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

[agedman]

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.

Nah,

You just don't like your hand called for something that was so terrible, and you desire to excuse it.

Blame me all you want, even scorn my response, but the truth is your post (which I did read - though you claim I didn't) was inappropriate.

It was no minor statement that you made, and as much as you would desire to characterize it as such cannot be made into any likeness of a right portrayal of a Holy God.

If one is attempting to ridicule the view of another, they don't need to be calling God's character into question - which is what you did when you literally called God blind, foolish, a fool ...

There is no poetic license to be awarded to that statement you made:

(just so the forum folk know the quote in context)

No. I think it was quite the opposite....who said anything about it being "responsible" or "prudent"?
Quite frankly E.W.F. when it comes to God and his love of mankind....I think he was absolutely RECKLESS, FOOLISH, IMPRUDENT and BLIND....and he threw caution to the wind and gave EVERYTHING....his dignity, his life, his blood, to hang beaten and naked and tortured because he was a "love-sick" fool. That was HIS decision, not mine. I was the OBJECT of his "love-sick" tom-foolery and I was never worth, and (In my opinion) never will be. But, HE seems to think I am. That is his problem not mine, I am merely the fortunate recipient of his poor decision-making.

If God had a wise father E.W.F.....he would have told him to be "responsible" and "prudent" and that the object of his affections (namely you and me) weren't worth it, and that he should find a more respectable BRIDE or, at least, a bride who wouldn't fool around on him and fornicate with idols.

God wasn't "prudent" in the least. He was a love-sick fool who made a sacrifice of himself on this Earth in order to redeem a worthless sin-sick whore who didn't care a fig about him and make her his BRIDE. He did so, because he (pay attention to this word):
LOVED her!
​

I didn't bold anything. I didn't put any part of that statement you made in quotes.

You attempt to portray God in some humanistic sensual equivalency of terms that are demeaning and cheapening to both His holiness and authority. God is Love, the agape love that humankind only reach by ascending from "faith to goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love."

Was that what you described above?

Nope.

I don't see you doing anything more here on this thread than rationalizing inappropriate behavior such as a child might.

However, I doubt the next time you post something you desire as pointing out a view as absurd, you will remember this little chat and be a bit less comfortable characterizing the Holy God as you did above.

 

[Benjamin]

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.

Some now believe themselves to be on a roll for condemnation on their opponent and you really expect them to admit to or accept a literary device for what is really is and forgo their agenda???

Nope they are experts of not comprehending when they think such is convenient to them to keep the argument going in circles to avoid rational conclusions.

But this kind of debate is okay to them:

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire
...your just a chicken S**T!

This is the mentality we're dealing with...

 

[agedman]

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:

Sure it makes sense.

Of course what you are describing would apply only to the state of Adam and Eve in Eden before the fall, and to that eternal hope of the believer.

True innocence, freedom and total willing response to God's influence.

But unfortunately, sin does pay wages.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Some now believe themselves to be on a roll for condemnation on their opponent and you really expect them to admit to or accept a literary device for what is really is and forgo their agenda???

Nope they are experts of not comprehending when they think such is convenient to them to keep the argument going in circles to avoid rational conclusions.

But this kind of debate is okay to them:




This is the mentality we're dealing with...

Please...spare my your convluded logic...trust me...it gets you nowhere fast and its a truly pathetic argument.

Be honest, do you understand what a cheat is?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Nah,
You just don't like your hand called for something that was so terrible, and you desire to excuse it.

Negative...because I have nothing to excuse. I stand behind the thrust and intent of that post in what it was initially intended to convey, thus, there is nothing to excuse, except, perhaps my not realizing that some people just don't get it.

You attempt to portray God in some humanistic sensual equivalency of terms

That is where I went wrong....thinking that someone who actually reads this into it, is capable enough and mature enough to understand that type of verbiage.

 

[agedman]

Some now believe themselves to be on a roll for condemnation on their opponent and you really expect them to admit to or accept a literary device for what is really is and forgo their agenda???

Nope they are experts of not comprehending when they think such is convenient to them to keep the argument going in circles to avoid rational conclusions.

But this kind of debate is okay to them:



This is the mentality we're dealing with...

It would have been nice for at least some literary device to have been used by Javert's post.

Perhaps, because you and Javert present yourselves as experts, you can give great literacy lessons to the BB of how all types of literary devices can be seen appropriately used in the Scriptures.

 

[Benjamin]

Sure it makes sense.

Of course what you are describing would apply only to the state of Adam and Eve in Eden before the fall, and to that eternal hope of the believer.

Where you go wrong is that God did not change His design of His creatures, he got it right!

However, man did change the circumstances, he gained knowledge of good and evil, this does not change or negate human freedom as Divinely designed with purpose that perfectly planned for it use.

God foreknew what man would change about his attributes...He did not have to suddenly change His design of those creatures and have to start determining that His creatures would now have to choose a certain predetermined way through going back on His design and recreate man without human freedom.

Nope, I describing a God that did not have to change His design and ways to fit the determinist system.

 

[Benjamin]

Please...spare my your convluded logic...trust me...it gets you nowhere fast and its a truly pathetic argument.

You're way of debate then:

"You're just stupid!"

"[horselaugh] :laugh: [/horselaugh]"

:sleeping_2:

 

[agedman]

Let me put it this way.

Because the BB threads are linked to the whole world for whoever to read and make certain constructs as to what believer's represent - Did that post represent the following passage of Scripture?

2Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving; 3praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned; 4that I may make it clear in the way I ought to speak.

5Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
​

If you can honestly state that the OP question presents a post (that which I placed later in the thread in context) that meets that Scripture, then I will recant my statements on this thread.

 

[agedman]

Where you go wrong is that God did not change His design of His creatures, he got it right!

However, man did change the circumstances, he gained knowledge of good and evil, this does not change or negate human freedom as Divinely designed with purpose that perfectly planned for it use.

So, Adam and Eve didn't hide themselves from God, didn't blame and excuse their behavior, but were "unchanged (n)or (did it) negate human freedom?' What freedom did they demonstrate hiding from God? Did they not demonstrate a change in not only relationship/fellowship desires with God, but toward each other, too? And what of the curse of the work and the labor of childbirth they would each face after the fall. Were these part of unchanged and un-negated human freedom?

God foreknew what man would change about his attributes...He did not have to suddenly change His design of those creatures and have to start determining that His creatures would now have to choose a certain predetermined way through going back on His design and recreate man without human freedom.

Nope, I describing a God that did not have to change His design and ways to fit the determinist system.

Is it not possible for humankind not to persist in marring the design of God for them self? Does not the Scripture state "all have sinned?"

Yet, it is true that God did not change His design.

Yet, did not Christ state that He will make the believer "free indeed." Therefore, there must be a bondage from which one is to be set free indeed - else Christ would not have cause to express the term.

So, pre fall and eternal hope still fit your scheme rather well, just not the current condition of the heathen.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You're way of debate then:

"You're just stupid!"

"[horselaugh] :laugh: [/horselaugh]"

:sleeping_2:

Since it was directed at you...you got a problem with it. In debate your supposed to prove me wrong...to date you have not. Instead, your commentary is much more apt to prove my case as spot on. And this bit of bit of drama with HOS is merely a veiled excuse to attack me....and you miserably failed.

Anyway a real man would have either taken it private or publically denounced it right then and there...and you failed there as well. Where is your.....er ... ok guts man?

 

[Benjamin]

Since it was directed at you...you got a problem with it.

It is true I have problem with people who are on this debate to do little more than continuously cast direct personal attacks while ignorantly thinking that is some form of “debate”. Now, it may technically be “some form” of debate but that form of personal attack – usually accompanied with a horselaugh - is ignorantly fallacious and/or purposely meant as unethically contentious meaningless rhetoric. Grow up!

In debate your supposed to prove me wrong...to date you have not.

You assume to school me on the ethical principles of debate, yet your reasoning consists of your typical premises such as a subject on “Calvinism” which you quickly jump into to defend, yet not with reasoning but with your childish stereotypical personal attacks followed by horselaugh. Then any reference to your meaningless rhetoric quickly turns into things like this typical interaction with you:

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire:
Schmuck...I'm not a Calvinist.

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire

Today, I gravitate to a total Sovereign Grace theology but I did use both Westminster & 1689 as guide posts.

Originally Posted byBenjamin:
Another born and bred 1689 LBC Calvinist, eh...

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire:
you must be stupid....I told you I wasnt a Calvinist. Of course your OCD prohibits you from thinking rationally...or is it you just cant think altogether.

Originally Posted byBenjamin:
My Bible exceeds what the 1689 LC contains for a good spiritual exercise experience any day of week.

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire:
Horse manure......therefore you forfeit any credibility (albeit minuscule) that you ever had....IE, your just a chicken S**T!

If you really wanted to “debate” the issue of you following Calvinism or not I challenged you to do so in this thread: [URL="http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87103"]http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?[/URL]t=87103

But simply, on this board your MO is to basically call names like a school girl on the playground and then make childish empty claims that I have never or can't prove you wrong.

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire:
Instead, your commentary is much more apt to prove my case as spot on. And this bit of bit of drama with HOS is merely a veiled excuse to attack me....and you miserably failed.

First, I didn’t “veil” anything, I gave a stereotypical response from you. Second, as per the SUBJECT of the Op, a stand-up guy from your own team admitted he could see the difference in the style of debate (one [yours] being a direct personal attack, the other being a literary device in debate) Third, your idea of me failing seems to be a mere denial of what has been clearly pinned to your forehead!

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire:
Instead, your commentary is much more apt to prove my case as spot on.

“Your case” consists 10,000 posts within 3 years of which 80% or more have been flyby trolling personal attacks followed by horselaughs. …and you have failed miserably to demonstrate that you have the least bit of intelligence to follow more than one premise at a time so that you could even actually address the conclusion in a debate argument.

Now, on that note, back to your original premise:

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire:
In debate your supposed to prove me wrong...to date you have not.

Which basically means, “You have to “debate” my way…and that way you can’t prove me wrong, na, na do, do poopy head!”

Then we get the conclusion to “your debate arguments”:

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire:
Anyway a real man would have either taken it private or publically denounced it right then and there...and you failed there as well. Where is your.....er ... ok guts man?

So after your typical spit wad throwing you end with your typical school boy demonstration of:

“Meet me after class you gutless coward (coming from someone who is hiding behind a computer screen)” and “Na, na do, do, chicken S**T!, you failed to make me change my behavior on this board and regarding your Op my debate methods are just as good as yours and IJ’s. anyway ["Principal Dr. Bob is my friend and I can do what I want here"] and you don’t know how to debate, so there” [horselaugh].


Or in short, by your rules of supposed ethical debate:

Whatever you say…”Genius” [horselaugh] :laugh: [/horselaugh]

 

[DrJamesAch]

It is true I have problem with people who are on this debate to do little more than continuously cast direct personal attacks while ignorantly thinking that is some form of “debate”. Now, it may technically be “some form” of debate but that form of personal attack – usually accompanied with a horselaugh - is ignorantly fallacious and/or purposely meant as unethically contentious meaningless rhetoric. Grow up!

You assume to school me on the ethical principles of debate, yet your reasoning consists of your typical premises such as a subject on “Calvinism” which you quickly jump into to defend, yet not with reasoning but with your childish stereotypical personal attacks followed by horselaugh. Then any reference to your meaningless rhetoric quickly turns into things like this typical interaction with you:






If you really wanted to “debate” the issue of you following Calvinism or not I challenged you to do so in this thread: [URL="http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87103"]http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?[/URL]t=87103

But simply, on this board your MO is to basically call names like a school girl on the playground and then make childish empty claims that I have never or can't prove you wrong.

First, I didn’t “veil” anything, I gave a stereotypical response from you. Second, as per the SUBJECT of the Op, a stand-up guy from your own team admitted he could see the difference in the style of debate (one [yours] being a direct personal attack, the other being a literary device in debate) Third, your idea of me failing seems to be a mere denial of what has been clearly pinned to your forehead!


“Your case” consists 10,000 posts within 3 years of which 80% or more have been flyby trolling personal attacks followed by horselaughs. …and you have failed miserably to demonstrate that you have the least bit of intelligence to follow more than one premise at a time so that you could even actually address the conclusion in a debate argument.

Now, on that note, back to your original premise:

Which basically means, “You have to “debate” my way…and that way you can’t prove me wrong, na, na do, do poopy head!”

Then we get the conclusion to “your debate arguments”:

So after your typical spit wad throwing you end with your typical school boy demonstration of:

“Meet me after class you gutless coward (coming from someone who is hiding behind a computer screen)” and “Na, na do, do, chicken S**T!, you failed to make me change my behavior on this board and regarding your Op my debate methods are just as good as yours and IJ’s. anyway ["Principal Dr. Bob is my friend and I can do what I want here"] and you don’t know how to debate, so there” [horselaugh].


Or in short, by your rules of supposed ethical debate:

Whatever you say…”Genius” [horselaugh] :laugh: [/horselaugh]

CHECKMATE! LOL:thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is true I have problem with people who are on this debate to do little more than continuously cast direct personal attacks while ignorantly thinking that is some form of “debate”. Now, it may technically be “some form” of debate but that form of personal attack – usually accompanied with a horselaugh - is ignorantly fallacious and/or purposely meant as unethically contentious meaningless rhetoric. Grow up!

You assume to school me on the ethical principles of debate, yet your reasoning consists of your typical premises such as a subject on “Calvinism” which you quickly jump into to defend, yet not with reasoning but with your childish stereotypical personal attacks followed by horselaugh. Then any reference to your meaningless rhetoric quickly turns into things like this typical interaction with you:






If you really wanted to “debate” the issue of you following Calvinism or not I challenged you to do so in this thread: [URL="http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87103"]http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?[/URL]t=87103

But simply, on this board your MO is to basically call names like a school girl on the playground and then make childish empty claims that I have never or can't prove you wrong.

First, I didn’t “veil” anything, I gave a stereotypical response from you. Second, as per the SUBJECT of the Op, a stand-up guy from your own team admitted he could see the difference in the style of debate (one [yours] being a direct personal attack, the other being a literary device in debate) Third, your idea of me failing seems to be a mere denial of what has been clearly pinned to your forehead!


“Your case” consists 10,000 posts within 3 years of which 80% or more have been flyby trolling personal attacks followed by horselaughs. …and you have failed miserably to demonstrate that you have the least bit of intelligence to follow more than one premise at a time so that you could even actually address the conclusion in a debate argument.

Now, on that note, back to your original premise:

Which basically means, “You have to “debate” my way…and that way you can’t prove me wrong, na, na do, do poopy head!”

Then we get the conclusion to “your debate arguments”:

So after your typical spit wad throwing you end with your typical school boy demonstration of:

“Meet me after class you gutless coward (coming from someone who is hiding behind a computer screen)” and “Na, na do, do, chicken S**T!, you failed to make me change my behavior on this board and regarding your Op my debate methods are just as good as yours and IJ’s. anyway ["Principal Dr. Bob is my friend and I can do what I want here"] and you don’t know how to debate, so there” [horselaugh].


Or in short, by your rules of supposed ethical debate:

Whatever you say…”Genius” [horselaugh] :laugh: [/horselaugh]

ROFL...... Wah wah wah! :laugh:

feel better after your hissy fit sweet heart? LOL

What a wuss, LOL, what a wuss! :laugh:

BTW.... anybody ever tell you that you look like Corkey Romano...the resemblance (in more ways than is remarkable) Ha Ha Ha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3TJC2HSjRI

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

CHECKMATE! LOL:thumbsup:

Tell ya what.....why dont you and your girlfriend go spend some time shopping at the mall & maybe go out & get your nails done together....I know your type generally feel better after that....maybe buy some shoes....oh yea, his type might have to be metal & shaped like a U considering the laugh. :laugh:

 

[Benjamin]

ROFL...... Wah wah wah! :laugh:

feel better after your hissy fit sweet heart? LOL

What a wuss, LOL, what a wuss! :laugh:

Your reactions speaks volumes about the truth in this matter and clearly demonstrates that you are merely here to be troll and are proud to be getting away with your deplorable contribution to this board.
Thanks.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Your reactions speaks volumes about the truth in this matter and clearly demonstrates that you are merely here to be troll and are proud to be getting away with your deplorable contribution to this board.
Thanks.

Everything about you is over the top tense & and honestly...anal. Your opinionated, arrogant & frankly funny in your attempt to be serious. and trust me, others have noticed. May I suggest yoga & maybe some breathing exercises to relax.....Id even offer you a beer but that would probably offend you as well knowing the righteous dude you really are. On second thought, the pedicure is probably right up your alley.:thumbs:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Tell ya what.....why dont you and your girlfriend go spend some time shopping at the mall & maybe go out & get your nails done together....I know your type generally feel better after that....maybe buy some shoes....oh yea, his type might have to be metal & shaped like a U considering the laugh. :laugh:

So which is it, is my "type" because I'm Jewish? Or do I have a girlfriend or are you accusing me of being a homosexual since you did say 'his type'.

Your fake spiritually shines brighter all the time.

 

[saturneptune]

So which is it, is my "type" because I'm Jewish? Or do I have a girlfriend or are you accusing me of being a homosexual since you did say 'his type'.

Your fake spiritually shines brighter all the time.

You have been told several times that your national origin and ethnic background have nothing to do with debates on this board. Also, if you bothered to read BB rules, discussion of human sexuality is not allowed.

As far as your last comment, with your track record of honesty and sincerity, and having known EWF pretty well for quite some time, guess one which has the fruits of the Holy Spirit?

 

[DrJamesAch]

You have been told several times that your national origin and ethnic background have nothing to do with debates on this board. Also, if you bothered to read BB rules, discussion of human sexuality is not allowed.

As far as your last comment, with your track record of honesty and sincerity, and having known EWF pretty well for quite some time, guess one which has the fruits of the Holy Spirit?

If anyone violated a BB rule, it was EWF by making a veiled reference to homosexuality.

And if my national origin has nothing to do with debates, then you and your buddies should stop bringing them up every time I say something about the Bible that mentions the word "Israel". I understand that name probably isn't in any Bible that you use, but it's in the one that most of us Non Calvinists use.