This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

User avatar
By Tnobes
Posts
#593366
stokesjokes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 1:36 pm
Tnobes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 1:08 pm
stokesjokes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:16 pm After trying to honestly engage in the textual arguments made by people like Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines (I mean honestly as in following the argument instead of trying to pick it apart), I can see how someone can take a high view of scripture and believe it doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage relationships. I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m not in a position where I have to be certain (since I’m not gay).

I share this regarding the UMC because I think there’s enough gray to say that this is a non-essential issue and I’m comfortable with people who land on different sides of it, so I’m not sure why that can’t be the position of the UMC.

In fact, one of my favorite quotes is “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity,” which is in the UMC Book of Discipline, so it’s strange that this would be something they split over.
Calling sin not sin IS a salvation issue, and an honest question who decides what are "essentials" and what are "non essentials"? My denomination the ECC basically has the same mantra and I believe it is what has lead the churches into this problem, people can claim anything isn't essential, it comes down to man's opinion is authority over God's written word. I'm not attacking you, just raising the question
The most basic view of essentials is to just use the early creeds.

But the thing you’re still evading is our interpretive responsibility. I’m pretty sure everyone in this conversation believes the Bible is God’s inspired word. Yet, I’m sure no two people here agree on every point of doctrine. I’m sure we would all have different lists of what qualifies as sin. It’s not because some take the Bible more seriously than others, it’s because the Bible requires us to do interpretive work that may land us in different places, and that’s ok. God is big enough and His grace is big enough.
Different lists of what qualifies as sin? The Bible pretty clearly lists them. 10 commandments much? And no God's grace isn't big enough if you don't repent of sin, if you don't believe what you are doing is sin then you won't ask forgiveness and won't receive forgiveness. Can you stand before God and say you didn't believe murder was a sin? That's why this issue is a salvation issue, the church is telling people they don't need to repent of their sin
#593368
I actually agree here. A lot of people could live their lives believing they are saved because a church embraced sin. I don't believe we have to specifically note every sin we repent for to go-to heaven. But there is a presumption with repentance that we reject sin. Even the verbage is most of our baptisms emphasises that we are dead in our sin and United with Christ in resurrection. It's as deceitful as the Garden. It's hard to look at it from a spiritual warfare perspective and not see it as a brilliant but evil tactic.
Purple Haize liked this
By LUDad
Posts
#593369
stokesjokes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:16 pm After trying to honestly engage in the textual arguments made by people like Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines (I mean honestly as in following the argument instead of trying to pick it apart), I can see how someone can take a high view of scripture and believe it doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage relationships. I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m not in a position where I have to be certain (since I’m not gay).

I share this regarding the UMC because I think there’s enough gray to say that this is a non-essential issue and I’m comfortable with people who land on different sides of it, so I’m not sure why that can’t be the position of the UMC.

In fact, one of my favorite quotes is “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity,” which is in the UMC Book of Discipline, so it’s strange that this would be something they split over.
How do you interpret Romans 1:18-32 & more specifically, vv.26-28? Before I became a believer I considered myself a "Christian". Why wouldn't I be? I certainly wasn't a Hindu or Muslim. And I certainly saw nothing wrong with premarital sex! Then I came under the gospel and became convicted. If someone is a "member" of a bible believing Church and is having gay sex and they think they are a Christian and are not under conviction, the Church has a duty and obligation to confront them in their sin. Our Church always welcomes anyone to services regardless of who they are and whatever sin them may be entangled in. We want them to sit under the teaching of God. However, to join is an entirely different story.
By JK37
Registration Days Posts
#593370
Tnobes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 10:26 am Also, the church accepting homosexual behavior is a huge slap in the face to those who have same sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life, can you imagine the church telling them, just kidding about sexual morals, you can do whatever you want now, you've been wasting your time following scripture. They are ushering people to hell with a pat on the back and a smile on their face
This post is a study in contradiction. Those who do have same-sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life are likely doing so in pursuit of Christ-centered morals after entering into a permanent t relationship with Him as their Savior. Therefore, despite their battle, they are not on their way to hell. They’ve accepted Christ as their savior and are following him, while struggling with the temptation and sin of same-sex attraction. It is incredibly discompassionate and un-Christlike to say what you did. And I believe it reveals quite a lot about your passive, subconscious emotions on the issue.
Last edited by JK37 on January 7th, 2020, 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#593371
I’m a big fan of Matthew 22:36-40. But that’s just me
ATrain is spot on but doesn’t go far enough. Church splits are ugly. Super ugly. Whether it be Hymnals v Overheads or the Alphabet People in the pulpit, it’s ugly. Pretty sure not pleasing to God either. If you want to go, go. If they want to go let them leave. Then work out a way to make it as amicable as possible loving your neighbor as your self
ATrain, stokesjokes liked this
#593372
LUDad wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:33 pm
stokesjokes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:16 pm After trying to honestly engage in the textual arguments made by people like Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines (I mean honestly as in following the argument instead of trying to pick it apart), I can see how someone can take a high view of scripture and believe it doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage relationships. I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m not in a position where I have to be certain (since I’m not gay).

I share this regarding the UMC because I think there’s enough gray to say that this is a non-essential issue and I’m comfortable with people who land on different sides of it, so I’m not sure why that can’t be the position of the UMC.

In fact, one of my favorite quotes is “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity,” which is in the UMC Book of Discipline, so it’s strange that this would be something they split over.
How do you interpret Romans 1:18-32 & more specifically, vv.26-28? Before I became a believer I considered myself a "Christian". Why wouldn't I be? I certainly wasn't a Hindu or Muslim. And I certainly saw nothing wrong with premarital sex! Then I came under the gospel and became convicted. If someone is a "member" of a bible believing Church and is having gay sex and they think they are a Christian and are not under conviction, the Church has a duty and obligation to confront them in their sin. Our Church always welcomes anyone to services regardless of who they are and whatever sin them may be entangled in. We want them to sit under the teaching of God. However, to join is an entirely different story.
That’s why I’ve never been a big joiner. If you are sitting in the church the tax cheat will be just as convicted by the Holy Spirit as the child molester. But do you ask to see everyone’s taxes before they join?
God made us all different and unique. Just look at the 12 Disciples. They were a disparate lot. What works for one may not work for another. But if you have trusted Christ for your Salvation let Him continue in you the good work he started.
ATrain, stokesjokes liked this
#593373
JK37 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:38 pm
Tnobes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 10:26 am Also, the church accepting homosexual behavior is a huge slap in the face to those who have same sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life, can you imagine the church telling them, just kidding about sexual morals, you can do whatever you want now, you've been wasting your time following scripture. They are ushering people to hell with a pat on the back and a smile on their face
This post is a study in contradiction. Those who do have same-sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life are likely doing so in pursuit of Christ-centered morals after entering into a permanent t relationship with Him as their Savior. Therefore, despite their battle, they are not on their way to hell. They’ve accepted Christ as their savior and are following him, while struggling with the temptation and sin of same-sex attraction. It is incredibly discompassionate and un-Christlike to say what you did. And I believe it reveals quite a lot about your passive, subconscious emotions on the issue.
I feel like you misunderstood him here. I think he is saying, from the prospective of a SSA Christian rejecting their son, the UMC embracing their sin for them doesn't help them become closer to God, it causes them to sin.
#593374
Class of 20Something wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:46 pm
JK37 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:38 pm
Tnobes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 10:26 am Also, the church accepting homosexual behavior is a huge slap in the face to those who have same sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life, can you imagine the church telling them, just kidding about sexual morals, you can do whatever you want now, you've been wasting your time following scripture. They are ushering people to hell with a pat on the back and a smile on their face
This post is a study in contradiction. Those who do have same-sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life are likely doing so in pursuit of Christ-centered morals after entering into a permanent t relationship with Him as their Savior. Therefore, despite their battle, they are not on their way to hell. They’ve accepted Christ as their savior and are following him, while struggling with the temptation and sin of same-sex attraction. It is incredibly discompassionate and un-Christlike to say what you did. And I believe it reveals quite a lot about your passive, subconscious emotions on the issue.
I feel like you misunderstood him here. I think he is saying, from the prospective of a SSA Christian rejecting their son, the UMC embracing their sin for them doesn't help them become closer to God, it causes them to sin.
Are you interpreting?!?!? :shock: :lol:
By JK37
Registration Days Posts
#593376
Jonathan Carone wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:20 pm I think the issue comes in allowing LGBTQ+ clergy. It's one thing for an individual church to allow same sex couples to marry or lead within volunteer roles. It's a bigger issue for the denomination to ordain a minister because in doing so, you are saying they are living a Biblically pure life and endorsing same-sex marriage from a corporate level.
Not sure if we define “issue” the same way. If a church stands against homosexual behavior as sinful, it cannot allow same sex couples to marry, or hold volunteer positions in the church unless the person fully discloseS as laity to leadership and strives through repentance and counsel. Therefore, I have just as big an issue with ordaining LGBTQ+ Clergy as I do a church’s willingness to marry same-sex couples, and knowingly allow them to serve in voluntary leadership roles among the body.
rtb72, Tnobes liked this
By JK37
Registration Days Posts
#593377
Class of 20Something wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:46 pm
JK37 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:38 pm
Tnobes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 10:26 am Also, the church accepting homosexual behavior is a huge slap in the face to those who have same sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life, can you imagine the church telling them, just kidding about sexual morals, you can do whatever you want now, you've been wasting your time following scripture. They are ushering people to hell with a pat on the back and a smile on their face
This post is a study in contradiction. Those who do have same-sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life are likely doing so in pursuit of Christ-centered morals after entering into a permanent t relationship with Him as their Savior. Therefore, despite their battle, they are not on their way to hell. They’ve accepted Christ as their savior and are following him, while struggling with the temptation and sin of same-sex attraction. It is incredibly discompassionate and un-Christlike to say what you did. And I believe it reveals quite a lot about your passive, subconscious emotions on the issue.
I feel like you misunderstood him here...
Thank you. Let him say so, first, if that’s true. Then, I might respond.
By LUDad
Posts
#593379
Purple Haize wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:44 pm
LUDad wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:33 pm
stokesjokes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:16 pm After trying to honestly engage in the textual arguments made by people like Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines (I mean honestly as in following the argument instead of trying to pick it apart), I can see how someone can take a high view of scripture and believe it doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage relationships. I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m not in a position where I have to be certain (since I’m not gay).

I share this regarding the UMC because I think there’s enough gray to say that this is a non-essential issue and I’m comfortable with people who land on different sides of it, so I’m not sure why that can’t be the position of the UMC.

In fact, one of my favorite quotes is “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity,” which is in the UMC Book of Discipline, so it’s strange that this would be something they split over.
How do you interpret Romans 1:18-32 & more specifically, vv.26-28? Before I became a believer I considered myself a "Christian". Why wouldn't I be? I certainly wasn't a Hindu or Muslim. And I certainly saw nothing wrong with premarital sex! Then I came under the gospel and became convicted. If someone is a "member" of a bible believing Church and is having gay sex and they think they are a Christian and are not under conviction, the Church has a duty and obligation to confront them in their sin. Our Church always welcomes anyone to services regardless of who they are and whatever sin them may be entangled in. We want them to sit under the teaching of God. However, to join is an entirely different story.
That’s why I’ve never been a big joiner. If you are sitting in the church the tax cheat will be just as convicted by the Holy Spirit as the child molester. But do you ask to see everyone’s taxes before they join?
God made us all different and unique. Just look at the 12 Disciples. They were a disparate lot. What works for one may not work for another. But if you have trusted Christ for your Salvation let Him continue in you the good work he started.
Yea, everyone sins daily. We simply confess and move on. However, if you are a member and you have blatant, habitual unrepentant sin, it affects that person and puts a stain on the purity of the Church. The outside world then just sees a bunch of hypocrites.
#593380
JK37 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:54 pm
Jonathan Carone wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:20 pm I think the issue comes in allowing LGBTQ+ clergy. It's one thing for an individual church to allow same sex couples to marry or lead within volunteer roles. It's a bigger issue for the denomination to ordain a minister because in doing so, you are saying they are living a Biblically pure life and endorsing same-sex marriage from a corporate level.
Not sure if we define “issue” the same way. If a church stands against homosexual behavior as sinful, it cannot allow same sex couples to marry, or hold volunteer positions in the church unless the person fully discloseS as laity to leadership and strives through repentance and counsel. Therefore, I have just as big an issue with ordaining LGBTQ+ Clergy as I do a church’s willingness to marry same-sex couples, and knowingly allow them to serve in voluntary leadership roles among the body.
I was speaking directly to the post above mine there about why they couldn't make the decision at the local church level and why they had to make a decision for the entire denomination.
Purple Haize liked this
By rtb72
Posts
#593383
JK37 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:54 pm
Jonathan Carone wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:20 pm I think the issue comes in allowing LGBTQ+ clergy. It's one thing for an individual church to allow same sex couples to marry or lead within volunteer roles. It's a bigger issue for the denomination to ordain a minister because in doing so, you are saying they are living a Biblically pure life and endorsing same-sex marriage from a corporate level.
Not sure if we define “issue” the same way. If a church stands against homosexual behavior as sinful, it cannot allow same sex couples to marry, or hold volunteer positions in the church unless the person fully discloseS as laity to leadership and strives through repentance and counsel. Therefore, I have just as big an issue with ordaining LGBTQ+ Clergy as I do a church’s willingness to marry same-sex couples, and knowingly allow them to serve in voluntary leadership roles among the body.
...and I feel that is what me and other traditional believers feel as well. The more "tolerant" seem to want the denomination to set a practice/protocol for acceptance without regard to traditional positions, some want it clearly defined in the Book of Discipline. That's why general conference will provide a clearer optic as to what the denomination is going to do. I don't see the majority of my particular church family being aligned with the progressive position, but I expect there will be some to leave if we don't. Likewise, if we open ourselves to a more tolerant position.....and capitulate to the emerging societal shifts....I'll have no choice but to move my family to another church.
Last edited by rtb72 on January 7th, 2020, 5:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Purple Haize liked this
By JK37
Registration Days Posts
#593384
Interesting rtb. I feel for you if that ends up being the case. Are your children younger? How are they viewing this?/How are you exposing them to it?

Something of which I’m daily mindful is how to approach my children with topics such as these.
By rtb72
Posts
#593387
JK37 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 4:50 pm Interesting rtb. I feel for you if that ends up being the case. Are your children younger? How are they viewing this?/How are you exposing them to it?

Something of which I’m daily mindful is how to approach my children with topics such as these.
10, 14, and 16. The ages where societal pressures are arguably the most difficult to negotiate. Fortunately, they have strong Christian peer groups and youth groups that help. We speak to them about what we believe as Christians and explain that, while we mistreat no one....we do not compromise our faith through relationships. Of course, we have A LOT OF PRAYER (which my wife is much better at than me) The kids have done well so far and have a clear understanding of the related issues we are discussing here.

Thank you for asking. I know my family is blessed to have a strong Christian family and group of friends who help support and bolster how we choose to live and believe. That is huge when influencing our kids, in particular. I don't know how other parents with out such support systems do it.
User avatar
By Tnobes
Posts
#593388
JK37 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:38 pm
Tnobes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 10:26 am Also, the church accepting homosexual behavior is a huge slap in the face to those who have same sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life, can you imagine the church telling them, just kidding about sexual morals, you can do whatever you want now, you've been wasting your time following scripture. They are ushering people to hell with a pat on the back and a smile on their face
This post is a study in contradiction. Those who do have same-sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life are likely doing so in pursuit of Christ-centered morals after entering into a permanent t relationship with Him as their Savior. Therefore, despite their battle, they are not on their way to hell. They’ve accepted Christ as their savior and are following him, while struggling with the temptation and sin of same-sex attraction. It is incredibly discompassionate and un-Christlike to say what you did. And I believe it reveals quite a lot about your passive, subconscious emotions on the issue.
Same sex attraction is not a sin and it's a separate issue than Homosexuality. I never said a celibate person who is not acting on their attraction is going to hell, I said the exact opposite thing. I think you totally misunderstood my post.
Last edited by Tnobes on January 7th, 2020, 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Tnobes
Posts
#593389
JK37 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:54 pm
Jonathan Carone wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:20 pm I think the issue comes in allowing LGBTQ+ clergy. It's one thing for an individual church to allow same sex couples to marry or lead within volunteer roles. It's a bigger issue for the denomination to ordain a minister because in doing so, you are saying they are living a Biblically pure life and endorsing same-sex marriage from a corporate level.
Not sure if we define “issue” the same way. If a church stands against homosexual behavior as sinful, it cannot allow same sex couples to marry, or hold volunteer positions in the church unless the person fully discloseS as laity to leadership and strives through repentance and counsel. Therefore, I have just as big an issue with ordaining LGBTQ+ Clergy as I do a church’s willingness to marry same-sex couples, and knowingly allow them to serve in voluntary leadership roles among the body.
Agreed
User avatar
By Tnobes
Posts
#593390
JK37 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:56 pm
Class of 20Something wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:46 pm
JK37 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:38 pm

This post is a study in contradiction. Those who do have same-sex attraction but have been living celibate and striving to live a holy life are likely doing so in pursuit of Christ-centered morals after entering into a permanent t relationship with Him as their Savior. Therefore, despite their battle, they are not on their way to hell. They’ve accepted Christ as their savior and are following him, while struggling with the temptation and sin of same-sex attraction. It is incredibly discompassionate and un-Christlike to say what you did. And I believe it reveals quite a lot about your passive, subconscious emotions on the issue.
I feel like you misunderstood him here...
Thank you. Let him say so, first, if that’s true. Then, I might respond.
I was saying what message is the church sending the celibate same sex attracted person by now saying that practicing homosexuality is now not a sin? It's like telling the alcoholic who has been sober for years to "just forget about it, go ahead and start drinking again, alcoholism is now totally fine. And I know non practicing Homosexuals who have said exactly this, they feel the "open and affirming" is a slap in the face to their Christian walk
User avatar
By Tnobes
Posts
#593392
I believe people who have same sex attraction and are followers of Jesus living celibate lives are heroes of the faith. We have a sexed up culture that says if it feels good do it, we have society celebrating homosexuality like it's 1999 (reference to Prince) and now the church is saying it's ok. I applaud their faithfulness and their example to believers and non believers that God can deliver people from anything.
#593394
LU 57 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 6:47 pm
Cider Jim wrote: January 7th, 2020, 1:10 pm I just "foed " my second person, and it feels so good. :pbjtime
Does one know they have been “foe’d”? :dontgetit
Nope. Only the person who Foe’d them. So you would not know Cider was Foe’ing you unless you were asking him questions and he never responded. Sorta like ballcoach :D
ATrain, Cider Jim liked this
User avatar
By LU 57
Posts
#593395
Purple Haize wrote: January 7th, 2020, 7:04 pm
LU 57 wrote: January 7th, 2020, 6:47 pm
Cider Jim wrote: January 7th, 2020, 1:10 pm I just "foed " my second person, and it feels so good. :pbjtime
Does one know they have been “foe’d”? :dontgetit
Nope. Only the person who Foe’d them. So you would not know Cider was Foe’ing you unless you were asking him questions and he never responded. Sorta like ballcoach :D
:lol:
#593420
LUDad wrote: January 7th, 2020, 3:33 pm
stokesjokes wrote: January 7th, 2020, 12:16 pm After trying to honestly engage in the textual arguments made by people like Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines (I mean honestly as in following the argument instead of trying to pick it apart), I can see how someone can take a high view of scripture and believe it doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage relationships. I’m not entirely convinced, but I’m not in a position where I have to be certain (since I’m not gay).

I share this regarding the UMC because I think there’s enough gray to say that this is a non-essential issue and I’m comfortable with people who land on different sides of it, so I’m not sure why that can’t be the position of the UMC.

In fact, one of my favorite quotes is “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity,” which is in the UMC Book of Discipline, so it’s strange that this would be something they split over.
How do you interpret Romans 1:18-32 & more specifically, vv.26-28? Before I became a believer I considered myself a "Christian". Why wouldn't I be? I certainly wasn't a Hindu or Muslim. And I certainly saw nothing wrong with premarital sex! Then I came under the gospel and became convicted. If someone is a "member" of a bible believing Church and is having gay sex and they think they are a Christian and are not under conviction, the Church has a duty and obligation to confront them in their sin. Our Church always welcomes anyone to services regardless of who they are and whatever sin them may be entangled in. We want them to sit under the teaching of God. However, to join is an entirely different story.
The disclaimer here is that this isn’t necessarily what I believe, but the typical argument is this:

Paul is providing examples of behavior borne out of excessive passions. He’s speaking of heterosexuals becoming so lustful that they give themselves over to sex with men. Sexual orientation wasn’t a defined concept until 200 years ago, so the concept of a monogamous same sex relationship wouldn’t even have occurred to Paul to speak against it. Homosexual sex was closely tied to pagan worship practices, prostitution, and orgies, so those things are also contextually at play here.

As far as other passages where Paul seemingly condemns homosexual acts (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), the term used is a word that Paul made up, so we can’t really be sure what it means. Does it mean gay sex? I think probably, yeah. But that’s not enough to make it a hill for me to die on. Now, if we’re talking about clear and plain readings of scripture, it would have been nice of Paul to use any of the common words from back then for gay sex, but he didn’t and we have to ask both: why he didn’t and what he really means by his made up word.

Now, that’s gray enough for me to be ok with the uncertainty. If I’m honest, I lean side B, but I’ll defend side A because I’m open to being wrong on a debatable matter. And, really, I don’t think any of us has it completely right anyway.
ATrain liked this
#593427
It’s not gray in English, but what we typically translate “men who practice homosexuality” is the word arsenokoitai, which is a word Paul made up. The only 2 times it’s ever written is when Paul uses it here and in 1 Timothy, and we have a ton of Greek writings, so if it was a known word, we would see it elsewhere. Now, the word is the combination of 2 words: man and bed, so that’s why I say I think Paul probably means some type of homosexual act, but we really don’t know for sure. So we have to ask what it really means and also why he chooses to use a made up word instead of already established words in Greek that mean homosexual acts
ATrain liked this
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
Dondi Costin - LU President

The recent statements by Costin on moving away […]

NCAA Realignment Megathread

Duke Gonzaga B12? https://larrybrownsports.com/co[…]

FlameFans Fantasy Baseball

We are on!!! Hope to see everyone tonight at 9:30[…]

Another player that most people who post on here[…]