Labelling it a servant's entrance makes no difference. As we are all servant's of God, then I'm still left wondering why the other doors are off limits for entering. Who uses the other doors?
What I'm questioning is why God would have created many doors into the feast and then demanded that we use one particular door. So the reason I'm questioning why the rule was made is because it appears to be non-sensical and I'd like to think that God is anything but non-sensical.
As far as Him carrying me to the door, it is still not as easy as walking through the door directly in front of me (the very door that He's most likely poking his head out of to tell me to use the other door!).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to deny God or the "feast" which He has prepared. I'm just trying to point out what seem to me to be flaws in the analogy.
It would seem to me that the fable would be more accurate if the banquet being offered was not only the best food available, but the only food available. And if it was indeed the only food available, then requiring the potential diners to use a particular door is non-sensical. If indeed God is omniscient/omnipotent, then there is no reason for a single entry to maintain order. It would be ridiculous to assume that God cannot handle someone coming in the side entrance. There's no reasonable explanation, short of arbitrary fiat for the one entry rule.
And after all, isn't the important thing that we all go to the feast, and not the route we take to get there?