[ATrain]

Welcome dbackjon to FF.com, he has been great as far as helping me to understand the culture and practices that Paul was referencing in his letters.

Thanks Sly, and Lord willing I will be here for many years to come. And I will agree with you that Scripture is clear that sex outside of marriage (homo or hetero) is wrong. We're probably going to always disagree on homosexual marriage, but as HMO said thats what makes the world go round, and I echo the sentiments that it says a lot about this board and us as members that we can have this conversation in a civil manner. And Sly, I will be in prayer for your friend.

[adam42381]

ATrain, I want to commend you for having the courage to come out. I have a few gay friends who struggled for a long time with how others would react. It's not about what others want. It's your life and you deserve to be happy.

[GoUNCA]

UNCA, where are you finding the scripture references that say that homosexuality is not a sin? I think were all saying the same thing, that homosexuality is a sin. Most of us are saying it as a whole, but your saying its only sin when outside of marriage? Where in the bible does it say its ok to be homosexual? It is something mentioned in both the old and new covenant ( and before you say the leviticus stuff as a retort because, ya know, going to a christian school, weve never heard of leviticus, those were set up in the old covenant and were not carried over in the new covenant)

I guess the thing I would have to ask you is for a verse where Jesus said you can't be homosexual. There isn't a specific bible verse to say it's okay to homosexual, never claimed to have one. The Bible was written in a time where homosexual behavior was (as ATrain and dbackjon has pointed out after your post) seen mainly in Greco-Roman traditions, rape, pedastry and pedophilia. A committed homosexual relationship wasn't a part of Biblical culture and was suppressed like many things that were out of the norm.

It's difficult for us to argue back and forth because it is all going to come down to what we think the bible is. I've stated before that I don't believe it is the inherent word of God and is without a doubt filled with various additions and subtractions that have accumulated over the years. This has absolutely no bearing on the importance of the Bible for me. It is still filled with many stories of people's experience of God not to mention the story of Jesus. You are certainly welcome to take a position that the Bible is infallible, but I promise you that you will come up short handed because you are going to have to constantly be reconciling the little differences found in between Bible and current society. One example is cannibalism. The Bible doesn't answer that question. Another example is women not being able to fix their hair while at church or that they will only be saved by childbearing. I doubt you take those verses (1 Timothy chapter 2) literally. If you don't take those as they are literally written then it doesn't seem like a stretch for you to also disregard the comments attributed to Paul dealing with homosexuality.

[Th3rd]

i got to say that i like what louie giglio has to say about the matter

in his message waking up to the whole gospel he says

you get excuses like im predisposed genetically to be an alcoholic, to be gay, to be lazy, to be fat, to be all these things and i say congratulations, you got it you finally woke up. we are all predispoed genetically to be screw ups the bible has been saying it all along its called sin, and since we have a sin nature we are predisoped genetically to be sinners.

he goes on to say that we are not just sinners saved by grace, but we are saints who happen to sin, just because sinners do something good doesn't make them saints and vice versa.

i mean look at paul's writings, all of them are to the saints and then he goes on to tell them how horrible they are living, so we are all saints, and we choose to sin...

[phoenix]

Another example is women not being able to fix their hair while at church or that they will only be saved by childbearing. I doubt you take those verses (1 Timothy chapter 2) literally. If you don't take those as they are literally written then it doesn't seem like a stretch for you to also disregard the comments attributed to Paul dealing with homosexuality.

I take the Bible as literally as it was intended to be taken. This straw-man argument that if you take the Bible literally you have to ignore context and figurative language is completely stupid and dishonest, and quite frankly I find it rather insulting. I guess the question I have for you is how you decide what to believe and what not to believe in the Bible, if you can't really trust it?

To answer your question about 1 Timothy: First of all, it doesn't say that a woman is only saved in childbearing -- you're completely misreading the text, or you've got a lousy translation if that's what you're reading. 1 Timothy 2:15 says "Yet she will be saved through childbearing -- if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." (Interesting that the last part of that verse is usually left out when people attack this passage, as if it only speaks of childbearing.) The best study I've read on the passage is one I found at bible.org (written by a woman, interestingly enough).

The words of 1 Tim 2:15 are confusing and often troubling to the modern-day audience. We do not choose this verse for our daily devotions and sometimes we wish it were not a part of the canon of Scripture at all. An overview of interpretations of this verse reveals many varied positions, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, which may tend to frustrate and discourage the would-be exegete. One thing, however, seems to be confirmed by most, if not all, of these commentators: the firm belief that this verse is NOT saying that women may be saved only if they experience childbirth. Men and women are saved by grace alone, not by any work. Thus, with this settled we must struggle with what the verse IS saying, how the grammar and words are functioning, and how it fits with the theology and theme of the entire letter. The present thesis concludes that the best explanation of 1 Tim 2:15 comes from the perseverance interpretation: A woman will experience the full reality of her final and ultimate glorification by means of her present good works in the realm of motherhood. It is her continuance in the faith through which she was justified, however, which is the true basis of a woman's final salvation.

As the preceding chapters and sections have revealed, difficult passages such as 1 Tim 2:15 are the reason we have such phrases as "the hermeneutic of frustration." We must grapple with the possibility that we may only know with unhindered certainty what this verse does NOT say and may never have the ability to dogmatically proclaim what it absolutely does say. However, this does not excuse us from exploring the options involved in such a text, for as we analyze the grammar, study the context, and discuss and debate the issues in community we can only come closer to a clearer understanding of this and other such passages and thus a clearer understanding of our gracious God and our responsibilities to him.

The problem is, people see difficult passages in the Bible and would rather throw their hands up in the air and give up than actually study the issues involved in interpreting those passages (of course, reading in context often helps a lot, but people don't do that, either). Yes, it involves work (actually, it didn't involve much work on my part, but Terri Darby Moore put a lot of effort into her study of the verse -- http://bible.org/series.php?series_id=131.

[Th3rd]

UNCA, where are you finding the scripture references that say that homosexuality is not a sin? I think were all saying the same thing, that homosexuality is a sin. Most of us are saying it as a whole, but your saying its only sin when outside of marriage? Where in the bible does it say its ok to be homosexual? It is something mentioned in both the old and new covenant ( and before you say the leviticus stuff as a retort because, ya know, going to a christian school, weve never heard of leviticus, those were set up in the old covenant and were not carried over in the new covenant)

I guess the thing I would have to ask you is for a verse where Jesus said you can't be homosexual. There isn't a specific bible verse to say it's okay to homosexual, never claimed to have one. The Bible was written in a time where homosexual behavior was (as ATrain and dbackjon has pointed out after your post) seen mainly in Greco-Roman traditions, rape, pedastry and pedophilia. A committed homosexual relationship wasn't a part of Biblical culture and was suppressed like many things that were out of the norm.

It's difficult for us to argue back and forth because it is all going to come down to what we think the bible is. I've stated before that I don't believe it is the inherent word of God and is without a doubt filled with various additions and subtractions that have accumulated over the years. This has absolutely no bearing on the importance of the Bible for me. It is still filled with many stories of people's experience of God not to mention the story of Jesus. You are certainly welcome to take a position that the Bible is infallible, but I promise you that you will come up short handed because you are going to have to constantly be reconciling the little differences found in between Bible and current society. One example is cannibalism. The Bible doesn't answer that question. Another example is women not being able to fix their hair while at church or that they will only be saved by childbearing. I doubt you take those verses (1 Timothy chapter 2) literally. If you don't take those as they are literally written then it doesn't seem like a stretch for you to also disregard the comments attributed to Paul dealing with homosexuality.

though with the institution of marriage in genesis we get what marriage should be, that a man should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, not to his signifanct other, and not to another man.

you are right about the whole greco-roman stuff on homosexuality, but let me point out to you sodom and gomorrah, which was steeped in so much sinful activity (this included homosexuality) that God rained down fire from heaven and utterly destroyed the cities...

how do you explain that little fact away, if God doesn't forbid homosexuality why did he destroy two cities?

and don't say that homosexuality wasn't the only thing going on, because it was the main thing, where do you think the term sodomite came from?

[ATrain]

Actually, the interesting thing about Sodom and Gomorrah is that they were NOT DESTROYED FOR HOMOSEXUALITY. Ezekiel 16:49 "Behold this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." Those are the only sins listed of Sodom.

Yes, the entire male population did try to have sex with God's messengers, but the difference is, if you look at the passage in Genesis, they were an angry mob threatening gang rape on angels-and eventually threatened to rape and kill Lot-not some sex-crazed people inviting them to join in a consenual orgy (which would've been just as sinful). Somehow I don't see those angels just walking out there and saying "No thanks, we don't want to join in the orgy" and the crowd of men saying "Ok, well have a good night and sleep well," and then going on with an orgy.

Finally, even Pat Robertson has stated that Sodom was not destroyed for sexual deviancy.

"We have been so blessed in this country, and we need to show our gratitude by taking care of the poor and the needy. You know, this was the sin of Sodom, it was pride and careless ease, and they didn't plead the cause of those who were hurting and needy. That was the sin of Sodom, the Lord when He pointed it out He wasn't talking about sexual immorality, it was pride and careless ease and they didn't please the cause of the poor."

-Pat Robertson, 700 Club

The term sodomite was not used in the lexicon to denote sexual sin until 395 AD.

[GoUNCA]

Another example is women not being able to fix their hair while at church or that they will only be saved by childbearing. I doubt you take those verses (1 Timothy chapter 2) literally. If you don't take those as they are literally written then it doesn't seem like a stretch for you to also disregard the comments attributed to Paul dealing with homosexuality.

I take the Bible as literally as it was intended to be taken. This straw-man argument that if you take the Bible literally you have to ignore context and figurative language is completely stupid and dishonest, and quite frankly I find it rather insulting. I guess the question I have for you is how you decide what to believe and what not to believe in the Bible, if you can't really trust it?

To answer your question about 1 Timothy: First of all, it doesn't say that a woman is only saved in childbearing -- you're completely misreading the text, or you've got a lousy translation if that's what you're reading. 1 Timothy 2:15 says "Yet she will be saved through childbearing -- if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." (Interesting that the last part of that verse is usually left out when people attack this passage, as if it only speaks of childbearing.) The best study I've read on the passage is one I found at bible.org (written by a woman, interestingly enough).

The words of 1 Tim 2:15 are confusing and often troubling to the modern-day audience. We do not choose this verse for our daily devotions and sometimes we wish it were not a part of the canon of Scripture at all. An overview of interpretations of this verse reveals many varied positions, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, which may tend to frustrate and discourage the would-be exegete. One thing, however, seems to be confirmed by most, if not all, of these commentators: the firm belief that this verse is NOT saying that women may be saved only if they experience childbirth. Men and women are saved by grace alone, not by any work. Thus, with this settled we must struggle with what the verse IS saying, how the grammar and words are functioning, and how it fits with the theology and theme of the entire letter. The present thesis concludes that the best explanation of 1 Tim 2:15 comes from the perseverance interpretation: A woman will experience the full reality of her final and ultimate glorification by means of her present good works in the realm of motherhood. It is her continuance in the faith through which she was justified, however, which is the true basis of a woman's final salvation.

As the preceding chapters and sections have revealed, difficult passages such as 1 Tim 2:15 are the reason we have such phrases as "the hermeneutic of frustration." We must grapple with the possibility that we may only know with unhindered certainty what this verse does NOT say and may never have the ability to dogmatically proclaim what it absolutely does say. However, this does not excuse us from exploring the options involved in such a text, for as we analyze the grammar, study the context, and discuss and debate the issues in community we can only come closer to a clearer understanding of this and other such passages and thus a clearer understanding of our gracious God and our responsibilities to him.

The problem is, people see difficult passages in the Bible and would rather throw their hands up in the air and give up than actually study the issues involved in interpreting those passages (of course, reading in context often helps a lot, but people don't do that, either). Yes, it involves work (actually, it didn't involve much work on my part, but Terri Darby Moore put a lot of effort into her study of the verse -- http://bible.org/series.php?series_id=131.

I think you missed the point. Why would you have all this consternation over Timothy chapter 2 and go so far as to present a rather abstract perseverance interpretation (which I don't necessarily disagree with) to get around it's literal languange and then just take Paul's references to homosexuality as literal without going abstract? Timothy used to be defended literally until society started to become more egalitarian in regards to women's rights. So, I have no doubt your position on homosexuality will become more abstract as society becomes more egalitarian towards homosexuality. Religion will always follow society or it will die out. I agree with you that historical context and figurative language is important, most important actually. I'm just pointing out that if your default is literalistic translation, then you get to call the shots as to when something is figurative or historical. Then you are going to call the shots according to your societal norms and mores. In this case you are ruling against homosexuality less on interpretation of the Bible and more on societal reasons. Otherwise you really wouldn't care about homosexual marriage politically and in actuality you would not want the government to sanction marriages at all because in essence that would be placing the government on the same plane as God.

Asking me when the bible is important to me is a silly question. I don't think I have to go sifting through the bible for truth and non-truth, which is what I think you are getting at. The over-arching themes are what the bible is really about. Believing something in the Bible or not doesn't change the equation very much. I don't believe God made the earth in 6 days. I have no doubt God created the earth and everything in it, which is the over-arching theme in the creation story. Do I believe that Jesus gave a sermon on a mount or on a plain? Does it really matter as long as I think the content of the sermon is important?

As to the poster who asked why God would destroy two cities.....I don't think he destroyed two cities due to their sinful (or gay) nature. Las Vegas is still on this earth last time I checked, not to mention all the other numerous ancient cities who practiced homosexuality (and worse! Mayans practiced human sacrifice) and were not destroyed by fire. The term sodomite came as a societal reference to the bible story....duh

[Th3rd]

i got to say that i like what louie giglio has to say about the matter

in his message waking up to the whole gospel he says

you get excuses like im predisposed genetically to be an alcoholic, to be gay, to be lazy, to be fat, to be all these things and i say congratulations, you got it you finally woke up. we are all predispoed genetically to be screw ups the bible has been saying it all along its called sin, and since we have a sin nature we are predisoped genetically to be sinners.

he goes on to say that we are not just sinners saved by grace, but we are saints who happen to sin, just because sinners do something good doesn't make them saints and vice versa.

i mean look at paul's writings, all of them are to the saints and then he goes on to tell them how horrible they are living, so we are all saints, and we choose to sin...

[rueful]

UNCA, where are you finding the scripture references that say that homosexuality is not a sin? I think were all saying the same thing, that homosexuality is a sin. Most of us are saying it as a whole, but your saying its only sin when outside of marriage? Where in the bible does it say its ok to be homosexual? It is something mentioned in both the old and new covenant ( and before you say the leviticus stuff as a retort because, ya know, going to a christian school, weve never heard of leviticus, those were set up in the old covenant and were not carried over in the new covenant)

I guess the thing I would have to ask you is for a verse where Jesus said you can't be homosexual. There isn't a specific bible verse to say it's okay to homosexual, never claimed to have one. The Bible was written in a time where homosexual behavior was (as ATrain and dbackjon has pointed out after your post) seen mainly in Greco-Roman traditions, rape, pedastry and pedophilia. A committed homosexual relationship wasn't a part of Biblical culture and was suppressed like many things that were out of the norm.

It's difficult for us to argue back and forth because it is all going to come down to what we think the bible is. I've stated before that I don't believe it is the inherent word of God and is without a doubt filled with various additions and subtractions that have accumulated over the years. This has absolutely no bearing on the importance of the Bible for me. It is still filled with many stories of people's experience of God not to mention the story of Jesus. You are certainly welcome to take a position that the Bible is infallible, but I promise you that you will come up short handed because you are going to have to constantly be reconciling the little differences found in between Bible and current society. One example is cannibalism. The Bible doesn't answer that question. Another example is women not being able to fix their hair while at church or that they will only be saved by childbearing. I doubt you take those verses (1 Timothy chapter 2) literally. If you don't take those as they are literally written then it doesn't seem like a stretch for you to also disregard the comments attributed to Paul dealing with homosexuality.

Are you saying that committed homosexual relationships werent around back then, that the only acts of homosexuality were people who were sinning, or had chosen to do so?

[rueful]

your position on homosexuality will become more abstract as society becomes more egalitarian towards homosexuality. Religion will always follow society or it will die out.

This is probably the root of alot of your problems. Most cliche saying, but things are cliche because they are true. Christianity is not a religion. If thats what it is to you, have fun with that. But being a nominal Christian is like being engaged. You get all the problems of marriage with none of the benefits.

[GoUNCA]

Are you saying that committed homosexual relationships werent around back then, that the only acts of homosexuality were people who were sinning, or had chosen to do so?

No, there were probably committed homosexual relationships back then but they were without a doubt marginalized in that society. I don't think Paul wasn't referring to them.

This is probably the root of alot of your problems. Most cliche saying, but things are cliche because they are true. Christianity is not a religion. If thats what it is to you, have fun with that. But being a nominal Christian is like being engaged. You get all the problems of marriage with none of the benefits.

Firstly, things that are cliche are not always true. They are cliche because too many people use them. I'm actually interested in your definition of Christianity as a not a religion. Do explain. But keep in mind the definition of religion I was using was:

"a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" -credit to Merriam-Webster

[rueful]

Firstly, things that are cliche are not always true. They are cliche because too many people use them. I'm actually interested in your definition of Christianity as a not a religion. Do explain. But keep in mind the definition of religion I was using was:

"a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" -credit to Merriam-Webster

And that can describe every religion, sect, alot of people who confess to be christians.

What I mean is more then sense of say, the Mormons. They are called mormons, not the Smithians. Muslims are called Mohammaddites. Christians are called Christians. But, if you look in the bible, the first Christians didnt call themselves this, they were called this. Why? Because people then who had seen Christ in person were seeing Christ in the Disciples. Today, millions of people take the Lords name in vein every time they put on their facebook "Religious views- Christian" or they win a music award, etc. etc. Being a Christian isnt about simply professing to know him and his ways, but about understanding what he has done on his cross and living in a way that people see Christ in you.

Its more like think of your favorite professor. There is a difference between going to his class and learning and applying the knowledge he gave to you as opposed to trying to live in such a way that people think you are that professor.

[GoUNCA]

Firstly, things that are cliche are not always true. They are cliche because too many people use them. I'm actually interested in your definition of Christianity as a not a religion. Do explain. But keep in mind the definition of religion I was using was:

"a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" -credit to Merriam-Webster

And that can describe every religion, sect, alot of people who confess to be christians.

What I mean is more then sense of say, the Mormons. They are called mormons, not the Smithians. Muslims are called Mohammaddites. Christians are called Christians. But, if you look in the bible, the first Christians didnt call themselves this, they were called this. Why? Because people then who had seen Christ in person were seeing Christ in the Disciples. Today, millions of people take the Lords name in vein every time they put on their facebook "Religious views- Christian" or they win a music award, etc. etc. Being a Christian isnt about simply professing to know him and his ways, but about understanding what he has done on his cross and living in a way that people see Christ in you.

Its more like think of your favorite professor. There is a difference between going to his class and learning and applying the knowledge he gave to you as opposed to trying to live in such a way that people think you are that professor.

I think you are jumping off on a tangent that gets away from the original argument and really has nothing to do with the argument, but I'll play along for a minute. I don't disagree with you for a second that some followers of Christianity aren't necessarily following the philosophy of Christ. Saying that Christians are not a religion because other people named them after Christ is an interesting way to reach a crowd in a sermon, but frankly is a bit absurd within this discussion. I don't think you are articulating your point (that is, James Fowler's point) very well.

I would also mention that your Mormon and Muslim example doesn't get you that far. A lot of religions are named after the prophet who brought the religion into being and they didn't call themselves that same name originally. Zoroastrianism is a good example, but yet they too are a religion.

[phoenix]

Otherwise you really wouldn't care about homosexual marriage politically and in actuality you would not want the government to sanction marriages at all because in essence that would be placing the government on the same plane as God.

And that is pretty much my position. Civil unions? All in favor, especially considering the health insurance/life insurance ramifications. Marriage? State has no business meddling in it at all -- it's a religious ceremony. I don't even really like having to be licensed by the state to perform weddings (though I am). It's not because it's placing gvt. on the same plane as God - it's all about the whole First Amendment thing of government staying out of religion. (Always has been interesting to me that the wall of separation in the Constitution is a one-way wall, but that's another topic for another thread.)

Using a historical hermeneutic to look at Paul's whole body of work and interpret difficult passages in that context is FAR from ignoring some passages because they don't fit in with current society. What was done in the study of 1 Timothy 2:15 was to consider Paul's entire body of work in relation to the passage -- which is something scholars do all the time, even outside of Biblical studies. The real issue is not to base doctrine on a passage that is not clearly understood in context; you always go to passages that are clear. It doesn't mean that the unclear passages are not Scripture -- it means that we don't understand them. It's us as humans admitting that we don't know it all.

I guess since Jesus was teaching in a context where government was oppressing the people financially, I can ignore all those commands to take care of the homeless and the helpless? Since that's the government's role now (at least according to some), I don't have to listen to the "least of these" passages since they're no longer culturally relevant? I doubt you'd agree with me there, and you'd be right (IF I actually believed that). But under your own hermeneutic, my position would be justified.

[GoUNCA]

Otherwise you really wouldn't care about homosexual marriage politically and in actuality you would not want the government to sanction marriages at all because in essence that would be placing the government on the same plane as God.

And that is pretty much my position. Civil unions? All in favor, especially considering the health insurance/life insurance ramifications. Marriage? State has no business meddling in it at all -- it's a religious ceremony. I don't even really like having to be licensed by the state to perform weddings (though I am). It's not because it's placing gvt. on the same plane as God - it's all about the whole First Amendment thing of government staying out of religion. (Always has been interesting to me that the wall of separation in the Constitution is a one-way wall, but that's another topic for another thread.)

Using a historical hermeneutic to look at Paul's whole body of work and interpret difficult passages in that context is FAR from ignoring some passages because they don't fit in with current society. What was done in the study of 1 Timothy 2:15 was to consider Paul's entire body of work in relation to the passage -- which is something scholars do all the time, even outside of Biblical studies. The real issue is not to base doctrine on a passage that is not clearly understood in context; you always go to passages that are clear. It doesn't mean that the unclear passages are not Scripture -- it means that we don't understand them. It's us as humans admitting that we don't know it all.

I guess since Jesus was teaching in a context where government was oppressing the people financially, I can ignore all those commands to take care of the homeless and the helpless? Since that's the government's role now (at least according to some), I don't have to listen to the "least of these" passages since they're no longer culturally relevant? I doubt you'd agree with me there, and you'd be right (IF I actually believed that). But under your own hermeneutic, my position would be justified.

Best reply yet. I actually agree with you on a lot of things.

It will be a long time until I believe a government isn't oppressing people financially (directly or indirectly), which I think we both would say. I think the "least of these" passages are very relevant in context of today's culture. But I agree with you if we did live in a Utopian society that your position would be justified.

Sorry for the short reply.....date night.

[ATrain]

What is interesting is how many people use the "historical context" hermeneutic to justify their own beliefs about an issue, but when others try to use it-such as, in my case, a committed homosexual relationship being ok-its instantly rejected as twisting scripture.

[LUconn]

*redacted*

[PAmedic]

read and acknowledged.

(I didn't want you to think you were being ignored)

[rogers3]

The whole debate on homosexuality/homosexual marriage can be found here:

https://www.flamefans.com/forums/viewto ... ne#p261612

Leave it to ALUmnus and LUConn to make an issue of it in every thread where I mention something about my life that may just happen to involve my partner/my fiance or being gay. Every other person with a significant other or heterosexual attraction on this board has done it from time to time, yet I have never (nor has anyone else) accused anyone of throwing heterosexuality all over the place.

There's a some obvious reasons for these things. Atrain, you claim to be a Christian. As a Christian, I'm not supposed to just turn around and look at something else when you're publicly claiming a sinful lifestyle. Especially when ever you've been called out on it in the past you kind of disappear. I even made a whole thread dedicated to talking about it once because I honestly want to see your point of view. If you want to show me how it's fine, sure go for it. I'm genuinely curious about how you justify it.

As for us all throwing around our heterosexuality, come on. Even if you were to consider homosexuality biological, it is at the very least abnormal and against basic human physiology. Even that kid in Kindergarten Cop knew that. I hardly think that mentioning one's wife in a relevant discussion is "throwing around" heterosexuality.

Seriously??? LUConn, I would think that Jesus' approach regarding the woman at the well might be more appropriate for one calling another out on their beliefs- not really something for a message board. I guess this is why there are things like the Fighting Fundamental forums out there.