At present the PC punks, the libtards, the socialists, the atheists (yawn), and the wanks that make up Hollywood don’t like it if you like Christ and take a stand on His word. Especially Sean Penn. He gets real pissy if you truly believe and will furrow his brow and lecture you about how biblical values are hurting your grandchildren. I know, scary, eh?
Doug, I could care less if you declared your personal savior to be a cheese danish. My issues with you would be far diminished if you would put a fraction of the time researching the things you purportedly believe in instead of reflexively defending them. For instance- what Biblical values are you talking about? Which books? Which translation? Do you know? Do you care?
Anyway, I know it’s not cool to like God and His word, but I still like Him. This is good for me, seeing that He can arrange my death and where my soul will take its eternal siesta. Not only is it good for me seeing that God sorts out the affairs of the afterlife, but unlike the deists’ deity I believe He’s busy jacking with us mortals, and presently He’s shaking everything that can be shaken. Therefore, I wanna be on His team. Call me goofy.
I love this. Doug is Mr. Rambo when it comes to tough things like calling liberals "libtards" from the comfort of his desk, but when it comes to tangling with someone that could actually (theoretically) whup him, he rolls over and plays suck-up. Brilliant, this tough-guy persona is really convincing, Doug. At least try and say you want to take a turn playing the bad boy like David or Job.
But really, Doug wants to spread the word-- the Gun Gospel, as it were--that God and guns are actually interconnected. Quote the Book of Doug:
Unless I’m reading my Bible wrong, I keep getting the message that if I fully follow God (as much as a goofy sinner can) then He will send wicked favor my way that He doesn’t afford to the pagan cattle. This favor entails not only security but provision. If God exists, and if the Bible isn’t an insane stack of slush and superstition, I can rest assured that as God met Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’s needs He will handle my affairs if I’m busy with His business—regardless of the crappy circumstances.
Um... ok, Doug. But doesn't a lot of this depend on defining exactly what "God's business" entails? Are we sure it's shilling for Townhall.com?
Luckily, Doug has since devoted an entire column to the Gun Gospel:
seeing that a sizable chunk of the Church is getting goofy and are buying into the Disney-fueled misinformation machine and that PETA pariahs are now parsing biblical passages for propagandistic purposes, I figure it is high time to check out the holy Bible and lay out exactly what it does say about hunting and hunters. Being the capitalist pig that I am, I will do it in a new book that I am pitching for 2009 titled: A Theology of Hunting: Why God Loves Hunting & Hunters. For now here’s a little hors d'oeuvre about the Holy One and hunting.
Yes, truly, the only way to decide whether hunting, an entirely personal decision and activity, is "morally justified," is to strip-mine and cherry-pick from the Bible. This should be great.
First off, much to my chagrin, I must admit that the Bible contains just trace amounts of direct references to hunters and hunting. What it does contain about hunting, though, is overwhelmingly positive with only one condemnation leveled at a hunter who does not “roast his prey” (Proverbs 12:27a). That’s one. Not a bazillion. Only one.
So... the Bible has only a few references to hunting, therefore God thinks it is the greatest thing ever? I see. Try using this argument on something else- say, that the Declaration of Independence is pro-Wet T-shirt contests. See how far you get.
Even though there are few direct references regarding hunting and hunters, there’s an abundance of analogies and imagery taken from hunting used in Scripture. Just a cursory glance at the Psalms and the Prophets provides hunting similes aplenty. This is interesting.
Let’s see . . . rare literal references and massive amounts of hunting imagery used to communicate divine truth. Hmmm. What could this mean? Could it be that the ubiquitous use of hunting metaphors equates that God’s mind was quite taken with the topic?
I don't know, I figure we'd have to actually see some of these metaphors instead of talking about them as if they were invisible leprechauns, wouldn't we? Oh, hang on... Are they mostly really far-reaching, verging on desparate, hunting metaphors?
In addition, should one conclude that because hunting metaphors are so profuse that the biblical crowd this book was originally penned for would have had to be a hunting community or the references would have flown straight over their heads like Kafka’s symbolism eclipses Britney Spears’ brain? The answer to those questions would be yes and yes.
Possibly in the early Israelite period, but aren't there halachic issues that have to do with whether an animal that was hunted and killed can be considered kosher? Besides, by the time we get to Abraham and Isaac, the Jews are largely cast as shepherds and farmers, not hunters.
Oh good, now we get to some quotes.
1. You don’t have to read too far in the Bible, like . . . uh . . . the first chapter, until you’re hit with the fact that man is to exert dominion over animals, birds and fish. That’s conservation and game management, folks.
Which only comes in the form of a gun? Couldn't "dominion" and conservation also apply to creating game preserves, fish hatcheries, etc. I'm not sure dominion means "shoot until extinct."
2. When our primal parents blew it in the garden by blowing off God’s command in Genesis chapter three, God took it upon himself to clothe their naked rebel butts with leather and fur. It wasn’t faux fur or pleather.
Not exactly. The verse says "skins." No way to know if it's leather or fur. And incidentally, most rabbinic authorities believe that originally Adam, Eve, etc were vegetarians, even after their got their snazzy duds.
3. In Genesis chapter four, Abel killed a lamb to sacrifice and found favor with God. If Yahweh wasn’t happy about that He would have zapped him on the spot. It was the vegan Cain who got canned.
Cain got in trouble because he murdered his brother, not because he gave God veggies! If God was so pleased with Abel's mighty-meat sacrifice, why didn't he protect him from the homicidal gardener?
4. In Genesis chapter six God drowned not only a lot of wicked men, women and children in the great flood, but also a lot of animals, too. Like in the 99.9 percentile range. That was the largest game depredation ever seen. Only two critters of each species were afforded a space on the ark. Game management to the extreme, God style.
Doug, by this logic, all natural disasters are "proof" that God has decided that the human race is overpopulated and feels the need to thin the herd, except of course for people that have the dumb luck or good forture to be in the right place at the wrong time or live in a high rise or have a root cellar.
5. In Genesis chapter nine, after the waters of the flood receded and Noah and his tribe had docked their boat, God told them that they could eat the animals they had just sailed with for the last forty days and nights. I wonder which one they chowed down on first? I would have eaten one of the zebras. If you remove their fat they make great steaks, plus Noah could have decorated his house with the zebra rug.
Two things, Doug. First, the text gives no temporal references, in other words, there is nothing to suggest that God is telling Noah & Co. to start eating all the animals on their boat, right now. Instead, it seems to be that God is establishing the terms of a future contract for humankind.
Second, Doug, and I know it's hard, but try using your brain. If Noah had eaten the zebra first, there would be no zebras since they wouldn't have been able to reproduce. Assuming there's any historical element to the story at all, it actually suggests that Noah and his family had to exert a great deal of patience-- and presumably, vegetarianism-- while waiting for the first few birthing cycles to get jumpstarted again.
6. In Genesis chapter ten, Nimrod floats to the literary surface as a mighty hunter before the Lord. What does that mean? I don’t know, but I’d like to be one.
Really, you don't know? Wow, I never would have guessed. Here Doug, let me help you out: Nimrod is a BAD GUY, just like Esau, the only other famous hunter in the Old Testament. He is considered to be a Babylonian pagan and a tyrant. Wow, you sure can pick your Biblical posterboys! Hey, remember what I said at the start about research?
7. In Genesis chapter twenty-two when Abraham was going to offer up his only son unto God, Jehovah gave him an out by providing for Abraham a ram instead of Isaac. It’s not a hunting reference, but it is a nice little sneak peek into God’s mind that He prefers people to animals.
You are correct, Doug. Faced with the admittedly inane choice, God would much prefer you sacrifice a ram than your own son, or presumably anyone's son. High five. Keep in mind, however, that the Torah also has quite a bit of commandments regulating the ethical treatment of animals. Putting people above animals does not mean animals have zero rights.
8. And lastly for now (‘til my book gets brokered), in Genesis chapter twenty-seven Isaac, one of Jehovah’s main covenant kids, gets to feeling a bit peckish one day, and you know what he asks for to satisfy his hunger? Was it tofu? No. Lentils? Wrong again. A wheat grass smoothie? Strike three, Chicken Little. It was venison, a Ted Nugent back strap fever feast, that’s what! Yep, Isaac commanded his son to pick up his bow and collect him a buck for some down home barbeque.
Yes, Doug, Genesis 25-27 does talk about Isaac's family eating venison. Of course, there's also another famous meal made in their kitchen, not that you've probably heard of it...