Literary Parody?...or Something Else? Really?

[Benjamin]

par·o·dy:
: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule

: a feeble or ridiculous imitation

"God is RECKLESS, FOOLISH, IMPRUDENT and BLIND . . was a "love-sick" fool. That was HIS decision, not mine. I was the OBJECT of his "love-sick" tom-foolery"

Something else:

That low representation of God sickens me. Who would post it?

No place for any such vile post on a Christian forum. That is so sad.

Wouldn't want to "defy" the authorities that be so what is really the bottom line regarding these two statements?

 

[saturneptune]

par·o·dy:
: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule

: a feeble or ridiculous imitation

Something else:

Wouldn't want to "defy" the authorities that be so what is really the bottom line regarding these two statements?

I am not sure what thread the "love sick fool" came from, but it should be enough to get someone banned. On the other hand, I do not think there is anything wrong with using a parody to make a point if it is tasteful and proper for the occasion.

 

[Benjamin]

I am not sure what thread the "love sick fool" came from, but it should be enough to get someone banned.

You say, the "something else" is that it should be enough to get someone banned.

Hmm, because I would hate to think the "something else" was an "opportunity" to implement some biased judgment based on a "parody". That seems like kind of a vile judgment approach for a Christian debate forum. Know what I mean???

 

[saturneptune]

You say, the "something else" is that it should be enough to get someone banned.

Hmm, because I would hate to think the "something else" was an "opportunity" to implement some biased judgment based on a "parody". That seems like kind of a vile judgment approach for a Christian debate forum. Know what I mean???

Touche, as you are always a step ahead. However, what we talked about previously does not involve slandering the name of God.

I still do not think a parody is a bad thing if used properly. The one I used if I am reading you correctly was not proper.

 

[Benjamin]

I still do not think a parody is a bad thing if used properly.

Do you think that parody is more vile than this well known common approach to literary debate from this member?

...your just a chicken S**T!

Don't be biased now.

Because, I see one as a rather artistic literary parody, the other...well...you be the judge of which belongs on a Christian debate board.

 

[saturneptune]

Do you think that parody is more vile than this well known common approach to literary debate from this member?



Don't be biased now.

Because, I see one as a rather artistic literary parody, the other...well...you be the judge of which belongs on a Christian debate board.

LOL, I think that can be hard to answer. I do not think any nonsense should be associated with the name of God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Most any other parody amuses me, even when directed at me. EWFs example makes his meaning clear, but the "*" has gotten many points across.

I actually got into a light hearted one with Dr. Arch this morning. After a post, he said don't I have a planet to go populate, LOL, and I responded "No, I am fond of Earth, but there are several openings of Uranus for you." We had a couple of other back and forths, but as I said, they were light hearted, and nothing like the exchange a month ago. It is slow going, but improving.

 

[Benjamin]

LOL, I think that can be hard to answer.

Yet, the parody is using a form of debate which is actually comically imitating the oppositions own statements and is in no way meant as an assault against the character of God. The other debate "tactic" is nothing more that a "direct" personal assault.

You don't see a difference here???

 

[saturneptune]

Yet, the parody is using a form of debate which is actually comically imitating the oppositions own statements and is in no way meant as an assault against the character of God. The other debate "tactic" is nothing more that a "direct" personal assault.

You don't see a difference here???

Yes, I see the difference, but I am not a Moderator. I am leery about anything like that associated with God. And I see the point that our back and forth with each other is usually an insult of some type. However, I can tell the difference between amusing and mean back and forths. For example, using me, the one a month ago was purely mean. Today, it was friendly jabbing.

I did notice a thread started before this one that Dr. Bob snipped and warned about something to do with Administration. I do not know if it is related to this incident or not.

Baptist Board has become enough of each of our lives that we spend some time on it each day. I think any of us would miss it more than we think if we were banned temporarily or permanently.

 

[Benjamin]

Yes, I see the difference,...

That was a little difficult to drag out, but thanks for your honest unbiased opinion.

...but I am not a Moderator.

Well, if you were I would hope that you wouldn't use such an opportunity to cast biased judgment on members actions being that you are a honest Christian that admits that he can see the difference.

You've been a great help by falling into my tra...err...helping me come to the "bottom line" that the "something else" is the "real" problem if that concerns opportunistic advantage rather than maintaining ethical, informed and unbiased judgment which should be in the forefront in these matters of moderation, thanks SN. :thumbs:

 

[Inspector Javert]

"Parody" is perhaps not the right word...I think I would choose "Metaphor".

God speaks of his relationship to his people in terms of the relationship between a husband and his "Bride". I believe that the "love" demonstrated by a man for his bride is in MANY ways, much the relationship God has with his "BRIDE".

It's a literary device. The only way to explain the reasons for God to have treated his idolatrous and adulterous Bride as he does is because he loves her that much. Books like Hosea are designed to teach us that very real facet of how God "feels" about his bride.

Without bothering to "Google" it...there must be HUNDREDS of places throughout the Old Testament where God speaks of his bride betraying him, ignoring him, "playing the harlot", disobeying him, and being altogether un-lovely and un-worthy and frankly.....breaking his heart. And yet, his response is to die for her, redeem her to himself and purchase her purity with his own blood.

The picture painted for us in Scripture (<---you see this is a metaphor folks: the Scriptures don't literally "paint pictures") is that if God had parents.....then when he brought his prospective bride home to meet mom and dad, they would advise him that that girl is not good for him, that she is not good enough for him and that she seems like the kind of girl who would use him and then run around on him and break his heart, and that he should drop her like a bad habit.

What was God's response, KNOWING that this was true?

Love her and marry her anyway.

I think it is important to understand that God gave us these literary devices and uses them himself for a reason. Because they explain in picture for us what mere words often don't.
The response by some was to (IMO) fail to see the use of metaphor and "word-painting" to demonstrate a deeper point.

I found some balk at my use of those metaphors. I think the reason for that is that there are many who have been taught that the SOLE purpose of God with creation is to glorify himself.
While that is certainly an important facet of God's purpose, it is rather MORE than that as well.

An important, I daresay the MOST IMPORTANT purpose God had had nothing to do with his glorification, but to have an object for his infinite and boundless love. :love2:

Do I believe that that love God has contains an almost "romantic" :flower: facet to it?
Yes, I absolutely do.

Ministers blithely repeat that "marriage" is designed, in part, to be a "picture" of the relationship between Christ and his "bride", but it seems that they then ignore the fact when speaking of how God feels about the object of his affections. They might then maintain that God's sole purpose with his "bride" is to glorify himself. Is that a man's purpose with his wife? I believe we are missing out on MUCH if we refuse to meditate on those things.

 

[agedman]

par·o·dy:
: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule

: a feeble or ridiculous imitation

"God is RECKLESS, FOOLISH, IMPRUDENT and BLIND . . was a "love-sick" fool. That was HIS decision, not mine. I was the OBJECT of his "love-sick" tom-foolery"​

I reject this as any form of parody. There is no true "comic effect or ridicule" of God or God's work in that statement, nor is the "author or work closely imitated." It isn't even close to "a feeble or ridiculous imitation."

God is certainly not reckless, foolish, imprudent, blind and no fool - therefore no there is no imitation. Attempts to assign such characterizations are lies and therefore do not meet the standard of ridicule but rather are scorn filled; certainly not indicative of any agreement with the leading of the Holy Spirit in that person. Not even in jest - God is Holy, and He is not to be trifled with and demeaned.

As a believer, I find such posts highly offensive.

Assuming this quote was posted by someone on the BB, it should have been snipped and the writer of the post warned about inappropriate and unChristlike posts.

Perhaps I J was. I don't know. If not - should have.

 

[agedman]

"Parody" is perhaps not the right word...I think I would choose "Metaphor".

God speaks of his relationship to his people in terms of the relationship between a husband and his "Bride". I believe that the "love" demonstrated by a man for his bride is in MANY ways, much the relationship God has with his "BRIDE".

It's a literary device. The only way to explain the reasons for God to have treated his idolatrous and adulterous Bride as he does is because he loves her that much. Books like Hosea are designed to teach us that very real facet of how God "feels" about his bride.

NO!!!!!!!!!


It is never about how God FEELS about His bride.

It is about His COMMITMENT to His bride.

When the believer is unfaithful - God is STILL faithful.

Marriage isn't based on feeling, it is based upon commitment.

Feelings WILL fail.

Commitment has no reason to fail, rather the marriage bond is continually strengthened.

Hosea bought and brought his wife to demonstrate that commitment.

 

[Inspector Javert]

NO!!!!!!!!!


It is never about how God FEELS about His bride.

It is about His COMMITMENT to His bride.

When the believer is unfaithful - God is STILL faithful.

Marriage isn't based on feeling, it is based upon commitment.

Feelings WILL fail.

Commitment has no reason to fail, rather the marriage bond is continually strengthened.

Hosea bought and brought his wife to demonstrate that commitment.

It is not either/or...it is both.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Assuming this quote was posted by someone on the BB, it should have been snipped and the writer of the post warned about inappropriate and unChristlike posts.

Perhaps I J was. I don't know. If not - should have.

You did not see the post, nor it's context......You seem not to comprehend the use of a metaphor.

The Bible says that God has the strength of "an unicorn". Given the way you take such offense, I would assume that you would maintain that the Scriptures teach that God is as strong as an animal, but not precisely any stronger.

The key-word is literary device.

 

[agedman]

You did not see the post, nor it's context......You seem not to comprehend the use of a metaphor.

The Bible says that God has the strength of "an unicorn". Given the way you take such offense, I would assume that you would maintain that the Scriptures teach that God is as strong as an animal, but not precisely any stronger.

The key-word is literary device.

Numbers 24:8 is using a Simile - not a metaphor.

God is not called a unicorn, but "strength AS it were a unicorn."

This is clearly different than a metaphor.

Here is an easy reminder of the use of a metaphor:

"Love, you are love. Better far than a metaphor can ever ever be." (line from a song in the "Fantastiks" by Tom Jones and Harvey Schmidt).

But YOU didn't use a simile OR a metaphor.

You proclaimed God a fool, blind, ...

That was inappropriate.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Numbers 24:8 is using a Simile - not a metaphor.

God is not called a unicorn, but "strength AS it were a unicorn."

This is clearly different than a metaphor.

Here is an easy reminder of the use of a metaphor:

"Love, you are love. Better far than a metaphor can ever ever be." (line from a song in the "Fantastiks" by Tom Jones and Harvey Schmidt).

But YOU didn't use a simile OR a metaphor.

You proclaimed God a fool, blind, ...

That was inappropriate.

Seriously..:sleeping_2:...you are using the difference between the "like or as" aspect of the difference between what is technically the difference between "simile" and "metaphor"?

Ever heard someone use the phrase "metaphorically speaking" when what they are REALLY using are technically similes?

Ya know what?
I just don't really care what you think, because I can detect the types of people who are pre-disposed to need their smelling salts at every minor thing and clutch their chest in dis-belief 48 times a day and you are acting like one of them. You are being pre-disposed to find something offensive in anything someone says who disagrees with you.

You are a blood-hound for anything you can........(no correction LIKE a bloodhound) for anything you can find to criticize or level a charge of "inappropriateness"....you didn't see the original post, nor it's context, nor what it was in response to. You don't understand what was it's original intent either.

None of those keywords you are obsessing over are to be taken as literally true.

I should remember that certain types of phraseology are only meant for adults.

 

[agedman]

It is not either/or...it is both.

Certainly having both is great.

But when there is no commitment, the feelings won't last.

Were there is commitment, the feelings don't mater.

Commitment means there will be no infidelity, no inappropriate behavior and no lack of respect for the partner - no matter what happens.

Commitment isn't determined by the other person's behavior, is it based upon the vow of commitment the other person took.

The typical marriage vows do not include some phrase such as, "as long as you keep your word, don't betray me, keep up your commitment..."

The groom states his commitment - irregardless of the bride's statement.

That is the picture of Hosea.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Numbers 24:8 is using a Simile - not a metaphor.

God is not called a unicorn, but "strength AS it were a unicorn."

This is clearly different than a metaphor.

Here is an easy reminder of the use of a metaphor:

"Love, you are love. Better far than a metaphor can ever ever be." (line from a song in the "Fantastiks" by Tom Jones and Harvey Schmidt).

But YOU didn't use a simile OR a metaphor.

You proclaimed God a fool, blind, ...

That was inappropriate.

YES....highly inappropriate! What could you have been thinking?

 

[Benjamin]

I found some balk at my use of those metaphors. I think the reason for that is that there are many who have been taught that the SOLE purpose of God with creation is to glorify himself.

While that is certainly an important facet of God's purpose, it is rather MORE than that as well.

An important, I daresay the MOST IMPORTANT purpose God had had nothing to do with his glorification, but to have an object for his infinite and boundless love. :love2:

I could probably think of a lot reasons people balk at "metaphors" ...but anyway...

I was writing on and on the other day about asiety and part of what I hitting on was that God was already infinitely and unchangingly glorified in boundless love and goodness throughout His designs in creation of the world in which He designed creatures with human freedoms...and that He had nothing to have to deterministically maintain that would add to His glory apart from His perfect plan already in progress that included creating creatures with human freedom as part of that unchanging plan. IOWs His glory is seen in volitional creatures making a choice for Him but glory was not added to Him because of that choice...anyway there I go into endless thoughts again...

Anyway, I didn't post it because it would be too difficult for anyone to follow without me going back and spending a lot tome clarifying a whole bunch of thoughts and tying them together to try to explain how I came to a single conclusion which supported ongoing unchanging creaturely volition...but in short it made great sense to me as being a major truth factor how aseity upheld all of God's attributes, including His self-derived Glory, and of course - Truth, throughout His unchanging plan to design creatures with human freedom from the beginning who would willingly respond to His influences within that unchanging freedom so that they would go through a change and all this is and always has been His glory. - if that makes sense?

:type:

 

[Inspector Javert]

Certainly having both is great.

But when there is no commitment, the feelings won't last.

Were there is commitment, the feelings don't mater.

Commitment means there will be no infidelity, no inappropriate behavior and no lack of respect for the partner - no matter what happens.

Commitment isn't determined by the other person's behavior, is it based upon the vow of commitment the other person took.

The typical marriage vows do not include some phrase such as, "as long as you keep your word, don't betray me, keep up your commitment..."

The groom states his commitment - irregardless of the bride's statement.

That is the picture of Hosea.

Certainly...you are right about marriage and committment. I just through Hosea out there as an example of a myriad of ways in which the imagery of God's relationship to his chosen as a "bride" apply.
No doubt, faithfulness is a fundamental key, but I also maintain that God is so faithful IN PART not only because it is his nature, but also because he loved her so much that it was worth it to him to undergo the cross et.al. in order to purify her so that he could take her again to himself. He is faithful to her, yes....but, I also believe the Scriptures paint the picture of God as having true feelings of love towards us (deep ones actually) that manifest as those felt between a man and his bride, a father to "children"...even a mother hen to her chicks....

I believe all of those images are designed to teach us something about how God loves and feels about his people.