God has given mankind dominion over creation, but this does not permit the destruction of His works. Man is to act responsibly, tending and keeping what God has made, as instructed in Genesis 2:15. However, no part of creation is to be equated with man or worshiped. In Deuteronomy 12, God commands the Israelites to destroy the idols of the inhabitants of the Promised Land, often set up in groves as nature gods like Baal, the god of storm and thunder, and Ashtoreth, the goddess of fertility. This worship of nature is forbidden, as God warns against being ensnared by the practices of other nations and inquiring after their gods. The elevation of animals to a near godlike status is a concern. When courts and lawmakers grant rights to animals ahead of humans, it resembles a form of worship. Though God gives certain rights to animals and charges mankind with responsibilities for their care, He did not endow them with human abilities, rights, or obligations, nor did He make them in His image. A human life is infinitely more valuable than an animal's, and there should be no guilt in using the land God has provided for mankind to tend and keep. God warns in Deuteronomy 11:16 against turning aside to serve and worship other gods, lest His anger be aroused, resulting in loss of rain, diminished produce, and the forfeiture of the good land.

There is a rising concern over speciesism, which manifests in actions or language that discriminate against nonhuman animals. Laws that do not grant equal rights to animals are considered speciesist. Animal rights activists, led by figures like Peter Singer, argue against the exclusive protection of human rights, especially when some nonhuman animals exhibit superior intellectual capacities and richer emotional lives than certain humans. This perspective often prioritizes the welfare of animals while disregarding the value of human life. Additionally, speciesism demands a significant shift in language to avoid terms that might be seen as demeaning to animals. Expressions that carry negative connotations, such as stubborn as a mule or sly as a fox, are to be avoided, while neutral or positive phrases like busy as beavers may be deemed acceptable. Biblical terms involving animals, such as references to the serpent of old, called the devil, also come under scrutiny for their potential to offend in this new linguistic framework.

The hypocrisy of valuing animal life over human life is starkly evident in societal actions. In New Hanover County, North Carolina, a man was arrested and charged with cruelty to animals for abandoning his pet fish, which was found in poor health, suffering in a dirty tank. Though the charges were dropped as fish are not protected under animal cruelty statutes, the District Attorney emphasized a dim view of abusing any creature, great or small. Yet, in the same county, a significant percentage of pregnancies end in abortion, highlighting a profound inconsistency in the value placed on life. While society rushes to protect a pet fish, the lives of unborn children, created in God's image, are disregarded. This reveals a blindness to the sanctity of human life, prioritizing animals over the children of God.

In the regulations outlined in Leviticus 17, God specified that sacrificial land animals, such as cattle, sheep, and goats, were to be butchered only at the Altar of the Tabernacle. This rule was established because the Egyptians worshipped goats, and surrounding peoples sacrificed goats to gods associated with demons. To eat such meat outside this context was a serious offense. However, game animals like deer or elk, which were not acceptable for sacrifice, could be eaten anywhere, with their blood poured on the ground and covered. In Deuteronomy 12, a significant change in this law is introduced. While the central place for sacrifices remained vital, God permitted the people, once they crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land, to eat cattle, sheep, and goats away from the Tabernacle in a non-sacrificial context. This adjustment alleviated the burden that would have been imposed if the original restriction had remained, especially as the people dispersed across the land, often far from the altar. Despite this change, the prohibition against eating blood continued to be strictly enforced, maintaining the importance of blood as a sign of life. This modification in the law reflects God's foresight and mercy. He anticipated future circumstances, including the eventual destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, as well as the transition from the Aaronic priesthood to a new priesthood. By allowing the consumption of sacrificial animals away from the altar without incurring bloodguilt, as long as the blood was not consumed, God demonstrated kindness, avoiding unnecessary burdens on His people.

In the prophecy of Hosea, the worship of animals is identified as a form of idolatry among the Israelites, reflecting their divided and deceitful hearts. This practice is classified as one of the many ways the people paid divine honor to created things rather than to the Creator Himself. Specifically, the Israelites are noted for having set up idols, such as the calf, in place of God, leading to their designation as the people of the calf, just as other nations were named after their respective idols. Their devotion to these animal idols was so profound that they mourned the loss of these powerless objects rather than lamenting their offense against God. The affluence of the nation fueled this idolatry, as the gold used for crafting idols and the rich offerings made to them promoted such worship. This misplaced reverence for animal idols, among other forms of idolatry, contributed to the moral and spiritual decline of Israel, bringing upon them heavy miseries and divine judgment.