A Modern Parable

Came across this and thought it was pretty interesting:


A woman bakes a batch of cookies for a party. She warns her twins, aged 3, to not eat any. She explained to them, deceitfully, that If they did, then she would kill them. Not thinking things through carefully, she placed the cookies on a table, easily accessible to the twins. A brother who was older, wiser and more mature that the twins asked whether their mother had forbidden them to eat anything in the house. The girl twin, Edna, said that mother had only forbidden them to eat the cookies -- on pain of death. The older brother chuckled and told his sister that parents did that a lot. He said: "Of course she wouldn't kill you. She simply wants to deny you the pleasure of munching on the cookies. She doesn't want to share the cookies. She wants to keep them all to herself." Edna does exactly what any adult could predict: she eats one. Then, she persuades her twin brother Albert to eat another.

The mother returns, not aware of the twin's disobedience. She notices crumbs on the table and on the twins' lips. She correctly concludes that the twins have eaten cookies. She flies into a rage, beats them, and throws them out of the house to fend for themselves. She cuts them out of her will. She does all she can to make the lives of any future descendents of the twins miserable.

An outside observer might wonder why the mother did not have the sense to prevent the theft by putting the cookies out of reach of the twins. The observer would probably consider her an abusive parent for treating her children so harshly for simply doing what kids will naturally do. The observer might well consider the mother's actions indefensible, because the children are barely out of the toddler stage. They have no moral sense -- they cannot really differentiate between right and wrong.

Laughlin concludes that in Genesis 3: "We call this God 'just' and 'righteous' for putting temptation close at hand and punishing people who, in their naïve and childlike innocence, couldn't have known any better than to do a deed that any deity (or human) with common sense could have foreseen and prevented."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene1.htm


Thoughts? Comments?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thoughts? Comments?

I s'pose some might say the analogy is flawed in that A&E were presumably adult. They should be able to discern between "don't touch or be forever damned" and "try not to eat these, OK?". However, it does illustrate the capriciousness of the xtian god.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Came across this and thought it was pretty interesting:


A woman bakes a batch of cookies for a party. She warns her twins, aged 3, to not eat any. She explained to them, deceitfully, that If they did, then she would kill them. Not thinking things through carefully, she placed the cookies on a table, easily accessible to the twins. A brother ...[text shortened]... revented."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene1.htm


Thoughts? Comments?

Yet it says somewhere in the book that god does not tempt man . Seems like a pretty open and shut case of him tempting adam and eve here . They'll usually pass that buck onto the snake / devil . They need a scapegoat so that the contradiction isn't spotlighted so harshly .

No1 - Answer this as an attorney . Give me a legal definition for the following crime I've committed , and comment as to why society would make this a crime (some might be too dense to do the math themselves ). I own a building across the street from an elementary school . I decide to destroy part of the building and rennovate the remaining part . I put up no fences around the property . No warning signs . No security guard . I go to the school yard once , and tell them as a group , "don't play over there ".

There's piles of debris everywhere , piles of unattended materials , dangerous equipment , a gaping pit where the foundation once was . Pedictable a group of boys comes onto the propety after school and all get seriously injured . What have I done wrong , or is it the boy's fault ? By today's standards ; can I punnish them ? After all they did go onto my property .

Originally posted by no1marauder
Came across this and thought it was pretty interesting:


A woman bakes a batch of cookies for a party. She warns her twins, aged 3, to not eat any. She explained to them, deceitfully, that If they did, then she would kill t ...[text shortened]... gioustolerance.org/sin_gene1.htm


Thoughts? Comments?

The usual propaganda.


EDIT: ... and of course a Strawman.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The usual propaganda.


EDIT: ... and of course a Strawman.

This propaganda is actually new, I don't see No1 starting a lot of threads to provoke 'thought'.

You call it Strawman, explain to me at least why you feel that way? As for No1's post, is it designed in a way that upsets you because it makes God look bad?

I'm just wondering, info would help.

RX

Originally posted by Phlabibit
This propaganda is actually new, I don't see No1 starting a lot of threads to provoke 'thought'.

You call it Strawman, explain to me at least why you feel that way? As for No1's post, is it designed in a way that upsets you becaus ...[text shortened]... makes God look bad?

I'm just wondering, info would help.

RX

It is a strawman because it has been created to knock down the original story. Only this version has nothing to do with the substance of the original.

Phlab: "As for No1's post, is it designed in a way that upsets you because it makes God look bad? "

No, it doesn't make God look bad at all. It is a deliberate distortion of the original story.

What bothers me is the propaganda side of such stories, the agitation side of such stories. People who post such stories are not interested in understanding anything at all. They are not interested in a genuine and honest exchange of thoughts. They are not interested in the truth, all they are interested in is attacking and defeating their political opponents. I find them extremely boring, those streetfighters.

It always boils down to the same bla bla. It always confirms and emphasises the same prejudices and cliché's.
I sometimes think this kind of anti-propaganda is needed by the anti-brigade to build a bond with those they consider to be their political friends.

Originally posted by ivanhoe


It is a strawman because it has been created to knock down the original story. Only this version has nothing to do with the substance of the original.

Decent definition of a strawman, I suppose, but what I think Phla was asking is WHY you think No1's argument is a strawman. What exactly is different in No1's story vs the Genesis story that causes you concern? I can point out a couple of things but I would like to hear your own ideas, if you are so inclined.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by ivanhoe


It is a strawman because it has been created to knock down the original story. Only this version has nothing to do with the substance of the original.

Phlab: "As for No1's post, is it designed in a way that upsets you because it makes God look bad? "

No, it doesn't make God look bad at all. It is a deliberate distortion of the original stor ...[text shortened]... y the anti-brigade to build a bond with those they consider to be their political friends.

I think you have the right idea about it being a strawman - but since it is a parable - it does not have any strength in itself as part of an argument. Parables are given to illustrate a point, not prove one. I'll give no1 the benefit of the doubt and say he is not trying to prove anything about the nature of God, he is only illustrating a particular a priori viewpoint.

Originally posted by ivanhoe


It is a strawman because it has been created to knock down the original story. Only this version has nothing to do with the substance of the original.

Phlab: "As for No1's post, is it designed in a way that upsets you because it makes God look bad? "

No, it doesn't make God look bad at all. It is a deliberate distortion of the original stor ...[text shortened]... y the anti-brigade to build a bond with those they consider to be their political friends.

LOL !! I think the last person who's trying to curry favor/bond with friends on a chess site is No1 .

Btw - A strawman is not something created to knock down something else . (I don't think they'd name something aggresive after a straw man , as strawmen are pretty much passive things.) A strawman is a decoy , that which resembles something else to draw attention .

And it DOES indeed very closely parallel the story of the tree , adam , eve , etc discribed in genesis .

As too you throwing stones at ANYONE else about spewing the same ol' blah blah propaganda - HAHAHAHA !! If it wasn't for STANG you'd be the worst transgressor of this on the site ! A little bible verse for you Ivan Ho ; "Take the beam out of your eye before trying to remove the splinter from another's."

Originally posted by ivanhoe


It is a strawman because it has been created to knock down the original story. Only this version has nothing to do with the substance of the original.

Phlab: "As for No1's post, is it designed in a way that upsets you because i ...[text shortened]... bond with those they consider to be their political friends.

Grow up and get over the stupid hardon you get every time I post something; it's petty and childish. Here's the "streetfighter" who came up with this parable:

Paul Alan Laughlin is Professor and former Chair of the Department of Religion and Philosophy, Otterbein College, Westerville, Ohio, where he teaches Comparative Religions and American Religious History. A native of Northern Kentucky, he is the author of numerous books and articles on a wide range of topics in religious studies, including Remedial Christianity: What Every Believer Should Know about the Faith, but Probably Doesn't (Polebridge Press, 2000), and Getting Oriented: What Every Christian Should Know about the World's Religions, but Probably Doesn't, forthcoming. An ordained Unity minister and an accomplished jazz pianist, Dr. Laughlin is a frequent guest speaker, workshop leader, and musician at churches and conferences all over the country.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/Laughlin/laughlin.html


It also says he's an elder in the Methodist church and you KNOW what maniacal troublemakers the Methodists are!

Originally posted by Coletti
I think you have the right idea about it being a strawman - but since it is a parable - it does not have any strength in itself as part of an argument. Parables are given to illustrate a point, not prove one. I'll give no1 the benefit of ...[text shortened]... of God, he is only illustrating a particular a priori viewpoint.

I don't think a parable or analogy CAN be a strawman fallacy. A strawman fallacy is replacing someone's argument with a distorted or exaggerated one i.e. (2 examples):

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


In this case the parable is meant to be analogous to the Garden of Eden story. It can be a useful analogy or a non-useful analogy depending on the similarities between the circumstances in this parable and the Genesis one, but it can't be a "strawman" as it is not replacing whatever argument was made in Genesis with a distorted or exaggerated argument. Ivanhoe constantly makes this mistake and labels ALL arguments by analogy "strawmen". I presented it because it seems to me to be a pretty good analogy but I was inviting comment figuring some people might like to talk about something besides evolution v. creationism.

EDIT: I wonder if Ivanhoe would have been running around behind Jesus yelling, "Strawman!" every time he made an "argument by analogy" i.e. told a parable.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Grow up and get over the stupid hardon you get every time I post something; it's petty and childish. Here's the "streetfighter" who came up with this parable:

Paul Alan Laughlin is Professor and former Chair of the Department of Religion and Philosophy, Otterbein College, Westerville, Ohio, where he teaches Comparative Religions ...[text shortened]... an elder in the Methodist church and you KNOW what maniacal troublemakers the Methodists are!

There are priests and ministers who don't believe in God, so wassup ?


No1, YOU are the streetfighter for posting this in this Spirituality forum.

Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] Grow up and get over the stupid hardon you get every time I post something; it's petty and childish. Here's the "streetfighter" who came up with this parable:

You asked for thoughts and I gave them too you, Dumbo.

booger brains.

Originally posted by David C
I s'pose some might say the analogy is flawed in that A&E were presumably adult. They should be able to discern between "don't touch or be forever damned" and "try not to eat these, OK?". However, it does illustrate the capriciousness of the xtian god.

Or that it was told to an adult who was told they die, which is what
we each see when we come across a sign that says poison do not
eat. Which is different that saying, do this I’ll kill you.
Kelly