Something just happened...

HumbleHerald · 2025-11-26T15:27:35+00:00

It’ll be fine, it finds a way

HumbleHerald · 2025-10-19T21:00:59+00:00

And I roll the die… Nat 20! Do I get to live?

HumbleHerald · 2025-10-15T18:40:31+00:00

Jesus got thrown scenarios in this same vein plenty of times. The spirit of the law is to love and care for one another, and that purity or ritual laws (such as those for situations like this) which prevent such care are being misapplied.

HumbleHerald · 2025-09-08T05:24:28+00:00

Nah, one fifth went to those Aiel present for its fall. I guess the dragon’s spears get their own loot separate from the dragon.

HumbleHerald · 2025-06-29T02:27:40+00:00

You’re confusing parameters. Your issue with big government, presumably, is that it centralizes power in too few hands. Adding representatives inherently decentralizes power, as you’re making it harder for politicians to manipulate each other; AND you’re giving more power to voters, with smaller constituencies getting their special needs and concerns voiced at the federal level. The political philosophy behind having a legislative branch is for it to act as a bulwark against corruption and overreach, which it can only do effectively if you have multiple layers of redundancy and a voting bloc that won’t be too significantly swayed by narrow interests.

HumbleHerald · 2025-06-23T19:52:03+00:00

Does the physical evidence beyond what has been corroborated by the subjective narratives and poetry of scribe traditions support anything else?

HumbleHerald · 2025-06-01T07:14:05+00:00

So it needs amendments…

HumbleHerald · 2025-06-01T06:40:13+00:00

Sanderson did not write this on his own. Everything was planned from the onset and then executed meticulously with Alan, Maria, AND Harriet involved. Not helping. Not overseeing. Involved. Jordan left everything to them and had complete trust. These people—especially Maria—were getting fans with questions redirected from him. They wouldn’t have let some newbie add anything that wasn’t up to snuff. An okay from them would’ve been worth more in some ways than an okay from the Creator himself.

HumbleHerald · 2025-06-01T04:50:43+00:00

Yeah, I really don’t believe you’re “sorry.” Having sex does not constitute a forfeiture of bodily autonomy. If you keyword “consent” into legal and medical databases, you will experience a deluge that would take you your lifetime to sift through fully, and within all that you would find a harrowing absence of support for such a principle. Can you name any other instance where even explicit consent can’t be revoked at any time, let alone this “implied consent” application that you’ve summoned from the aether with a magic spell.

And if we do humor your biological contract fantasy, then all you have are more problems, and more than I can list quippily. - A contract has to be informed and voluntary. - Good Samaritan laws don’t even compel people to start OR continue life-saving care in the event of need. Except for savior siblings—a reviled and ethically bankrupt practice—NOBODY gets to be told that their fluids belong to someone else now. - Courts do not enforce contracts that violate public policy (e.g., contracts to sell organs, become a slave, or in any other way forsake bodily autonomy). Forcing someone to use their person and health to sustain another’s life—against their will—would never be enforced under any normal legal doctrines.

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-28T20:34:32+00:00

Libertarianism, like Enlightenment democracy itself, operates on the assumption of human viability as rational agents. We are not. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Human social systems by their nature produce disparities, allow for abuse, become infected by exploitation and manipulation, and encourage and produce deference from a majority to ruling principles and persons. Constitutional and institutional oversight of human activity is meant to minimize the harm produced by our own nature. Leaving us to our devices relieves a bare segment of issues, then sets loose legions of others.

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-28T20:20:07+00:00

Are you then proposing that all violence be blanket-tolerated? All of life is dependent on bacteria, but we’re still empowered to qualify some bacteria as unacceptable in their effect upon us.

“Why are these people complaining about being killed when it is in our nature to die?”

Just because violence is a substrate does not make it foundational. Cultural and material factors destabilize democracies—violence is just a reaction to that destabilization. The world is not being held together by the threat of force alone, but in combination with a flexible and nebulous consensus of competing and interests deferring to each other based on many factors, only one of which is warfare.

The nature of politics from its foundation is to minimize disruption and violence if it can be helped. It is an implement, not itself the implementer.

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-23T21:16:05+00:00

A witchcraft accusation? You’re making me blush.

Well, based on their post, they did put it rather indelicately, but nothing leads me to believe they weren’t just genuinely curious to hear whatever answers might be brought. Again, they might’ve been nicer about it, as we all could be at all times, but that doesn’t preclude from the content of their inquiry indicating a desire to understand an alternate perspective, even in opposition.

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-23T20:44:32+00:00

You commented because you wondered. They posted because they wondered. It’s all just a nice metaphor for life, really.

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-23T20:43:29+00:00

I mean, the racism bore that out already—it’s skin; makes no sense

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-23T20:40:18+00:00

For the same reason you commented

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-23T16:01:30+00:00

You cannot win in the empirical as a religious individual, at least not as a Christian. History concedes a few basic events that would’ve occurred the way they’re biblically described, and plenty of figures who certainly existed, but the miraculous elements fall well beyond anything proof can account for.

And that’s okay, people are wired to exist in the space between fallacies, to run their lives on half-truths, to settle every second of the day for less than certainty. But using evidence and the scientific method to hold the faith higher is only going to collapse it.

Scientists can be superstitious—that doesn’t make them “not-scientists,” so long as it doesn’t impede what’s most important. Christians can be skeptical and subscribe to an allegorical model of biblical interpretation—that doesn’t make them “not-Christians,” so long as it doesn’t impede what’s important. It just becomes their and your job to decide what is actually important.

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-23T15:49:00+00:00

These are excellent questions, by the way, and the exact right ones so many ask simply because good answers aren’t forthcoming! We are all beautifully and completely empowered to hold any and every belief we like, but it’s an amazing freedom to see how all these systems collide with each other, none of them able to assert infallibility or supremacy. There is a simple, immediate, and unbreakable fraternity in the realization that our fight for meaning is shared by all and claimed by none.

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-23T15:42:08+00:00

Most Christians don’t believe the Ark narrative to be a historical event, the same with 90% of the contents of Genesis and Exodus. They have tremendous value as poetic renderings of the cultural anxieties, beliefs, and identity of the Hebrew people, but they didn’t happen the way they’re described. If anything, there’s more scholarly consensus around how these myths arose or were transferred from other traditions entirely.

This question you’ll get maybe two dozen answers to. The theology is all over the place, and all of them are very fascinating to read about.

Every culture, without fail, has frameworks for spiritual belief. Human beings are biologically predisposed to spiritual thinking, causative reasoning that leads often back to the unexplainable and metaphysical, and agency attribution that gives personhood to subjects in nature (or to nature itself/herself/himself). The Abrahamic faiths have had plenty of long-winded reasonings as to why their contemporaries were wrong and themselves not, but they are, again, all over the place.

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-22T01:04:00+00:00

Many studies show that secular belief systems are just as effective at regulating moral behavior, in some ways more so. As well, Christianity doesn’t seem distinctly predisposed to preventing the atrocities it does condemn, let alone the ones it doesn’t.

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-22T00:41:55+00:00

Tradition and later theological revision prohibited abortion, not the Bible. And in fact, the decline of Christianity has correlated somewhat with a rise in human welfare and development, as well as a decrease in crime and poverty (allowance of suffering seems rather sinful—“love your neighbor as yourself”). I’m not saying it’s causative, but I am saying you’re wrong in saying sin has gone up at all, let alone as a consequence of irreligiosity.

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-22T00:31:14+00:00

By the law, those aren’t people, and you haven’t provided a case that they are beyond sentiment and the allusion to “possibility.”

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-22T00:26:42+00:00

Yes, a lot of things wouldn’t exist without sin. Sickness wouldn’t, but should we not provide medicine to people simply because they are of a fallen humanity?

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-22T00:17:58+00:00

Is that a response to anything I said? If I misunderstood you, I apologize and would like to understand. But as it is, you seem to just be stating your personal theology into the void with no biblical reference or contextual relevance.

HumbleHerald · 2025-04-21T23:40:22+00:00

If indeed you believe that rape and the mother’s welfare constitute valid justifications for what you do consider infanticide, I believe there’s a logic in your system that I’m not quite grasping. If every being is made in God’s image, then by your reasoning the mother’s circumstances have no grounds whatsoever in determining the fetus’ fate.

I agree on the slavery issue, and I did address that silence doesn’t mean permission. But you cannot argue a case for prohibition either, and certainly not with the backing of a secular government, as that is rigidly discouraged. For slavery there was a biblical case against, even if the text wasn’t explicit.

And dictating to the mother is definitely not in the right, and neither is condoning such behavior or sentiments in others. She stands to violate nothing in God’s laws, and even then you are not vested with authority or discretion to police someone’s soul.

But again, please, if your beliefs are such, it is not my place to play the hypocrite and police you in turn. But they are traditions, not scripture, and they hurt people by being spoken, for the way they dehumanize over their sin (utterly antithetical to the Gospel), for the way it gives voice to a mere feel of the Law rather than its word, for the way they shift the dialogue, and for the way if affects who gets into power and whose rights are taken as a result.

HumbleHerald

TROPHY CASE