BDP9: Solomon's Temple

I appreciate the thought and effort that went into this build, and I suppose it is appropriate for BDP as a niche subject outside the core portfolio, but I'm afraid this one will be "Not For Me". Thanks for posting, though!

@elangab said:
"Yeah, this has no modern era architectural representation. If they approve this, they will need to approve religious sites such as Mecca as well so regardless of the model itself, zero chance for them to approve it."

Wait, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Mecca also has a modern era architectural representation. Moreover, why should that even be a criterium?

@Elcascador said:
" @elangab said:
"Yeah, this has no modern era architectural representation. If they approve this, they will need to approve religious sites such as Mecca as well so regardless of the model itself, zero chance for them to approve it."

Wait, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Mecca also has a modern era architectural representation. Moreover, why should that even be a criterium?"

Mecca is a religious site first, way before it is looked at as an architectural site, unlike Notre Dame which is looked at more of an architectural/cultural entity way before a religious one - and that's why Lego approved it. They have nothing to hide Solomon's Temple religious status behind as an excuse, and in doing so they are breaking their "non religious" rule, and allowing the possibility to produce "Mecca" set and similar places of worship.

@elangab said:
" @Elcascador said:
" @elangab said:
"Yeah, this has no modern era architectural representation. If they approve this, they will need to approve religious sites such as Mecca as well so regardless of the model itself, zero chance for them to approve it."

Wait, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Mecca also has a modern era architectural representation. Moreover, why should that even be a criterium?"

Mecca is a religious site first, way before it is looked at as an architectural site, unlike Notre Dame which is looked at more of an architectural/cultural entity way before a religious one - and that's why Lego approved it. They have nothing to hide Solomon's Temple religious status behind as an excuse, and in doing so they are breaking their "non religious" rule, and allowing the possibility to produce "Mecca" set and similar places of worship."

This is a BrickLink Designer submission, not an Ideas or other official set. Whether or not it has any bearing on the brand is dubious but even if we pretend it does, it can be reasonably argued that their rules haven't applied for some time. I'm inclined to think that it depends on whether it's classified as a religious site or an architectural / historical one, since LEGO themselves have already blurred that distinction with various architecture sets. While not all of them are necessarily affiliated with a specific religion, many do have a dark or morbid history associated with them nonetheless.

That all said, I doubt it will even make it to the internal BDP vote, whether that be due to the build itself or sensitivity surrounding it due to current events.

I think this is a good MOC for its size. I like the coloring of this version of Solomon's Temple compared to the one built by Elbe Spurling for The Brick Bible book series (although that one is on a much bigger scale).

@AJRAWLEY5700 said:
"I think this is a good MOC for its size. I like the coloring of this version of Solomon's Temple compared to the one built by Elbe Spurling for The Brick Bible book series (although that one is on a much bigger scale)."

Thank you!

@BrickmanNL I wasn't sure what I could do, this is the Inner Court, so I'll have to look into this, thanks.

@CommanderR3x Thank you, that's my hope too.

@ iwybs Thank you for your comment. Maybe one of my other submissions will spark your interest. :)

@StyleCounselor said:
"Sorry.

This looks really plain, lacking in detail, and is in microscale that allows for no interaction with minifigs. Thus, it's a pretty generic rendition of an Architecture set.

In sum, the only reason BLDP would look at this as being differentiated from the Architecture line is also the reason they wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot-pole, namely, the religious and current event implications.

Sorry."

Maybe you'll like one of my other submissions! :)

Are those 1x1 tiles for the floor? Good luck to those that buy this. That alone dissuades me.

@woosterlegos said:
"Are those 1x1 tiles for the floor? Good luck to those that buy this. That alone dissuades me."

Yes. Yes, they are. The floor was tedious, but Rivendell looks tedious on the roof, and that turned out well!

@Robot99 said:
"As a religious Jew, I did a massive double take logging onto the site tonight. Did not to expect to ever see something like this on the front page, lol. I appreciate the Jewish representation!

With that said, if I may offer some constructive criticism - this model seems rather inaccurate, with a lot of the above complaints about it being too wide and boring being a result of that. The rectangular shape should really stretch out forwards, not to the side, with the main building being proportionately bigger. The front courtyard is completely absent, which would add a lot more dynamics to the build. And I'm quite surprised by all of the utensils and such being absent, including the sacrificial altar* and the like. The wash basin is there, which is a nice inclusion, but it's generally agreed to look more like a big faucet or fountain, not a bathtub. The model could definitely look a lot more robust, as the post two messages above me currently demonstrates with the knock-off Lego model.

(*I can understand that this would never be approved anyway, although to be fair, Lego never had issues portraying the ark in Lego Indiana Jones, so idk lol)

Despite all of that, it's really cool to see this! It needs a lot of refinement before I would actually think of buying it, but I really like the idea.

EDIT: Oh, I only just noticed the altar in the photo, my bad! +1 for this build in that case!

@Librarian1976
Hello fellow observant Jew! I don't run into that a lot online. :-)"
The altar is the gray stepped object. I was working from artist's renderings, too.

(What nobody knows yet is what's inside the temple. I also have references inside, but didn't highlight them here, or publicly.) Well, I know.

@Modeltrainman said:
"I was working from artist's renderings, too."
Hmm, okay, that does explain a lot of what I mentioned being missing. Pretty good recreation of that render at least! I would personally recommend looking at multiple renders when designing things in general - when I draw and need a reference for example, I'll punch the thing in question into Google and leave a stream of image results open in front of me. It greatly reduces the possibility of inaccuracies, and can even allow me to apply some artistic license if need be.

@Robot99 said:
" @Modeltrainman said:
"I was working from artist's renderings, too."
Hmm, okay, that does explain a lot of what I mentioned being missing. Pretty good recreation of that render at least! I would personally recommend looking at multiple renders when designing things in general - when I draw and need a reference for example, I'll punch the thing in question into Google and leave a stream of image results open in front of me. It greatly reduces the possibility of inaccuracies, and can even allow me to apply some artistic license if need be."

Noted for updates! (Also, there are tools inside the temple, as well.)

@Modeltrainman said:
"(Also, there are tools inside the temple, as well.)"
Oh, that's really cool then! The stuff inside the temple are probably the most important details too.

@MisterBrickster said:
"Neat build, especially around the central temple. Was the decision to leave the exposed studs on the wall a deliberate one to capture the crenellations?"

Yes.

@tenfootgerbil said:
"Thanks for sharing this. There's a lot of potential in architecture sets from the ancient world - the 7 Wonders for example.

Asking for feedback on a forum is a brave move!
Hope there's something here to inspire you in the steps ahead. "

I couldn't get feedback any other way, really, and I want to vastly improve. :) Thank you.

@elangab said:
" @Elcascador said:
" @elangab said:
"Yeah, this has no modern era architectural representation. If they approve this, they will need to approve religious sites such as Mecca as well so regardless of the model itself, zero chance for them to approve it."

Wait, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Mecca also has a modern era architectural representation. Moreover, why should that even be a criterium?"

Mecca is a religious site first, way before it is looked at as an architectural site, unlike Notre Dame which is looked at more of an architectural/cultural entity way before a religious one - and that's why Lego approved it. They have nothing to hide Solomon's Temple religious status behind as an excuse, and in doing so they are breaking their "non religious" rule, and allowing the possibility to produce "Mecca" set and similar places of worship."

I'm pretty sure the people who visit the Notre Dame for Sunday Mass see the cathedral as a place of worship first, because that's exactly what it is -- an active place of worship of a one of the world's biggest religions. Yes, it's also an impressive monumental architectural feat, as many medieval cathedrals are, as well as a historic site, but for millions of catholics it's a religious place above all.

I've stated before that I feel toymakers should refrain from making anything religious, but there's a bit more leeway when it comes to 18+ or D2C models. I don't mind personally, to each their own. As far as this model concerns: it looks fine, although I agree with above commenters on possible improvements.

Has it been that long since Lego released 21058? Let’s remember who historically built that before we freak out about this.

@Aneurysm_2 said:
"Has it been that long since Lego released 21058 ? Let’s remember who historically built that before we freak out about this."

The Ancient Egyptians historically built that tomb, not anybody else. (biblically it is a different story, but I'm not going to open that can of worms) It is also not a religious site but it IS the last remaining of the 7 wonders of the ancient world.

@legomanijak said:
" @Huw said:
"Please, don't comment unless you have something positive to say."

So we aren't allowed to even point out if the MOC is inaccurate or simply not that well made?"

You know what he meant.

@Murdoch17 said:
" @Aneurysm_2 said:
"Has it been that long since Lego released 21058 ? Let’s remember who historically built that before we freak out about this."

The Ancient Egyptians historically built that tomb, not anybody else. (biblically it is a different story, but I'm not going to open that can of worms) It is also not a religious site but it IS the last remaining of the 7 wonders of the ancient world."

I don’t think not should be made into an official set either (in fact I personally feel that the ‘Ideas’ line should be exactly what it says it is; Ideas. I am not a fan of the constant licensing. It should be original ideas and not a recreation of what someone else has done before). It’s a nice MOC, they obviously put a a lot of time into it, let’s take it for what it is. And to correct you, it is historical fact that the pyramids (as an amazing feat of engineering that they are) were constructed on the backs of slave labour.

@Robot99 said:
"As a religious Jew, I did a massive double take logging onto the site tonight. Did not to expect to ever see something like this on the front page, lol. I appreciate the Jewish representation!

With that said, if I may offer some constructive criticism - this model seems rather inaccurate, with a lot of the above complaints about it being too wide and boring being a result of that. The rectangular shape should really stretch out forwards, not to the side, with the main building being proportionately bigger. The front courtyard is completely absent, which would add a lot more dynamics to the build. And I'm quite surprised by all of the utensils and such being absent, including the sacrificial altar* and the like. The wash basin is there, which is a nice inclusion, but it's generally agreed to look more like a big faucet or fountain, not a bathtub. The model could definitely look a lot more robust, as the post two messages above me currently demonstrates with the knock-off Lego model.

(*I can understand that this would never be approved anyway, although to be fair, Lego never had issues portraying the ark in Lego Indiana Jones, so idk lol)

Despite all of that, it's really cool to see this! It needs a lot of refinement before I would actually think of buying it, but I really like the idea.

EDIT: Oh, I only just noticed the altar in the photo, my bad! +1 for this build in that case!

@Librarian1976
Hello fellow observant Jew! I don't run into that a lot online. :-)"

Loving how this post brought us all out! :-D
Shanah Tovah Kulam (Happy New Year Everyone) and happy [temporary] building!

@Librarian1976 said:
" @Robot99 said:
"As a religious Jew, I did a massive double take logging onto the site tonight. Did not to expect to ever see something like this on the front page, lol. I appreciate the Jewish representation!

With that said, if I may offer some constructive criticism - this model seems rather inaccurate, with a lot of the above complaints about it being too wide and boring being a result of that. The rectangular shape should really stretch out forwards, not to the side, with the main building being proportionately bigger. The front courtyard is completely absent, which would add a lot more dynamics to the build. And I'm quite surprised by all of the utensils and such being absent, including the sacrificial altar* and the like. The wash basin is there, which is a nice inclusion, but it's generally agreed to look more like a big faucet or fountain, not a bathtub. The model could definitely look a lot more robust, as the post two messages above me currently demonstrates with the knock-off Lego model.

(*I can understand that this would never be approved anyway, although to be fair, Lego never had issues portraying the ark in Lego Indiana Jones, so idk lol)

Despite all of that, it's really cool to see this! It needs a lot of refinement before I would actually think of buying it, but I really like the idea.

EDIT: Oh, I only just noticed the altar in the photo, my bad! +1 for this build in that case!

@Librarian1976
Hello fellow observant Jew! I don't run into that a lot online. :-)"

Loving how this post brought us all out! :-D
Shanah Tovah Kulam! (Happy New Year Everyone!) "

May God bless everyone!

I feel it is important to note that king Solomon of Israel and Judah was not jewish, nor was the temple that is said to have constructed on his orders. Solomon lived in the 10th or 11th century BCE, four or five centuries before the advent of judaism in the 6th century BCE. Solomon was a yahwist, which was a polytheist/monolatrist religion with Yahweh as the main god, but by no means the only god (the latter which — by my knowledge — is a core tenet of judaism). Obviously, the temple is ‘biblical’, though not jewish.
Yahwism had only evolved into monotheistic judaism by the time of the Second Temple, after the Babylonion Captivity (that started after the sack of Jerusalem and this temple).

@dudeski said:
"I feel it is important to note that king Solomon of Israel and Judah was not jewish, nor was the temple that is said to have constructed on his orders. Solomon lived in the 10th or 11th century BCE, four or five centuries before the advent of judaism in the 6th century BCE. Solomon was a yahwist, which was a polytheist/monolatrist religion with Yahweh as the main god, but by no means the only god (the latter which — by my knowledge — is a core tenet of judaism). Obviously, the temple is ‘biblical’, though not jewish.
Yahwism had only evolved into monotheistic judaism by the time of the Second Temple, after the Babylonion Captivity (that started after the sack of Jerusalem and this temple). "

A Jewish friend of mine pointed out that while Moses wasn't a Jew (he was a Levite), he was more properly THE Jew.

While the Jewish people in the technical sense didn't exist until after the Babylonian captivity, they certainly claim an ancestral kinship with the twelve tribes--and specifically the tribe of Judah--which predates them. Probably best not to go telling a people of faith that they lack a connection to a major architectural site on the grounds of a technicality. This is all pretty important to them.

@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @elangab said:
" @Elcascador said:
" @elangab said:
"Yeah, this has no modern era architectural representation. If they approve this, they will need to approve religious sites such as Mecca as well so regardless of the model itself, zero chance for them to approve it."

Wait, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Mecca also has a modern era architectural representation. Moreover, why should that even be a criterium?"

Mecca is a religious site first, way before it is looked at as an architectural site, unlike Notre Dame which is looked at more of an architectural/cultural entity way before a religious one - and that's why Lego approved it. They have nothing to hide Solomon's Temple religious status behind as an excuse, and in doing so they are breaking their "non religious" rule, and allowing the possibility to produce "Mecca" set and similar places of worship."

I'm pretty sure the people who visit the Notre Dame for Sunday Mass see the cathedral as a place of worship first, because that's exactly what it is -- an active place of worship of a one of the world's biggest religions. Yes, it's also an impressive monumental architectural feat, as many medieval cathedrals are, as well as a historic site, but for millions of catholics it's a religious place above all.

I've stated before that I feel toymakers should refrain from making anything religious, but there's a bit more leeway when it comes to 18+ or D2C models. I don't mind personally, to each their own. As far as this model concerns: it looks fine, although I agree with above commenters on possible improvements."

The Ark of the Covenant in two Indiana Jones sets says hello.

(Yes, I anticipate that someone is going to try to distinguish a movie prop from the original item it's based on, but I don't plan to split hairs here.)

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @elangab said:
" @Elcascador said:
" @elangab said:
"Yeah, this has no modern era architectural representation. If they approve this, they will need to approve religious sites such as Mecca as well so regardless of the model itself, zero chance for them to approve it."

Wait, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Mecca also has a modern era architectural representation. Moreover, why should that even be a criterium?"

Mecca is a religious site first, way before it is looked at as an architectural site, unlike Notre Dame which is looked at more of an architectural/cultural entity way before a religious one - and that's why Lego approved it. They have nothing to hide Solomon's Temple religious status behind as an excuse, and in doing so they are breaking their "non religious" rule, and allowing the possibility to produce "Mecca" set and similar places of worship."

I'm pretty sure the people who visit the Notre Dame for Sunday Mass see the cathedral as a place of worship first, because that's exactly what it is -- an active place of worship of a one of the world's biggest religions. Yes, it's also an impressive monumental architectural feat, as many medieval cathedrals are, as well as a historic site, but for millions of catholics it's a religious place above all.

I've stated before that I feel toymakers should refrain from making anything religious, but there's a bit more leeway when it comes to 18+ or D2C models. I don't mind personally, to each their own. As far as this model concerns: it looks fine, although I agree with above commenters on possible improvements."

The Ark of the Covenant in two Indiana Jones sets says hello.

(Yes, I anticipate that someone is going to try to distinguish a movie prop from the original item it's based on, but I don't plan to split hairs here.)"

(Look at the pictures when my project launches tomorrow. *Whistles innocently*)

@CilverCentry said:
"It’s very fascinating that in our western culture, where we pride ourselves in our diversity and inclusivity, a model like this is so controversial! If our society truly valued diversity, equity, inclusion, and the likes, something like this should be welcomed. For goodness sake! It’s historical architecture with ties to multiple cultural and religious backgrounds. That sounds like diversity to me. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the west has established its own “religion”, or belief system, with its own values.
Just my thoughts…

All that to say, I think it’s pretty cool. And I would definitely preorder it."

Thank you! Working on adding changes based on feedback, at least to my file.

@Huw said:
[[Please, don't comment unless you have something constructive to say. [Edited]]]

Just want to say I appreciate the efforts of the mods here. While I find most comments on the site harmless, and often insightful or funny, there are always that one occasional comment that makes me me want to sigh. Case in point, whenever new Chinese/Lunar New Year sets are announced. As an ethnic Chinese person I just want to celebrate my culture and buy them as gifts for my relatives, not spending my time calling out out crude stereotypes.

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
" @dudeski said:
""

Probably best not to go telling a people of faith that they lack a connection to a major architectural site on the grounds of a technicality. This is all pretty important to them."

Please point out specifically at which point you feel that I claim that jewish people (or other adherents to any abrahamic faith, for that matter) do not have a connection to a temple of the faith from which theirs has evolved. If anyone thought I meant that, I apologise.
Anyone is free to feel any connection to whatever they want, be that based on religion, ancestry, field of interest or … I will never tell anyone they cannot feel whatever they feel, regardless of my understanding of the feeling.
I just wanted to point this out because some people feel this (imho rather dull) build will never be selected for production because it is a ‘religious’ building. Someone even described it as an ‘ancient temple of an existing religion’, which is blatantly wrong, as there are no yahwists alive for two and a half millennia.

@dudeski said:
" @ResIpsaLoquitur said:
" @dudeski said:
""

Probably best not to go telling a people of faith that they lack a connection to a major architectural site on the grounds of a technicality. This is all pretty important to them."

Please point out specifically at which point you feel that I claim that jewish people (or other adherents to any abrahamic faith, for that matter) do not have a connection to a temple of the faith from which theirs has evolved. If anyone thought I meant that, I apologise.
Anyone is free to feel any connection to whatever they want, be that based on religion, ancestry, field of interest or … I will never tell anyone they cannot feel whatever they feel, regardless of my understanding of the feeling.
I just wanted to point this out because some people feel this (imho rather dull) build will never be selected for production because it is a ‘religious’ building. Someone even described it as an ‘ancient temple of an existing religion’, which is blatantly wrong, as there are no yahwists alive for two and a half millennia. "

The claim that Solomon's Temple is not an ancient temple of an existing religion is not true. While Judaism has changed drastically over the course of its four millennia of history, these shifts are not divisions between preceding and succeeding religions, but rather evolutions of a single religion that has adapted and grown over tens of centuries. The connection that modern day Jews have to their historical temple is potent. It is invoked in prayer, studied in detail (as I mentioned above, I am currently learning Tractate Zevahim of the Babylonian Talmud which describes the ways in which the Temple of Jerusalem was employed in Jewish worship), and is the subject of art. My concern with the claim that today's Jews have no connection to the Temple of Jerusalem is that it is a claim that is often used by antisemites. I am not accusing you of hate, but I want you to understand why your post gives me pause.

@Librarian1976 said:
" @dudeski said:
" @ResIpsaLoquitur said:
" @dudeski said:
""

Probably best not to go telling a people of faith that they lack a connection to a major architectural site on the grounds of a technicality. This is all pretty important to them."

Please point out specifically at which point you feel that I claim that jewish people (or other adherents to any abrahamic faith, for that matter) do not have a connection to a temple of the faith from which theirs has evolved. If anyone thought I meant that, I apologise.
Anyone is free to feel any connection to whatever they want, be that based on religion, ancestry, field of interest or … I will never tell anyone they cannot feel whatever they feel, regardless of my understanding of the feeling.
I just wanted to point this out because some people feel this (imho rather dull) build will never be selected for production because it is a ‘religious’ building. Someone even described it as an ‘ancient temple of an existing religion’, which is blatantly wrong, as there are no yahwists alive for two and a half millennia. "

The claim that Solomon's Temple is not an ancient temple of an existing religion is not true. While Judaism has changed drastically over the course of its four millennia of history, these shifts are not divisions between preceding and succeeding religions, but rather evolutions of a single religion that has adapted and grown over tens of centuries. The connection that modern day Jews have to their historical temple is potent. It is invoked in prayer, studied in detail (as I mentioned above, I am currently learning Tractate Zevahim of the Babylonian Talmud which describes the ways in which the Temple of Jerusalem was employed in Jewish worship), and is the subject of art. My concern with the claim that today's Jews have no connection to the Temple of Jerusalem is that it is a claim that is often used by antisemites. I am not accusing you of hate, but I want you to understand why your post gives me pause."

Where do you read that according to me today’s jews (or those of yesterday and tomorrow) have no connection to the First Temple? You are free to feel any connection you want. But I am also free to say out loud (or write publicly) that even though judaism has its roots in yahwism, they are not equal. Claiming that yahwism us an ancient form of judaism would be along the lines of claiming judaism to be an ancient form of christianity. Judaism is also not the only ‘successor of the yahwist line’, there is also samarism, even though that it has only a handful of adherents (just ~900 according to Wikipedia).

There is of course a difference between studying religious texts from the inside (which have been curated by religious scholars over centuries to say what they want them to say) and studying history or theology, which includes knowledge from the outside and other versions of the same texts etc.

There is nothing at all wrong with your religious study, as long as you keep in mind that it is religious at the core. Religious truth and factual truth may differ immensly. as a rule, I respect everyone’s belief in whatever they want, as long as they too respect the same of others, including godless atheists like me.

https://www.bricklink.com/v3/designer-program/series-9/3135/Solomon's-Temple
Link is live!

Just want to point out that JBrick has a Holy Temple AND Temple Mounty kits:
https://www.jbrick.com/store/p64/Holy_Temple.html
https://www.jbrick.com/store/p90/Temple_Mount.html
Currently out -of-stock which happens from time to time.

I have built these and they are very detailed especially the inside parts and the underground chambers.

@Graupensuppe said:
""King Solomon, these men need you to settle a dispute. They each claim ownership of this Lego set."
"The set shall be cut in two! And each man shall receive... death. I'll build the Lego set.""

Was this quote inspired by anything in particular or were you just making up a cute scene?

@dudeski said:
"I feel it is important to note that king Solomon of Israel and Judah was not jewish, nor was the temple that is said to have constructed on his orders. Solomon lived in the 10th or 11th century BCE, four or five centuries before the advent of judaism in the 6th century BCE. Solomon was a yahwist, which was a polytheist/monolatrist religion with Yahweh as the main god, but by no means the only god (the latter which — by my knowledge — is a core tenet of judaism). Obviously, the temple is ‘biblical’, though not jewish.
Yahwism had only evolved into monotheistic judaism by the time of the Second Temple, after the Babylonion Captivity (that started after the sack of Jerusalem and this temple). "

To the best of my knowledge, King Solomon did believe in a single G-d, and Jews existed since the giving of the Bible at Mount Sinai

@SEG2008 said:
" @Graupensuppe said:
""King Solomon, these men need you to settle a dispute. They each claim ownership of this Lego set."
"The set shall be cut in two! And each man shall receive... death. I'll build the Lego set.""

Was this quote inspired by anything in particular or were you just making up a cute scene?
"

I think they were inspired by the story from 1 Kings 3:16-28, in which Solomon said that the baby should be cut in half.

@Modeltrainman said:
" @SEG2008 said:
" @Graupensuppe said:
""King Solomon, these men need you to settle a dispute. They each claim ownership of this Lego set."
"The set shall be cut in two! And each man shall receive... death. I'll build the Lego set.""

Was this quote inspired by anything in particular or were you just making up a cute scene?
"

I think they were inspired by the story from 1 Kings 3:16-28, in which Solomon said that the baby should be cut in half.
"

Actually it was inspired by the Simpsons' version of that story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbJ4yzA854A

@Graupensuppe said:
" @Modeltrainman said:
" @SEG2008 said:
" @Graupensuppe said:
""King Solomon, these men need you to settle a dispute. They each claim ownership of this Lego set."
"The set shall be cut in two! And each man shall receive... death. I'll build the Lego set.""

Was this quote inspired by anything in particular or were you just making up a cute scene?
"

I think they were inspired by the story from 1 Kings 3:16-28, in which Solomon said that the baby should be cut in half.
"

Actually it was inspired by the Simpsons' version of that story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbJ4yzA854A"

OK. Huh.