Demonology

[Medicine*Woman]

I envision hordes of Catholics running in terror from you, and I am amused.

*************
M*W: Gee! Thanks for the compliment!

 

[charles cure]

Hardly, and often, not at all.

When we act, we often act having a multitude of motivations. Psychologists say there is approximately up to 20 causes for each behaviour -- and if one investigates what has prompted one to act, one can verify this. So even the strongest cause often contributes only some 20 to 30%.
Which is little enough to be skeptical about the idea of one cause ~ one action, and thus skeptical about our actions reflecting our "true" beliefs.

Also, much of our acting is due to habit, things we do without actually having the present intention to do them. I find it disputable to call such acting deliberate, because it lacks present intention -- and with such a lack, it cannot be considered a conscious expression of belief or value.

i can't believe i agree with you about something. bravo.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

thats a limited and immature way of thinking. the truth is that a persons beliefs are reflected through both thought and action. words are a reflection of thought.

*************
M*W: I am always awed and amazed how Jenyar is able to get into the mindset of god and jesus h. christ to know without a doubt their thought processes! He's either a lunatic, a liar, or himself a deity. I'll put my money on lunatic.

 

[water]

That sounds reasonable. Which psychologists say that, however, and where?

Here's an online resource, with further references:
http://psychcentral.com/psyhelp/chap15/chap15c.htm .

From there:

/W/e are prone to over-simplify the causes of our behavior. Remember the "fallacy of the single cause?" Almost every action has many causes, perhaps 15 or 20, maybe more. It is not our custom to think so complexly, but it may be closer to reality.
Secondly, the strength of each of the causes is probably constantly fluctuating, so the precise prediction of human behavior is very difficult. The murderer might have run away from the victim or broken down and cried or killed him/herself, if he/she had waited one more minute.
Thirdly, there are influences on our behavior that we are ashamed of and deny. Being open-minded to the complex causes and to the unconscious factors operating might greatly improve our coping with real problems.

But that doesn't negate that most behaviors probably have one or two primary causes. If I look both ways before crossing the street, part of my motivation might be curiosity, but the biggest motivators are the fear of becoming a hood ornament and because the action was drilled into my head as a child.

I think that a small number of motivations is present only when it comes to actions concerning life and death, and pleasure.
Otherwise, when it comes to actions like posting on an internet forum, talking to a friend, going to a party -- such actions have a multitude of motivations acting simultaneously.

How can one possibly lie with one's actions?!

Ever play chess?

You mean strategic moves that are meant to divert the opponent? I do not think that is an example of lying though.

Lying is saying something you presently know to be otherwise, but you say it anyway because you are following an ulterior motive and you make an effort to hide this motive from the person you are lying to.

Such is not the case in chess though. You don't make moves that you know should be otherwise. Would you make such a move, it would be invalid (like going in the L form with a pawn, for example) and the game would make no sense as it would not be played by the rules. The rules, however, do not specify the various strategic maneuvers (for example, that are seemingly self-harming, but meant to get you to win), so when you do undertake such maneuvers, you are not lying, you are not going against the rules.

 

[water]

The point Jesus made was that your actions will reflect your true beliefs - the ones that come from your heart, not your mouth. "You will know the tree by its fruit..."

One more, very important thing: The same action can be motivated by various beliefs, depending on the person and context.

If someone kisses you, does this mean they love you and wish you well? Jesus and Judas have a story to tell.
If you kiss someone, does this necessarily mean you love them and wish them well?


Considering this, I find it wrong to conclude about the beliefs or motivations of a person just by observing their actions.

Take an army of soldiers, for example. There are thousands of men, fighting on the battlefield. Why are they doing it? Some do it to protect their country, some do it because they are from a very poor background and joining the army was a last resort for them, some do it to prove themselves and gain a good reputation, some have been forced by family members, some do it because they have made a bet with their friends, some do it for religious reasons, or they are all in it because they were drafted in a country with mandatory army service, etc. or any combination of that.
But all of them are there, aiming at the opponent and pulling the trigger.

And what external observers get to see, is the action, the pulling of the trigger. We don't see into these men's heads to be able to say why they are doing it. And if you have ever spoken with soldiers, you'll find that their motivations vary greatly.
It is then unfair to surmise "If a man pulls the trigger, he does it to kill, because he likes to kill" -- which is the motive I have found to be imputed most often.



On a very general level, I agree with "by their fruits ye shall know them", but as far as practical everyday introspection and evaluation of self and others is concerned, that view is grossly distorting reality.

As a self-righteous or idealistic, or self-deprecating story to tell yourself, the story in which you interpret your actions, "I shall know myself by my fruits" is useful, yes. But the illusionary high or low self-worth thus developed renders it useless and dangerous, at least for me.

how can you ever know if anyone is a "real" christian?

You say this as if you don't think one can know. Are you sure about that? Aren't there measures given in the Bible?

Does appearance prove motive?

 

[Jenyar]

Hardly, and often, not at all.

When we act, we often act having a multitude of motivations. Psychologists say there is approximately up to 20 causes for each behaviour -- and if one investigates what has prompted one to act, one can verify this. So even the strongest cause often contributes only some 20 to 30%.
Which is little enough to be skeptical about the idea of one cause ~ one action, and thus skeptical about our actions reflecting our "true" beliefs.

Beliefs themselves - just like ideologies - don't constitute of a single idea, which can be called "one cause". So that's not what I'm saying, sorry. You don't need to know the cause of beliefs to have them, or to trace an action back to it.

After all, your argument is that one is not aware of each of those 20 causes, but that you can uncover causes by tracing your actions back to them. There's nothing to prevent a psychologist from connecting each one of those causes with a fundamental belief or beliefs. I'm not talking about cases where beliefs don't apply, I'm talking about cases where there are beliefs involved, and it's obviously complicated. Jesus wasn't making a blanket statement either: the "them" he refers to false prophets and actions that are characteristic of people: specifically people pretending to be Christian. That's what allowed Paul to write "They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him."

I definitely didn't say people are always aware of what prompts them to act, or that there may only one reason or belief behind it. What you said above doesn't exclude my claim. In fact, the fact that there are so many influences on ones actions and unconscious beliefs behind conscious ones, should prompt a person to serious introspection to understand what they're doing and why - and cause others to hesitate before jumping to conclusions.

But a murderer saying that "there were at least 20 reasons, and my psychologist and me are only aware of 1 or 2 of them" doesn't exactly justify the belief that existed despite all the unidentified reasons - that murder was a valid option. His eventual action betrayed that belief, and I'm not saying any more than that.

Also, much of our acting is due to habit, things we do without actually having the present intention to do them. I find it disputable to call such acting deliberate, because it lacks present intention -- and with such a lack, it cannot be considered a conscious expression of belief or value.

Again, when did I call it deliberate? I obviously agree that not all actions (and the all reasons behind them) are conscious. People can act with anything up to 100% of ignorance. Habits are often unconsciously held beliefs. Examining the habits will reveal the beliefs behind them, and those beliefs may be addressed and consciously modified. That's what cognitive behavioural therapy does.

Why else would belief in justice or mercy, for instance, change the way someone expresses themselves through their words and actions? Their belief informs their actions. If their actions end up contradicting the sets of reasons that "justice" and "mercy" contains, there is reason to suspect that a more fundamental, underlying and conflicting, belief is still at work - consciously or not.

How can one possibly lie with one's actions?!

Haven't you tried to answer that question yourself? Like skinwalker said, ever played chess? If it wasn't possible, hypocrisy wouldn't have been possible. Sure, you can narrow down the definition of lying so that it doesn't refer to all kinds of deception, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

On the other hand, if you believe actions don't lie, why oppose the idea that they can show the truth of one's character.

 

[charles cure]

*************
M*W: I am always awed and amazed how Jenyar is able to get into the mindset of god and jesus h. christ to know without a doubt their thought processes! He's either a lunatic, a liar, or himself a deity. I'll put my money on lunatic.

meh, he's no Jan Ardena.

 

[Jenyar]

As a self-righteous or idealistic, or self-deprecating story to tell yourself, the story in which you interpret your actions, "I shall know myself by my fruits" is useful, yes.

So you take the phrase to mean: "I shall define myself by my fruits"? But the fruits don't determine the tree - it's the other way around.

You seem to think I'm arguing for a superficial reading of someone's actions, as if they made everything immediately clear and apparent, and as if the first explanation that might come to mind would be considered the correct one. That's just silly.

 

[charles cure]

how can you know if anyone is a "real" christian?

You say this as if you don't think one can know. Are you sure about that? Aren't there measures given in the Bible?

sure there are measures given in the bible, but they are debateable. what are the necessary things required to be a christian? professed belief in the christian god, and belief that jesus was the messiah. that's about it. if the bible laid out clear criteria for what it takes to be a christian, christianity wouldn't have 200 different sects that all have different takes on the faith and the lifestyle and commitments it requires.

 

[Jenyar]

sure there are measures given in the bible, but they are debateable. what are the necessary things required to be a christian? belief in the christian god, and belief that jesus was the messiah. that's about it. if the bible laid out clear criteria for what it takes to be a christian, christianity wouldn't have 200 different sects that all have different takes on the faith and the lifestyle and commitments it requires.

People will always argue, and there will always be those for whom being right is more important than doing right. How debatable is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength' and 'Love your neighbour as yourself' really? Not that anything deters people from coming with fanciful rationalizations, but a law itself never ensures that anybody actually follows it. If there is any complaint to be made, it could be that God gives people too much freedom, and doesn't enforce His laws as we have ours enforced. He leaves every individual to "enforce" themselves, and the final judgement for the end of everyone's lives, when all can been taken into account.

Jesus' sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5 and 6) provides clear boundaries within which people must act, building on the foundations of common and moral law, and explaining the invisible consequences of putting those words into practice or not. And Paul's epistles were almost nothing but directions for a Christian lifestyle, both practical and fundamental, by reasoning from the gospel. Considering how clear and uncompromising the directions are, it's a testament to the pervasiveness and reality of sin to see the actual state of affairs - especially within churches and among Christians.

Col. 3:12-13 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.​

Maybe the problem with criteria such as being "compassionate, kind, humble, gentle, patient", is that it pretty much leaves us to find ways of putting love into practice, to "live a life of love" (Eph. 5:2) whatever the context. But I think it's safe to say that Hitler didn't exhibit any of those things, which is why he's usually mentioned in any discussion about what's contrary to love and compassion.

But as water pointed out, we can't come to a verdict by judging him by his actions, and there might be a host of reasons why he had such good karma while doing "God's will" - he felt justified and encouraged until close to the end, having been revealed by the Spear of Destiny (a "Christian" artifact) as an incarnation of one of the Roman Emperors who had it before him (although a drug induced trance would later suggest he was "the villain of Parzival", King Landulf II who had betrayed Chrsitianity to the Muslim invaders in 875 - see Nazi Cult beliefs); "Svastika" being Sanskrit word for "good luck", representing Dharma and Aryan nobility. It's just that, by Christian standards, he embodies everything Jesus identified impostors by, and that's been the criteria by which history has judged him.

 

[Roman]

I just find it ironic that someone could be serious about asking for information about fictional beings as if there is some serious "study" of demons called "demonology." But then that same person has the gall to accuse someone else of "spam."

Frickin' religious nutters flock to "science" boards in search of "intellectual discussions" but post dumbass, shit questions like that.

What if I asked for information on elves, fairies or Nordic gods? The Greek pantheon? Jungle bunny fetishes? Would you be so hostile, or did a priest touch your willy when you were a kid?

 

[SkinWalker]

Perhaps you've missed some of the threads in the pseudoscience and parapsychology subforums where I've responded with no less contempt when nutters ask for similar confirmation of their beliefs in just such silliness. Be it "demonology" or "ufology," it really doesn't matter. Both are pseudo-studies in matters assumed to be real by their believers, not by any quantitative or even legitimate qualitative data.

 

[Woody]

Perhaps you've missed some of the threads in the pseudoscience and parapsychology subforums where I've responded with no less contempt when nutters ask for similar confirmation of their beliefs in just such silliness. Be it "demonology" or "ufology," it really doesn't matter. Both are pseudo-studies in matters assumed to be real by their believers, not by any quantitative or even legitimate qualitative data.

So you respond with contempt. Do you suppose that helps your cause as a secular humanist? You are one whether you want to admit it or not. Take a look at what they believe.

Demonology is a real subject. Being an anthropology major, surely you must know that. Where do you suppose it belongs if it doesn't belong on a religion forum?

Here's the biggest question of all: Would there even be a religion forum if nobody believed it?

Here are some threads you can check out on "demonism" from those in the world that take it seriously:

Forum for practicing witches and satanists

satanism and ritual abuse archive

ministry for treatment of demon possession

Demon experience falls under neurological phenomena, not psychosis or "nutter" as you call it:

paranormal neuroscience

 

[SkinWalker]

Demonology is a real subject. Being an anthropology major, surely you must know that. Where do you suppose it belongs if it doesn't belong on a religion forum?

"Demonology" is a pseudo-study. Anthropology, sociology, and psychology -these are real subjects and based on quantitative data. "Demonology" is just a pretend-science that believers concocted to add credibility to their beliefs. The pseudo-study of demonology assumes they exist when, in fact, nothing at all is demonstrated to be the case. There is no serious discipline that can be called "demonology."

Moreover, the term "theology" is likewise a pseudo-study. Most theologists assume their theism is real -when it has not been demonstrated to be factual. They are self-proclaimed experts in theistic mythology -many of them very knowledgeable, but still "experts" of a fake-study.

 

[Woody]

"Demonology" is a pseudo-study. Anthropology, sociology, and psychology -these are real subjects and based on quantitative data. "Demonology" is just a pretend-science that believers concocted to add credibility to their beliefs. The pseudo-study of demonology assumes they exist when, in fact, nothing at all is demonstrated to be the case. There is no serious discipline that can be called "demonology."

Moreover, the term "theology" is likewise a pseudo-study. Most theologists assume their theism is real -when it has not been demonstrated to be factual. They are self-proclaimed experts in theistic mythology -many of them very knowledgeable, but still "experts" of a fake-study.

Yeah, and a religion forum doesn't exist, especially if we rationalize enough about it.

Nobody ever asked you if it was scientifically real or not. It is "real" in the mind of the person that believes it. So go ahead and scold them all you want to -- see where that gets you.

 

[SkinWalker]

Religion exists. The assumptions of religion do not appear to exist. It would be like starting a study called trekology and the participants believing that warp drives and photon torpedos are real answers to galactic problems and that Romulan ale should truly be legalized. Ufology is a good example - a pseudoscience based on the fantasies and desires of thousands of believers in ufo conspiracies and alien abductions -none of which has any shred of evidence.

I don't wish to scold these people -I wish to provoke thought among those that are willing to use their heads and ridicule those that aren't.

 

[water]

Beliefs themselves - just like ideologies - don't constitute of a single idea, which can be called "one cause". So that's not what I'm saying, sorry. You don't need to know the cause of beliefs to have them, or to trace an action back to it.

I am using "belief", "motivation", "motive" "cause" interchangeably here, as in this context, they are generally interchangeable.

After all, your argument is that one is not aware of each of those 20 causes, but that you can uncover causes by tracing your actions back to them.

But that is not my argument at all!
Where did you get that?!

I definitely didn't say people are always aware of what prompts them to act, or that there may only one reason or belief behind it.

If "a tree is knows by its fruit", then this is the same as saying "beliefs (motivations, causes) are reflected in actions". This is apparently your stance, if you take that this is a true statement -- "They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him." as if actions are crucial in determining what a person really believes.

What you said above doesn't exclude my claim. In fact, the fact that there are so many influences on ones actions and unconscious beliefs behind conscious ones, should prompt a person to serious introspection to understand what they're doing and why - and cause others to hesitate before jumping to conclusions.

You're missing the point. Considering that there are so many motivations behind an action, it is then wrong to assess a person's beliefs by observing their actions. An action cannot be deemed an adequate reflection of a person's beliefs or motivations, precisely because there might be so many motivations at work, including mutually exclusive ones.

A gift can be given in generosity, or as a bribe, and sometimes, both motivations can be present. And outwardly, there is no way of telling the difference.

But a murderer saying that "there were at least 20 reasons, and my psychologist and me are only aware of 1 or 2 of them" doesn't exactly justify the belief that existed despite all the unidentified reasons - that murder was a valid option. His eventual action betrayed that belief, and I'm not saying any more than that.

Your point? That someone believed that murder was a valid option doesn't explain why they thought murder a valid option.

Haven't you tried to answer that question yourself? Like skinwalker said, ever played chess? If it wasn't possible, hypocrisy wouldn't have been possible.

Eh?

Hypocrisy is about contradiction between a person's words and words, or their words and actions.

How can you lie with an action? Can one action contradict another action? An interpretation of an action surely can contradict another interpretation of the same or another action.

Sure, you can narrow down the definition of lying so that it doesn't refer to all kinds of deception, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

All kinds of deception are not lying.

Sometimes, given the circumstances (as in chess), "deception" is part of the game, according and allowed to the rules, and is thus not lying, but strategy.
Similar, consider the theatre, films, telling jokes etc.

On the other hand, if you believe actions don't lie, why oppose the idea that they can show the truth of one's character.

A cat can perform actions, yes? I can see that. So tell me how a cat (whose beliefs and motivations I know nothing about, and can only speculate and infer, so nothing sure here, no direct feedback) can lie with her actions.

So you take the phrase to mean: "I shall define myself by my fruits"? But the fruits don't determine the tree - it's the other way around.

And where did the tree come from?

Besides, it takes little botany study to know trees without having to wait for the fruit.

You seem to think I'm arguing for a superficial reading of someone's actions, as if they made everything immediately clear and apparent, and as if the first explanation that might come to mind would be considered the correct one. That's just silly.

I have seen you do this enough times.

People will always argue, and there will always be those for whom being right is more important than doing right. How debatable is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength'

A non-Christian cannot recognize whether a person who calls himself a Christian "loves the Lord his God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength".

It takes a Christian to know one. Many of the rest of us go by believing people to be what they say they are.

Col. 3:12-13 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

Who is to say what expressions of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience are?
I have met a lot of people who called themselves Christians, and claimed to have these qualities -- but I thought otherwise.

 

[charles cure]

Jesus' sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5 and 6) provides clear boundaries within which people must act, building on the foundations of common and moral law, and explaining the invisible consequences of putting those words into practice or not. And Paul's epistles were almost nothing but directions for a Christian lifestyle, both practical and fundamental, by reasoning from the gospel. Considering how clear and uncompromising the directions are, it's a testament to the pervasiveness and reality of sin to see the actual state of affairs - especially within churches and among Christians.

Col. 3:12-13 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.​

jesus's sermon on the mount contradicts other directions given by moses in the bible that apparently were told to him by god, specifically those relating to divorce and adultery. so is jesus authoritative or god speaking through moses? who do you believe and why? in addition to that, the bible isn't representative of what really was even written in regards to how christians should live. it is at best a 10th generation error-riddled copy that has been changed by mistake and intentionally many times over and is no longer representative of any original statement. so how do you expect to know what words god could have inspired if they are no longer actually there? some of the epistles of paul weren't even written by paul, but were written by his personal scribes after he dictated the tone and subject of the letter, or were written by subordinates in his name to lend authority to them. they were then copied, changed...etc. there's no way to know that you are reading what any of these people actually meant. in fact bibles themselves vary in translation as well as meaning, so how are you ever supposed to come to terms with the word of god? you don't have it and never have.

But as water pointed out, we can't come to a verdict by judging him by his actions, and there might be a host of reasons why he had such good karma while doing "God's will" - he felt justified and encouraged until close to the end, having been revealed by the Spear of Destiny (a "Christian" artifact) as an incarnation of one of the Roman Emperors who had it before him (although a drug induced trance would later suggest he was "the villain of Parzival", King Landulf II who had betrayed Chrsitianity to the Muslim invaders in 875 - see Nazi Cult beliefs); "Svastika" being Sanskrit word for "good luck", representing Dharma and Aryan nobility. It's just that, by Christian standards, he embodies everything Jesus identified impostors by, and that's been the criteria by which history has judged him.

no, history didn't judge him by any religious standard whatsoever, regardless of religion, hitler was a sadistic and despotic tyrant whose apparent disregard for the value of human life and insatiable lust for power are antithetical to the terms of modern civilization and progress. who cares whether he was a sinner or not, he was evil by every standard there is to measure it. that does not erase or diminish the fact that he at least used christian rhetoric to ignite passion and support for his repulsive agenda, and it worked.

 

[Woody]

Religion exists. The assumptions of religion do not appear to exist. It would be like starting a study called trekology and the participants believing that warp drives and photon torpedos are real answers to galactic problems and that Romulan ale should truly be legalized. Ufology is a good example - a pseudoscience based on the fantasies and desires of thousands of believers in ufo conspiracies and alien abductions -none of which has any shred of evidence.

I don't wish to scold these people -I wish to provoke thought among those that are willing to use their heads and ridicule those that aren't.

You believe science is the only reality. I believe logic is the only reality, and science is only a subset of logic. The God I worship is called "logos", the God of the bible. To illustrate my point that science is not enough consider the following parable:

Let's suppose you being an anthropology major were offered to take a long space travel through the universe. On board you took every recorded work that mankind ever put together - history, music, science, mathematics, etc. etc. When you return to planet earth after the incredible time lag involved with intergallactic travel, you find the earth is totally obliterated, having collapsed into the sun.

All evidence is gone, and there is no reasonable proof that life ever existed on earth, or that earth existed. An intelligent alien life form approaches you in a space craft, greets you, and takes you to his home planet "thrae." There you become a huge sensation among the thraens as you present your case about a place called earth.

They relegate you to carnival geek show as the greatest fable spinner in their history. A place called "earth" they scoff. "Yeah I know, no evidence," you say, "but all this history should show you something -- shouldn't it?"

Their response is, "We only know what science shows us and you have nothing to prove it but all these concocted computer disks. You see we are of the "tsinamuh" philosohy. We only believe what we can prove with science and you have nothing real to offer that's tried and proven."

I believe there is a "logos" entity, and he wouldn't call you a liar in this parable.

 

[charles cure]

You believe science is the only reality. I believe logic is the only reality, and science is only a subset of logic. The God I worship is called "logos", the God of the bible. To illustrate my point:

Now let's suppose you being an anthropology major were offered to take a long space travel in the universe. On board you took every recorded work that mankind ever put together - history, music, science, mathematics, etc. etc. When you return to planet earth after the incredible time lag involved with intergallactic travel, you find the earth is totally obliterated, having collapsed into the sun.

All evidence is gone, and no reasonable proof that life ever existed on a place you call earth except what you have on board your space craft. An intelligent alien life form approaches you in a space craft, greets you, and takes you to his home planet "thrae." There you become a huge sensation among the thraens as you present your case about a place called earth.

They relegate you to carnival geek show as the greatest fable spinner in their history. A place called "earth" they scoff. "Yeah I know, no evidence," you say, "but all this history should show you something -- shouldn't it?" Their response is, "We only know what science shows us and you have nothing to prove it but all these concocted computer disks. You see we are of the "stsinamuh" philosohy." We only believe what we can prove with science and you have nothing real to offer that's tried and proven.

there's about a million problems with that. one of them being that if the earth "collapsed" into the sun, you would be able to prove that at around the same time that you claim the earth disappeared, something happened to the sun that resembles what would happen to it if a planet crashed into it. i'm also betting that the earth crashing into the sun would cause some kind of disruption of the gravitational fields holding the other planets in orbit around it. this would also be consistent with what happened. in addition to that, you would be in possession of at least some type of records that a civilization had existed, according to your scenario, enough that you could not have made the whole thing up by yourself. this would beg the question, if your story about earth isn't true, then what is the truth. at that point, a scientific investigation could at least determine the probability of truth in terms of your story. you may never be completely vindicated, but i'm pretty sure things wouldn't turn out as stupid as they did in your little story, which is incredibly simplistic and not really analagous to any situation in the world where we live..