On Hell and Forgiveness

[RoadRunner79]

Ontological subjectivity does not preclude epistemic objectivity.

Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms (if possible) the definitions of these two terms and how they’re related to each other? I’d like follow this discussion and I’ve been trying to do research, but I’m not like, totally smert like you guys, and it’s going over my head. 😭. Thanks in advance for any scraps so generously thrown my way! 😁

Epistemology Is the study of how we know things. Ontology is the study of the nature of things.

Someone had given me an example a while ago. There is a birthday party, and people are guessing at what is in a package. Some make some wild guesses, some make serious ones. Epistemologically, you might give the approximate weight or size of the object in the box. Is it hard or soft? Subjectively, they make guesses at what is in the box; some good educated guesses, some jokingly.

By its nature however, what is in the box is objective and independent of the subject. It doesn’t change based on the person guessing. They (other than the giver of the gift) don’t know what is in the box, but what it is, is not based on them or their guess (no matter how good or bad). A classic example of something that is subjective by nature is tastes and opinions. And without you telling me or some other evidence, I can’t know what is your tastes. This is because it is internal dependent, and specific to you.

So in this case, the opinions of what is in the box is subjective. And it may be based on good or bad data, informed or biased guesses. In this way it is subjective in how we know. But by its nature, it’s objective and independent of those people.

Hope this helps.

[Drich]

Ontological subjectivity does not preclude epistemic objectivity.

Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms (if possible) the definitions of these two terms and how they’re related to each other?  I’d like follow this discussion and I’ve been trying to do research, but I’m not like, totally smert like you guys, and it’s going over my head. 😭. Thanks in advance for any scraps so generously thrown my way! 😁

ontological arguments are based in metaphysical or nature of a subject/being,  which epistemic speaks to the validation of the subject.

In short it is a douche bag way of saying just because you can describe how something works does mean it is valid/works that way.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ontological subjectivity does not preclude epistemic objectivity.

Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms (if possible) the definitions of these two terms and how they’re related to each other?  I’d like follow this discussion and I’ve been trying to do research, but I’m not like, totally smert like you guys, and it’s going over my head. 😭. Thanks in advance for any scraps so generously thrown my way! 😁

ontological arguments are based in metaphysical or nature of a subject/being,  which epistemic speaks to the validation of the subject.

In short it is a douche bag way of saying just because you can describe how something works does mean it is valid/works that way.

LOL, it would take you to get that one as backwards as anyone could get it, eh?

In plain english...the statement could read - "being stuck inside your head doesn't mean that you can't know stuff".

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ontological subjectivity does not preclude epistemic objectivity.

Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms (if possible) the definitions of these two terms and how they’re related to each other?  I’d like follow this discussion and I’ve been trying to do research, but I’m not like, totally smert like you guys, and it’s going over my head. 😭. Thanks in advance for any scraps so generously thrown my way! 😁

The difference is between what something is and how you know about it.

Ontology studies what it means to exist and the nature of beings.

Epistemology is the study of what it means to know something and how you know what you know.

[LadyForCamus]

The point is that God does not decide what is just. His nature is perfect justice and all actions are governed by that characteristic.

How can god possess libertarian free will if he is bound by his nature? If god isn’t free to consider what is or isn’t just and then act accordingly, then he isn’t actually free.

I have no idea what perfect justice is.

While I appreciate your humility in this answer, it seems to pose further problems. If humans can’t or don’t know what perfect justice is, then we have no rationale to support the notion that god’s actions are perfectly just. We must simply accept the bible’s claim of it at face value. But more importantly, if god is incapable of making cogent determinations about what is or isn’t perfectly just, then there exists no rationale for his actions. Without any rational his actions are essentially arbitrary, and the claim, ‘god is perfectly just’ simply hangs there as a bare, and meaningless assertion. 

I heard a good example this week. For three years people followed Jesus around watching him do miracles. Thousands of people saw and even more heard. In 1 Cor 15:6, we hear that there were more than 500 people that actually saw him alive following his crucifixion. In Acts 2, there were only 120 that believed enough to be wait in Jerusalem as Jesus had told them to do. The point is that being shown miracles, signs, and even the ontological argument, does not get a person's heart to the right place to meet God. It is almost always a process.

Or...that as time passes, people’s credulity becomes more reserved, which is perfectly rational. In any case, I’m not talking about Jesus performing miracles as a man who lived thousands of years ago, and the fallout of that. I’m talking about god revealing himself without any intermediaries, indisputably, to every person on the planet who ever lived and ever will live.  This is the only action that can logically follow from his expressed goal.  

Oh, come on now, Steve.  Don’t be obtuse.  If our consciousness continues infinitely beyond our physical death, then our ability to make choices is obviously also infinite.  God is the one inserting arbitrary restrictions and ultimatums here. Why is that?

Can a disembodied soul make choices? There are no inputs or outputs.

There is so much wrong with this that I don’t even know where to start. First, what the heck does that even mean?  What is existence like for a disembodied soul with ‘no inputs or outputs’? Are you saying that human souls have no experience?  The concept alone seems incoherent to begin with. 

Further, how could you possibly know that a disembodied mind cannot experience inputs and outputs? Where did you derive this knowledge from? 

Last, isn’t god a disembodied mind? According to your faith, does god not speak to us? Does he not hear prayers?  Does he not enjoy an interactive relationship with humans that involves actively giving and receiving love? Sounds to me like you are making this stuff up as you go along, Steve.

Anyhow...all of my objections aside, I’ll give you your assertion about inputs and outputs for the sake of the argument.  Because, my point of contention here is that if we are no longer free to make any choices (into literal eternity) after physical life ends, then your god plainly does not value free will.  If he valued free will, he would not impose an arbitrary time limit on it.

to me the chance for reflection, change of heart, and a life with God have passed when you die.

Why should it?

It seems your objection has no reasons other than to be difficult.

On the contrary, it seems that much of the Christian doctrine discussed in this thread has no rational basis at all.

Forgiveness is not the same as atonement. I can forgive a murderer for killing my brother. I can't take away the consequences. Atonement takes away the consequences. It would be like Jesus literally sitting through the trial, taking on the humility of facing the victims, then prison and then the death penalty and the actual murderer going free.

So basically, ‘somebody has to pay’?  Why?  Why is god so hung up on punishing someone for actions he knew ahead of time that humans were incapable of resisting? Furthermore, how can you reasonably argue that that is ‘perfect justice’ if you admit yourself that you don’t even know what perfect justice is?  If I know my dog is going to get into the garbage if I leave him alone, and then I go for a jog and he eats last night’s table scraps, is it just of me to punish him for that?  Is it just of me to punish some other dog in his place? 

In short, I don’t hear any rationale or reasonable explanation for why forgiveness alone is less than perfect justice. You’d need to be able to define it first, or else your argument doesn’t even have a starter.

[Drich]

ontological arguments are based in metaphysical or nature of a subject/being,  which epistemic speaks to the validation of the subject.

In short it is a douche bag way of saying just because you can describe how something works does mean it is valid/works that way.

LOL, it would take you to get that one as backwards as anyone could get it, eh?

In plain english...the statement could read - "being stuck inside your head doesn't mean that you can't know stuff".

looks like you otta to stick to the plain english if that is what you meant to say. Neo did indeed leave the definition of those two words and neither defination lends itself to your interpretation. as neither definition allows you to be 'stuck in your own head.'

---

How can god possess libertarian free will if he is bound by his nature? If god isn’t free to consider what is or isn’t just and then act accordingly, then he isn’t actually free.

I have no idea what perfect justice is.

While I appreciate your humility in this answer, it seems to pose further problems. If humans can’t or don’t know what perfect justice is, then we have no rationale to support the notion that god’s actions are perfectly just. We must simply accept the bible’s claim of it at face value. But more importantly, if god is incapable of making cogent determinations about what is or isn’t perfectly just, then there exists no rationale for his actions. Without any rational his actions are essentially arbitrary, and the claim, ‘god is perfectly just’ simply hangs there as a bare, and meaningless assertion. 

I heard a good example this week. For three years people followed Jesus around watching him do miracles. Thousands of people saw and even more heard. In 1 Cor 15:6, we hear that there were more than 500 people that actually saw him alive following his crucifixion. In Acts 2, there were only 120 that believed enough to be wait in Jerusalem as Jesus had told them to do. The point is that being shown miracles, signs, and even the ontological argument, does not get a person's heart to the right place to meet God. It is almost always a process.

Or...that as time passes, people’s credulity becomes more reserved, which is perfectly rational. In any case, I’m not talking about Jesus performing miracles as a man who lived thousands of years ago, and the fallout of that. I’m talking about god revealing himself without any intermediaries, indisputably, to every person on the planet who ever lived and ever will live.  This is the only action that can logically follow from his expressed goal.  

Oh, come on now, Steve.  Don’t be obtuse.  If our consciousness continues infinitely beyond our physical death, then our ability to make choices is obviously also infinite.  God is the one inserting arbitrary restrictions and ultimatums here. Why is that?

Can a disembodied soul make choices? There are no inputs or outputs.

There is so much wrong with this that I don’t even know where to start. First, what the heck does that even mean?  What is existence like for a disembodied soul with ‘no inputs or outputs’? Are you saying that human souls have no experience?  The concept alone seems incoherent to begin with. 

Further, how could you possibly know that a disembodied mind cannot experience inputs and outputs? Where did you derive this knowledge from? 

Last, isn’t god a disembodied mind? According to your faith, does god not speak to us? Does he not hear prayers?  Does he not enjoy an interactive relationship with humans that involves actively giving and receiving love? Sounds to me like you are making this stuff up as you go along, Steve.

Anyhow...all of my objections aside, I’ll give you your assertion about inputs and outputs for the sake of the argument.  Because, my point of contention here is that if we are no longer free to make any choices (into literal eternity) after physical life ends, then your god plainly does not value free will.  If he valued free will, he would not impose an arbitrary time limit on it.

to me the chance for reflection, change of heart, and a life with God have passed when you die.

Why should it?

It seems your objection has no reasons other than to be difficult.

On the contrary, it seems that much of the Christian doctrine discussed in this thread has no rational basis at all.

Forgiveness is not the same as atonement. I can forgive a murderer for killing my brother. I can't take away the consequences. Atonement takes away the consequences. It would be like Jesus literally sitting through the trial, taking on the humility of facing the victims, then prison and then the death penalty and the actual murderer going free.

So basically, ‘somebody has to pay’?  Why?  Why is god so hung up on punishing someone for actions he knew ahead of time that humans were incapable of resisting? Furthermore, how can you reasonably argue that that is ‘perfect justice’ if you admit yourself that you don’t even know what perfect justice is?  If I know my dog is going to get into the garbage if I leave him alone, and then I go for a jog and he eats last night’s table scraps, is it just of me to punish him for that?  Is it just of me to punish some other dog in his place? 

In short, I don’t hear any rationale or reasonable explanation for why forgiveness alone is less than perfect justice. You’d need to be able to define it first, or else your argument doesn’t even have a starter.

Does any one care (steve or LfC) if i answer a few of these?

[polymath257]

Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms (if possible) the definitions of these two terms and how they’re related to each other?  I’d like follow this discussion and I’ve been trying to do research, but I’m not like, totally smert like you guys, and it’s going over my head. 😭. Thanks in advance for any scraps so generously thrown my way! 😁

Epistemology Is the study of how we know things. Ontology is the study of the nature of things.

Someone had given me an example a while ago. There is a birthday party, and people are guessing at what is in a package. Some make some wild guesses, some make serious ones. Epistemologically, you might give the approximate weight or size of the object in the box. Is it hard or soft?  Subjectively, they make guesses at what is in the box; some good educated guesses, some jokingly.

By its nature however, what is in the box is objective and independent of the subject. It doesn’t change based on the person guessing. They (other than the giver of the gift) don’t know what is in the box, but what it is, is not based on them or their guess (no matter how good or bad). A classic example of something that is subjective by nature is tastes and opinions. And without you telling me or some other evidence, I can’t know what is your tastes. This is because it is internal dependent, and specific to you.

So in this case, the opinions of what is in the box is subjective. And it may be based on good or bad data, informed or biased guesses. In this way it is subjective in how we know. But by its nature, it’s objective and independent of those people.

Hope this helps.

Does the game of chess exist objectively? Or is it dependent on the desires of the people playing it?

---

Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms (if possible) the definitions of these two terms and how they’re related to each other?  I’d like follow this discussion and I’ve been trying to do research, but I’m not like, totally smert like you guys, and it’s going over my head. 😭. Thanks in advance for any scraps so generously thrown my way! 😁

The difference is between what something is and how you know about it.

Ontology studies what it means to exist and the nature of beings.

Epistemology is the study of what it means to know something and how you know what you know.

The difficulty is the epistemology of ontology. How do we know what it means to know? How do we know the nature of things? Can we just think about these questions and arrive at answers that we can be confident of? Or is it ultimately a matter of our biases?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, it would take you to get that one as backwards as anyone could get it, eh?

In plain english...the statement could read - "being stuck inside your head doesn't mean that you can't know stuff".

looks like you otta to stick to the plain english if that is what you meant to say. Neo did indeed leave the definition of those two words and neither defination lends itself to your interpretation. as neither definition allows you to be 'stuck in your own head.'

LOL.....if you say so.

Meanwhile, outside of the fantasyland where you ever know your shit about..well..anything, the main thrust of nihilism is that we live in a world of subjective ontology, so, when it comes to statements about the world outside of our head..caveat emptor. Neo, for his part..thinks that this would mean that there are no facts. It's not clear why that would be the case, since facts are an epistemic concern. It may be the case that we exist in a necessarrily subjective world (it is, lol - regardless of whatever the world outside of our heads is like)...but that doesn't mean that we don't or can't know things about that world we live in.

Or....to say all of that another way. Ontological subjectivity does not preclude epistemic objectivity.

You're welcome.

[LadyForCamus]

@Drich,

Sure, go ahead!

[Drich]

How can god possess libertarian free will if he is bound by his nature? If god isn’t free to consider what is or isn’t just and then act accordingly, then he isn’t actually free.

Actually God only describes Himself in two ways.. The Alpha and omega (which means the beginning and the end) and He also refers to himself as the great I am.
To be an alpha and omega means he has no boundaries or restriction as he is the first authority and has the last word on everything. Is God bound by his nature, only if he wants to be. Can God create a rock so big he can not lift it? if he feels like it yes and if he doesn't no. Being an alpha and Omega means there are no boundaries other than what He himself decides. Scripturally He gives us some of these boundaries but at the same time there are exceptions. Like Sin=death but God provides atonement...

I have no idea what perfect justice is.

perfect Justice is having an all knowing being who sees all and knows all cut a situation down to spiritual intent, and levi judgement not only on the act and the damage it cause, but what the spirit or intention of the act was. Now do this one type of judgement over a lifetime of similar acts. The hebrew writer describes it this way:
12 The word of God is alive and active. It is sharper than any sword that has two edges. It cuts deep enough to separate soul from spirit. It can separate bones from joints. It judges the thoughts and purposes of the heart. 13 Nothing God created is hidden from him. His eyes see everything. He will hold us responsible for everything we do.
14 We have a great high priest. He has gone up into heaven. He is Jesus the Son of God. So let us hold firmly to what we say we believe. 15 We have a high priest who can feel it when we are weak and hurting. We have a high priest who has been tempted in every way, just as we are. But he did not sin. 16 So let us boldly approach God’s throne of grace. Then we will receive mercy. We will find grace to help us when we need it.

The "Word of God" here in hebrews in the greek is logos/word
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/heb/...nc_1137012

This is the same word John used in John 1:1 to describe Jesus/logos
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/...onc_998001

In essence Jesus is our judge and can divide our intent and intentions from our actions and judge our purest motives accurately.

While I appreciate your humility in this answer, it seems to pose further problems. If humans can’t or don’t know what perfect justice is, then we have no rationale to support the notion that god’s actions are perfectly just. We must simply accept the bible’s claim of it at face value. But more importantly, if god is incapable of making cogent determinations about what is or isn’t perfectly just, then there exists no rationale for his actions. Without any rational his actions are essentially arbitrary, and the claim, ‘god is perfectly just’ simply hangs there as a bare, and meaningless assertion. 

we know God is just through the actions of Christ and the apostles as if there was anyone who was in a position to judge Christ said he did not come to judge but to try and save the world and everyone in it through an offer of atonement, which literally cancels out the law for the believer as a means or his only way to righteousness. (being right or acceptable before God)

Meaning "morality" ceases to be about following the law and becomes about loving God with all of our being and loving each other as ourselves. Christ said all of the law can be summed up/completed by those two commands for us/christians, everyone else is still subject to the law in it's ost perfect form which covers thought.

How much more just can one being be? the law too tough? can't refrain from poking other boys in the b-hole? fine. repent/come to hate your sin and God will take away the law as a means to judge you, and then judge you based on your ability to "Agape'"/Love (not b-hole love/eros)

Or...that as time passes, people’s credulity becomes more reserved, which is perfectly rational. In any case, I’m not talking about Jesus performing miracles as a man who lived thousands of years ago, and the fallout of that. I’m talking about god revealing himself without any intermediaries, indisputably, to every person on the planet who ever lived and ever will live.  This is the only action that can logically follow from his expressed goal.  

That is EXACTLY what Christ promised. Think about this. The Son of God promised that God Himself/The Holy Spirit will be sent to you (If you learn to properly A/S/K) for Him. Now how do you suppose this religion lasted for 2000+ years if God had not full filled this promise to millions if not billions over the decades? People are not stupid look at how you guys can identify a church empty of God and will not serve just because. put this attitude in people 2000 years ago and couple that with an absent God and the religion ends before it begins.

IF you want to be put in front of God then you start in luke 11 with Ask Seek and knock as it is out line there. This is not a way to pray for a new car, but it is the only prescribed way someone on their own like you and I was can obtain a measure of the Holy Spirit.

You have to Ask Seek and Knock not because God is hard hearted but because you are. you have to do these things because if God was writing to you this very moment using my account, you could not tell the difference between his words and the words I would use. (you might note the spelling and grammar got better) but my point is you don't know what God sounds like and until you read for yourself who and what he is about you will not be able to identify his hand/ his work. Now once you can do this you will begin to see more and more... Will you get a face to face? if you are like me or doubting thomas... I would say yes, because God gives us exactly what we need.

He did not shame thomas for having doubts, he just said blessed are those who do not see and still believe... While showing thomas his wounds. For me the Holy Spirit came in the way of a messenger and a message. very very humbling experience, but I can tell you if I did not learn to see God in this man I would have been able to dismiss him, and take my self out of the situations he described that would change the direction of my life.. (He made a bunch of predictions that came true/gave me confidence to push through when normally I would have faltered.) Imagine being described a life changing situation 10 years ahead of time, and being told how to handle it, you do and you get what was promised 10 years before...
Stuff like that is why, this religion has lasted. because it full fills promises to those who Ask seek and find God. Got to be on His terms though, you will never make God bend to you. On his terms a mustard seed worth of faith will remove mountains of doubt. Which is why I keep coming back here. I know what I saw to be 1000% true and know what awaits if I back off. at the same time I also know what awaits if I just keep my promises to my end.

Oh, come on now, Steve.  Don’t be obtuse.  If our consciousness continues infinitely beyond our physical death, then our ability to make choices is obviously also infinite.  God is the one inserting arbitrary restrictions and ultimatums here. Why is that?

I'm assuming you asked why can't we repent after we die? Funny you should ask.. I was judged by christ and sent to hell. while being disolved by hell fire one of the thing I came to peace with was the idea I rightfully belong there given my life. My only regret was not knowing the truth.. the idea of what if, was going to make hell... hell for me! On the promise I would find and share the truth is why I was given another chance. Not religious bull shit, do this, pay that, say thi,s think that... I wanted to know what the bible alone said and find the God of the bible and worship Him with all that I could come up with.

That said I found out why God does not want us to make this decision dangling over the pit of hell. It's like growing up with no money, than then one day you win the lottery, and everyone wants to be your friend or worse yet those in your past who went their own way are now coming out of the wood work to be your friend. God doesn't want lottery friends.. God wants true "friends" the guys who would come over and help you dig a swimming pool for the promise of being able to go swimming kind of thing. God doesn't want a buddy he has to dangle over the pit of hell. Once you are in God's presence you feel what true Agape is. (you experience love and his wealth so to speak, I felt this for a moment while being judged.. it is a sense of completeness a sense of needing or wanting nothing, it's almost like being high you feel perfect with the knowledge it only gets better from here as we begin to full fill the roles we were literally designed to do. It is this feeling of euphoria that makes the decision for you, because the alternative is hell fire which is... not as pleasant. so as a matter of self preservation even the demons would repent in the glory of God while standing before the pit..

But..

If you take the pit away and you hide the eyes of people so they can not see or feel God's glory, then who they really are comes out. what they really think about God get plastered on page, get thrown in the face of family and believers.. Again God doesn't want these people in Heaven. given enough time say eternity future... they will come to loath and hate God and his people and strike out as the angels did.

So we are given a vapor of a life to show us what God already knows about us. who we are when He and Hell is not a looming presence. That is why what decision we make here, echoes throughout eternity. Of course you would repent before hell, but that is not the point. The point is to show you who you are so you can have peace in whatever side of the gates you wind up on.

On the contrary, it seems that much of the Christian doctrine discussed in this thread has no rational basis at all.

I simply think most are taught not to ask why. I demanded to know and got answers good enough for me anyways. the first thing you need to understand there is a large gulf between the religion/any form and what the bible describes. because what is offered in the bible is an unfiltered connection between you and God that will grow over time. anything the church offers will put the church between you and God. now that is not to say the church is bad or does not have it's place. the church simply has become like an over bearing government with too many of it's own rules and traditions for God to support it anymore. That is why the church in the bible and the church we see are so vastly different. the church now in impotent of the power and knowledge of God and has for the most part regulated God own to bite size sermons which allow feel gooders to mold god into something they can manage. Why? because holy men do not want to talk about the things that I talk about here. the things that piss 'good people off' so the try and find a middle ground which God expressly hates. So He pulls support to a lessor degree.

Don't get me wrong God still supports the church to a degree as it is to be the body of Christ, but It is full of men who like the pharisees use the power of God for their own gain. Yet God still works with them enough to allow people to ask seek and find the Spirit, and either continue to work in the church or work outside of it in places like this.

I say all of that to say, in your mind learn to draw a line between church doctrine and what is found in the bible. the two are often times at odds with each other.

Priest forbidden to marry- Paul says let no one forbid you to marry.
Do not worship idols/make no image of God- the church commissioned the building of stone idols and images of God
Do not worship any god before me- the church teaches we pray to saints and angels..
Jesus said he will sent the holy Spirit to teach us one on one- church says we can't even go before God to confess our sins.
Jesus and paul both point to freedom from the law as a means to righteousness- the church invents rules and laws to further bind people to service of the church.
And on and on it goes. Don't judge God by what the church does.

So basically, ‘somebody has to pay’?  Why?

Because sin has a cost or consequence.

 

Why is god so hung up on punishing someone for actions he knew ahead of time that humans were incapable of resisting?

the short answer is because he said so..
the longer answer is because God is a righteous being and in his economy wrongs must be righted. think how you felt on 9-11-01 about 10 am.. God simply takes that need of fairness and equally applies it across the board.

 

Furthermore, how can you reasonably argue that that is ‘perfect justice’ if you admit yourself that you don’t even know what perfect justice is?  If I know my dog is going to get into the garbage if I leave him alone, and then I go for a jog and he eats last night’s table scraps, is it just of me to punish him for that?  Is it just of me to punish some other dog in his place? 

perfect justice put you in a position to accurately look at your dogs intentions.. what if your dog gets into the garbage as a big F-you for doing something else to him he did not like like cutting his claw nails or giving him a bath. what if the garbage is but one thing in a series of angry protests he has in store for you. do you look at the dug up flower bed, or do you look at the anger and ill intent he has for the things you care about? That's what perfect justice looks like, it not the garbage it is not the flower bed, after we are saved it is not the law we are judged by romans chapter 7, 8 and 9 go into detail (really the whole book of romans explain our new relationship with sin and the law) but the crux of the matter are found in those three chapters.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

In essence it is not the law we are judged by being followers but where our heart is in relation to the sin. do we sin because we can not help it and hate the sin or do we sin because we love doing it no matter what anyone says?

That looking at the soul and spirit to judge not just the act, is perfect justice.

In short, I don’t hear any rationale or reasonable explanation for why forgiveness alone is less than perfect justice. You’d need to be able to define it first, or else your argument doesn’t even have a starter.

boom! done and done.