Free Will and Evil

[Ygrene Imref]

This reminds me of a Star Trak where Curt goes to a world where only good happens and jumps a big hole in the ground on a horse and because of that decides he does not want to stay there, since he would not have made that jump back in the real world.

If you cannot “fail” how significant is the success?

If God wants us to Love Him with the kind of Love He has for us (undeserving, Thought-out, unconditional, a true choice with likely alternatives) then we must have made the choice with likely alternatives. Seeing others make the wrong choice with negative consequences can help us.

Falling while learning to ride a bike helps us realize our: limits, need for help, need for protection, need to listen more, it is a humbling activity, helps us in our maturing and provides a teachable moment.

The objective is to learn to ride a bike, so the objective is not to keep from ever falling (because you could stay off the bike forever and never fall from riding a bike or always have training wheels).

Man’s objective while here on earth was not to never ever sin.




By “evidence” people usually mean “knowledge” and in contrast to “faith”.

“Knowledge” leads to self-reliance and can actually work against a saving “faith” trusting God. Knowledge can puff you up (knowledge is power) while faith is a very humbling activity (something the lowliest mature adult on earth can do).

Evidence of God’s existence is all around us if we are willing to accept the evidence.

At one point in my faith I knew God existed, but didn't believe it.

It was one of the most frustrating, painful times to have knowledge and no luxury of doubt in Him, but still not believe what He says. It sounds ridiculous to know and not believe, because it is. Faith is extremely important in all walks - it is the other side of the coin. When knowledge fails, faith picks up the slack (and vice versa.) So, having knowledge and faith, and using them properly can make us "like Christ."

 

[Ron Gurley]

Back to Basics:
OP: "A."Free Will" and B. "Evil"

A and B are apples and oranges!

A. "free will" (NOUN): DEFINED
1.the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate (choice!); the ability to act at one's own discretion.(choice!)

REF: Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator

"Free will" is the ability to CHOOSE between different possible courses of action.It is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgments which apply only to actions that are freely CHOSEN. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition.

Ref: Free will - Wikipedia

"Free will in theology" is an important part of the debate on "free will" in general.
Religions vary greatly in their response to the standard argument AGAINST "free will"
and thus might appeal to any number of responses to the "paradox of free will",
the " (false)claim" that "omniscience/omipotence" etc. doctrines and "free will" doctrines are incompatible.

REF: Free will in theology - Wikipedia

"free will" is a SPIRITUAL GIFT from God to Man and angels from the beginning of Creation and in Eden.That "phrase" is not found in the Bible as such, BUT is inferred and implied many times therein!

1 Chronicles 28:9...King David gives his kingdom to his wise son
“As for you, my son Solomon,
know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind;
for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts.
If you seek Him, He will let you find Him;
but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today,
that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So CHOOSE LIFE in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

Joshua 24:15
If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, CHOOSE for yourselves today whom you will serve...
but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Job 34:4
“Let us CHOOSE for ourselves what is right;
Let us know among ourselves what is "good".

B. "evil" (ADJECTIVE): DEFINED
1.profoundly immoral and malevolent:
(NOUN)
1.profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural FORCE:

Evil...is the ABSENCE (or opposite) of.."good.
Often, evil denotes profound immorality.
In certain religious contexts, evil has been described as a supernatural force.
Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives.However, elements that are commonly associated with evil involve: unbalanced behavior ==> involving anger, revenge, fear, hatred, psychological trauma, expediency, selfishness, ignorance, or neglect.

In cultures with an Abrahamic religious influence, evil is usually perceived as the "dualistic antagonistic" opposite of "good", in which "good" should prevail and "evil" should be defeated.

REF: Evil - Wikipedia

Evil VERSUS GOOD...Light VERSUS Dark...Angel VERSUS demon...GOD VERSUS DEVIL.

These are ALL FALSE DICHOTOMIES!...A division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different:

NO!

"evil" IS THE ABSENCE OF "good".
"dark" IS THE ABSENCE OF "light"
"demon" IS FALLEN SPIRIT BEING. An "angel" is not!
"devil" IS A FALLEN LESSER SPIRIT BEING created by an ALL EVERYTHING powerful God.

"evil" is a mere HUMAN CONCEPTION!
NOT a SUPERNATURAL COMPETING "equal-and-opposite" FORCE.

God did not "create" a supernatural force to oppose His ALL "good" Creation!

A perfectly SOVREIGN and All Everything God created / intervenes with ONLY "good" in His Universe!

God ALLOWS "evil" persons, places, and things to "exist"...BUT ONLY IF THIS BRINGS GLORY TO HIM!

CONCLUSION: "evil" is simply the absence of God.

 

[bling]

Not sure what particular god concept you personally hold, but the mainstream Christian god concept does not really picture his love as "unconditional", and neither as having the choice to fail).

Sounds to me like God created a problem just so there could be a solution that would have not be needed hadn´t he created the problem.


Yeah right: once there are challenges and problems it makes a lot of sense to try to solve them. This is, however, not really a good justification for creating problems.

The "problem" is not something God can solve directly. Man has to "willingly" humbly accept God's help (charity/forgiveness/mercy/grace/Love) in order for man to obtain Godly type Love. If God forces His Love on man (this would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun) it would not be "loving" on God's part and the Love He was trying to force on the person would not result in the person having Godly type Love.
Godly type Love is not instinctive since that would make it robotic, so it has to be the result of an autonomous free choice. The easiest choice being the acceptance of God's forgiveness, because Jesus has taught us and our own experience has taught us Luke 7 "...he that is forgiven much Loves much..."

 

[bling]

Either edit this post and change "Trak" to "Trek" and "Curt" to "Kirk" or risk being being belittled by geeks forever.



I said "suffer", not "fail". Although if I were an omnipotent father, I would have created my child so that he isn't bothered by failure or concerned with the significance of his successes.



All of which an omnipotent god could have instilled in us without suffering.



If I were an omnipotent god I wouldn't requite faith.



Evidence of a god's non existence is all around us if we are willing to accept the evidence.

Personally, I try and accept evidence for good reasons.

There are things that are not possible even for an "omnipotent" God (Like God cannot create a being that has always existed [another Christ])

 

[quatona]

The "problem" is not something God can solve directly. Man has to "willingly" humbly accept God's help (charity/forgiveness/mercy/grace/Love) in order for man to obtain Godly type Love. If God forces His Love on man (this would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun) it would not be "loving" on God's part and the Love He was trying to force on the person would not result in the person having Godly type Love.

I don´t recall demanding God to "force his love on" anyone.

 

[bling]

I don´t recall demanding God to "force his love on" anyone.

that is because you cannot "demand" anything of God. You can accept what he offers to you or reject the invitation.

 

[quatona]

that is because you cannot "demand" anything of God. You can accept what he offers to you or reject the invitation.

Be that as it may - my point was: Your post responded to an argument I hadn´t made.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're committing the same error that Variant has been making here. Knowledge does not imply inevitability or necessity. God foreseeing that Adam would sin does not imply that Adam had to sin. God foresees Adam's sin because Adam chooses to sin.

Inevitability simply means "certain to happen". I guess with your view that if anything is guaranteed, then there wasn't a free choice made though... It's got to be tricky reconciling that in your head, eh? God is certain what we're going to choose, but our actions aren't certain... hmm...

I wouldn't say Adam "had to" or it was "necessary" simply because it was certain. But if God knows what we're going to do before we do it, then I guess it's all predetermined.

Someone had a thread a long time ago in the old Philosophy section called "Macky's World". They said that if God is omniscient, and there was some possible way that Adam never would have eaten from the tree, then God knew what He could have done differently that would have caused that series of events to transpire without directly forcing Adam to not eat from the tree. If God is incapable of acting in any manner in which Adam did not eat from the tree, then Adam's actions were indeed inevitable.

Sure, but a desire to do bad things is not rooted in an innate desire to do evil. There is no innate desire to do evil. Evil things are done because they are thought to be good.

Prove it with something other than examples. I know I've done bad things that I knew were bad because I knew they were bad. Prove that when someone does evil they think they are doing good.

It is true that disordered concupiscence resulted from the Fall.

Except I didn't say anything about sexual sin. I talked about sins that can be used in the purview of sexual sins, sure. But spite and a lack of empathy aren't sexual sins in and of themselves, and you've completely ignored what I stated in this response.

"Salvation is a gift insofar as the principle of eternal life is given to us freely without any merit on our part. Salvation is a product of merit insofar as we cooperate with God, thus influencing the strength and nature of the principle of eternal life."

Suppose you're given a bonsai tree. It's given; perfectly free. Now suppose you water it, give it sunshine, and shape it. You're given an award for having a beautiful bonsai tree. Is the beautiful tree a gift, or is it a product of your work and merit? Both. The tree itself was a gift, and you would not have been able to beautify it at all if it wasn't given to you in the first place. Yet the state of the awarded tree is both a result of the gift and the work that you put into the tree. There is something meritorious about the beautiful tree, even though the entire thing was ultimately a gift.

Well, if the initial tree is my existence, and the award is salvation, then your hypothetical makes sense. Once you have salvation there's no cultivating it and making it better, it's perfect forever. Heck, it doesn't even need maintained. So if the tree in the beginning of your story is supposed to be salvation, then your hypothetical doesn't work.

I said that, "meriting reinforces central truths of creaturely existence," and I gave dependence as one example. In my last I gave another example: production, contributing through our own effort. So you've been given two reasons, in addition to the ones given earlier.

Zippy: We need merit to reinforce our dependence on God or we lack that knowledge.
Nick: What do you even mean "reinforce"? Why isn't being in God's presence sufficient to give us that knowledge?
Zippy: Who knows?
Nick: Uh, you're supposed to be the one that knows...
Zippy: I told you, "We need merit to reinforce our dependence on God or we lack that knowledge."

free will on this side of heaven implies FWE

No it doesn't. God can create beings any way He pleases, any where He pleases. He can design humans with free will and without FWE, or He's not omnipotent.

Free will is good because it gives us an opportunity to cling to God

You won't cling to God in Heaven?

to realize what is at stake

FWE creates the stakes. If there's no stakes, there's nothing to realize

to merit

God deserves praise without needing to earn our praise, so I see no good reason for merit.

and to know that our actions have real consequences.

Just like stakes, FWE creates the consequences. You've gone in a circle.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There are things that are not possible even for an "omnipotent" God (Like God cannot create a being that has always existed [another Christ])

In what you responded to, what do you feel is impossible for an omnipotent god? I'm not seeing anything that's contradictory.

 

[zippy2006]

Inevitability simply means "certain to happen". I guess with your view that if anything is guaranteed, then there wasn't a free choice made though... It's got to be tricky reconciling that in your head, eh? God is certain what we're going to choose, but our actions aren't certain... hmm...

I wouldn't say Adam "had to" or it was "necessary" simply because it was certain. But if God knows what we're going to do before we do it, then I guess it's all predetermined.

I'm not much interested in remedying your ignorance of the problem of foreknowledge and free will. It's a whole new topic.

Someone had a thread a long time ago in the old Philosophy section called "Macky's World". They said that if God is omniscient, and there was some possible way that Adam never would have eaten from the tree, then God knew what He could have done differently that would have caused that series of events to transpire without directly forcing Adam to not eat from the tree. If God is incapable of acting in any manner in which Adam did not eat from the tree, then Adam's actions were indeed inevitable.

The thread is here. It is an overview of a position given by atheist philosopher John Leslie Mackie. I gave an answer here.

Prove it with something other than examples. I know I've done bad things that I knew were bad because I knew they were bad. Prove that when someone does evil they think they are doing good.

The examples I gave record the norm. You are the one who ought to give a counterexample to show that the position is false.

Evil on the Christian conception is irrational, undesirable, and to be avoided. No one desires that an evil thing happen to them. Therefore when someone commits an evil act they do not do it because it is evil. They may be seeking fame, power, recognition, etc., but they are not seeking evil as an end in itself.

Except I didn't say anything about sexual sin. I talked about sins that can be used in the purview of sexual sins, sure. But spite and a lack of empathy aren't sexual sins in and of themselves, and you've completely ignored what I stated in this response.

Concupiscence is not sexual sin, even if it is often associated with sexual sin in a modern context.

Well, if the initial tree is my existence, and the award is salvation, then your hypothetical makes sense.

The initial gift is the gift of grace that ultimately saves you.

Once you have salvation there's no cultivating it and making it better, it's perfect forever.

That's simply not true on a classical conception. Grace is subject to decrease and increase. It is only due to the lamentable Protestant influence in the United States that salvation is conceived as a kind of binary operation.

Heck, it doesn't even need maintained.

Tell it to Jesus. (Matthew 25:14-30)

Zippy: Who knows?

Except you ignore the part where I went on to provide a speculative answer to your question. Continually claiming that I said "Who knows" and left it at that is simple dishonesty.

No it doesn't. God can create beings any way He pleases, any where He pleases. He can design humans with free will and without FWE, or He's not omnipotent.

We've already been over this earlier in the thread.

You won't cling to God in Heaven?

Not in the way that we do on Earth.

FWE creates the stakes. If there's no stakes, there's nothing to realize

God deserves praise without needing to earn our praise, so I see no good reason for merit.

Just like stakes, FWE creates the consequences. You've gone in a circle.

Of course you're welcome to provide an actual argument rather than chopping a single sentence into four disjointed replies.

 

[bling]

In what you responded to, what do you feel is impossible for an omnipotent god? I'm not seeing anything that's contradictory.

This messed up world is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest being having a Love like His.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.



So God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force in all universes, since that force compels even God to do all He does) and thus we become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time:

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)



This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).



An unselfish God would be doing all He can to help willing individuals to make that free will decision to accept His Love. Again, since God will not be forcing these individuals, they have to be willing (it is their choice) and God cannot “make” them willing since that is robotic action. God can only at best make them free will agent (like God is) and capable of make the right decision without the selection being worthy of anything (it is a gift of pure charity).



This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.



Let me just give you an example of How God works to help willing individuals.



All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

If the nonbeliever had knowledge of God's existence that person would not need faith in God's existence, but faith is needed for humility and humility is needed to humbly accept pure charity and the only way to get Godly type Love is through accepting it as pure charity in the form of forgiveness.

That is an introduction to a huge topic.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

This messed up world is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest being having a Love like His.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.



So God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force in all universes, since that force compels even God to do all He does) and thus we become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time:

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)



This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).



An unselfish God would be doing all He can to help willing individuals to make that free will decision to accept His Love. Again, since God will not be forcing these individuals, they have to be willing (it is their choice) and God cannot “make” them willing since that is robotic action. God can only at best make them free will agent (like God is) and capable of make the right decision without the selection being worthy of anything (it is a gift of pure charity).



This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.



Let me just give you an example of How God works to help willing individuals.



All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

If the nonbeliever had knowledge of God's existence that person would not need faith in God's existence, but faith is needed for humility and humility is needed to humbly accept pure charity and the only way to get Godly type Love is through accepting it as pure charity in the form of forgiveness.

That is an introduction to a huge topic.

An omnipotent god could have created us with your "godly type love" to begin with.

An omnipotent god could have created humans with the ability to choose to cause suffering, but without any inclination to cause suffering. The would not violate what people call "free will".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

An omnipotent god could have created us with your "godly type love" to begin with.

An omnipotent god could have created humans with the ability to choose to cause suffering, but without any inclination to cause suffering. The would not violate what people call "free will".

...sounds like a Milgram Experiment.

 

[bling]

An omnipotent god could have created us with your "godly type love" to begin with.

An omnipotent god could have created humans with the ability to choose to cause suffering, but without any inclination to cause suffering. The would not violate what people call "free will".

I explained in my post 111 why it is not possible to create a being (make it instinctive to a being) with Godly type Love. An instinctive "love" would be like a android loving you which you programmed to love you.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

...sounds like a Milgram Experiment.

Not seeing a connection.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not seeing a connection.

...I said that because the Milgram Experiments tried to measure the extent to which people would be willing to do something painful to someone else (like deliver an electric shock), even if they didn't feel complicit with the request to do so ... I said this in reference to the possibility of "choosing" to cause someone else harm even if one didn't have an "intent" to do so.

Personally, I find it odd that anyone could choose to do so without intent ... under normal social circumstances.

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay, @zippy2006 let's clear up the concept of "knowledge" before I get back into that response.

God, being omniscient, knows all things, even things that He can't experience. For instance, God knows what it feels like to make a mistake, even though He can't make mistakes to experience what it feels like, correct?

 

[Moral Orel]

...I said that because the Milgram Experiments tried to measure the extent to which people would be willing to do something painful to someone else (like deliver an electric shock), even if they didn't feel complicit with the request to do so ... I said this in reference to the possibility of "choosing" to cause someone else harm even if one didn't have an "intent" to do so.

Personally, I find it odd that anyone could choose to do so without intent ... under normal social circumstances.

To be clear, Todd said "inclination" not "intent". Lacking intent would mean it was an accident, so you can't ever choose to do something by accident.

And the Milgram Experiments showed that people's inclination to follow orders from authority figures was greater than their inclination to not cause other people pain.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To be clear, Todd said "inclination" not "intent". Lacking intent would mean it was an accident, so you can't ever choose to do something by accident.

And the Milgram Experiments showed that people's inclination to follow orders from authority figures was greater than their inclination to not cause other people pain.

Either way, I don't see how a person can "choose" to cause harm to another person without some "inclination" to do so. So, all this talk about God being able to create a psychological matrix in humans where they could potentially "choose" to harm other persons, but without having the "inclination" to do so seems a bit.......................how do I say it...............contradictory to me.

But then again, I'm not the Christian who claims that we "know" what omnipotence is or what such a divine trait would enable a diving being to do, if it were 'real.' No, we don't get to have our cake and eat it too. If we are going to say we don't know what God is and/or that God exists, then it should follow that we really don't know what 'omnipotence' would be conceptually. It's just a fictional word that we like to 'fill in' with ambiguous meaning...and then slice it and dice it analytically as if we do know what it means.

People like to make pseudo-factual statements like, "God could do this or God could do that." The truth is, if the Biblical God really exists, we don't know what He could do, or what would make most sense for Him to do. We often think we do, however.

 

[quatona]

Either way, I don't see how a person can "choose" to cause harm to another person without some "inclination" to do so. So, all this talk about God being able to create a psychological matrix in humans where they could potentially "choose" to harm other persons, but without having the "inclination" to do so seems a bit.......................how do I say it...............contradictory to me.

I have little to none inclination to harm other persons, or to cut off my legs. Can´t say I miss this "freedom" or that I would feel more "loved" if I were equipped with those inclinations.

But then again, I'm not the Christian who claims that we "know" what omnipotence is or what such a divine trait would enable a diving being to do, if it were 'real.'

Well, someone must have come up with the (human) term "omnipotent" as a descriptor of the god of they concept. I am naturally assuming they meant to communicate something with it. Maybe we take theologians too seriously?

No, we don't get to have our cake and eat it too. If we are going to say we don't know what God is and/or that God exists, then it should follow that we really don't know what 'omnipotence' would be conceptually.

Again, 'ominpotence' is a word. The question is: What did the person using it mean by it?

It's just a fictional word that we like to 'fill in' with ambiguous meaning...and then slice it and dice it analytically as if we do know what it means.

Yep, that would be very disappointing to learn.

People like to make pseudo-factual statements like, "God could do this or God could do that." The truth is, if the Biblical God really exists, we don't know what He could do, or what would make most sense for Him to do.

I am under the impression that theology (and the discussion of theological explanations) is about what makes sense to/for US.