A parable about a house:

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, sure, but my point was that sonhouse specifically posted this because as I said, he's been ringing the bell for a long, long time in this forum that our religions are made by man and that we are arrogantly fooling ourselves that our God is real, when really, we're all just being duped into believing the mind control techniques of whoever put this 'fai ...[text shortened]... nd" ourselves to his warnings.

And that's why this came from sonhouse and not someone else.

I just want you to think about the concepts in the bible that I don't think any kind of real deity would espouse, like original sin, I think cleverly designed to capture the submission of an unruly population way back then and the statement 'I am a jealous god' where I see that as totally man made since a real deity capable of thinking in an entire universe would have ZERO to be jealous of in humans. That would be like me having an ant colony and looking at them and saying, YOU THERE, yes you, ant, picking up that leaf. I am jealous of you, you don't worship me, so you are one dead ant.'

Can't you see ANY logic in that?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I just want you to think about the concepts in the bible that I don't think any kind of real deity would espouse, like original sin, I think cleverly designed to capture the submission of an unruly population way back then and the statement 'I am a jealous god' where I see that as totally man made since a real deity capable of thinking in an entire universe ...[text shortened]... lous of you, you don't worship me, so you are one dead ant.'

Can't you see ANY logic in that?

Can't you see, using your own analogy, that it is folly for the ant (in your ant farm) to even have any idea what is truly the mind of the man (you)? And yet you purport to know the mind of God? It would be like the ant saying, "I know what that man is up to, and it's not good, I'm telling you."

Originally posted by Suzianne
Can't you see, using your own analogy, that it is folly for the ant (in your ant farm) to even have any idea what is truly the mind of the man (you)? And yet you purport to know the mind of God? It would be like the ant saying, "I know what that man is up to, and it's not good, I'm telling you."

Sure, but the ant can SEE the human. The ant does not have to rely on supernatural invisible beings. You have to IMAGINE your god.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, sure, but my point was that sonhouse specifically posted this because as I said, he's been ringing the bell for a long, long time in this forum that our religions are made by man and that we are arrogantly fooling ourselves that our God is real, when really, we're all just being duped into believing the mind control techniques of whoever put this 'fai ...[text shortened]... nd" ourselves to his warnings.

And that's why this came from sonhouse and not someone else.

Well, my main point is that it does matter to you who posted the parable. You initially denied this, but now it sounds like you're on board.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, let's start with the dictionary, a tool seemingly seldom used by some in this forum.

Dictionary.com defines 'parable' as: 'a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.'

You said parables normally have a basis in truth and then go on to supply a dictionary definition for which 2 out of the 3 aspects of said definition need have no relation whatsoever with "truth" (i.e. religion and moral lesson).

Originally posted by Suzianne
Can't you see, using your own analogy, that it is folly for the ant (in your ant farm) to even have any idea what is truly the mind of the man (you)? And yet you purport to know the mind of God? It would be like the ant saying, "I know what that man is up to, and it's not good, I'm telling you."

Yes, but if the ant believes he is as capable of understanding the mind of that man as any man would, then the ant can confidently deconstruct his own oversimplified understanding of the mind of man.

This would mean the ant would necessarily need to employ its own version of an ant-like faith. But since the ant has no reason to believe, or is capable of believing, any other creature could be intellectually superior to itself, arriving at this conclusion wouldn't require a huge leap of faith... the ant may continue on its way wise in its own conceit, with confidence and self assurance in its own ability to judge reality.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it... 😛

by the way, I haven't read the OP so I'm sticking my neck out a bit by commenting on it. But I'm not worried about jumping in at this point. Although you're right when you say it doesn't matter who says it, sonhouse consistently uses any reasoning he can find to trash a persons belief in God, whether the reasoning employed is realistic or not.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Dictionary.com defines 'parable' as: 'a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.'

That is supposedly how they are used. It doesn't actually mean that when people intend to use them that way that the lesson taught is true, is a good religious principle, or that the lesson is particularly morally good.
In reality parables are most often used to put sugar coating on a religious principle or moral lesson in such a way that the listener doesn't ask too many questions.
Its a tactic that works well for those that already accept the lesson being taught, but not so well for those who object - as we can see in this thread.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, sure, but my point was that sonhouse specifically posted this because ....

So you agree with the point of the parable, but you disagree when it comes from Sonhouse?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Parables normally have a basis in truth.

Except for this one, I suspect.

I think the closest you'll get to 'truth' here is that this is your opinion, in which case you should have called it an 'essay' and not a parable.

It may not be a parable, but there does appear to be a moral to this story.

What I got from it is that people can sometimes make the mistake of loving something too much. Loving inanimate things is the basis of what is wrong with idolatry. But loving something to the point where you might willingly put yourself and your family in danger is nuts, like a house that could collapse or a boat that could sink. So whether or not idolatry per se is perceived to be a problem (or not) this is actually a good example of idolatry anyone can identify as being dangerous.

If you're assuming sonhouse is using this story to make a point about what he thinks is wrong with religion then don't worry about it, because the story doesn't actually do that... it could just as easily describe how it is folly to dismiss a belief in God and put all of our faith in earthly matters. It can actually work to illustrate either point of view, so by itself this story is not strictly anti-religion. It's simply a story with a relevant moral lesson.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Can you tell a brainless person like me what the story is about?

You would have to believe we are the brainless ones if you think we can't guess what your intent was. The hubris here is a bit much to stomach, but it's not unexpected... after all, anyone who can blame a belief in God for what his great grandfather did to his grandmother probably can't bothered with the idea of personal accountability. And you're probably better off not giving away clues and insights into traits you might have inherited.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Sigh...

Clearly, the house is either religion, not necessarily a certain religion, or the Bible (or perhaps some other sacred book), or perhaps merely the man's faith in God. The man, of course, is a theist, or perhaps, for want of a better word, a 'religionist', whose faith is that his house (or religion) is beautiful and structurally sound (or 'true' ...[text shortened]... stead of a 'parable', since it is only your opinion and has no relation to the truth in any way.

I prefer the joke at the end of Annie Hall, although you have to read the "relationship" to be with God. It makes me think that there is an element of choice; deciding to live as if something is true, because we need it to be. What that truth is may vary.

Alvy Singer: [narrating] After that it got pretty late, and we both had to go, but it was great seeing Annie again. I... I realized what a terrific person she was, and... and how much fun it was just knowing her; and I... I, I thought of that old joke, y'know, the, this... this guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, uh, my brother's crazy; he thinks he's a chicken." And, uh, the doctor says, "Well, why don't you turn him in?" The guy says, "I would, but I need the eggs." Well, I guess that's pretty much now how I feel about relationships; y'know, they're totally irrational, and crazy, and absurd, and... but, uh, I guess we keep goin' through it because, uh, most of us... need the eggs.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Well, my main point is that it [b]does matter to you who posted the parable. You initially denied this, but now it sounds like you're on board.[/b]

She considered the source, and she wasn't wrong. But sonhouse has already revealed the point he wished to make, so any conjecture as far as his intent is concerned has already been rendered moot.

I personally don't see the story by itself (and as he presented it) as teaching an anti-religion lesson, unless that's what someone wants to see in the story. If the story was designed by an anti-religionist to make a specific point about the evils of religion, it only succeeding in supporting what anti-religionists already believe.

But this could only happen in the mind of a true non-believer, because by itself the story doesn't condemn religion. It can only do that in mind and imagination of an anti-religionist. I almost get the sense that many anti-religionists here could stare at a blank page and point to it as evidence of what they don't believe.

Originally posted by JS357


Alvy Singer: [narrating] After that it got pretty late, and we both had to go, but it was great seeing Annie again. I... I realized what a terrific person she was, and... and how much fun it was just knowing her; and I... I, I thought of that old joke, y'know, the, this... this guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, uh, my brother's crazy; he thinks he ...[text shortened]... surd, and... but, uh, I guess we keep goin' through it because, uh, most of us... need the eggs.

You know, I've seen that movie and I remember that joke at the end. But it didn't occur to me that in that joke, the guy trying to report his brother is actually the crazy one, because he apparently thinks a chicken is his brother.

So when Woody (Alvy) says women are irrational and crazy...is he really trying to say that they may seem crazy, but men are really the crazy ones who can't see that we're crazy, because of how much we need women?

That movie's possibly deeper than I thought. Either that, or I'm crazy.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Sure, but the ant can SEE the human. The ant does not have to rely on supernatural invisible beings. You have to IMAGINE your god.

Sure, but the ant can SEE the human. The ant does not have to rely on supernatural invisible beings.

An ant might be able to sense the presence of a human, but it can't actually see or understand what a human is. So for all intents and purposes (from the ants point of view) we may as well be supernatural invisible beings. The fact that you are unable to see God is not evidence he doesn't exist... it's only proof of your inability to precisely recognize (or sense) his presence in the same way you're able to sense the presence of another human standing next to you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But it's not anything making the homeowner blind to the imperfections in his house. He's simply refusing to hear it or see it, even going so far as to cover up the evidence.

By Jove we are getting somewhere!