The story as I understand it

[RealDealNeverstop]

you said



While our salvation does have fruits that include the forgiveness of others it is not WHOLLY dependent on that. That is what Im bringing up. You can't bring up any teaching of Christ and say salvation is wholly dependent on that while ignoring everything else. These are all the commands and teachings of Christ, the parables, the forgiveness of others, the Sermon on the Mount, the Passion, etc. All of these coincide with the fruits and graces of the Spirit that we receive unto our salvation.

The problem is the mis-teachings of Salvation have trained peeps to see the Lord's Prayer as being exclusive from Salvation. Jesus gave us a very specific prayer from his own lips, yet when people are taught to accept Christ is that the prayer they are taught? No. They are taught an after-market empty slogan.

Within that prayer Jesus said:

"Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have sinned against us."

So if Jesus said God is to forgive us as we forgive others how can it be claimed forgiveness is found in simply "accepting" Christ? Accepting Christ means accepting his guidance, instructions, and examples, not simply "accepting him." Jesus lived out that instruction from the Lord's Prayer, on everything from his ministry to his last moments on the Cross. Do you not see a connection between the instruction of forgiveness and Jesus asking God to forgive his murderers?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

But if God knows something bad will happen, and allows it, even when he has the power to stop it, then he shares responsibility. Refraining from acting implies assent. That's my point.

How does God have the power to stop it? Because it's God? You're extrapolating powers without qualification.

The analogy is that if a superior moral agent (an adult, or God) creates a situation where he knows that a lesser moral agent (a child, or man) will make a bad choice with bad consequences, and, he allows the bad choice to be made, then the higher moral agent must also take responsibility. A version of the respondeat superior doctrine in law.

How is God a superior moral agent?

Well that's the only way around the dilemma. You have to say God isn't responsible because he's God. But you're also making an assumption here-- that God can't be comprehended or judged by human standards. You absolve God of any responsibility for the fall because you define him as above human morality. That's how Judeo-Christian doctrine has always answered difficult questions about God. Do you think it's a satisfactory answer?

I don't use it as a dodge at all. Pointing out the equation is based on anthropomorphism isn't trying to get around anything...it's examining the question for veracity and vialibility. It could even be argued the motivation of the question is suspect because asking questions that you know cannot have a factual response is a set up. It's kind of like saying to a blind person "Look at the tv (with the Mute button On) and tell me what color shirt the guy is wearing and I will give you a million dollars." There is no risk of having to give the blind person the money because you're asking a question you know cannot be answered.

A lot of Christians (and non-believers) have pondered the question of why God permits evil. The best conclusion I have reached so far is God did not create remote control toys or slaves. Heck, God is so far out of our collective comphrehension that God doesn't even have a name. I can't satisfactorily answer the question to myself or others but if I could, there would be no need for Faith. Also, it's not an assumption humans cannot comprehend God...it's a pretty well established institution. Does that mean we will "never" understand God? No, I can't make that claim, but I can point to our painfully obvious finite minds as a major piece of the puzzle.

At the end of the day, I don't care if God is responsible or not. That may seem strange but it's not based on apathy, it's based on the fact the answer to that question does not effect our responsibilities to love and care for each other. Even if God is responsible...so what? Does it change our moral obligations? Does it mean we can sue God for hurricane Katrina and poor architectural exceution on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico? Does it mean we can point our fingers at God in judgment of disgust for allowing evil to exist? That would accomplish...what?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

On evil: God not create evil, evil arises from Gods absence. Read plato hierarcy of existence and early church fathers.

That's a main reason why I say none of us can go to Hell. You can't journey to place where you already have residence. (Hell is any place void of 100% communion with God)

 

[Washington]

On evil: God not create evil, evil arises from Gods absence. Read plato hierarcy of existence and early church fathers.

.​

 

[Crankitup]

Maybe this will help;

Question: "Why does Isaiah 45:7 say that God created evil?"

Answer: Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” How does Isaiah 45:7 agree with the view that God did not create evil? There are two key facts that need to be considered. (1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV).

.....

(2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.

Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6

• (Isaiah 45:7, KJV) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."​
• (Amos 3:6) - "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" ​

Is God really the one who created evil? To answer the question we must first look at how the word for evil "rah" is used in the Bible, examine the context of the Isaiah 45:7 passage, and look at other passages on the same subject.
First of all, the Hebrew word for evil "rah" is used in many different ways in the Bible. In the KJV Bible, it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as "evil." The other 232 times it is translated as "wicked", "bad", "hurt", "harm", "ill", "sorrow", "mischief", "displeased", "adversity", "affliction", "trouble", "calamity", "grievous", "misery", and "trouble." So we can see that the word does not require that it be translated as "evil." This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently. It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV;
Second, the context of the verse is speaking of natural phenomena.

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these." (Isaiah 45:5-7).
​

Notice that the context of the verse is dealing with who God is, that it is God who speaks of natural phenomena (sun, light, dark), and it is God who is able to cause "well-being" as well as "calamity." Contextually, this verse is dealing with natural disasters, and human comfort issues. It is not speaking of moral evil; rather, it is dealing with calamity, distress, etc. This is consistent with other scriptures. For example,

• "And the Lord said to him, "Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" (Exodus 4:11).
• "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6).

From the above two verses we can see that the Lord is involved in calamity and problems in the earthly realm. Exodus 4:11 is speaking of human frailty and Amos 3:6 is speaking of woes in a city. It is not a moral evil that God brings, but calamity and distress upon people.
Of course, this raises other questions of why God would do such a thing, which I won't cover here. But, we can trust that whatever God does is just and is used for teaching, guiding, and disciplining His people.
Third, there are other verses that clearly show that God is pure and that He cannot approve of evil.

• “The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He," (Deut. 32:4).
• "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor," (Hab. 1:13).

We can see that the Bible teaches that God is pure and does not approve of evil, that the word "rah" (evil) in Hebrew can mean many things, and that contextually, the verse is speaking calamity and distress. Therefore, God does not create evil in the moral sense, but in the sense of disaster, of calamity.

 

[Washington]

Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV).

Nice demonstration of selective quoting---but then why should we be surprised. The argument tanks, majorly, and shows up gotquestions.org. for what it is. I leave it to others to come up with the appropriate derogating adjectives for the website.


Take a look at the 16 versions given on Biblegateway.

I bring prosperity and create disaster; (New International Version)

Causing well-being and creating calamity; (New American Standard Bible)

I make harmonies and create discords. (The Message)

Moral evil proceeds from the will of men, but physical evil proceeds from the will of God. (Amplified Bible)

I send good times and bad times. (New Living Translation)

I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (King James Version)

I make well-being and create calamity, (English Standard Version)

happiness and sorrow. (Contemporary English Version)

I make peace and create calamity; (New King James Version)

I bring peace, and I cause troubles. (New Century Version)

I make peace, and create evil; (21st Century King James Version)

I make peace, and create evil. (American Standard Version)

Making peace, and preparing evil, (Young's Literal Translation)

making peace and creating evil: (Darby Translation)

I make success and create disaster; (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

I bring good times. I also create hard times. (New International Reader's Version)
​

Quite a variety of interpretations here. Far more than one would expect of a holy word handed down by god for all to hear and take measure of. Just what does god think his followers should make of such an assortment? Should it be read as "evil"? or just "bad times"? Or maybe it simply means "sorrow" or "discord." Two very dissimilar things. Pretty much sends a message of real desperation here: "Hey guys, pick anything, but don't pick 'evil' for the verse."

Considering one has quite a diversity of interpretation to pick from, how about just going with the most popular. Discords, Bad Times, Sorrow, Troubles and Hard Times all only appear once. Disaster does only slightly better with two mentions. Calamity ups the number of mentions to three. But it's evil that clearly comes out on top, garnering 38% of all the mentions with six.



Don't have time to look at the rest of your quoted material right now, but I expect it isn't any better than the disingenuous Christian attempt of gotquestions.org

 

[soul_biscuit]

I simply fail to understand how God is not complicit in human failings. Why, for example, would God create us with the capacity and propensity for masturbation, and then forbid it? Why would God, if he loves us, punish all of humanity for the crime of two people? Why would he even allow that crime to be possible? And why would he threaten us with infinite punishment for finite crimes?

I hope that's not too many questions piled on.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I simply fail to understand how God is not complicit in human failings. Why, for example, would God create us with the capacity and propensity for masturbation, and then forbid it? Why would God, if he loves us, punish all of humanity for the crime of two people? Why would he even allow that crime to be possible? And why would he threaten us with infinite punishment for finite crimes?

I hope that's not too many questions piled on.

Considering that even with a flawed modern legal system these sort of things would make little to no sense. I have to question the mentality of people who attempt to say those things make any sort of sense.

 

[jayem]

At the end of the day, I don't care if God is responsible or not. That may seem strange but it's not based on apathy, it's based on the fact the answer to that question does not effect our responsibilities to love and care for each other. Even if God is responsible...so what? Does it change our moral obligations? Does it mean we can sue God for hurricane Katrina and poor architectural exceution on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico? Does it mean we can point our fingers at God in judgment of disgust for allowing evil to exist? That would accomplish...what?

If God is responsible for evil, it certainly doesn't change my moral obligation as to how I treat others. But it changes any obligation I might have to God. Why should I worship a diety who has even a taint of evil? How could I trust such a God with my salvation?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well some would argue against His omniscience in the sense of foreknowledge of everything but let's assume He is omniscient & omnipotent. Having these attributes doesn't necessarily dictate that He be a slave to them. What about His sovereignty? Isn't He able to choose when, where and under what circumstances He exercises His omniscience?

If there was to be a relationship of mutual trust, how could He trust them if He knew they were going to fail? I'd prefer to think of God's omniscience in the sense that He knew what the outcomes would be depending on which choice they made.

So, in other words, we tweak the myth until it somehow fits our preconceptions, regardless of what the text says and what the attributes of God are:

God is omniscient, but didn't wish to know whether leaving a LOADED GUN in the hands of innocents would cause them (and all who came after them) grievous harm.
And Adam and Eve weren't able to distinguish between good and evil, but are to be held accountable for the evil they did regardless.

Well, next thing you're going to tell me that even the flood myth makes any sense, in spite of the fact that God should have KNOWN that it was a rather useless gesture - like using cannons to shoot at sparrows, and wrecking your house in the process.

 

[Crankitup]

Nice demonstration of selective quoting---but then why should we be surprised. The argument tanks, majorly, and shows up gotquestions.org. for what it is. I leave it to others to come up with the appropriate derogating adjectives for the website.


Take a look at the 16 versions given on Biblegateway.

I bring prosperity and create disaster; (New International Version)

Causing well-being and creating calamity; (New American Standard Bible)

I make harmonies and create discords. (The Message)

Moral evil proceeds from the will of men, but physical evil proceeds from the will of God. (Amplified Bible)

I send good times and bad times. (New Living Translation)

I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (King James Version)

I make well-being and create calamity, (English Standard Version)

happiness and sorrow. (Contemporary English Version)

I make peace and create calamity; (New King James Version)

I bring peace, and I cause troubles. (New Century Version)

I make peace, and create evil; (21st Century King James Version)

I make peace, and create evil. (American Standard Version)

Making peace, and preparing evil, (Young's Literal Translation)

making peace and creating evil: (Darby Translation)

I make success and create disaster; (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

I bring good times. I also create hard times. (New International Reader's Version)
​

Quite a variety of interpretations here. Far more than one would expect of a holy word handed down by god for all to hear and take measure of. Just what does god think his followers should make of such an assortment? Should it be read as "evil"? or just "bad times"? Or maybe it simply means "sorrow" or "discord." Two very dissimilar things. Pretty much sends a message of real desperation here: "Hey guys, pick anything, but don't pick 'evil' for the verse."

Considering one has quite a diversity of interpretation to pick from, how about just going with the most popular. Discords, Bad Times, Sorrow, Troubles and Hard Times all only appear once. Disaster does only slightly better with two mentions. Calamity ups the number of mentions to three. But it's evil that clearly comes out on top, garnering 38% of all the mentions with six.

I only count 5. I don't see how you could count the Amplified when it distinguishes between moral evil and physical evil (calamity, misfortune).

What are the other 5?

KJV (1611)

ASV (1901)

YLT (1898)

Darby (1890)

21C KJV is published more recently but that version is the same text as KJV (including thees & thous) with only truly archaic words like 'astonied' removed.

So no modern Bible less than 100 years old renders the meaning moral evil.

TBH, I have no problem with the older bibles, in fact I prefer the 1860 Geneva Bible, it's just the English language changes with the times. You only have to compare dictionaries of 100 years ago to today to see this.

100 years ago the rendering of 'evil' as a noun meaning 'harm, mischief or misfortune' would have appeared higher in the list of meanings than dictionaries render it today. It still appears as a meaning, just lower down the list. There are exceptions of course;

evil
adjective
1 immoral, cruel, or very unpleasant:
an evil dictator
These people are just evil.

2 If the weather or a smell is evil, it is very unpleasant.

evil
noun [C or U]
something that is very bad and harmful:
Each new leader would blame his predecessor for all the evils of the past.
Drug-addiction is one of today's great social evils.
For the sake of long-term peace, the military option is the lesser evil/the lesser of two evils (= the less unpleasant of two bad choices).
the battle between good and evil

Etymology can help us here also;

O.E. yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious," from P.Gmc. *ubilaz (cf. O.Saxon ubil, Goth. ubils), from PIE *upelo-, giving the word an original sense of "uppity, overreaching bounds" which slowly worsened. "In OE., as in all the other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime, misfortune, disease. The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in O.E., but did not become the main sense until 18c. Evil eye (L. oculus malus) was O.E. eage yfel.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If God is omnipresent and evil is the absence of God; whence evil?

 

[Crankitup]

If God is omnipresent and evil is the absence of God; whence evil?

Presumably that's directed to the one person who's posted here that had that definition of evil (absence of God).

 

[Zaac]

I simply fail to understand how God is not complicit in human failings. Why, for example, would God create us with the capacity and propensity for masturbation, and then forbid it?

He also gave us the capacity to molest kids, murder babies,chop the heads off little puppies, microwave kittens, and push little old ladies in front of oncoming buses if we wanted.

God wants us to understand that there are a lot of things we can do that don't give us what we need. His commandments are to direct us towards Him and His best for us.

Why would God, if he loves us, punish all of humanity for the crime of two people?

You get punished for your own sin if you don't accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Why would he even allow that crime to be possible?

For the same reason that you don't FORCE people to love you.

And why would he threaten us with infinite punishment for finite crimes?

Unless you have a Savior who can wash that sin away, it IS an infinite crime.

 

[soul_biscuit]

He also gave us the capacity to molest kids, murder babies,chop the heads off little puppies, microwave kittens, and push little old ladies in front of oncoming buses if we wanted.

God wants us to understand that there are a lot of things we can do that don't give us what we need. His commandments are to direct us towards Him and His best for us.

That's not the question. The question is that if these things are so abominable, why did God make us capable of them in the first place? And then why would he punish us for doing something that he made us capable of doing in the first place? It's like putting a delicate vase right in the path of a clumsy toddler and then punishing him for breaking it. It's entrapment.

You get punished for your own sin if you don't accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Again, not the question. I asked why God punished all of humanity for the sin of Adam and Eve. Jesus wasn't around then, was he?

And further, why are we being punished for the sin of people who never existed?

For the same reason that you don't FORCE people to love you.

So God created a bunch of thinking beings with free will, in the hope that they would all start loving him? That would be lovely, accept that God punishes anyone who doesn't love him with eternal fire. Isn't that precisely the same as forcing people to love him?

Unless you have a Savior who can wash that sin away, it IS an infinite crime.

What does that mean? How can a crime be infinite? It certainly isn't infinite in time, as a crime takes a finite amount of time to commit. It isn't infinite in detriment, because it harms a finite amount of people. In what possible way can a crime be infinite?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Presumably that's directed to the one person who's posted here that had that definition of evil (absence of God).

Yes, thank you.

 

[Zaac]

That's not the question. The question is that if these things are so abominable, why did God make us capable of them in the first place?

That's not the question you asked, but never no mind. God gave us free will to do whatever we want. The capacity to commit homosexual fornication is no different than the capacity to commit any other sin.

And then why would he punish us for doing something that he made us capable of doing in the first place?

Because choosing the wrong thing means you didn't choose Him. When you commit a crime and you go to court, does the judge assess a penalty for the crime, or does he just let you go?

God is yhe ultimate judge. It is JUST of Him to mete out punishment for our crimes committed against Him. But He loves His creation so much that He has provided a Way for us to be pardoned of our crimes. That Way is Jesus Christ.

It's like putting a delicate vase right in the path of a clumsy toddler and then punishing him for breaking it. It's entrapment.

That's not entrapment. We CHOOSE to break the vase. It doesn't matter if you're clumsy. You still broke it.

Again, not the question. I asked why God punished all of humanity for the sin of Adam and Eve.

He didn't. The sinner is punished for His OWN sin. The sin of Adam and Eve just made it possible for everybody else to sin.

Jesus wasn't around then, was he?

Yes He was. This answer may warrant more explanation so let me know.

And further, why are we being punished for the sin of people who never existed?

Now if you thought that, you wouldn't have even asked the initial questions. Sinners are held accountable for THEIR sin just as human beings are held accountable for the crimes they commit.

So God created a bunch of thinking beings with free will, in the hope that they would all start loving him?

The first two He created DID.

That would be lovely, accept that God punishes anyone who doesn't love him with eternal fire. Isn't that precisely the same as forcing people to love him?

If He were forcing people to love Him, there would be no one tossed into the Lake of fire. There would be no one rejecting Him. There would be no one saying His first two created people were myths.

What does that mean? How can a crime be infinite?

The same way you can have life without pardon. As long as you are available to pay the penalty, the penalty must be paid. All of us will live eternally somewhere: either in the presence of God or absent Him in the Lake of Fire.

If your sin is not pardoned, it is eternal and the price will be paid eternally.

It certainly isn't infinite in time, as a crime takes a finite amount of time to commit.

The time to commit a crime has nothing to do with the penalty.

It isn't infinite in detriment, because it harms a finite amount of people. In what possible way can a crime be infinite?

It's infinite in detriment to YOU if it's not forgiven. The crime is against GOD, and unless God forgives you, the crime of rejecting Him will eternally be held against you.

 

[Zaac]

.

 

[Washington]

I only count 5. I don't see how you could count the Amplified when it distinguishes between moral evil and physical evil (calamity, misfortune).

Because I don't want to take the thread off topic I'm not going to pursue the issue any further other than to say; regardless of the type of evil god chose to create in this particular interpretation, it still qualifies as his created evil, and therefore deserves to be counted.

 

[soul_biscuit]

That's not the question you asked, but never no mind. God gave us free will to do whatever we want. The capacity to commit homosexual fornication is no different than the capacity to commit any other sin.

Exactly. So if God didn't want us to do such things, why make us capable of them in the first place? Particularly when, in the case of Adam and Eve, he gave no forewarning of the fact that they were wrong?

Because choosing the wrong thing means you didn't choose Him. When you commit a crime and you go to court, does the judge assess a penalty for the crime, or does he just let you go?

I think you're not quite getting my point. The point is that if he doesn't want us to do such things, why make us capable of them in the first place? Why make us such that we would WANT to do them? You might as well put a biscuit in front of a puppy and smack him when he starts to eat it.

God is yhe ultimate judge. It is JUST of Him to mete out punishment for our crimes committed against Him. But He loves His creation so much that He has provided a Way for us to be pardoned of our crimes. That Way is Jesus Christ.

OK, but you're not addressing my point. God wouldn't need to be a judge if he didn't make us capable of sinning in the first place. If he loved us and didn't want us to suffer, why would he create a punishment to torment us for doing things that he made us enjoy doing and at the same time forbade? I can only see that as cruel.

That's not entrapment. We CHOOSE to break the vase. It doesn't matter if you're clumsy. You still broke it.

I'm walking along. Someone sets a vase directly in front of me, so that I can't help but break it. Is it still my fault?

He didn't. The sinner is punished for His OWN sin. The sin of Adam and Eve just made it possible for everybody else to sin.

Yet according to Christianity, we are all born sinners. It doesn't matter if we've never moved a muscle or spoken a word, we still deserve to be punished. Isn't that right? And isn't it because of the sin of Adam and Eve?

Yes He was. This answer may warrant more explanation so let me know.

Do you mean because Jesus is actually God? Still, how can Jesus expect people to accept him when he hasn't revealed himself to them?

Now if you thought that, you wouldn't have even asked the initial questions. Sinners are held accountable for THEIR sin just as human beings are held accountable for the crimes they commit.

I wasn't asking about that. I was asking about why, if God hated sin so much, he would make us capable of it in the first place.

In case you were wondering, I said that Adam and Eve never existed because there was never a time when there were only two humans in existence. It's demonstrably impossible.

The first two He created DID.

Did what, love God? Then what's the problem?

If He were forcing people to love Him, there would be no one tossed into the Lake of fire. There would be no one rejecting Him. There would be no one saying His first two created people were myths.

Hold on. Here's what's happening here. People have two choices: either love God, or burn forever in a lake of fire. And you're saying they're NOT forced to love him?

The same way you can have life without pardon. As long as you are available to pay the penalty, the penalty must be paid. All of us will live eternally somewhere: either in the presence of God or absent Him in the Lake of Fire.

If you are paying forever, then you are not paying at all. It's not payment if there's no possibility of the payment ever being completed.

If your sin is not pardoned, it is eternal and the price will be paid eternally.

See above.

The time to commit a crime has nothing to do with the penalty.

I made no such suggestion. I simply asked how a crime could be considered eternal.

It's infinite in detriment to YOU if it's not forgiven. The crime is against GOD, and unless God forgives you, the crime of rejecting Him will eternally be held against you.

And that's why I hold the Abrahamic God to be entirely unloving. He created us with the will and desire to do things, and at the same time forbade those things on pain of eternal torment.

Here's an example. Let's say you have kids. You tell those kids that you love them, and that they are free to love you back, only if they do not you will lock them in the basement forever. And that there is fire and brimstone and crocodiles in the basement. Is that a loving action?