Long ago, there was a little boy that loved a little girl. He thought about her all the time, and dreamed of marrying her when they grew up.
This little girl’s birthday was in a short time, and she invited the little boy to her birthday party.
The little boy thought and thought about what he could possibly get her that would adequately express the depth of feeling that he had for her. Nothing he could think of came close. He went to spend some time with his frog and think things over some more.
His frog was his best friend in the whole world. He told his frog everything. He took care of his frog and he counted on his frog to always be there. His frog was the very best thing in his life. And then he realized what he had to do.
The little boy put his frog in a box and lovingly wrapped it in festive paper and brought it to the little girl. When she opened the box and saw the frog, she ran away crying because she felt the little boy must have really hated her to give her a frog.
2007-01-20 17:08:19 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Different people express their love in different ways
2007-01-20 17:15:11 · answer #1 · answered by al7isra 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no moral, but this story is addressing the teleological argument for the existence of god. this argument basically goes one of two ways. 1. our environment/the universe is too perfect, or is set up with just the right conditions for us to exist, so there must have been a design/designer. or... our environment/universe is too beautiful to not have a designer. this argument fails because it assumes order cannot come from randomness. some people site the second law of thermodynamics to make this argument as well, but this law addresses closed systems. life isn't a closed system, so this argument also fails. the scientific theories of the big bang, formation of stars and planets, abiogenesis, evolution, and natural selection work to explain how we came to be here and why we are so well adapted to our environment. 2. the other way the teleological argument can go is as follows: everything that has been designed must have been preconceived. preconception implies intelligence. everything that is irreducibly complex displays preconception. complex things as such exist in the universe and haven't been man-made. who made them? god. this argument also fails due to a logical fallacy called converse error. in other words, why should complex things automatically imply a design/designer and why does that designer have to be god? hope that helps. good luck.
2016-05-24 03:53:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The boy was selfish. That the frog was the best thing in his life was irrelevent to her. And his own ego blinded him to that fact.
This is a frequent cause to a failure of a relationship. Loving someone and giving them all that matters TO YOU is not what matters. When you truly love someone, you measure yourself by how you give to what matters to THEM.
People keep on thinking that all they need to do is repeat how much they love someone to convince them that it's true. They spend money, send flowers, etc., and expend all sorts of self-sacrifices thinking that that will convince someone they love them. But expense of money, time, or "frogs" is not meaningful if they only meet the giver's proof for love, and not the receiver's.
2007-01-20 17:29:34 · answer #3 · answered by freebird 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your story doesn't tell whether the boy asked his best friend if that was okay to be given to the little girl. Not only was a friend disposed of in the process, but it did not convey the boy's feelings.
Friendship is not a thing, and friends are to be respected and valued even beyond love.
2007-01-20 17:22:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has been said that...
"If a Lion could speak English...it would talk in gibberish"
AND WHY WOULD THAT BE?
Because the Lion could imitate the sounds...but not the "language"
AND
The boy should have written that which he felt...for no ONE ... not even the Frog...could speak to her with the Truth as he does...
or would....
"No two people shall EVER see the same color Blue..."
THAT IS TO SAY...
Even if the Frog "heard and translated" all that the boy should say...
"...IT WOULD NEVER BE THAT WHICH THE BOY WOULD SAY...FOR IT IS NOT THE BOY WHO SAID IT..."
2007-01-20 17:16:08 · answer #5 · answered by Christopher H G 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
1. good intentions can sometimes have bad results. 2. never assume that others have our same values. the boy's expectation that the girl would know what the frog signified, without any verbal communication was unrealistic.
never assume anything would be the moral of this story for me.
2007-01-20 17:53:38 · answer #6 · answered by formerlylunesta@yahoo.com 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not all things work the way we want it to!1
The love may have been still young and feelings of the little girl may not have been understood by the little boy ! It is sad that the conceptualized relationship did not materialize
2007-01-20 17:21:41 · answer #7 · answered by mr.kotiankar 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The moral of this story is that sometimes people dont understand eachother or why people do what they do. This boy did the best that he knew and the girl did not understand why he did it. Poor boy! Stupid girl!
2007-01-20 17:12:07 · answer #8 · answered by justme 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The little boy gets 'to keep what he gave away.' His best friend in the whole wide world.
2007-01-20 17:35:40 · answer #9 · answered by atantatlantis 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they had a miscommunication. two different perspectives on the frog. to the boy, it was the greatest expression of his love, but to the girl it was gross and worthless, and therefore the boy didn't love her.
2007-01-20 17:16:42 · answer #10 · answered by mara 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋