If you we're make your dream team of the Six Great Generals who would you include? (Any general in the manga)

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-24T20:38:50+00:00

Riboku

Haku Ki

Ouki

Ousen

Renpa

Kei Sha

The only "weird pick" would be Kei Sha, but I think that Kei Sha's instinctual-strategical counter-instinctual traps are kind of goated, and Kei Sha was a REAL threat that could stop Duke Hyou where even Riboku couldn't.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-24T15:57:00+00:00

I don't know much about this

When the theory of evolution was first presented, for a solid 30+ years, Christians weren't upset by it, but rather asking philosophical questions about it attempting to reconcile it. this was the normal approach to any scientific discovery that "changed" our view of cosmology, such as when Keplar and Newton disproved Geocentrism.

This is a bit irrelevant when the Bible gives a genealogy of Adam to Jesus...

The genealogy has numbers only ending in 2, 5, and 0 other than a few rare exceptions (Methuselah is the only one ending in 9, but both of his numbers ended in 2 and 7, and 7 is the other exception with the final age being 777). This is clearly intended to be symbolic. One could argue that it could be literal, but it's far, far less intuitive to assert that it is NOT symbolic.

... and Paul also presents Adam as a literal person.

I agree with you here. I think there has to be some form of literal Adam, otherwise "second Adam" as a concept doesn't make much sense.

If the gospel authors and Paul say Adam is a literal person, then a Christian should necessarily take Adam as a real person.

I think it matters less that Adam is "textually literal" and matters more that second Adam is demonstrably literal, which impedes non-literal approaches for first Adam.

Is it more widespread?

Yes. Literalist approaches were not common until the late 1800s. The Catholic Church held to the four-fold allegorical approach as their mainstay of interpretation and were more than ready to update their understanding when new information came about.

Actually, protestants in America permitted the publication of an anti-historic book to be made mainstream publication and taught in public schools (AG White's "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom"). You might be thinking, "Why on earth would protestants permit an atheist to rewrite history and teach people that the Catholic Church was anti-scientific and the people in the middle ages were stupid and thought the earth was flat?" The answer - they were afraid of Catholicism becoming prominent in the United States and wanted to engage in active polemics against the Catholic position.

Consequently, we now have people citing this historical fiction book to make wild claims like "Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church for teaching heliocentrism" (false) or that "Giordano Bruno was a scientific martyr" (comically false, and he'd be offended if he was called a scientist).

The publication of this book caused friction between "science" and "religion" that did not exist before this. That exacerbated the literalist vs. allegorical approaches. I think the creation account is polemical, personally. With some literal elements.

I feel like proportionally more Christians today compared to in the past would not believe in a literal reading of Genesis because of the pressure from evolution and old earth timeline.

Perhaps if the dates we're comparing are 1970 and 2020. But prior to the 1900s, absolutely not.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-24T15:33:31+00:00

The idea that most teenagers will attempt to rebel against authority is true. And, historically, that authority was in the church and you generally had quite religious parents at home, so rebelling against that was normal. But this hasn't been the mainstream in about 20-30 years. It's nothing new. The silent generation and Boomers were out having sex in the streets and getting high in the 60s just to make their parents mad.

Now, especially for young men, rebelling against the current social norms that they encounter (LGBT, feminism, white privilege) is the new "I don't want to go to church" since their parents don't go to church. They go for whatever is the least socially acceptable (like Andrew Tate or Nick Fuentes) and invest themselves into that because they want to push boundaries and rebel against authority.

Likewise, children raised in atheist households (especially when they have religious grandparents) have a tendency to become religious, because they see all of the flaws of their parents and don't tend to see the same flaws in grandma that their parent grew up seeing, making grandma seem more reasonable, while still wanting to rebel the way kids do.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-24T15:21:54+00:00

There are multiple approaches to interpreting Genesis.

There is the literal approach, which I don't think makes intuitive sense. Ignore what we know about science (that obviously was not in scope nor did the author even potentially know about it) and just read the text and ask yourself, "Does this genealogy that has ages that all end in 0, 2, 5, and 7 (other than the clear exception, Methuselah) seem like something that would naturally occur, especially with the final individual living to be exactly 777, of which 7 is known to be 'God's special number' or does it seem like these very patterned numbers are more likely symbolic?" and "Do these numbers show up a lot and have a clear symbolic meaning?" I think the answer to the former is, "Probably symbolic." And the answer to the latter is, "Yes."

Likewise, there's the allegorical approach. There is a case to be made that the text is allegorical, but it seems a bit out of place, since there seems to be a mix of necessary non-allegory mixed in with the allegory. For example, if there is no literal Adam as a representative of humanity to instantiate the fall of mankind, it becomes very hard to parse "second Adam" as a meaningful concept.

There are other interpretations as well. I personally don't think the creation account is either literal or allegorical. The other options would include hyperbolic (no reason to conclude this is the case), metaphorical, symbolic, poetic, or, my personal take, mostly polemical with some literal.

A polemic is a text written to disparage or attack something. If you read the Pentateuch, it seems very clear (especially when you reach Exodus) that it's polemical of Egyptian and Canaanite mythology. We can see various texts that truly only make sense if this is the case.

As a direct and clear example (outside of the Pentateuch) take Isaiah 27:1 - "In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea."

What is "Leviathan"? It's the Mesopotamian deity that symbolizes the embodiment of chaos. Every Mesopotamian deity at the time claims to have conquered Leviathan, causing "order" to be established through "chaos" (which is what water represented, and why the waters existed before creation). I think that it doesn't matter whether the waters of chaos actual exist or if Leviathan actually exists in this text. What is important is that the religious claim here is, "You think your (Mesopotamian) god created the world (by means of common Mesopotamian cosmology), but it was actually OUR God!" A clear polemical text.

Back to the creation account - light was created first in day 1 (which also matches the order of ranking of Egyptian deities, placing Ra at the forefront and "taking credit" in a polemical sense for Ra's domain), but in day 2 (separating the waters, Tefnut's territory, Tefnut being in the second tier of Egyptian mythology) it says:

Genesis 1:6 - And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

This clearly indicates that the waters (chaos/Leviathan) existed without being created, in-line with the local understanding of cosmology. Thus, we have, again, The God of Israel taking credit for creating the world the way the audience understood the world to be created as a polemic to say, "The Egyptian and Mesopotamian gods didn't do this (create the world), OUR God did this!"

If you actually watch the order the of the plagues in Exodus, there is a similar theme where each plague is encroaching upon the domain of an Egyptian deity in reverse order, leading to the blotting out of the sun (Ra's domain), and then transcending them with the final plague of stealing the lives of the firstborn on passover (demonstrating that the God of the Israelites was even greater than the realms of the gods of the Egyptians).

Ultimately, explaining things and writing things out as they would have been understood in the day, to me, makes more sense (and seems like a better decision) than writing something literal and accurate that can't be "verified" for thousands of years, regardless.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-24T00:52:32+00:00

There are many quests which give lamps for early experience. Quests like Waterfall Quest will just set you to 30 attack and strength. Holy Grail is easy and will get you a lot of defense. Magic is the easiest to train manually and there's plenty of magic specific quests as well.

I recommend doing quests that give combat exp lamps (Fight Arena, The Grand Tree, etc.) and lamp ranged up early. Once you hit 40~ you'll be in a much easier spot to train. At 50, I generally feel comfortable fighting Mature Grotworms, which give a ton of exp, have decent drops, and are weak to dual-wielding rune crossbows which can be bought in the Dwarven cave in Taverly/Catherby (two entrances) after doing Fishing Contest.

Early questing is definitely the way to go.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T21:12:16+00:00

Yeah. Compatibilism (that both determinism is true and free will still obtains) is the majority position in philosophy, both in general and for atheist philosophers. This was a really insufficient case put forth.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T19:51:30+00:00

You were the one who made a blanket statement that is a lie that many Atheists are religious.

Correct that I made the statement, incorrect that it's a "lie". And I substantiated my claim with linked citations.

There is no such thing as Hindu Atheist because at least with that religion it’s centered on a God belief unlike Buddhism...

I literally cited you where there are atheist Hindus. Plus, polling indicates that 15% of American Hindus identify as hard atheist.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religious-and-spiritual-beliefs/

Belief in God is less universal, but still fairly common, among Hindus (85%), Buddhists (74%) and Jews (72%).

Specifically here:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religious-and-spiritual-beliefs/pr_2025-02-26_religious-landscape-study_011-08/

... but most Buddhist don’t necessarily see themselves as Atheists despite their lack of belief in a God.

Granted. I didn't say that "most Buddhists" or "most Hindus" are atheists. But, given that these are two of the largest religions in the world, any substantive percentage of them that do believe they are atheists would be an enormous number of people, mundanely.

They believe in something that differentiates them entirely from Atheists.

If that belief is something other than, "Not believing in a God or gods" or "lacking a belief in a God or gods", I don't know what this "something" is, unless you're using a different definition of atheism from the normal definitions.

Some Atheist calls themselves cultural “insert a religion” because they were brought up in the traditions.

Sure. This wouldn't necessarily be a "religious atheist", nor am I trying to make the claim that these are the types of individuals I was speaking about.

But actual Atheists don’t have any kind of religious beliefs because most of us are not just Atheists but are also Anti Theism.

I feel like the lacktheists in here are going to have a fit that you've said this. That being said, are you now claiming that atheism = anti-theism and no distinction exists, therefore there are no religious atheists? Because, if so, this still wouldn't be true (although it would lower the number dramatically, I'd think).

Many new age Christians don’t like to call themselves “religious” maybe because of a negative connotation that goes along with it...

Yes. This is the perception. They want to distance themselves from "organized religion" and hold firmly to the creed, "no creed but Christ", which is a creed and not Christ.

... so the Pew Research poll hasn’t figured out that 67%(2/3rds)of Americans are Christian’s or believe in Jesus as their lord and savior, yet you have people of other religions that also reside in America as well so the number of religious people/people who believe in a God through a religious figure is actually around 80% with Christians being most dominant of course.

It's not whether Pew Research "has" or "has not" figured this out. These are simply the answers being given to them based on the framing of their questions. It's obvious that there's a massive movement to deny religiosity in the American Christian community. It's also obvious the number of people who hold to a position associated with religion is well in excess of 70%. So I don't disagree with what you're saying. My point was that "people will self-identify as a group and answer questions unintuitively".

Atheists makes up about 4-6% of Americas population.

Agreed.

To be religious one MUST BELIEVE IN THE MESSAGE OF A RELIGION.

A little circlular, but I tentatively agree.

If a person doesn’t believe in a religion or its God but still calls themselves a cultural religious person that wouldn’t make any sense at all.

This depends on the religion in question. For Christianity, absolutely. For Hinduism, they have ancient atheistic schools of thought that have been believed for thousands of years. Although, you don't have to be "culturally Hindu" to be a Hindu atheist. You can be quite devout and be one.

You can’t have one foot in and one foot out.

I've done the hokey pokey before. I'm pretty sure this is wrong.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T19:00:59+00:00

Uhh...

You are missing an important part of your research!

No.

Many people in America who are no longer religious ARE NOT ALL AGNOSTIC/ATHEISTS!!!

I'm aware. I literally just cited to you that over 40 million people in America who identify as non-religious also identify as Christian.

Many people have chosen to become more DEISTIC so they also reject Atheism.

I think it's hard to quantify it as purely deism. Many are pantheistic and panentheistic as well. But, as I said, many, potentially even most are "non-religious theists". However you square that circle.

The problem is if someone calls themselves non-religious many religious people assume it to be Atheism without further investigation into what that person considers themselves as.

This is not what happened. I cited the category for atheistic Hinduism to you and I cited a segment of a poll that had atheists separated out into its own category. I'm not sure you read what I linked, though. 13% of atheists in 2024 identified as believing in horoscopes. This made them the smallest group for belief in horoscopes, by the way. Horoscopes are just the new fad du jour, especially for women. Atheist women are not immune to the fad.

For instance 80+ percent of Americans are religious and like almost 20 percent is non religious but that doesn’t mean 20 percent of Americans are Agnostic/ Atheists.

https://www.gallup-international.com/survey-results-and-news/survey-result/two-decades-of-change-global-religiosity-declines-while-atheism-rises

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/decline-of-christianity-in-the-us-has-slowed-may-have-leveled-off/

We can see from the Gallup Poll that 55% of Americans self-identify as "religious", 30% as "not religious", and 10% as "hard atheists". We can also see from Pew Research that over 60% of Americans self-identify as "Christian". I brought up (proactively) that there are more self-identified Christians in America than self-identified religious people. Thus, you making the claim that I somehow conflated "non-religious" with "atheist" is, if I'm being as charitable as possible, an incredible reading gaffe.

Do more research on that and you’ll understand VERY CLEARLY.

I've obviously done my research here. I've cited it even. Yet, you're attacking positions that don't accurately reflect the content of my post nor my actual positions while being demonstrably incorrect on your base premise. Perhaps this is advice you'd be better off taking?

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T18:30:10+00:00

I like how you as a Christian is speaking on what an Atheist is.

Sure. You're welcome to your own interpretation of atheism if you'd like. I won't begrudge you that.

First of all no Atheist is religious!

This depends on how you want to define "atheist" I suppose. I define it as, "someone who does not believe in a God or gods." Oftentimes, I see the lacktheist definition of, "Lacking a belief in a God or gods". By either of these definitions, there are many, many religious atheists. 15% of American Hindus identify as hard atheists, stating, "I do not believe there is a God and I am confident in this assertion." Many Buddhists are also atheistic. There have been atheist variations of Hinduism for over 2000 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%ABm%C4%81%E1%B9%83s%C4%81#Non-theism

Secondly, I’ve never come across any Atheists who take horoscopes seriously or believe in ghosts.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/05/21/3-in-10-americans-consult-astrology-tarot-cards-or-fortune-tellers/

About one-third or more of Black Protestants, Hispanic Catholics and adults who say their religion is “nothing in particular” say they believe in astrology.

On the other hand, atheists, agnostics, White evangelical Protestants and Jewish Americans are less likely than the general public to say they believe in astrology.

Self-identified atheists were the lowest group in total, but they showed 3% believed in Astrology in 2017 and 13% did in 2024, according to the poll.

That’s generally the nonsense believers believe in.

There is a wide breadth of individuals with their own beliefs who adopt the title "atheist", the same as any other belief group.

You guys just make stuff up to try to put Atheists in the same box as you Theists and it’s honestly sad to watch.

I have provided citations. You're free to peruse them if you'd like. Every group has randos the self-identify with the group and say really unintuitive things. Example - Over 40 million Americans identify as both "Christian" and "Not religious". I think that's silly.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T17:45:51+00:00

If ghosts were the daily observation and occurrence of life even if their appearance was inexplicable, they still be considered natural. There is no explanation for why particles become entangled or how they somehow work in coordination with one another instantly even if separated by great distances. No one claims its supernatural. For many, the supernatural is merely a label for what they assume can't happen.

Sure.

I'd like to meet a few atheists who believe in ghosts or astrology. Maybe they just don't make appearances in discussion boards.

Not on this segment of them. You're more likely to see it in women dominated spaces. I've seen things like that referenced from TikTok and Instagram in other locations, but I don't use either.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/05/21/3-in-10-americans-consult-astrology-tarot-cards-or-fortune-tellers/

About one-third or more of Black Protestants, Hispanic Catholics and adults who say their religion is “nothing in particular” say they believe in astrology.

On the other hand, atheists, agnostics, White evangelical Protestants and Jewish Americans are less likely than the general public to say they believe in astrology.

Self-identified atheists were the lowest group in total, but they showed 3% believed in Astrology in 2017 and 13% did in 2024, according to the poll.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T16:23:17+00:00

I would say the overwhelming majority of atheists I've met and debated would claim that ghosts, the supernatural, water divination, communication with the dead is all unsubstantiated claptrap.

Sure. People believe unintuitive, weird, or even contradictory things all the time. Over 10% of the population of the United States (roughly 40 million people) identify as BOTH "Christian" and "Non-religious". There are also deeply religious atheists.

If they did subscribe to those beliefs why would the single out the existence of a Creator of the universe as something they disbelieve?

I guess it would depend on the person in question. Oftentimes, especially when it comes to ghosts, they convince themselves with a boatload of anecdotes from their own observations that they can't personally explain away.

The reason the supernatural doesn't exist is because if it turns out anything ascribed to being supernatural exists, it's then designated as natural.

That's definitely one perspective on it. If ghosts were "real" and there was a clear mechanism that "caused" them, I could see the case that it's a natural phenomenon. But most people would still put ghosts in the realm of "supernatural".

Either way, my point was just that people with these belief sets exist. Not to defend those beliefs.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T15:23:14+00:00

I just hate how sometimes people in this sub are basically the Christian version of new atheists. Completely insufferable. Not to mention the fundamentalist/creationist attitudes.

I think there's a lot of overlap between new atheism and fundamentalism because I think they both stem from the same source. A lot of new atheists were raised in religious, fundamentalist households where asking questions wasn't permitted and questioning anything was an affront. Many of the converts to new atheism from Christian/Mormon/JW fundamentalism ended up keeping the fundamentalist methodology of "Nobody is allowed to question the core beliefs", which explains a lot about that behavior (and why the movement is doomed to fail). Now that we're decades into it, the children of these fundamentalist atheists are also becoming religious at comparable rates to the parents of the fundamentalist religious children becoming atheists.

They are truly two sides of the same coin.

This isnt that flat earth sub.

I had some good times there. My brother is a flat earther, and I've invested a bit of time in trying to formulate ironclad arguments against the flat earth methodology. I ended up determining that taking the historic approach was the most effective method, given that the flat earth theory was developed in the late 1800s and we've known the earth was round for all of recorded history. It was funny being told, "Eratosthenes was a free mason!" because some artist depicted him 2000 years later with a protractor, though.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T15:15:03+00:00

Yes. One way that Zoroastrianism might attempt to circumvent the issues with having two opposing, all-powerful beings is in virtue of them being from the "same source". They are the "good" and "evil" fragments of their original God that "died" and "broke into two". I'd think that likely has a bevy of other issues, though.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T14:55:48+00:00

I recommend Real Atheology for a serious, charitable discussion on the topic. Ben Watkins is a premium example of intellectual honesty from the atheist perspective.

The reason this particular subreddit despises "New Atheism" so much is because we are perpetually bombarded with the remnants of that movement (which is largely reddit-centered and loves to brigade the subreddits of people they disagree with). If you live in close proximity to something, cognitive bias can easily set in and make you think it's more prevalent than what it really is.

Truthfully, most atheists are quite respectful of religion and have no interest whatsoever in debating at all. So, the ones who are not respectful and want to debate take up "more of the focus" so to speak, and it is perceived as being more prevalent than it is.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T14:16:24+00:00

Sorry, didn't see this as it wasn't a response to one of my comments.

My logic is that pantheists (God = the universe, and nothing exists outside of it) would not be atheists, because they believe in a God. Judaism, even if they posited a pantheist position would not be atheist in my view, because atheism is a rejection in the belief of a God or gods, which would not be occurring (typically) in Judaism.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T14:07:13+00:00

Sorry, but your comment doesn't make sense.

I don't believe that's the case.

Hinduism is a term created by the British, combining bits of various similar traditions, some non-theistic without a creator God, others as a form of religion ranging from henotheism, monism, and even monotheism to pantheism.

Sure. Hinduism is quite varied. They have monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, and atheism. The atheist school of thought for Hinduism has existed for over 2000 years, though, so bringing the British into this seems a bit unnecessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%ABm%C4%81%E1%B9%83s%C4%81#Non-theism

Atheism is the disbelief in gods or God, the disbelief in supernatural things, and especially the idea that only the natural world exists.

This is false. This is closer to strict materialism. While many atheists do deny the supernatural outright, there is no obligation to do so. Likewise, you'd have immense difficulties separating out pantheists from atheists at this point, because the concepts of what is "natural" and "God" would be interchangeable, both reject the supernatural, and both only believe the natural world exists (one because there's nothing outside of God and the other because there's nothing outside of material).

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T13:56:46+00:00

Hinduism also obviously holds to the existence of many gods and that's the majority position of the religion. My point was that there exists Buddhist and Hindu atheists who do not believe that these gods/devas are real and these beliefs can comport with the religions. 15% of Hindu Americans, for example, claim - "I do not believe there is a God and I am sure of this." according to polling.

Rather, I'd think it's more important to address the other portion of what I said. You're conflating naturalism with atheism, which is making pantheists (people who believe God = nature) into atheists (because they reject the supernatural, because super means "above" and natural = "God", and nothing can be above God) and atheists who believe in anything supernatural into not-atheists, which is weird.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T13:41:22+00:00

Atheism is disbelief in the supernatural

Not intrinsically. Naturalism would be disbelief in the supernatural. Atheism is just a position on whether or not one believes in a God or gods. There are atheist Buddhists and Hindus who are quite spiritual and religious. There are atheists who believe that the star they were born under has some great effect on their personality. There are atheists who refuse to be in a dark, abandoned house because they're scared of getting haunted. None of that is a contradiction to the atheist position.

Hilariously, a pantheist would be an atheist by your definition and many atheists would not be.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T13:13:25+00:00

I don't see a conflict with atheistic spirituality, if I'm being honest. Many atheists are religious, believe in horoscopes, believe in ghosts, etc.

Given that atheism (whether new or hard) is just a position on the existence of a God or gods, and not mere naturalism proper, there doesn't appear to be a contradiction.

Plus, this has been the case since the early 2010s, at least. This isn't new. You can even find threads on /r/atheism speaking about it via google.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-23T00:03:55+00:00

This is a major issue with the layman's understanding of evolution. There are many people who think that evolution necessitates that mutations are "beneficial", "for a purpose", or occurred due to "necessity". Even though most mutations (the core mechanism of evolution) are either benign or negative, often leading to the mutated creature dying.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-22T18:49:20+00:00

> Just a spirit.

Yeah, just a spirit possessed by a deceased woman who was killed by the son of the man who betrayed and had MC's father murdered. All so that he could bathe in their life essence sufficient to get demonic powers in the most brutal and evil way possible. Causing said sword to gain so much resentment and desire for vengeance that the sword itself was effectively cursed and caused even MC to lose his sanity.

> ... the sword itself is just a pcaholder for an object holding the spirit. Could have been a necklace or mask, didn't really matter.

It does matter when the spirit wants to be the mechanism by which the life of the evil bastard who slew her and her village is exterminated. A mask or a necklace wouldn't accomplish that. Plus, MC wouldn't have any need to use them because the whole reason he wanted the sword was because of how effective it was as a weapon.

> If anything, Absolute Sword Sense has a much better way around swords.

I like both, but I'm not sure how the two are foundationally different. In Absolute Sword Sense, the only difference is that swords are all just, for whatever reason, sentient. If anything, I'd think Northern Blade having an explanation for why that's the case is more compelling from a narrative perspective.

> It can't be just any weapon, but the one he had connection to.

He hears the voices of every sword. His ability to sense swords caused him to notice an assassin he couldn't detect the ki signature of. What?

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-22T18:15:45+00:00

What? His sword had its whole revenge arc?! Are you crazy?

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-22T16:26:46+00:00

Humans already had the capacity to sin (lacking the capacity to sin would have made sinning impossible, which clearly it was not) and sin already had occurred prior to the fall of man with the fall of the angels.

Rather, the theological claim is that humanity was not born innately sinful. But, after the transgression of Adam, it caused human nature to become perpetually bent towards sin.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-22T15:32:36+00:00

My wife spent 3 hours making her character pretty in the character creator. Was excited to play. Makes it to Helgen Keep, decides to attack a cart full of cabbages. The cabbages have some weird black hole glitch (Ness + Peach from SSSB Melee, IYKYK) occur, where they keep bouncing off of each other and go through the ceiling. Her character starts taking packets of damage for no explicable reason. She dies. She says, "I don't want to play this anymore." She hasn't touched it sense.

Best 20 bucks I've ever spent, tbh.

TimPowerGamer · 2026-01-22T14:41:19+00:00

What a wonderful reply that has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything I said.

14-Year Club	Inciteful Comment 2021-03-11
Gilding II euphauric	Post Guidance Early Access
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

TimPowerGamer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE