user did you eat all the cookies? You're grounded.
>Some justice we have here! If you had any sense as a parent you would not have left me alone with the cookies in the first place. Why punish me for something you should have known in advance would happen and did nothing to prevent? How do I know you have any real authority at all? I demand to see a DNA test.
Your father won't be happy about this when he gets home.
>Why should I believe that, when you said he would arrive in the afternoon, when it is now clearly evening? I have just as much evidence as you to say he will never return again. And how do you know he doesn't want me to eat all the cookies? If he is truly a loving father then he would give me as many cookies as I desire.
It's okay user you'll have cookies again someday. We'll always love you.
>I never asked to be born into such a cruel and meaningless home.
User did you eat all the cookies? You're grounded
Other urls found in this thread:
A loving father would want me to have infinite cookies though.
Sound like Christian logic, lol
Why would you think that?
It's pretty clear that this is a veiled allegory for religion, no? Cookies = temptation. What type of good parent (god) would just lay the cookies (temptation) out, knowing full well that the kid (humans) would take the bait?
And isn't it unfair for the parent (god) to punish the child (humans) for just doing something that the parent (god) knew would happen?
And when "Father" (Jesus, Allah, or whatever) gets home (when? Who knows?), there will be a Holy Reckoning where the good faithful kids (humans) will be exalted and the bad kids will be punished?
Seems really, really clear to me
I don't see it...but are you defending the child here?
No, there's no defending or laying blame here. All I'm pointing out is that the narrative matches almost exactly to the way that religions regulate (or maybe control) their followers.
Oh and also the quote about giving cookies "someday" is obviously a parallel to promising a heaven of some sort in the afterlife.
I'm surprised you're not seeing the similarities here.
That a hot high school level opinion that nobody in the world has ever had before you.
Have you thought of starting a blog?
So the child is right to attack his parents for more the sake of cookies, I agree. While surficially he is a petulant spoiled brat, he has superior logic over his parents and has attained a level of euphoria we can only hope to have.
I'm not claiming it's original or anything. In fact quite the opposite, it's pretty simple and definitely graspable by even high school kids, as you've said
Surprisingly, OP doesn't seem to get it, though, so I explained the details for his benefit.
Just replace cookies with tendies
Yea, I think it is right for him to attack his parents. But going further, the child is (or should be) drawn to a conclusion that the parents actually don't have their best interests at heart. That's the real conclusion here. The parents knew he'd eat the cookies and so knew that he'd be punished, but they left the cookies out anyway. So they wanted to intentionally punish the child AND make the child think it was their fault, sluffing their own responsibility for any of it. To me, that's abusive / bad parenting.
Why does god lay temptation for people to fall into?
Because he know you will and that its the only way for you to realize right from wrong, by giving you both taste of right and wrong.
Those who choose him over the cookies will be delighted with more than just cookies. Those who choose cookies will have them all in the moment and nothing in the end.
If you choose god you become his warrior, he will always send temptations and you will fall for some but also be stronger and stronger untill you will not fall anymore, then you will be rewarded and the people around you will be saved too.
If you choose that only temptation suits you, well, you will have all the delight you wish, but you will feel empty in the end as you realize that your life was meaningless and not as full as it could have been but only statisfied with what the quick relief and statisfaction has to offer.
How dare those parents be cruel by providing a loving existence for him.
Exactly, you understand the narrative of control that religion espouses. Promises of a "true world" after sacrifice. It's very effective as a tool of social control. Here's a great video about this:
Dad is gone (possibly never to return) and left only cookies which he forbade the child to eat. That's definitely bad behavior. There's a bunch of videos related to the one above discussing these ideas.
So what you're saying is that tendies are a fundamental human right?
It's God. Why does he need to have right from wrong? It could just be all good. In fact that is what they say every Sunday in church that God is all good. But clearly evil exists as sin and temptation. Is sin and temptation not part of God? Because then he's not omnipotent and omnipresent. If he allows sin and temptation to exist then he's not all good.
Yes but you are supposed to feel bad for wanting them and instead share your tendies with those that have none and fawn over God
So the child's argument is correct because he even exists, and the parents were wrong to create him, unless of course they gave him full infinite powers. You either want to be God or not exist?
The underlying problem is thinking the parents/God could ever commit a wrong/sin.