Baby Got Bible

I gave you the full context. They advertise that they are "100% Religion Free".

Inserting "me so holy" where "me so horny" can be argued to be quite foolish and quite inappropriate.

If he did not want it compared to the previous song than why did he not create an original work? It is the equivalent to "Weird Al Yankovic's" schtick. If you don't know the original song, then you're going to miss the point of the remake.

 

It is ok if they call us legalists, Rufus. I understand through careful reading of the Word of God that God is very legalistic when it comes to His Word.

Numbers 23:19 (KJV) God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

Worldly in the context of Scripture referring to it, is always sinful. How can any CCM style with godly lyrics be sinful? A music style is not sinful.

 

Great gravy ya'll.

Have some fun for once. Laugh a little.

This is a great video for decontextualizing the absurd traditionalism we so often bind our churches with. Have some fun in your lives. This guy isn't being serious he's having fun. He appropriated something from secularism to use to communicate a sacred point. Paul did the same thing in Acts 17.

 

It seems to me there might be some copyright infringement issues with this video.

I wonder if he got permission from Mr. Mix-a-lot to use the same tune and the strikingly similar, yet altered, words.

 

I do not need to find out how an individual is defining a term. The definitions of terms are found in The Holy Bible, and dictionaries. This church states they are 100% free of religion. 100% typically means all but perhaps they have individual definitions for that too.

I know the song, so when the song gets to the part where I'm expecting a hot chick to come up and say "me so horny" and instead a hot chick comes up and says "me so holy" this is inappropriate and foolish.

It is a parody of an original song focusing on black behinds being sung by a man focusing on his white lack of talent in order to be used as an evangelism tool.

I believe this video to be irreverent, offensive and unbecoming of Christians who are to worship a Holy God and it makes Christians look like silly fools...just my opinion. I've got more than my 2 cents in on this topic, the last word is yours.

 

...and calling the woman a "hot chick" is appropriate?

 

For what it's worth the Supreme Court decided several years ago that parodies of songs (popular or not) do not fall into the same purview of copyright infringement as directly lifting (or what us modern kids call sampling) cuts from albums. This guy is not in any trouble for doing this since it is a clear parody.

You might remember Weird Al Yankovic has been doing this exact thing for years and had the blessing of the court...and society for that matter. Amish in Paradise is still a personal favorite.

The case law for this is CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC.

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=983373&postcount=38

 

I think Paul said something about allowing a great many of methodologies (even prosperity teachers) in the early church so long as Christ was proclaimed. Should be there in Philippians 1 I would think. Also something over in 1 Corinthians 9.

Just a thought.

 

Hey, thanks for the link. I thought this was hilarious! You know, sometimes we just need to lighten up and laugh every now and then!

 

Just in reference to Amy G.'s mentioning, or question about where the line is drawn?

From what I can tell, the line is non-existant. It saddens me that believers can seemingly do everything the world does and it makes no difference. They can curse or at least listening to any amount of cursing on the tv, they can tolerate the Lord's name being taking in vain, in fact some wear it as a badge of honour for not taking "religion" too seriously. You can dress immodest, Paul mentioned women braiding their hair (as an example of men or women dressing up for the prime reason of drawing attraction to self or seducing the oppostie sex), God only knows what he would have to write about today. Violence that took the lives of beleivers and others in the Roman ampitheatres has now become common place entertainment. The music is the same, the trends are the same, the words are the same.

For many it seems the attempt to re-draw the lines of perhaps over-zealous fundamentalists of a by-gone era have left us with no lines at all.

I have only highlighted areas of controversy here. I know there is far more to separation than music, dress and speech, but they are hot topics.

Paul said we should come apart and be separate, but to many today there is nothing from which to be separate.

Anyway, toss the labels over, put me in my box and carry on. Just had to throw in my $.02 worth.

 

We know what songs you have been listening to. Why don't you turn your radio off or listen to better music instead of listening to poor music.

I know nothing about ther song on the OP.

Wesley converted bar tunes to hymns we sing today.

 

Wonderful suggestion. Preach that!

You are better off not knowing either song.

Not true.

 

Putting Christian lyrics to a disgusting song is not right in my opinion. I could never forget the original lyrics every time I sang it. Would you put Christian lyrics to a Frank Zappa song? How would you ever get the original words out of your head?

Edit: Maybe I'm showing my age! :laugh: Some of you may not know who Frank Zappa was.

 

I was going to ask who is Frank Zappa... but I didn't want to offend you...


As for the song... I can take it or leave it, but never show it in church...
As for entertainment... it was funny.
But for worship... not there for me!