• Log In | Sign Up

  • News
  • Reviews
  • Games Database
  • Game Discovery
  • Search
  • New Releases
  • Forums

Adventure Gamers - Forums

Welcome to Adventure Gamers. Please Sign In or Join Now to post.

You are here: HomeForum Home → Other → Chit Chat → Thread



   

The ongoing gay marriage debate - have your say, mind your manners

Avatar

Total Posts: 51

Joined 2003-12-31

PM

How you read the bible’s take on gay marriage and homosexuality is a matter of how literally you read the Bible. Christians who use the Bible to say no to gay marriage are ignoring the context in which the Bible’s statements about homosexuality were written. They are also ignoring the overarching message of God’s love and that God created all people in God’s image. See Genesis.

Let me go on. First of all, gay marriage as we understand it in modern times is not addressed anywhere in the Bible, period. It wasn’t an issue in those times. Homosexuality is not a big issue in the Bible either. There are a handful of places that it is mentioned and most of the places in which it is mentioned, it is not a matter of love between two equals but an issue of addressing the fact that men were raping boys as a socially accepted norm for pleasure or that men were raping outsiders as a means to express dominance over them. These were social justice issues of the time. These awful practices are not as common now, and so when Christians use them to say no to gay marriage, they are using the Bible out of context.

The Bible also has a number of other laws too that most Christians ignore and are not relevant for today’s context, like the fact that men should not cut their hair on the side of their temples or shave their beards, or that women should not speak and not wear pants. Some of the laws in the Bible are ridiculous and as modern people, we have to reassess whether they are at odds with the overarching message of God’s love in the Bible. Homosexuality and gay marriage are two such issues for me. Again the Bible says nothing about gay marriage as we know it. The Bible’s laws and comments on homosexuality are blown out of proportion in relation to the overarching message of the Bible, which is of a God whose love is expansive and dynamic and breaks down the boundaries and judgments that we construct in the world today (on issues like gay marriage).

There have been polls on what young people in America (and I would expect around the world) think of Christianity, and the top two comments are that Christians are judgmental and that they are anti-gay. When a prominent figure in the Adventure Game industry like Doug represents this kind of Christianity to everyone else, I have to speak up as a Christian who disagrees. Because there are many, many Christians out there who are not anti-gay. They support two men or women who love each other to marry and have the civil rights that marriage gives. I am one of these Christians. Since this is an important issue for our times, I want to put my money where my mouth is and so I do not support TenNapel’s project

     

Total Posts: 247

Joined 2012-05-21

PM

Terabin - 20 June 2013 04:14 PM

This is a separate issue for that other thread, but it’s a matter of how literally you read the Bible. First of all, gay marriage as we understand it in modern times is not addressed anywhere in the Bible, period.

No, but marriage was. And it was clearly taught as being between a man and a woman. To say that that view is “unbibilcal” is somewhat disingenuous.

Terabin - 20 June 2013 04:14 PM

Homosexuality is not a big issue in the Bible either. There are a handful of places that it is mentioned and most of the places in which it is mentioned, it is not a matter of love between two equals but an issue of addressing the fact that men were raping boys as a socially accepted norm for pleasure.

Odd. I have read the Bible, and don’t recall it being addressed in those particular terms. Is that an assumption on your part, or can you point to a passage that clearly states that they are referring only to pedophilia?

Terabin - 20 June 2013 04:14 PM

The Bible also has a number of other laws too, like the fact that men should not cut their hair on the side of their temples or shave their beards. Some of the laws in the Bible are ridiculous and as modern people, we have to reassess whether they are at odds with the overarching message of God’s love in the Bible.

Not being a Jew, the Bible has NEVER said I was bound by Jewish ceremonial laws (which are what people usually point to with the “ridiculous, outdated laws” argument). And the New Testament makes it clear that Christians (especially Gentile Christians) are not to be subject to those ceremonial laws either, with a few noted exceptions, none of which are anything that people generally point to as being ridiculous.

Both the Old and New Testament authors, however, seem pretty clear that homosexuality is disapproved of. I can understand people who argue that something else overrides that (which seems to be what you are getting at), though I find scriptural support for such a view rather weak, but I can’t fathom at all when people try to say that the Bible DOESN’T teach that.

Terabin - 20 June 2013 04:14 PM

Homosexuality and gay marriage are two such issues for me. The Bible’s laws and comments on homosexuality are blown out of proportion in relation to the overarching message of the Bible, which is of a God whose love is expansive and dynamic and breaks down the boundaries and judgments that many of us do in the world today.

I understand your view (at least I think I do). I still think it is rather odd to call views that marriage is between a man and a woman, or that homosexuality is a sin, “unbiblical”.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 51

Joined 2003-12-31

PM

Mr Ed, I’ll respond when I have a bit more time.

     

Total Posts: 247

Joined 2012-05-21

PM

No rush. I haven’t actually been following this thread because I wasn’t eager to get into a debate on the issue, not being inclined to advocate one way or the other, as far as governmental policy on the issue goes.

I just was struck by the “unbiblical” comment, as I feel like the Bible is fairly clear on the definition of marriage, and matters of what constitutes sexual sin (in short, everything outside of marriage). How one chooses to apply that teaching in relating to other people is another issue (I certainly don’t think anybody that actually has read the Bible should be able to seriously think that Jesus would approve of hating homosexuals). But to argue that the Bible doesn’t consider homosexuality a sin because we are supposed to love everybody seems kind of like arguing that the Bible doesn’t consider adultery a sin because Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the woman caught in adultery. The call to love one another, and God’s love for the world, as demonstrated most fully by Jesus’s death on the cross, do not eliminate biblical definitions of sin.

I can easily understand if somebody rejects those definitions because they reject the Bible as an authority. That makes sense. I’ve just never understood accepting Biblical authority, then arguing that it doesn’t really say what it seems to.

     

Total Posts: 179

Joined 2012-01-08

PM

Mister Ed - 20 June 2013 04:40 PM

I still think it is rather odd to call views that marriage is between a man and a woman, or that homosexuality is a sin, “unbiblical”.

Perhaps not unbiblical but probably unchristian in my opinion.
Christ himself never spoke clearly against homosexuality but fiercely attacked divorce for example and stood tall against “moral” but cold-hearted people. Now one can read anything into the fact he didn’t mention homosexuality, like that it was a non issue for him or that it was understood it’s a sin, but you can never be sure. So in the spirit of Christianity I’d say it’s better to assume he wanted all kinds of people to be happy and enjoy equal rights. At least that’s what Jesus as I understand him would stand for today.

Now I’m not a christian and think Christ was a child of his time, too, probably resulting in some old-fashioned views. But he supposedly was progressive and liberal for his time and obviously selfless.
So I really don’t get this petty and self-righteous flavor of Christians that are so vocal about how gay marriage lessens the value of their own marriage. (Not to mention the special ones who even take the old testament literally.)

 

     

Total Posts: 247

Joined 2012-05-21

PM

Shnubble - 20 June 2013 06:30 PM
Mister Ed - 20 June 2013 04:40 PM

I still think it is rather odd to call views that marriage is between a man and a woman, or that homosexuality is a sin, “unbiblical”.

Christ himself never spoke clearly against homosexuality but fiercely attacked divorce for example and stood tall against “moral” but cold-hearted people. Now one can read anything into the fact he didn’t mention homosexuality, like that it was a non issue for him or that it was understood it’s a sin, but you can never be sure.

Well, of course, accepting the authority of Scripture isn’t usually held to mean only accepting the authority of things personally mentioned by Jesus. If Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality, yet other parts of the scripture did, it seems odd to then assume that he opposed those teachings, especially given that he didn’t seem to be very shy about speaking up when he took issue with contemporary (from the standpoint of his earthly ministry) views on the application of God’s word.

Obviously, as a non-Christian, it would be silly to expect you to accept the Bible as any kind of authority. I can’t imagine that I would, were I in your shoes. But from a Christian, the “Jesus didn’t address it personally” argument has always seemed kind of weak.

And just for the record, I don’t feel like my marriage is devalued by anything the government (or anybody, really) does with regard to marriage. I know there ARE people who feel that way, but I don’t quite get that. Now, if my church were to start performing same-sex marriages, while it still wouldn’t devalue my marriage personally, I would feel like they were departing from the clear teaching of scripture on the nature of marriage, and thus devaluing their authority to claim to represent God when performing the ceremony. But my marriage, ultimately, is a matter between me, my wife, and God at this point.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 51

Joined 2003-12-31

PM

There’s two issues here: homosexuality and gay marriage.

Homosexuality first; I’ll say more about it than gay marriage because the one issue overlaps with the other. I was using the term “unbiblical” loosely. Does the bible say that homosexuality is a sin? No, in the sense that the word homosexuality was not created until the 19th Century. Does the Bible say that sex between two men or women is a sin? Possibly. But you need to look at each instance. My take is: at the heart of the Bible for Christians is the gospel and Jesus is the distillation of that gospel. Jesus never said homosexuality is a sin. Jesus said that the most important commandment was to love God and the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself. What Jesus is remembered to have said has more authority in my life than what Paul said or what a law in Leviticus said.

If you want to talk about what Paul said, let’s go there, but then again, I think you can make an argument that Paul was not talking about homosexuality as we understand it today. There are many theologians who think that Paul was referring to pederasty or cultic prostitution. I’m not alone. Let me know if you want examples or links. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say this, but the audiences of the time would have known what the writer was talking about. This is, again, another reason why we have to know the context behind the text, and not read the Bible literally. Because you cannot say that the Bible is clear in how we are to apply its teachings to our lives today. You have to do some theological gymnastics. You have to do socio-historical criticism. The Bible was written in a different context. In order to apply the bible’s teachings to our lives today, we need to discern the larger scope of the gospel to get at what God would want for us today.

There are seven passages in the Bible that are used to condemn homosexuality, 4 in the OT, and 3 in the NT. You seem to be of the mind that the passages in question refer to homosexual practice in all times and cultures and so universally prohibit such practice. I am of the belief that: the passages may or may not refer to homosexuality as we know it, and they—and all of Scripture—are conditioned by the cultural and historical realities of the authors and so offer an incomplete and insufficient understanding of creation and nature. Therefore, they cannot be used to prohibit homosexual practice today. Rather, we need to read the larger biblical witness (the gospel) to discern God’s hopes for caring, mutually supportive relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Mostly I just get upset when people use these biblical passages out of context to say that God thinks that gay people today are sinful because of their sexual orientation. As I’ve said a couple times now, we can’t use a text that was written millenia ago in a social context that was VERY VERY different from our context today to condemn this behavior.

For other ridiculous uses of the bible’s social teachings, NOT JUST OLD TESTAMENT LAWS, consider how people use what Paul says about women in the New Testament - how they’re supposed to wear head coverings, how they’re supposed to be quiet in church, how they’re supposed to be subservient before men - to oppress women today in the church (and outside of the church). Would Jesus say amen to that today? Hell no!

In 25 (maybe 50) years we’re going to look at certain Christians’ use of the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality to oppress gays in the same way that we look at certain Christians’ use of the Bible’s teachings on women to oppress women. This is hurtful and unloving. I find your comparison between homosexuality and adultery to be insulting. I have gay friends who are in committed monogomous relationships that are WAY MORE FAITHFUL to each other than some of my adulterous hetero friends. You can make a much better argument that adultery is a sin. Sins are those things that separate us from God and one another and that cause hurt and destruction to relationships. How does homosexuality fit into this? What definition of sin are you using?

On to gay marriage. When Jesus quotes the line from Genesis and mentions a man and woman leaving their houses and joining together to become one and let no one separate these two, he is not saying what people attribute him to say, “That God intends for marriage to be only between a man and a woman.” Jesus is making an argument for why men should not have the right to crap all over their wives by divorcing them willy nilly. It’s an issue of men in a patriarchal society divorcing their wives because they feel like it when women had no power to do so. This is the context of Jesus’ argument. I see most people point to that line from the synoptic gospels when they argue that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman. Again, I refer to the fact that gay marriage as we understand it today between two individuals who love each other WAS NOT AN ISSUE in the context in which these texts were written. We cannot use these texts to keep our gay brothers and sisters in Christ from the same civil rights that we who are hetero enjoy. Would Jesus say “Amen” to that? Hell no!

The Bible has a lot of authority in my life. That’s why the task of interpreting it is so important. When you use the Bible (out of context) to judge people who are gay, as God lovingly made them, I need to speak up to at least say that many Christians DON’T agree with you. I don’t think Jesus would either. I’m tired of anti-gay and anti-gay marriage Christians speaking for all Christians. 

EDITORIAL NOTE: /Rant. Sorry that was way more ranty than I meant it to be.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1162

Joined 2012-02-17

PM

Perhaps ironically, I actually support the Church’s right to refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriage as being valid in the eyes of God. I think it’s entirely narrow-minded and wrong, but I support their right to believe it. The Church is ultimately a private club, so their rules apply. (Which, of course, is why it keeps splintering into new factions as more people find those rules distasteful, but that’s another story.)

But for any country with a clear division of Church and State, what is true of one should have no bearing on the other.

Mister Ed - 20 June 2013 06:56 PM

If Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality, yet other parts of the scripture did, it seems odd to then assume that he opposed those teachings, especially given that he didn’t seem to be very shy about speaking up when he took issue with contemporary (from the standpoint of his earthly ministry) views on the application of God’s word.

I’m not sure I’m understanding you correctly. Why would it be odd to assume he’d disagree with things written decades after his death, and only accepted as “scripture” centuries later? Or did you mean the Old Testament, in which case Jesus obviously didn’t bother to address many of the ridiculous old ways.

Oh, and speaking of the Bible, I know King David had… what was it, eight wives? I know I said polygamy didn’t belong in this discussion, and the Old Testament is the Old Testament. But it still demonstrates that the traditions we cling to are not so all-encompassing as we might like to believe.

     

Editor-in-Chief, some obscure little site called Adventure Gamers

Avatar

Total Posts: 51

Joined 2003-12-31

PM

Jackal - 20 June 2013 08:11 PM

The Church is ultimately a private club, so their rules apply. (Which, of course, is why it keeps splintering into new factions as more people find those rules distasteful, but that’s another story.)

Do you mean legally?

It’s so sad to me that the church is looked at in this way. Jesus never meant it to be a private club at all.

That’s the failing of many churches today, but not all. There is not ONE CHURCH, as you rightly point out, but many different churches with different views on social issues and different levels of open-mindedness or close-mindedness.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1162

Joined 2012-02-17

PM

You’re absolutely right, Jesus didn’t. Sadly, it didn’t take long for the Pharisees (different name, same result) to take control of the Church after the fact.

In any case, I’m being somewhat facetious in calling it “private”. AG is ultimately a private club as well (though seemingly a bit more inclusive Tongue). I just mean that no one gets to demand a church give them full privileges. A government doesn’t get the same right to discriminate.

     

Editor-in-Chief, some obscure little site called Adventure Gamers

Total Posts: 179

Joined 2012-01-08

PM

@Ed: I think the question is, if this authority of the scripture is absolute and demands blind faith.
The main point for a closer scrutiny - and that’s a fact that many Christians and especially priests acknowledge today - is that the different texts were translated, reassembled, doctored and cleaned up many times.
We can sort of guess what Jesus said by comparing different derivatives and translations but then we are still left with different and conflicting gospels, written by supposed disciples and eye witnesses who probably never met Jesus in person. (The collected sayings of the sermon on the mount are probably as close as we can get to him.)
Then we have Paul, who clearly (and quite openly)adds his own ideas and intentions.
So I personally see no problem in the fact that many Christians rather follow what they perceive as the spirit of Christianity, which they still derive from the bible. With the Old Testament it’s even more obvious that we have to choose carefully and use our brains. The alternative is fundamentalism.

     

Total Posts: 247

Joined 2012-05-21

PM

Jackal - 20 June 2013 08:11 PM
Mister Ed - 20 June 2013 06:56 PM

If Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality, yet other parts of the scripture did, it seems odd to then assume that he opposed those teachings, especially given that he didn’t seem to be very shy about speaking up when he took issue with contemporary (from the standpoint of his earthly ministry) views on the application of God’s word.

I’m not sure I’m understanding you correctly. Why would it be odd to assume he’d disagree with things written decades after his death, and only accepted as “scripture” centuries later? Or did you mean the Old Testament, in which case Jesus obviously didn’t bother to address many of the ridiculous old ways.

Oh, and speaking of the Bible, I know King David had… what was it, eight wives? I know I said polygamy didn’t belong in this discussion, and the Old Testament is the Old Testament. But it still demonstrates that the traditions we cling to are not so all-encompassing as we might like to believe.

Last things first. Yes King David had multiple wives. He also commited adultery and then had the woman’s husband killed in attempt to cover it up. Just because the Bible relates something doesn’t mean it condones it. As far as I can tell, all teaching on marriage in the Bible refers to one man and one woman, except for the part that specifically warns AGAINST kings multiplying wives. So the only direct teaching on polygamy is negative. Anything else is simply examples of it being practiced, and incidentally none of those situations ever seem to work out too well for those involved.

If one believes, as orthodox Christianity does, that Jesus Christ IS God, then no, it is not at all odd to think that he would express disagreement with views that were extant at his time, and still expressed by his followers in the years after his death, if it was his intention that those views be refuted.

If you think Jesus was just some guy that had some good ideas, but was ultimately as human as the rest of us, and had no idea what would happen after his death, and no influence over how his teachings would be transmitted, then sure, but that’s certainly not what I would call orthodox Christianity.

And if one thinks that God’s sovereignty does not extend to preserving the message he intended to transmit to us, then I’m not sure on what basis one holds the scriptures as ANY kind of authority at all.

Eh, as I said, I’m haven’t been following this thread because I wasn’t really interested in debating the issue. I still think the use of the term “unbiblical” to describe TenNapel’s views on marriage is incorrect, and requires some real contortions of interpretation to attempt to try to assert. But I don’t see any reason why a non-Christian, who has no reason to hold Biblical teaching as any kind of authority, would accept that (I can’t imagine I would, were I not a Christian), and I know from experience that Christians that would hold that view aren’t likely to be convinced otherwise by any line of reasoning (as, in fairness, I expect they would feel about me). So I think I’ll go back to not following this thread again.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1162

Joined 2012-02-17

PM

Mister Ed - 21 June 2013 12:20 AM

Just because the Bible relates something doesn’t mean it condones it.

And nowhere did I imply it does. I simply offered it as an example of a cultural practice very different from our own.

and incidentally none of those situations ever seem to work out too well for those involved.

Well, yeah, I’d think one spouse is more than enough for any sensible person. Tongue I think that’s why it shouldn’t be practiced more often, not because of some legislated morality.

If one believes, as orthodox Christianity does, that Jesus Christ IS God, then no, it is not at all odd to think that he would express disagreement with views that were extant at his time, and still expressed by his followers in the years after his death, if it was his intention that those views be refuted.

Well, as Terabin pointed out, we don’t know even the barest fraction of what Jesus actually did say, since if I recall correctly, the sum total of his utterances add up to about two hours’ worth of talking, those being written long after his death. And those were much more focused on man’s relationship with God, not rules and regs. I think we can all agree he probably said a bit more than that in his life.

But even if we knew he didn’t address homosexuality/gay marriage issues at all, suggesting he should have foreseen future doctrines taught in his name is stretching the bounds of even Jesus-as-God reasoning. The human embodiment of God on Earth has never been represented as an all-knowing, all-seeing fortune-teller that I’m aware of. 

But hey, doesn’t really matter to me one way or the other. If some orthodox Christians do think that… well, okay.

     

Editor-in-Chief, some obscure little site called Adventure Gamers

Avatar

Total Posts: 1235

Joined 2013-03-31

PM

You could cut the smugness around here with a knife.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 51

Joined 2003-12-31

PM

Mister Ed - 21 June 2013 12:20 AM

And if one thinks that God’s sovereignty does not extend to preserving the message he intended to transmit to us, then I’m not sure on what basis one holds the scriptures as ANY kind of authority at all.

I’m not sure exactly who you’re responding to at this point, Mr. Ed. I thought we could continue our back and forth in a civil manner.

We obviously disagree on how to interpret the Bible. I fear you’re using terms like “God’s sovereignty” and “Orthodox Christianity” to justify a narrow-minded view of gospel and a narrow minded view of how the Bible continues to have authority for us Christians today as God’s Word. God’s Word is active. If God’s Word was not active and dynamic God would not be God. It meets us here today in the text; God’s Word invites us to bring our whole selves to the text, and to consider what meaning it has for us today in our context. If this were not true, the Reformation was all in vain. We might as well just have our Bibles in Latin and have a top-down hegemonic interpretation of the text. What an awful thing! No, one major reason the Reformation happened was so that we could have the Bibles in our own hands: a dangerous and wonderful thing indeed. So that we could see for ourselves what’s in there and how God might be speaking to us today through the text. So that these things aren’t force-fed down our throats by those in power. This doesn’t mean that every reading is correct and it doesn’t mean that everything is relative and that there is no original intention that the authors had for these texts and that God doesn’t want to speak to us in a particular way through these texts. I just mean to say that this is an ongoing process of God speaking to us. We have to take into account the original context of the texts and we have to take into account our current contexts. This is a beautiful and exciting process. Through this process, the Bible gains authority in our lives because we realize that God is speaking to us, here and now.

You can see this process unfolding in the Bible itself. The Old Testament’s law an eye for an eye turns into Jesus’ command to love your enemy and turn the other cheek. This is a development of God’s Word to God’s people over time. This Word does not end with the canonical Bible. It could not even if we tried. For example, applying “Love your enemies” two thousand years ago would look different today. Applying “Love your enemies” in a war zone would look different than applying it in a small town in Oregon where war is only heard of through the media. Given different contexts and times and people, there can be multiple faithful responses. Faithful responses come as we interpret the Bible and hear the gospel expressed through the story of Christ as it meets us today.

As I’ve already said, we have to be careful about what we call a “clear teaching” and an “orthodox understanding” and so on. We have to make decisions about how we interpret. I believe this is best done prayerfully and in community and with the Holy Spirit to guid us. But there is not ONE LITERAL MESSAGE to each sentence in the Bible. The Bible’s views on homosexuality are not singular. They are many, (Seven, as I’ve said) and they come out of many different contexts and concern different audiences. To say that the Bible’s views on marriage or homosexuality are obvious and clear for us today is to stick your head in the sand. These matters are open for discussion. I’d be happy to engage you in those discussions if you’re willing.

The bottom line is that I don’t believe TenNapel’s beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality are a faithful response to the bible, hence “unbiblical.” This sort of view often takes a few of the Bible’s social teachings on homosexuality and marriage from two thousand years ago out of context to say that God condemns homosexuality and gay marriage for all times and places. I agree that I shouldn’t have used the word unbiblical. I should’ve used the Word un-Christ like or unfaithful to the gospel. There are plenty of teachings in the Bible that no longer apply to us because they are no longer God’s Word to us today. No matter how you choose to interpret these teachings, either way, you’re going to pick and choose which are valid and which aren’t. What you call “Orthodox” Christianity picks and chooses. So does “Liberal” Christianity too.

All I know is, it ain’t in the 10 commandments and it ain’t in Jesus’ top 2. Most of the other teachings, including many of the social teachings that abound in Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Paul’s letters are hogwash. This is where most of the “Orthodox” interpretation on homosexuality and gay marriage comes from. Take Paul for instance, he thought the end of the world was coming any day and discouraged people from getting married at all! Celibacy was the best thing. If we were to follow that teaching, we’d all be living sad and lonely and unfulfilled lives. God wants us to have life in loving community, loving relationships with one another. The teachings that matter concerning WHAT NOT TO DO are those that outline sinful actions that destroy us and hurt others in our relationships with God and one another. I don’t believe that homosexuality is a sinful action. Neither do I believe is gay marriage. The types of actions that ARE sinful are outlined in the 10 commandments. Jesus’ top 2, love God and love neighbor, are the positive spins on these top 10, distilling the 10 into positive commands. The Bible’s teachings on homosexuality and marriage - when they are interpreted in such a way as to ostracize and judge people that were created lovingly in a certain way, run openly against the top 10 and Jesus’ top 2. Yes, the Bible at times contradicts itself. That’s why we look more broadly to the essential things like Jesus. Like what we remember Jesus saying. Like what Jesus said was particularly important. Love God and love neighbor.

     

You are here: HomeForum Home → Other → Chit Chat → Thread

Welcome to the Adventure Gamers forums!