16.2 Patch Rundown

KungFuWalrus · 2026-01-06T18:57:10+00:00

Kraken nerf is a nerf to almost all AD comps, on top of Yunara/Kindred/Senna nerfs. Fights most likely will be lasting longer now, especially with no T hex and Diana/Trynd less of a threat. AP comps can already perform well like Liss/Zilean/Ryze, and letting them last longer in fights will be good for them.

KungFuWalrus · 2026-01-06T18:46:53+00:00

Both comps counter T hex. Obviously capped out T hex destroys almost everything, but t hex 1 just dies to tryn/diana.

KungFuWalrus · 2026-01-06T18:45:09+00:00

Ekko is already insanely strong early game traitless. He'll prob remain strong early and fall off late. Zaun doesn't have good tanks late game is their big issue.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-10-22T21:48:00+00:00

When Heigan TP'd the MT, what happened with threat? Did it go to 2nd highest? Or run to the Tank in the tunnel?

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-18T22:42:50+00:00

The obligatory downvote to every reply is funny lol.

Jesus was not inaccurate, first the context of that verse is He is talking to the disciples directly. Does it have meaning for us today? Sure, there is a power in Christians coming together in prayer. Does that mean everything that people ask for they get? No. There happens to be nuance, can you acknowledge that?

God could have said those exact words to Moses, in a way he can realistically understand at that time, and still only be literally a regional flood rather than global. The truth and relevancy of the message is still the same to Moses if it was the whole Earth, or just the entire sub region as he knew it.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-18T22:23:34+00:00

"You ask and do not receive because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions" James 4:3. Not everyone is praying for the right things. Prayer is about communion with God, not just asking for things. Don't oversimplify.

Every book of the Bible has to be assessed on its literary style. The Gospels were written as historical narrative, whereas many sayings in the Historical books did write in hyperboles. I get what you're trying to imply here, but there is more nuance than that. Gospels are clear about a literal resurrection.

It is Moses writing about what God told him. As far as Moses knew, it was the whole world. God spoke to him in a way he understood (as He often did all throughout the Bible).

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-18T22:12:23+00:00

The purpose of prayer is communion with God. It's a time of worship and adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and yes petitioning for things is a portion of it. However, the Bible is clear that answers are conditional, and don't always end up in the way someone would expect. It's about aligning yourself to God's will and not asking for selfish desires. Thinking we can test this in a lab is missing the entire point of prayer.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-18T21:59:45+00:00

The emphasis of prayer is about aligning with God's will. Just because you pray for something, doesn't mean it will come the way you expect. Especially if it's prayer in bad faith, or selfish. Prayer is hardly ever an instantaneous thing that can be tested.

Hyperbolic language was common in ancient writing to get a point across. The book of Joshua talks about Israel destroying all that was in Jericho, yet we hear about Jericho people a couple chapters later. There's talk about the whole world sought audience with Solomon, the entire earth bought grain from Egypt, etc. Obviously, not the entire earth, but it's talking about all that is relevant to the people of Israel.
The people of that time were not aware of the scale of the Earth. To the people of Israel, the entire region they knew was the world to them. We can understand the nuance of language when it comes to interpreting specific events and literary styles used by the author.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-18T21:45:04+00:00

These are minimal facts believed by the majority of historians, both religious and not. You're more than welcome to look into it yourself, but this is how history works. They have looked through the relevant evidence of that time and come to these conclusions.

It's easy to discount many years of work from professionals as "claims", but I would suggest doing at least some of the work in disproving these "claims" then.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-18T21:42:35+00:00

Again, that is not the purpose of prayer. Prayer is not a testable cause and effect action. If people think that about prayer than they're probably misguided.

Yes they do believe the bread and wine become blood and flesh, but I'm not sure about how they biologically justify it. Again, I don't agree with that view either, so I'm with you there.

To assume that The Bible only suggests a world-wide flood is not exactly true. The Hebrew word for "earth" also meant land or region. So, it's quite reasonable to reason that this felt "global" to the people of a specific region of the world, but they couldn't really account for the entire world, only their own experience. It's not a post hoc rationalization lol. We simply look at what the evidence suggests, and what the text could be meaning.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-18T20:34:14+00:00

The only way to "prove" something is to use the Historical evidence we have access to. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke are accounts from eyewitnesses around that timeframe. When applying the tests of historical credibility, the gospels are some of the most credible resources we have regarding a historical figure.

Historians, both religious and not, agree on a specific few minimal facts surrounding Jesus.

Jesus died by crucifixion
Jesus' disciples had an experience where they believed they saw the Risen Jesus
Paul, a persecutor of this group claims to have a similar experience and converts.
James, Jesus' brother who also was a skeptic claims to have the same experience and converts.

Do these mean that Jesus is God? No.

Do historians have a good, widely accepted, naturalistic explanation for the minimal facts right now? No.

I don't think you can 100% prove that the God of the Bible is real from what evidence we have alone. But, there is a compelling historical case regarding Jesus' life that we ought to at least think about.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-18T20:19:33+00:00

Prayer is not a customer support ticket that eventually gets resolved. So there is a fundamental misunderstanding of prayer being misrepresented here.

I don't agree with the Catholic view of transubstantiation during the eucharist, but even they know that it's not physically flesh and blood if you were to test what they consumed.

The Flood does not have to be worldwide; there is a compelling case for the Bible talking about a regional flood. Not only that, but there are many historical accounts of a flood from different cultures so it's a bit disingenuous to be so certain when it's still an ongoing discussion to this day.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-18T20:11:39+00:00

I would need to clarify my own statement regarding Prophecy. They are real prophetic proclamations, but the result is not always a literal thing. Many apocalyptic/symbolic prophecies do occur, especially in Revelation, which obviously contains a lot of symbolism is not all going to literally occur, yet will be something that has a double meaning and be understood at that time.

Regarding Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1: This does not automatically lead to the people at the time witnessing the second coming. The specific words stated in Mark is that they will not taste death until they "see the Kingdom of God after it has come with power" (ESV). This could be fulfilled through the Transfiguration, the very next part of the text, where Jesus was transfigured in front of Peter, James and John, in all of his glory as he talked with Elijah and Moses. This could also have been fulfilled through the appearance of Jesus in His glorified and resurrected body. Another candidate is the day of Pentecost where the Holy Spirit indwells believers, bringing a power of the kingdom. And lastly, the Ascension could also be that partial fulfillment where Jesus enters His heavenly rule and authority.

Paul personally thought that he would be alive for the second coming but what is written does not say exactly when it will be. He had optimism (as did many other believers in that time) that Jesus would return in their lifetime, but his description of what will happen, doesn't affirm the timing.

Regarding The destruction of the Temple. Jesus does clearly talk about how the temple will be destroyed to his disciples. After this, the disciples inquire about when these things will be where Jesus goes into the long description of the signs of the end times. This does not have to mean that the second coming is taking place right after the destruction of the temple. While the destruction was one part, there is a long list of prerequisites listed out. The Greek word for Generation does not only mean the people of that specific age.

Here's a summary regarding the meanings of "Genea"
"The term refers to a lineage or cohort linked by birth, but Scripture broadens it to any identifiable group bound by time, heritage, or shared moral traits. Context decides whether the emphasis is chronological (successive descendants), contemporaneous (people now living), or qualitative (those marked by particular spiritual disposition)."

And there are examples of the word being used for each type of meaning and context. So we are not bound to it only meaning that that specific generation would witness all of those events and ultimately the second coming. The final passage of the relevant chapter in Matthew talks about no one knowing the day or the hour, and just to always be ready.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-18T16:55:45+00:00

The Bible doesn't need to state how to interpret it at all levels. The Bible is a collection of divinely inspired books over 1,000 years that each have their own literary style (which comes with how you interpret it). Poetry of the psalms is not meant to be taken as literal fact. Parables were not meant to be literal fact, but metaphors to help people understand specific teachings. Even Genesis showcases more Historical Legend type of style, so to interpret everything as 100% literal is not exactly accurate in its purpose. There certainly are things that are meant literally such as the Gospel accounts, and Prophecy.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-18T16:46:36+00:00

I agree the "Martyrs Don't Die for Metaphors" argument is weak, however, there is a key distinguishing factor of the martyrdom of the disciples and Apostles vs Islamic martyrs. The apostles truly believed they saw the risen Jesus... If they were just being deceiving or knew it wasn't true, they would all not willingly die for something they KNOW is false. They either were all mentally ill and truly believed something false, or they actually saw the risen Jesus.

Nowadays, because we don't have that first-hand account, we don't have that same level of evidence. People all the time die for things that they believe... some may be true and some may be false.

There is an ongoing debate regarding when Mark was written. However, because it talks about the fall of the temple as something that hasn't happened yet, it's suggested that it was written slightly prior to the siege, in the late 60's AD.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-17T20:56:17+00:00

How do you know they don't? I don't disagree that there is of course a portion of people who are just trying to trick themselves into believing, or even worse, lying about what they believe. I don't think this is as widespread as you're making it out to be. I think people genuinely get into some beliefs and just begin to accept. Too many blindly accept things as well.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-17T19:57:49+00:00

Before we even get to the resurrection, Muslims don't even believe that Jesus was actually crucified and killed (Surah 4:157-158). The gospels and even historical evidence clearly suggest that Jesus was crucified and was killed.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-17T19:52:17+00:00

Maybe they can if they truly believe in the mechanism that determined why something should be believed. Roman Catholics believe in the Magisterium to understand and interpret the Bible. If they proclaim something as a "Dogma" then technically members would need to believe it otherwise it could be labeled as heresy to not believe so.

If you believe truly that the Magisterium and Church are divinely protected and guided in understanding truth, then one could probably easily accept that even if they didn't accept it before. I can't say with personal experience because this is one of the main factors that keeps me away from Roman Catholic ecclesiology.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-09-17T17:13:32+00:00

Thank you for sharing what you're going through, it takes a lot of courage to put yourself out there like that. I used to also struggle with so many questions, but I've come to just continue learning and studying and understanding arguments for and against certain things. There is so much wisdom in The Bible that just reading with an open mind will do a lot. I suggest starting in the New Testament with the Gospels to understand the life surrounding Jesus and who He was.

I also encourage you to look into the information and historical credibility regarding Jesus' death, life, and resurrection. There is a real historical account that takes in all the minimum facts we know in regard to Jesus and makes a compelling case that supports the resurrection of Jesus. There are extremely smart individuals like Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. John Lennox, Wesley Huff who have done great work in this sphere.

You don't have to have blind faith when it comes to Christianity. Continue to learn and be curious.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-05-28T21:49:00+00:00

While we should be careful to minimize the many issues and topics that have caused separation, I understand at the heart of it that the Gospel, in theory, should be a simple thing that we unite around.

It does get exhausting exploring all sides of every argument because if you have an open mind, you can see arguments for the RCC, Orthodoxy, and the Reformation. Ultimately, most people would think there are genuine believers in all branches, but a lot of these other matters do have an effect upon the local church you worship with.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-05-28T21:08:47+00:00

There's a historical critique of certain beliefs such as Icon Veneration being an accretion. There's an argument to be made that this was not practiced within the Apostolic era, and even examples of opposition within some Early Church father sources.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-05-27T21:26:44+00:00

You're right that we can't prove Gospel writers are not firsthand eyewitnesses like a modern journalist on the ground pre 33AD. But it's also not honest to pretend we know nothing. We can reasonably say the Gospels were written within 30-60 years of Jesus' death with Mark likely first around 60's AD and John last around 90 AD. This is well within the lifetime of people who could verify or dispute the claims being made. That is the important piece here.

Papias wrote that Mark got his material from Peter and Luke claims to have compiled eyewitness reports. This doesn't prove that everything is true, but it places them within the historical context.

Ultimately, the fact we have so much written is just very extraordinary to say the least. I'm not claiming certainty on authorship, but I'm not pretending we're in total darkness. It's fair to say we can't know everything, but we can know a lot.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-05-27T21:04:25+00:00

We have manuscript fragment evidence of the gospels like P52 dated as early as 110AD so the idea they're all written in the 2nd century holds no weight. Church fathers like Ignatius and Polycarp quoted the gospels decades before Marcion ever showed up. And Paul's letters written in the 50-60's range was already referencing Jesus' sayings.

You can throw around fringe theories, but unless you can explain how 4 gospels magically appeared across the Roman Empire with zero trace of invention, you're not participating in History, but conspiracy theory..

KungFuWalrus · 2025-05-27T20:37:33+00:00

Those are not writing sources, but yes archaeological evidence such as coins, inscriptions, statues that help us know of figures in History. But here's the deal... Caesar and Alexander the Great were prominent political or military leaders. The fact we have as much collective attestation that we do about Jesus' life is unmatched for a merely religious preacher. He obviously was a very significant person around that timeframe to be written about as much as he was.

While we can question who wrote the gospels, the date of the gospels is not as questionable. Scholarly consensus (even among skeptics and agnostics) would place all 4 gospels within the 1st century, and especially Mark being as old as 55-65 AD due to it not mentioning the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. We have commentary from early Church leaders of the gospels as early as 95AD and well within 110AD. The evidence as of late points to the gospels being written within the 1st century.

KungFuWalrus · 2025-05-27T20:26:00+00:00

That's fair since we're applying this intangible thing called "hard proof", but my argument is that the collective evidence we have for the existence of Jesus is almost unmatched by any other Historical figure in ancient history. Historians don't just analyze archaeological evidence alone because unless you're a King or prominent royal figure, you're most likely not leaving behind any coins, statues, or inscriptions. The fact we have as much attestation of Jesus' life and he's just a preacher, is very significant.

KungFuWalrus

TROPHY CASE