2 Boys and a Toy

There are two boys.

The first boy is given a toy from his father which he values very much. After many weeks, he gets distracted by other things, and so loses interest in his toy. Eventually, his father takes the toy away from him.

Many years pass, and the son yearns with all heart to be given his Toy back. Everyday, three times a day, he thinks of that toy, and he begs his father, "please give it back, Ill be better!".

Many months later, another boy finds the boys toy, and starts playing with it. Many weeks pass, and this boy couldnt be less interested with it. Infact. He has two shiny transformers, which values much more. He spends all his time holding onto these two toys, and ignoring the other boys toy. But he wont give the other boy his toy back. He knows the boy yearns for it, and he wont give him the satisfaction of having it. He will play with his 2 toys, even while the other toy is behind him, even though he knows quite well how much the boy begged to have it returned.

The first boy says he'll let everyone play with the toy only if he would give it back to him. But the other boy refuses. Only he, and his cousins, are allowed to play with the toy. AND, he will only play with it when hes not playing with the other two; which is mostly never, because he really loves the other two.

Of these two boys, who is more righteous?

The boy who lost his toy, has yearned, and has never stopped yearning to have it back. Who has said that when he gets it back, he will make his toy available to every boy and girl who wants to play with it? Or is the latter boy right? Might is right? Finders keepers losers weepers?

I very cautiously clicked on this thread.....

Neither are really that righteous, though the kid with the 2 transformers needs a good smack from his parents to stop being such a little douche and share.

It really wouldn't be all that bad, but the story makes it sound like he keeps teasing the other kid with the toy that the other boy is longing for, and that's really messed up.

After very a suspisous check out this thread and where its posted id say this.

You are essentially discussing the difference between finacial value and centimental value.

If theres nothing to be gained by halving somthing which is neither to you, you have nothing to loose making the lesser man happy unless you want to make a quick buck which is acceptable too.

It depends what the toy actually is, and why his father took it away. At face value the boy whos toy it was originally and yearned is the answer, the other boy is a selfish brat.

So no one has caught the metaphor yet.

Im speaking of the Temple Mount.

Thats a pretty poor metaphor to be fair, certainly not worthy the laughing face at the end

reply to post by chaztekno


I thought it was a fine metaphor. Maybe you just didnt understand the symbolism?

2 boys - Jews and Muslims

The first boy is the Jews, and their "toy" is the Temple mount.

The boys "father" is God, who took the toy away

The 2nd boy, Muslims, finds the toy - build a Mosque on the Temple Mount

From the time the first boy got his toy taken away from him, he has been begging his father - God - to give it back. 3 times a day "he thinks of the toy", or, in the Jewish diaspora, Jews were praying morning, noon and evening, towards the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The 2nd boy has two shiny transformers - Mecca and Medina, which he values much more. Infact, when he prays towards Mecca, he turns his back to the Temple mount (the toy in the story).

In essence, the 2nd boy - Muslims, thinks much less of the toy - the temple mount. They just wont give it back because the first boy - the Jews - want it so badly.

Further, the 1st boy - Jews, say they will share the toy with others - the temple to be built on the mount would be a Temple for all peoples, unlike the 2nd boy who will only share it with his cousins - other Muslims.

It was a fairly straight forward metaphor.

Im sorry you didnt understand.

My point was proven.

And my laughter , which still amuses me, was not about the quality of the metaphor. It was actually the responses to the thread. Everyone seems to agree the 2nd boy is an asshole.

With the situation depoliticized, people can look at the morality of the matter quite easily. The 2nd boy doesnt even value the toy. Just for "popularity" or worldly power, does he hold on to it.

But once you put on the noise of politcs, people all of a sudden cant think clearly. It was a bad metaphor! doesnt make sense!

All of a sudden, the noise of popular opinion clouds our judgement. In what was simple before in the metaphor above, becomes very difficult in the real political world. Jews vs. Muslims and their claim to the Temple Mount.

not all situations can be boiled down to a simple scenario.

The problems that surround religous arguments are massive, including the basic fact that most religions assume theirs is the only one.

If god created all of them would he really have told them to seek to destroy the other?

Thats man at its most basic, not god.

reply to post by Biigs

Ok.

The Temple institute of Jerusalem intends to build a Temple on the Temple mount, on the spot currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock.

The temple Institute intends, as in Isaiahs prophecy, for this Temple to be a "Temple for all peoples". Everyone, without distinction can come to this temple and worship God.

Conversely, the waqf doesnt let any non-Muslims near the Temple Mount. Even Jews - the very people who this mount is sacred to, are not allowed to pray, and especially not allowed to wear a kipa, or bring a Torah scroll, or even dress in religious garb - tefillin, prayer shawl, on the Temple Mount.

Is this fair? These people are bullies in my opinion.

If the Jews ever plan on destroying the mosques on the Temple mount, i'll be in full support. They are 100% justified.

reply to post by dontreally


If the real reason could be taken down so easily the solution would have been solved ages ago.


The fact is when you talk about ancient races and religions you have to take a large amount of variation, and if both (bias) accounts say different things then how can a sloid base for a discussion really take place.

Theres too many unknowns, too many religous 'facts' thats halt the process all the way along.

In todays talks between countrys, they are all talking about static facts, not myths, this is how the modern day works for the most part, fact and fincance. YOu introduce religion between many and of course its going to grind to a halt.

sort of rambling will stop.

It would be the furthest analogy, that of comparing a temple and a toy, from anyone's mind! Seriously, who would have thought that you were talking religious dogma?

So there is no moral to the story, but instead the "cousins" will call all the other family members together into a cohesive force against the boy where they will nuke him for fear that he will get the toy!

OK, then along comes Uncle Jesus who realizes that the boy was not the true owner of the toy anyways and sends him straight to bed (hell) without milk and cookies!

Then, a bit later, all the cousins are gathered together, friends, family, and the bad-boy where they are all placed in either a "reform school" for eternity, or allowed to play to their hearts content in the Garden if they were "good boys".

Sounds about right!

reply to post by Greensage

The purpose of the thread was to degarb the argument of religious dogma. To reduce it to a basic moral situation. The Dogma and politics is all noise. Of course, Noise with great political repercussions, but still, it is noise.

Basically, the Muslims have control of something that was sacred to the Jews for almost 2000 years before.

Muslims regard this site as their "3rd" holiest, behind Mecca and Medina.

Now, giving this physical location (hence my using the toy in the analogy) was sacred to the Jews for 2000 years, and since the destruction of the Temple, have prayed 3 times a day towards morning,noon and evening, i think the allegory is quite apt.

Muslims turn away from the mount when the pray to Mecca. It is something they have, for no other reason then to prevent the Jews from having it.

My point was proven. I am seeing the complicated nature of social psychology at work. How charged political energies mutate judgement towards popular opinion.

reply to post by Greensage

Also. Compare Judaisms desire - to build a temple for ALL peoples, vs. Islam and Christianity.

Islam wants nothing but the status quo; to continue controlling the mount and preventing Jews from ever getting it.

Christians, conversely, have some absurd theology which imagines the Jewish Temple as the pulpit from which the Anti-christ speaks. It is nonsense. Anyone with any life experience should understand how absurdly mythical, and ridiculous this Christian claim is.

If anyone has their head on straight, its the Jews. They want a Temple FOR EVERYONE. Not just Muslims, or just Christians.

reply to post by dontreally

Im sorry but your metaphor is a lousy example and can hardly be compared at all.- it takes a real stretch of imagination to even spot the association.Its like saying 2 dogs ate ice cream, which one has a bad leg? and then telling us its about NASA and the moon landings.

reply to post by chaztekno

You clearly dont read very much.

I come by metaphors like this all the time. The associations i make are archetypal.

Archetypal: Recurrent as a symbol or motif in literature, art, or mythology.

reply to post by dontreally


Are you always this patronizing?
2nd