in overly large numbers. So... who is going to be accommodated? Gentiles, and their food practices.

I think your best bet for justifying veganism or vegetarianism is to look elsewhere.

I think your best bet for justifying veganism or vegetarianism is to look elsewhere. — Bitter Crank

It's not plant-consumption that needs a justification.

I also think the passages you quote all confirm my original post: ideally human should avoid killing animals. God lets us do it, for now, but it's not the perfect scenario or end goal. And if things in Eden/Heaven are the ideal, seems on earth people should strive toward that.

(I should note, I'm an atheist and only contributing as a mildly interesting thought-experiment.)

1 Timothy 4:4 “For everything God made was good...” — Shira

ὅτi πᾶν κτίσμα Θεοῦ καλόν, καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον, μετὰ εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμενον

Roughly,
that all/every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected*, with thanks(giving) to be received/taken.

*to be thrown away, rejected
Usage: worthy to be cast away, worthless, regarded as vile.

Interpretation of any translation of any part of the bible is a fraught enterprise - too often an agenda is written in that is not present in the original. The reader of the translation is thus three (at least) removes from the original, the translation itself being a selective interpretation, that is in turn interpreted. There is also an issue of original sources and their differences from each other, and the difference of even a letter or two can make a difference!

But what is a person to do? Matt. 5:37: Paraphrase. Just say Yes, yes, no, no. From more than this the evil one comes.

That is, KISS it, that's the message. And it applies across the whole book. Anyone who goes beyond a level of simplicity is trying to sell you something.

Interesting point: the translation is "From more than these evil comes." But evil is just the word πονηροs. In the verse it is τοῦ πονηροῦ. That is, not "evil" but "the evil man/one/thing." The "the" - the τοῦ - is substantive. So it's the evil one, man, thing, singular. And this reduction of "the evil one" to just "evil" occurs more than once - but unless you stumbled across it or someone told you. you would never know it - and it makes a difference!

So a fair reading of Timothy, above, has no touchy-feely aspect. The creatures are good, use 'em with thanks, and don't suppose they're worthless.

Christianity ideally ties one to vegetarianism, with eggs and milk coming from humanely raised animals who aren't slaughtered after giving up their usefulness. — NKBJ

(Not addressed to NKBJ but to All)

From a practical standpoint, finding milk from animals that aren't going to be slaughtered is not easy. My boss warns against red meat as "bad news" (Vedanta related ethics) but he sure loves his market bought cows milk and butter, which nonetheless is a byproduct of a grim process of separating babies from their mothers, both of which go to slaughter.

Lots of folks of older cultures gave ritualistic thanks to the meaningful sacrifice of animals, especially because that sacrifice was a necessary condition of survival. The Ainu of Japan used to raise bears as pets for a while, treated them as a member of the family, then slaughtered them with great piety (or so I read).

Meat consumption has a ripple of measurable effects on the global ecosystem but so do vegetables (see corn, cotten, soy and oil palm). Growing food at scale is an existentially nasty, ethically questionable, but necessary business. Collateral damage includes poisoning folks with chemicals and animal feces (see hog farming in Southern regions of U.S.) One might want to frame the ethics of an action with regard to a balance of the total system we live in. Any conclusion or consensus is unlikely going to change the universal biological appeal of meat however.

Ribs are good with a nice rib rub. Slow cooked in a mesquite smoker, for fall off the bone goodness.

Ribs are bad in mass, as they cause rivers of toxic effluent which never seems to be in your backyard or in your river. Those ribs haven't cause your son or daughter to be born with asthma. That has nothing to do with you. Or does it?

From a practical standpoint, finding milk from animals that aren't going to be slaughtered is not easy. — Nils Loc

You're right that these kinds of animal products could no longer be part of our daily, mass consumptive diets. It would become a luxury good from a small handful of farms and perhaps some backyard endeavors. Which is one of the reasons I personally find it easier to forego all of it together.

It's not plant-consumption that needs a justification. — NKBJ

Right you are. Bad statement on my part. What I should have said is "The Bible doesn't stake out a supportive position on veganism or vegetarianism. Scriptural support for a plant diet comes from scriptures in other religions. The OT and NT was written by and for carnivores." It should be noted, though, that in the ancient world meat-eating was not a regular event. The 'fatted calf' was for a special, rare, feast day. Animals sacrificed in temples were usually roasted on an altar fire and then shared out. It was an occasional, not regular, meat serving.

Most of the time ancient people were vegetarians by practical necessity; grains, vegetables, and plant oils (olives) as well as seeds and nuts would have been the prime source of calories and nutrition. Fish was on the menu if you happened to live near a river, lake, or ocean. Milk? Some ancient people ate milk products -- "the land of milk and honey" was grazing and agricultural land, and large flocks would have enough lactating females to produce some milk. The ancients mixed all sorts of stuff into wine, including milk. What a waste of Beaujolais.

A large part of the environmental impact of a meat/dairy/egg diet is the amount of animal protein that people eat if they can afford it -- big income or cheap protein. 3 or 4 eggs for breakfast, a meat sandwich for lunch, and a serving or two of meat or fish for supper is more protein than most people need. Most of us are not digging ditches, mining coal, plowing fields with a team of horses, carrying heavy loads on and off railroad cars, etc.

People need between between .35 and 1 gram of protein per pound of weight. Less, the less active one is, somewhat more in the opposite direction. The US dietary recommendation is 50-60 grams of protein per day for an "average" 50 year old male. That's about 2 ounces of protein (not the food source, just the protein) a day. Many people exceed that amount without gaining any benefit, and are also getting unnecessary calories with the extra protein.

Now, people doing regular intense exercise or demanding physical work need more calories and more protein per day, but most of us do not fit into that category. Our environmental impact would be substantially lower if we aimed for the recommended amount. (1/2 c. of cottage cheese provides about 23 g of protein, 2 eggs provides provides another 12 g, and 3 oz of beef provides 22 g. Those 3 servings add up to the minimum daily requirement. Obviously some people need more--laborers, athletes, etc. Beans, grain, nuts, and seeds provide equally good protein. So, one can still eat some meat without placing too much strain on one's share of the environment.

Do Christians (still) take the likes of these to be fundamental?

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. — Genesis 1:28

And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. — Genesis 9:7

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. — Ecclesiastes 1:4

Doesn't seem quite right to me.

In the plot from which these quotes come, there was just a handful of people, so, sure, make more. At some point (around 2 billion, give or take a couple dozen) we should have stopped.

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. — Ecclesiastes 1:4

What's wrong with that? The sun comes up, the sun goes down. People are born, people drop dead. The earth keeps spinning. You object?

You can't argue verses from the Bible though solely as they are not the entirety of Christian texts. You have to bring in all of the Apocryphal texts, or at least the ones that have been shown to have as much historical validity as the core Biblical texts. Even then you arrive at the conclusion that a 'true' Christian cannot operate based upon random things stated in the texts as most of the text was not attributed to statements made by Jesus. From a technical standpoint then, 'true' Christianity is derived from the words of Christ, of which there are very few in the Bible, and a few more in some of the Apocryphal texts. Thus, to be treat an animal as a 'true' follower of Christ you would have limit any concepts of the treatment of animals to the few words of Christ that are attributed to Christ. Even then you are left with the fact that Christ is not known to have written anything down himself, therefore any statements attributed to him are second hand and speculative. In short, the closest way to know how to treat animals according to Christianity is to reference the words of Jesus in any text that contains them, however as it cannot be proven which are actually the words of Christ, there is no actual way to know how a Christian should treat animals.

My advice, adhear to the 'Do unto others' teaching. If you wouldn't want to be treated that way, probably shouldn't treat an animal that way either.

One has to consider the questions: can animals suffer?
Do you need animals for the food, skin etc that can be derived from them?

If you do not need animals in that way, what is your justification for using them that way, given that raising animals for their harvesting almost always leads to some suffering, and in a lot of cases a huge amount of suffering.

I think there isn't much point in trying to tie in veganism with Christianity, but I think it is a good idea for people in general to question their own actions.

If someone is a Christian; what is their motivation to follow that religion?
Does their reason for following that religion match living a life which causes unnecessary suffering in animals?

Lion lying with the lamb — NKBJ

The lion may lie down with the lamb, but the lion will sleep a lot better than the lamb will.

Jesus was a good guy, but he wasn't a defender of everything claimed in his name. You have heard of burnt offerings? When Jesus was alive, animals were sacrificed -- slaughtered -- on the Temple altar all day long-- this was the central act of priestly Jewish worship in the Jerusalem Temple. Jesus said nothing against this central practice.

Which animals were sacrificed? Doves, lambs, calves, and other animals--gentle creatures all; weak, defenseless, innocent, etc. God didn't become incarnate in order to save bunny rabbits.

I thought I read he said animal sacrifice wasn't necessary any more....not sure where I read that.

I think if there is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things, in the eyes of God, then Jesus would shed light on which way to do things was best.
If animal sacrifice was the incorrect way to go about ridding one's self of sin, and honouring God, then I really think that Jesus would have said something about it.
I mean do any, or many Christians these days think that sacrificing animals achieves anything at all?

I believe that only in the eyes of the law can you really own an animal. Other than in the law, you can keep an animal captive, or like a pet. To kill an animal as a sacrifice is like going to your neighbour's house and setting his car on fire, and claiming it is a sacrifice to god....killing an animal is only a sacrifice to the killer of the animal, in that he might lose some of the benefits from keeping it alive.

Well, Jesus... the thing is, we probably can't rely on Jesus or Socrates or Buddha to answer all of our contemporary questions. Our relationship to animals isn't the same as the ancient world's relationship. Animals were absolutely essential for food, clothing, transportation, work, and so forth. Animals are not absolutely essential to us. We can afford to be much more sentimental (I mean the word in a good way) than the ancients could.

21st century Christians can look to the Bible, the church fathers, the saints, to science, to common social practice, and so forth for guidance. We can decide to be carnivores, vegetarians, or vegans. We can decide to spray Roundup on weeds, pull them up by hand, or let them be. We can hunt or not hunt as we see fit. We don't have to justify everything by what Jesus would have done, because Jesus wasn't a vegetarian, he had never heard of Roundup, he fished but he didn't hunt (as far as we know) and so on.

Jesus supposedly predicted that the Temple would be destroyed fairly soon. That's probably a prediction that was put into his mouth years after the Temple was desecrated by the Romans, who turned it over for pagan purposes. So, a couple of decades after Jesus died, animal sacrifice ended with the end of the Temple. There was always only one Temple for the Jews, and then there was zero temples. Henceforth their worship changed to liturgical worship of the spoken word.

I think the best way to try an change people's attitudes, if one thinks they need changing, is to try to get them to see for themselves that a change would be best, and work out their own opinions and stuff for themselves.

I think prescriptive teaching is a bit pointless anyway.

That's why I would ask Christians whether they think causing suffering to animals by using animals for their body parts, if it isn't necessary, is in line with why they became a Christian.

There are many Christians with all sorts of beliefs and motivations, which I don't know about, so all I can do personally is ask them to examine the question for themselves...I can't tell them the answer.

And there will still be Christians in the world who still need to use animals in this way, due to poverty, unusual dietary needs etc...so the word 'unnecessary' is still relevant.

It isn't necessary to use animals for a lot of people.

Hi princessofdarkness,

According to the responses you received on this post, it seems you erred in laying out your argument and the new form of your argument that has been accepted is as follows:
1. If something is weak and helpless, Jesus told people to be kind and compassionate to it.
2. Animals are beings that are weak and helpless.
3. Therefore, Jesus told people to be kind and compassionate to animals.

I take issue with this argument and both of its premises. In Christianity, it is widely accepted that Jesus is synonymous with God. In the Old Testament, there are many occasions on which God instructs different biblical figures and their families on the proper performance of sacrifices, which were often performed using animals. If animals are considered weak and helpless as Premise 2 suggests, then it is not accurate to claim that Jesus told people to be compassionate towards them because there are various instances where God, who is synonymous with Jesus, told His followers to perform violent sacrifices involving animals.

Premise 2 is also false because there are many instances in which animals demonstrate that they are neither weak nor helpless. To begin, we can look at the more obvious examples of animals attacking human beings and humans being helpless to stop it. Shark attacks are an example that society has a lot of exposure to, with it being the subject of many different media in pop culture. In addition, the definition of helpless is “being unable to defend oneself or to act without help”. With this definition in mind, it is easy to see how animals do not fit within it because they are constantly defending themselves against predators and going great lengths to secure food and a safe habitat for themselves as well as their families.

It is because of these objections that I take issue with the idea that Jesus was telling his followers to be compassionate to animals. If you do not agree with the fact that animals are not weak and helpless as a proper objection to your argument then the history of animal sacrifice in Christianity that was propagated by God, who is one with Jesus, should make sense as a reason why your argument is incorrect.

Christians should treat animals the same way everyone should treat animals.

I have to disagree with premise 2: In comparison to human beings, Animals are weak and helpless beings.

Some animals have the ability to walk, run, and fight off predators just minutes after being birthed from the womb.
Octopuses can morph their physical bodies to fit into holes with a 1-inch diameter all while camouflaging their appearance to blend in with the coral.
The mako shark can swim 46 mph and jump 30 feet in the air to catch its prey.
Monkeys can effectively communicate in sign language.
Pigs and dogs have saved people drowning in lakes.
Elephants and monkeys cleverly use tools to help them easier perform their daily tasks.
Cheetahs can outrun your car on a freeway by sprinting at 65-75mph

To say animals are weak and helpless is inaccurate. What it appears we as humans may be doing is comparing animals’ abilities and their intelligence to that of humans. In other words, we are letting our telos dictate another species’ worth.

To understand animals’ worth properly, it is necessary to define what it means to be a certain being and to understand what constitutes as the welfare of that certain being. Aristotle’s notion of telos is a good framework for doing so. Aristotle discusses the concept of telos for humans, which can rationally be extended to that of non-human animals, simplified as ones potential to do or become. A helpful parallel to aid understanding of this notion, given by Jes Harfeld, is that of a hammers telos. Describing a hammer by its shape, weight, and color does not give adequate information about its end purpose. In order to accurately comprehend “hammer” one must go beyond physical attributes and thus understand its potential to hammer a nail into wood, or something of the sort. Of course, the telos of living beings are far from relevant to that of an inanimate object. To understand the telos of a living being is to understand what fulfills the interest of that being, determined by their specific beings, characteristics and biology. This will inform us of what constitutes as their welfare. It is important to note, and may seem obvious to some, that in order to fulfill interests, a being must have life, a platform in which these interests can materialize, in which they can become reality. This is a necessary aspect of telos.

Labeling animals as weak and helpless by comparison to humans’ telos is like using the guideline of a good hammer to define whether or not the screwdriver you bought works well. This has obvious disanalogies.

So, if animals are not weak and helpless beings, then why should we treat them with care? How do we treat them?

I do stand by my belief that viewing animals as weak and helpless is not an accurate justification as to why we must treat them with care, but rather that it is a Christian duty to treat all of God’s creation with kindness and care, and that having the telos of the being in mind when figuring out how to do so is important.

What Jesus is saying by talking about how you should treat the weak, is suggesting that just because you have power over someone else, doesn't mean you should abuse it. In fact, especially when you have power over someone else, you should take care to treat them with kindness and respect.

While being chased down by a lion without weapons at hand, we are the helpless and so cannot be subject to Jesus' suggestion.

But the vast majority of time we do have and wield power over billions of animals who are defenseless against us. Be that our pets or farm animals, their lives are literally in our hands. That would be when Jesus' suggestion applies. Don't kick your dog, don't beat your cat, don't behead a chicken.

This is an interesting question and one that I think is of great importance for modern Christians. First, I would like to say that your conclusion just follows from your first premise, but if your intended conclusion was that Christians should be compassionate towards animals then that’s modus ponens from 1 and 2. I would like to say that I believe this is a sound argument and to understand what it means I would propose this argument:

1. If you want to treat something with compassion, then you have empathy for that thing and do as little evil to it as necessary.
2. Christians want to treat animals with compassion.
3. Therefore, Christians should feel empathetic towards animals and do as little evil as possible to them. (1,2 MP)

I can see that this argument will take some unpacking. Starting with what empathy exactly means. In this argument, It simply means that you relate to the feeling of the animal and can yourself in its position. This directly ties into the second condition, because if you were in the animals’ position, you would want as little evil to be done to you as possible.

The boundaries of this evil are given throughout scripture. First, we are told that humans are above animals and that we can use them for meat. So, clearly killing animals for food is not what Jesus had in mind, as he also ate animals. Jesus even killed a herd of pigs to dispel demons in Mark 3. From these, I think we can safely say that if the suffering of the animal serves a higher and morally good cause, then we are still being compassionate towards the animal. This would cover instances of animal abuse/neglect but would still be consistent with the religious practices of Judaism and Christianity. I could see how one might then ask if Christians should adopt all dogs, to end animal cruelty. I do not think that is the case, and to summarize why I would say that, because it would be better for Christians to use their resources to stop greater evils than homeless animals.

The revised version of your argument:
1. If something is weak and helpless, Jesus told Christians to be kind and compassionate to it.
2. Animals are beings that are weak and helpless.
3. Jesus told Christians to be kind and compassionate to animals.
4. If Jesus told Christians to be kind and compassionate to something, Christians should be kind and compassionate to it.
5. Therefore, Christians should be kind and compassionate to animals.

The first problem is that premise 2 is not necessarily true. There are weak and helpless animals and also other strong or terrifying animals. Some examples in mind can be crocodiles, sharks, snakes, dinosaurs in the distant past who are strong enough to not only threaten human but also other animals’ lives. Not all animals are beings that are weak and helpless. Instead of saying animals are beings that are often weak and helpless, a better wording can be some animals are beings that are weak and helpless. ‘Often’ indicates that for all animals in total are weak and helpless for the most time and strong or terrifying for the rest little time, which allows that some strong or terrifying animals can be weak and helpless for the most time and vice versa.

The premise 4 has an irrational implication that Christians should listen to whatever Jesus told them to be kind and compassionate. What about some terrifying or life-threatening insects? To make the implication clearer, change the form of premise 4 and you will get the premise that if Christians should not be kind and compassionate to something, Jesus told Christians not to be kind and compassionate to it. This seems that Jesus’ words towards something are sufficient for Christians’ attitudes towards it. However, going back to the life-threatening insects, if those are what Jesus told Christians to be kind and compassionate to, Christians turn out to need more information about those insects to help themselves be kind and compassionate to those insects. It’s irrational to have an attitude towards something without getting information from plenty of sources and evaluating the plausibility of each of them. Given that premise 2 and 4 are not true, the argument is not sound even though it’s valid.