Is Kaladin literally just Jesus?

[Schizoposting]

1 minute ago, Immortal Platypus said:

3 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Now, I am not an expert on the LDS religion, or a theologian—I am someone with some general knowledge on the subject—so I may be wrong, but my understanding is that most of your quotes are referring to joining God in heaven, not to becoming a god. At the very least, non-LDS theologians reject the idea that one may become God upon death. But the exact theological details are not really relevant to the discussion. What's important is that Kaladin has significant similarities to Jesus, as he's commonly understood. The current discussion is about to what extent Kaladin is similar to Jesus.

That is how most people interpret them, but not everyone. 

I don't want to get into a theological debate, so let's just agree to disagree. 

3 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

3 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

A big reveal at the end of WOK was "the Parshendi are the Voidbringers". Now, later, we learn they are not necessarily the same thing, but at first, they were the same to our knowledge.

yes, and so because we now have updated knowledge we need rely on the outdated knowledge no longer.

 My point is that the Singers were initially portrayed as rampaging monsters, only for that to be subverted. Kaladin himself was surprised by how normal they were. 

5 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

3 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Obviously Yumi is not Jesus, but that has absolutely no relation to whether or not Kaladin is Jesus. The person who originally made that argument was just engaging in fallacious reasoning.

they were showing that it's easy to put some characteristics similar to Jesus and map them to a lot of characters, in this case, kaladin. I don't understand why you say they had fallacious reasoning. 

Ok, let me give you an example to make this clearer—suppose I say that Kaladin is a heroic character because he protects the weak and needy, and then someone comes along and says: "But Rayse protected and helped the Singers against the human invasion, does that mean that he's a hero too!?". Do you see why that's fallacious?

[bmcclure7]

6 hours ago, Aliroz-The-Confused said:

I find the premise of this thread offensive for multiple reasons.  That's all I intend to say about this.

Why?

 

@Immortal Platypus because the similarities between Yum and Jesus could applied to any number of religious figures. However, the three components that make Kal and Kel similar to Jesus are more unique 

 

@Immortal Platypus

1. Consider considering he is a Mormon yes he is a non-Christian and ignorant as he apparently doesn’t know the difference a heretic and apostate (a discussion for any other time).  But that wasn’t what I was getting at more that he was borrowing tropes, seeming other fantasy that are based on a very ignorant idea of church history. These tropes can be seen in a lot of fantasy 

Edited December 22, 2025 by bmcclure7

[Shatter He/Him]

On 12/18/2025 at 1:40 AM, Schizoposting said:

1. He's the son of god (Tanavast).
2. He has supernatural powers.
3. He (metaphorically) dies and is reborn multiple times, but most notably, the scene where he's strung up before the highstorm is analogous to crucifixion 
4. He dedicates his life to the spiritually pure purposes of healing and protecting the weak and needy.
5. He's an extremely effective, charismatic leader
6. He has a large and growing cult following among the lower classes.
7. He is seen as a threat by the powers that be
8. He's tempted by the devil (Odium), and the antichrist (Vyre).
9. At the end of WAT, he becomes a demigod and ascends directly to heaven (spiritual Alaswha).
10. Finally, in the back half, he will descend from the heavens to free Roshar from the beasts' tyranny in the final battle.
Am I missing something, or is Kaladin basically just Jesus?

huh... inspiration I assume.

the main thing wrong is that all humans are children of Tanavast. Dalinar is called the same

[Immortal Platypus]

11 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

I don't want to get into a theological debate, so let's just agree to disagree. 

 My point is that the Singers were initially portrayed as rampaging monsters, only for that to be subverted. Kaladin himself was surprised by how normal they were. 

Ok, let me give you an example to make this clearer—suppose I say that Kaladin is a heroic character because he protects the weak and needy, and then someone comes along and says: "But Rayse protected and helped the Singers against the human invasion, does that mean that he's a hero too!?". Do you see why that's fallacious?

agreed

I somewhat disagree. The voidbringers were portrayed as rampaging monsters, and then because people thought that the singers were voidbringers, they thought they were too. However, we could see different examples of singer behavior: Alethis attacked, but the Thaylens started sailing and the Azish basically filed a complaint.

I don't think that's fallacious. I think that argument is taking a different point of view to help prove a point, the point being that simply protecting the weak and needy doesn't make you a hero. It doesn't show that Kaladin isn't a hero, but it does show that simply defending the weak and needy isn't the only reason why.

8 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

@Immortal Platypus because the similarities between Yum and Jesus could applied to any number of religious figures. However, the three components that make Kal and Kel similar to Jesus are more unique 

In the future, if you could quote where you're responding to me, that will make it much easier on my end. 

What three components would those be? I seem to recall a list of 10, and if it's one of those, you'll have to specify which. The other thing is that the point is that the similarities could be applied to any number of religions, the same is true of Kaladin! 

Quote

@Immortal Platypus

1. Consider considering he is a Mormon yes he is a non-Christian and ignorant as he apparently doesn’t know the difference a heretic and apostate (a discussion for any other time).  But that wasn’t what I was getting at more that he was borrowing tropes, seeming other fantasy that are based on a very ignorant idea of church history. These tropes can be seen in a lot of fantasy 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (or Mormons, but we prefer to not go by that) are Christians. He's also very clearly not ignorant, especially if you read his books. If you're talking about Jasnah, I believe she is both an apostate and a heretic, she meets the Merriam-webster definition for apostasy ": an act of refusing to continue to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith" and the Merriam-Webster definition for heresy 1. "adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma" and 2. "dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice".  I don't think the tropes he borrows contribute to Vorinism looking like Christianity, as I don't think they look similar in the first place. 

[bmcclure7]

6 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

agreed

I somewhat disagree. The voidbringers were portrayed as rampaging monsters, and then because people thought that the singers were voidbringers, they thought they were too. However, we could see different examples of singer behavior: Alethis attacked, but the Thaylens started sailing and the Azish basically filed a complaint.

I don't think that's fallacious. I think that argument is taking a different point of view to help prove a point, the point being that simply protecting the weak and needy doesn't make you a hero. It doesn't show that Kaladin isn't a hero, but it does show that simply defending the weak and needy isn't the only reason why.

In the future, if you could quote where you're responding to me, that will make it much easier on my end. 

What three components would those be? I seem to recall a list of 10, and if it's one of those, you'll have to specify which. The other thing is that the point is that the similarities could be applied to any number of religions, the same is true of Kaladin! 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (or Mormons, but we prefer to not go by that) are Christians. He's also very clearly not ignorant, especially if you read his books. If you're talking about Jasnah, I believe she is both an apostate and a heretic, she meets the Merriam-webster definition for apostasy ": an act of refusing to continue to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith" and the Merriam-Webster definition for heresy 1. "adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma" and 2. "dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice".  I don't think the tropes he borrows contribute to Vorinism looking like Christianity, as I don't think they look similar in the first place. 

1. Yeah, I tried, but it wasn’t working for some reason.
 

2. The three points are referring to were in my earlier comment I didn’t elaborate because it wasn’t relevant but since you asked how elaborate here (1. Resurrection  2. Divinity, and discipleship.) yumi has only one of these. ) I won’t go as far as the original poster and say that Kal and Kel are literally Christ, but clearly Christ was one of the inspirations. 
 

3. I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong. Mormons rejected divinity of God at least has defined by Christians (the uncause cause ) and so definition they must also reject the divinity of Christ, something fundamental to Christianity (keep in mind we’re talking about Christians so I’m using a Christian definition of divinity not a pagan one) 

 

 

4. That definition you gave her heretic is far too loose . By that definition, I could call Hindus Christian heretics. That of course would be absurd. A heretic must be a part of. Of the religion that they are rejecting. Her disbelief in the Almighty puts her firmly not vorin meaning she cannot be a heretic. She isn’t a prostate because she continues to keep vorin cultural traditions (safe hand, women’s food, and so on) while in unbelief.

 

5. Here is a list of all. The way vorinism is similar to fantasy Catholicism (my own word to describe how Christianity is usually portrayed in fiction and perceived by the non-Christian public) . 1. Monotheist,  2. Worships the Almighty (this is actually an accurate comparison as Christianity is one of the few religions that has an Almighty God, most religions have gods who are mighty, but not Almighty) 3. Had an evil corrupt church who misuse the words of God in order to take power. (this is mostly an exaggeration and not connected to the actual reality of Church history). 4. Corrupted history and teachings in order to take power (again, not a reflection of actual history only on the sad betrayal medieval Christianity and fiction).  5. Uses a religion to justify violence (again, not a reflection of actual history, but of the perception and portrayal of it in fiction).  6. Its followers are obsessed with honor and oaths. 7. Many of their monks are also scholars.  All these tropes can be seen in fictional betrayals of medieval Christianity, particularly Catholicism
 

 

 

[Immortal Platypus]

16 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

2. The three points are referring to were in my earlier comment I didn’t elaborate because it wasn’t relevant but since you asked how elaborate here (1. Resurrection  2. Divinity, and discipleship.) yumi has only one of these. ) I won’t go as far as the original poster and say that Kal and Kel are literally Christ, but clearly Christ was one of the inspirations. 
 

Which of the three would you say she has? I'm assuming divinity, but I remember someone disputing that, so I'm curious. Anyway, Kaladin wasn't resurrected, he didn't die. He's no more divine than any common man on Roshar, unless I dramatically misunderstand things. Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread, Brandon has said that Christ was not an inspiration.

Spoiler

Questioner

So Kaladin, he has a lot of Christ-like qualities being the who protects those who can't protect themselves. When you were writing the character of Kaladin did you ever make a conscious decision to make him a Christ figure or--

Brandon Sanderson

The question is... Kaladin has some Christ-figure feel to him, was that intentional when I was writing the character. Actually it wasn't, there's nothing really intentional about that allusion.  But I can definitely see it. Being Christian myself a lot of what I find heroic is related to my faith. But I very rarely do conscious things like that, mostly-- This is for English majors, "I bet he got it from here" and things like that. So it was not intentional but I can totally see where you are making that connection.

Firefight Atlanta signing (Jan. 24, 2015)

 

Quote

3. I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong. Mormons rejected divinity of God at least has defined by Christians (the uncause cause ) and so definition they must also reject the divinity of Christ, something fundamental to Christianity (keep in mind we’re talking about Christians so I’m using a Christian definition of divinity not a pagan one) 

As I said, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't find it polite of you to use a term that I have told we prefer to not be called, nor do I find it polite for you to tell me what I believe. We do believe in the divinity of God as the uncaused cause, we don't believe in creation ex nihilo. Those are different. We do not reject the divinity of Christ, we perceive it in a different method than you do. That doesn't inherently make us wrong. Using your same reasoning here, I could say that all other faiths are not Christian because they believe that the Trinity is one being, not three, and say that because we're talking about Christianity I'm using a Christian definition and not a pagan one. I can say that because I see myself as Christian. Do you see why it's hard to say to someone else "you are not a Christian,"? I would like to agree to disagree here, because you will not convince me that I am not a Christian, and I doubt I will convince you I am, especially not in an effective manner, nor does this topic fit in this thread.

Quote

4. That definition you gave her heretic is far too loose . By that definition, I could call Hindus Christian heretics. That of course would be absurd. A heretic must be a part of. Of the religion that they are rejecting. Her disbelief in the Almighty puts her firmly not vorin meaning she cannot be a heretic. She isn’t a prostate because she continues to keep vorin cultural traditions (safe hand, women’s food, and so on) while in unbelief.

you can't just reject a definition, if you do so, you must provide an alternative definition. In a spoiler below, I'll list several more definitions, which support my position. I would encourage you to find some that support yours (Dictionary.com does, but only their definition 1), or come up with your own. 

The same is true of your line of reasoning for apostate. I have attached more definitions for that as well, and none indicate they cannot still be of the same culture. I also believe she states that she covers her safe hand to save time and avoid people gawking all the time, but I'm not certain.

Spoiler

Heretic

Cambridge: "a person who has beliefs that are opposed to the official belief of a church and that the church considers wrong"

Dictionary.com definition 3: "anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle."

Britannica: "someone who believes or teaches something that goes against accepted or official beliefs"

 

Apostate

Cambridge: "someone who has given up their religion or left a political party"

Britannica: "someone whose beliefs have changed and who no longer belongs to a religious or political group"

Dictionary.com: "a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc."

 

Quote

5. Here is a list of all. The way vorinism is similar to fantasy Catholicism (my own word to describe how Christianity is usually portrayed in fiction and perceived by the non-Christian public) . 1. Monotheist,  2. Worships the Almighty (this is actually an accurate comparison as Christianity is one of the few religions that has an Almighty God, most religions have gods who are mighty, but not Almighty) 3. Had an evil corrupt church who misuse the words of God in order to take power. (this is mostly an exaggeration and not connected to the actual reality of Church history). 4. Corrupted history and teachings in order to take power (again, not a reflection of actual history only on the sad betrayal medieval Christianity and fiction).  5. Uses a religion to justify violence (again, not a reflection of actual history, but of the perception and portrayal of it in fiction).  6. Its followers are obsessed with honor and oaths. 7. Many of their monks are also scholars.  All these tropes can be seen in fictional betrayals of medieval Christianity, particularly Catholicism

 

1. True, but so are Islam and Judaism

2. Christianity is, but so is Islam and Judaism. Collectively, those make up the majority of religions. Also, points one and two feel like the same point.

3. I feel confident saying that Brandon doesn't believe that churches were corrupt and evil

4. again, I feel confident that Brandon doesn't believe that

5. well, that one is somewhat accurate historically, if you consider the crusades

6. obsessing with honor/Oaths is part of Alethi culture, not just vorinism, you'll note it's significantly less important in other places. in addition, where in Christianity are people obsessed with honor/Oaths? In my church we have covenants which are somewhat comparable, but IDK about other churches, and you already said you don't consider my church Christian. 

7. I don't know how accurate that is to Christianity, but I feel like that's something that's fairly common across many religions or stories.

[bmcclure7]

54 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Which of the three would you say she has? I'm assuming divinity, but I remember someone disputing that, so I'm curious. Anyway, Kaladin wasn't resurrected, he didn't die. He's no more divine than any common man on Roshar, unless I dramatically misunderstand things. Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread, Brandon has said that Christ was not an inspiration.

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

Questioner

So Kaladin, he has a lot of Christ-like qualities being the who protects those who can't protect themselves. When you were writing the character of Kaladin did you ever make a conscious decision to make him a Christ figure or--

Brandon Sanderson

The question is... Kaladin has some Christ-figure feel to him, was that intentional when I was writing the character. Actually it wasn't, there's nothing really intentional about that allusion.  But I can definitely see it. Being Christian myself a lot of what I find heroic is related to my faith. But I very rarely do conscious things like that, mostly-- This is for English majors, "I bet he got it from here" and things like that. So it was not intentional but I can totally see where you are making that connection.

Firefight Atlanta signing (Jan. 24, 2015)

 

As I said, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't find it polite of you to use a term that I have told we prefer to not be called, nor do I find it polite for you to tell me what I believe. We do believe in the divinity of God as the uncaused cause, we don't believe in creation ex nihilo. Those are different. We do not reject the divinity of Christ, we perceive it in a different method than you do. That doesn't inherently make us wrong. Using your same reasoning here, I could say that all other faiths are not Christian because they believe that the Trinity is one being, not three, and say that because we're talking about Christianity I'm using a Christian definition and not a pagan one. I can say that because I see myself as Christian. Do you see why it's hard to say to someone else "you are not a Christian,"? I would like to agree to disagree here, because you will not convince me that I am not a Christian, and I doubt I will convince you I am, especially not in an effective manner, nor does this topic fit in this thread.

you can't just reject a definition, if you do so, you must provide an alternative definition. In a spoiler below, I'll list several more definitions, which support my position. I would encourage you to find some that support yours (Dictionary.com does, but only their definition 1), or come up with your own. 

The same is true of your line of reasoning for apostate. I have attached more definitions for that as well, and none indicate they cannot still be of the same culture. I also believe she states that she covers her safe hand to save time and avoid people gawking all the time, but I'm not certain.

  Reveal hidden contents

Heretic

Cambridge: "a person who has beliefs that are opposed to the official belief of a church and that the church considers wrong"

Dictionary.com definition 3: "anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle."

Britannica: "someone who believes or teaches something that goes against accepted or official beliefs"

 

Apostate

Cambridge: "someone who has given up their religion or left a political party"

Britannica: "someone whose beliefs have changed and who no longer belongs to a religious or political group"

Dictionary.com: "a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc."

 

1. True, but so are Islam and Judaism

2. Christianity is, but so is Islam and Judaism. Collectively, those make up the majority of religions. Also, points one and two feel like the same point.

3. I feel confident saying that Brandon doesn't believe that churches were corrupt and evil

4. again, I feel confident that Brandon doesn't believe that

5. well, that one is somewhat accurate historically, if you consider the crusades

6. obsessing with honor/Oaths is part of Alethi culture, not just vorinism, you'll note it's significantly less important in other places. in addition, where in Christianity are people obsessed with honor/Oaths? In my church we have covenants which are somewhat comparable, but IDK about other churches, and you already said you don't consider my church Christian. 

7. I don't know how accurate that is to Christianity, but I feel like that's something that's fairly common across many religions or stories.

1. Wrong not divinity, resurrection. Yumi is never considered divine. No one ever calls her a God instead, she is seen worshiping gods more like a high priest than anything else.

2. Wrong again Kal was resurrected Read wind and truth.

3. No one said it makes you wrong. It does make you not a Christian definitionally. 
 

4.  I’m sorry, the word Mormon offense you I understand that I am deeply offended by you calling yourself Christian when you are definitionally not. 
 

5. Wrong again you don’t know your own theology. The Mormon church teaches that God was created by another God and was once a man so we cannot be the uncaused cause he himself had a cause. So again (using the Christian definition of divinity.) the Mormon God is not divine.

6. I’m not trying to be offensive. I’m just pointing out the obvious facts. I have nothing more against Mormonism (Latter Day Saints if you insist) then I do Buddhism but I do object to you, trying to change the definition of my religion to include you. 
 

7. Again, please read my comments and not saying, Brandon Sanderson believes any of these things I’m saying he’s borrowing from common fantasy tropes loosely inspired by a misunderstanding of Church history which is why some people feel like it’s a reference to Christianity.

 

8.  If you want to reject my definition of heretic fine tell me our Hindus Christian heretic? If not then, can you demonstrate that by your definition? If you cannot, then I suggest that your definition that you gave is at very least incomplete.

 

9. Please you know nothing about the crusades. Don’t even start about that. And no Christianity was not particularly violent. If they were the crusades might’ve been the more successful, they certainly wouldn’t have waited so long to actually start fighting back against Islam

10. I don’t why what you do in your religion relevant because. A. It’s not Christianity. B. It’s not medieval.  C. We’re talking about how medieval Christianity is portrayed in media not necessarily reality. (though to be fair oaths were important. In Europe, which was most of medieval Christianity after Islam conquered 2/3 of it. So I understand where the stereotype comes from.

 

 

@Immortal Platypus

11. what do you mean the majority of the earth’s religions are you insane? That’s literally 3 do you know how many religions there are?
 

12. Due to a relatively low. (at least until recently.) number of Muslims and Jews in America and Europe should not be surprised that Christianity and not Islam is the inspiration for the most monotheist religions in fantasy.

Edited December 23, 2025 by bmcclure7

[Immortal Platypus]

3 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

1. Wrong not divinity, resurrection. Yumi is never considered divine. No one ever calls her a God instead, she is seen worshiping gods more like a high priest than anything else.

she's more divine that Kal, being a splinter (piece) of Virtuosity (a god). 

Quote

2. Wrong again Kal was resurrected Read wind and truth.

I have read it. In fact, I have it open right now. The closest thing is becoming a Herald, which is significantly different.

Quote

4.  I’m sorry, the word Mormon offense you I understand that I am deeply by you calling yourself question when you are definitionally not. 

I cannot tell what that means

Quote

5. Wrong again you don’t know your own theology. The Mormon church teaches that God was created by another God and was once a man so we cannot be the uncaused cause he himself had a cause. So again (using the Christian definition of divinity.) the Mormon God is not divine.

actually, what we teach is that matter and intelligence are both eternal, and that God created the universe by shaping it. Again, we don't believe in creation ex nihilo, which is different from denying God is the uncaused cause. 

Quote

6. I’m not trying to be offensive. I’m just pointing out the obvious facts. I have nothing more against Mormonism (Latter Day Saints if you insist) then I do Buddhism but I do object to you, trying to change the definition of my religion to include you. 

Again, I could use the same logic in the opposite way. I'll demonstrate: I'm just pointing out the facts. I have nothing against other Christians, but I do object to you trying to change the definition of my religion to exclude me. See? Again, this is a major part of why I'd still like to agree to disagree.

Quote

8.  If you want to reject my definition of heretic fine tell me our Hindus Christian heretic? If not then, can you demonstrate that by your definition? If you cannot, then I suggest that your definition that you gave is at very least incomplete.

you never provided a definition to reject. But I will say that definitonally, Hindus are heretics. Colloquially? No, but definitionally yes.

Quote

9. Please you know nothing about the crusades. Don’t even start about that. And no Christianity was not particularly violent. If they were the crusades might’ve been the more successful, they certainly wouldn’t have waited so long to actually start fighting back against Islam

you're right, I know very little. I do know that they were exactly the most peaceful thing the church has ever done. And I didn't say Christianity was particularly violent, but they don't need to be, they just need to be somewhat violent in order to meet the criteria you provided.

[bmcclure7]

15 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

she's more divine that Kal, being a splinter (piece) of Virtuosity (a god). 

I have read it. In fact, I have it open right now. The closest thing is becoming a Herald, which is significantly different.

I cannot tell what that means

actually, what we teach is that matter and intelligence are both eternal, and that God created the universe by shaping it. Again, we don't believe in creation ex nihilo, which is different from denying God is the uncaused cause. 

Again, I could use the same logic in the opposite way. I'll demonstrate: I'm just pointing out the facts. I have nothing against other Christians, but I do object to you trying to change the definition of my religion to exclude me. See? Again, this is a major part of why I'd still like to agree to disagree.

you never provided a definition to reject. But I will say that definitonally, Hindus are heretics. Colloquially? No, but definitionally yes.

you're right, I know very little. I do know that they were exactly the most peaceful thing the church has ever done. And I didn't say Christianity was particularly violent, but they don't need to be, they just need to be somewhat violent in order to meet the criteria you provided.

 

1. Where are you even getting this?
No, she is not a part of virtuosity. 

2. Kal is a Harold by definition of his religion He is a god same with kel

3. If Mater and energy are eternal, and God isn’t then by definition, he is not the uncaused cause. Look you can believe what you want, but don’t call it Christianity.

 

4. I’m giving the definition of Christianity that has existed for ages before Mormonism. Whereas you’re trying to come up with a new definition we are not the same

5. No Hindu’s are not heretics not colloquially not definitionally Just look at the etymology of the word it comes from the Greek word meaning subset. 

Edited December 23, 2025 by bmcclure7

[Schizoposting]

17 hours ago, Shatter said:

huh... inspiration I assume.

the main thing wrong is that all humans are children of Tanavast. Dalinar is called the same

No, they are called "Son of Honor", while only Kaladin is ever referred to as "Son of Tanavast".

8 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I somewhat disagree. The voidbringers were portrayed as rampaging monsters, and then because people thought that the singers were voidbringers, they thought they were too. However, we could see different examples of singer behavior: Alethis attacked, but the Thaylens started sailing and the Azish basically filed a complaint.

The point is that our expectations about the Singers were subverted. Again, Brandon likes to subvert common fantasy tropes, such as "all orcs are evil". And this is a reflection of his own liberal views. 

8 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

20 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Ok, let me give you an example to make this clearer—suppose I say that Kaladin is a heroic character because he protects the weak and needy, and then someone comes along and says: "But Rayse protected and helped the Singers against the human invasion, does that mean that he's a hero too!?". Do you see why that's fallacious?

I don't think that's fallacious. I think that argument is taking a different point of view to help prove a point, the point being that simply protecting the weak and needy doesn't make you a hero. It doesn't show that Kaladin isn't a hero, but it does show that simply defending the weak and needy isn't the only reason why.

I'm sorry—and I don't mean to be rude—but if you don't see the problem with the example that I provided, then I really don't know what to say.

Edited December 23, 2025 by Schizoposting

[Immortal Platypus]

1 hour ago, bmcclure7 said:

 

1. Where are you even getting this?
No, she is not a part of virtuosity. 

it's not confirmed, but it is oft speculated and somewhat implied, and she is very highly invested. Treamayne's post on this thread covers the idea pretty well. Like, more invested than Heralds. even if she's not a splinter of Virtuosity (I swear I saw something about that, but can't find it now), she's still highly enough invested I'd say her connection to divinity is stronger than Kal's

Quote

2. Kal is a Harold by definition of his religion He is a god same with kel

If you're going to say that the Heralds are gods, that undermine's your earlier point that Vorinism is Monotheistic. Which is it? Also, that doesn't prove he was resurrected. and I also wouldn't describe Kel as a god.

Quote

3. If Mater and energy are eternal, and God isn’t then by definition, he is not the uncaused cause. Look you can believe what you want, but don’t call it Christianity.

4. I’m giving the definition of Christianity that has existed for ages before Mormonism. Whereas you’re trying to come up with a new definition we are not the same

I'm done, you can have the last word. Agree to disagree.

Quote

5. No Hindu’s are not heretics not colloquially not definitionally Just look at the etymology of the word it comes from the Greek word meaning subset. 

Then provide a storming definition that suits your point. You can't just say they aren't something without providing evidence. also, it comes from the Greek word meaning "choose" not subset, assuming we're still talking about heretic.

1 hour ago, Schizoposting said:

No, they are called "Son of Honor", while only Kaladin is ever referred to as "Son of Tanavast".

you're right, I forgot about that. do we have confirmation on why he's called that?

Quote

I'm sorry—and I don't mean to be rude—but if you don't see the problem with the example that I provided, then I really don't know what to say.

I see a problem for certain people, but I think we see different problems. I see an argument that wasn't fully completed, that's the problem I see.

[Schizoposting]

5 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

you're right, I forgot about that. do we have confirmation on why he's called that?

Not officially, but that specific detail is what gave me the initial idea for this topic, since "Son of Tanavast", is essentially "Son of God", unlike "Son of Honor", since the former refers to Tanavast the shard, while the later refers to the abstract concept, and not to the shard.

11 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I see a problem for certain people, but I think we see different problems. I see an argument that wasn't fully completed, that's the problem I see.

The argument is a non sequitur, which makes it fallacious. Now, formal logic is not end all be all of things, but this does mean that the argument lacks rigor, since it fails to explain why Kaladin is not a heroic character.

[Immortal Platypus]

9 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

Not officially, but that specific detail is what gave me the initial idea for this topic, since "Son of Tanavast", is essentially "Son of God", unlike "Son of Honor", since the former refers to Tanavast the shard, while the later refers to the abstract concept, and not to the shard.

I disagree, son of Tanavast seemingly refers to the Vessel (at least to me), not the Shard. It implies more of a personal relationship with Tanavast than a personal relationship with the Shard Honor.

Quote

The argument is a non sequitur, which makes it fallacious. Now, formal logic is not end all be all of things, but this does mean that the argument lacks rigor, since it fails to explain why Kaladin is not a heroic character.

That's kind of what I mean by it's not complete. It needs more explanation, but it's not naturally a bad argument if that makes sense. It doesn't prove Kaladin isn't heroic, but it does show that simply saying he meets x characteristic doesn't make him so.

[bmcclure7]

39 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

it's not confirmed, but it is oft speculated and somewhat implied, and she is very highly invested. Treamayne's post on this thread covers the idea pretty well. Like, more invested than Heralds. even if she's not a splinter of Virtuosity (I swear I saw something about that, but can't find it now), she's still highly enough invested I'd say her connection to divinity is stronger than Kal's

If you're going to say that the Heralds are gods, that undermine's your earlier point that Vorinism is Monotheistic. Which is it? Also, that doesn't prove he was resurrected. and I also wouldn't describe Kel as a god.

I'm done, you can have the last word. Agree to disagree.

Then provide a storming definition that suits your point. You can't just say they aren't something without providing evidence. also, it comes from the Greek word meaning "choose" not subset, assuming we're still talking about heretic.

you're right, I forgot about that. do we have confirmation on why he's called that?

I see a problem for certain people, but I think we see different problems. I see an argument that wasn't fully completed, that's the problem I see.

Why do you say agree to disagree?
That makes no sense. It’s like you’re saying the sky is green and when I point out that it’s obviously blue you say well agreed to disagree.

 

Either something has a cause or it doesn’t. If it existed in time, then it has a cause. If God was originally a man then he had a cause therefore, he is not the uncaused cause 

 

I wasn’t thinking of vorinism I was thinking of literally every other religion on Roshar actually. Vorinism it is really the odd one out as all the other others worship the heralds

 

 

[Immortal Platypus]

6 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

Why do you say agree to disagree?
That makes no sense. It’s like you’re saying the sky is green and when I point out that it’s obviously blue you say well agreed to disagree.

Either something has a cause or it doesn’t. If it existed in time, then it has a cause. If God was originally a man then he had a cause therefore, he is not the uncaused cause 

because I'm sick of having this argument and it doesn't fit in the context of the thread. 

Quote

I wasn’t thinking of vorinism I was thinking of literally every other religion on Roshar actually. Vorinism it is really the odd one out as all the other others worship the heralds

ok, but Kal is Alethi and follows Vorinism. and most people don't know he's a Herald. And even if they did, just because people worship something doesn't make it divine. 

[Schizoposting]

18 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I disagree, son of Tanavast seemingly refers to the Vessel (at least to me), not the Shard. It implies more of a personal relationship with Tanavast than a personal relationship with the Shard Honor.

Sure, but the vessel is the shard:

Quote

The difference between a Shard and the Vessel, and the relationship between them, is complex and difficult for mortal minds to understand, and the line between the two is often blurred.^{[146][147][148]} This is due to the fact that the Vessel is made up of the Shard that they hold, the power of the Shard being their body.^[4][30][27] The power itself cannot tell the difference between itself and its Vessel, though small pieces, like spren, are able to do so.^[148][149] Due to the blurring between the two aspects, the Vessel themself is often referred to as the Shard.^[150]

while the abstract concept of honor is different from Honor the shard.

22 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

That's kind of what I mean by it's not complete. It needs more explanation, but it's not naturally a bad argument if that makes sense. It doesn't prove Kaladin isn't heroic, but it does show that simply saying he meets x characteristic doesn't make him so.

But Rayse isn't actually protecting the Singers, so the argument doesn't show that having that one characteristic is not enough to be a heroic figure.

[Immortal Platypus]

6 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

Sure, but the vessel is the shard:

while the abstract concept of honor is different from Honor the shard.

the Shard thinks the vessel is the Shard, but the vessel can tell the difference. personally, I think the vessel's opinion is the more relevant between the two. And Tanavast was aware he was different from Honor as seen in WAT.

Quote

But Rayse isn't actually protecting the Singers, so the argument doesn't show that having that one characteristic is not enough to be a heroic figure.

While true, there are other examples that prove the same thing while not having that flaw. For example, TLR protected the members of the Steel Ministry, so he is heroic. Obviously he's not, but he did protect them.

[Schizoposting]

4 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

the Shard thinks the vessel is the Shard, but the vessel can tell the difference. personally, I think the vessel's opinion is the more relevant between the two. And Tanavast was aware he was different from Honor as seen in WAT.

They are not the same, but they are very much intertwined. It's like the relation between the mind and body—they are not the same, but they're intertwined. In fact, the term vessel was invented by the fandom; it does not appear in the books AFAIK.

6 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

While true, there are other examples that prove the same thing while not having that flaw. For example, TLR protected the members of the Steel Ministry, so he is heroic. Obviously he's not, but he did protect them.

He did not protect them for altruistic reasons. This was implied in the original example. But regardless, the point is that the specific argument was fallacious, not that no possible argument could be made against the proposition.

[Immortal Platypus]

34 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

They are not the same, but they are very much intertwined. It's like the relation between the mind and body—they are not the same, but they're intertwined. In fact, the term vessel was invented by the fandom; it does not appear in the books AFAIK.

it doesn't appear in the books, at least until WAT, and probably not there, but I don't know for sure. They are intertwined, but are not the same. My guess as for it's meaning is that maybe Kal is a direct descendant and they use the title like the title Son of David?

Quote

He did not protect them for altruistic reasons. This was implied in the original example. But regardless, the point is that the specific argument was fallacious, not that no possible argument could be made against the proposition.

true. The major miscommunication here is because I misunderstood the meaning of fallacious, but I have since corrected that understanding. 

[Schizoposting]

11 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

it doesn't appear in the books, at least until WAT, and probably not there, but I don't know for sure. They are intertwined, but are not the same. My guess as for it's meaning is that maybe Kal is a direct descendant and they use the title like the title Son of David?

He's not directly descended from Tanavast according to WOB, but even if he was, it wouldn't mean much, because that would be basically everyone, given how long ago Tanavast would have to have his child. In world it probably means something along the lines of Kaladin being especially aligned with Honor/Wind, or to Tanavast's vision of honor. But out of world, it does evoke "Son of God".

17 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

true. The major miscommunication here is because I misunderstood the meaning of fallacious, but I have since corrected that understanding. 

It's all good.

[Immortal Platypus]

13 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

He's not directly descended from Tanavast according to WOB, but even if he was, it wouldn't mean much, because that would be basically everyone, given how long ago Tanavast would have to have his child. In world it probably means something along the lines of Kaladin being especially aligned with Honor/Wind, or to Tanavast's vision of honor. But out of world, it does evoke "Son of God".

huh, I would've thought I'd remember that WOB. it could mean something like that, that was my original idea back when I first heard it, but I don't know how much I like it anymore. It's never really evoked Son of God to me though

[Nitpicking]

Kaladin's parentage, my own crackpot theory:

We learn in the discussion of Adolin's name that the "-in" ending means "son of".

Kalad is one of Vasher's names, attested in Warbreaker.

So Kaladin must be Vasher's son.

A heretic has to be (or claim to be) a member of the religion. Someone like me, who is a member of no religion, is an infidel, not a heretic. The Catholic Inquisition could burn heretics (professed Christians who didn't follow their teachings) at the stake. Professed non-Christians would normally only be subject to exile.

[bmcclure7]

11 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

because I'm sick of having this argument and it doesn't fit in the context of the thread. 

ok, but Kal is Alethi and follows Vorinism. and most people don't know he's a Herald. And even if they did, just because people worship something doesn't make it divine. 

1. I agree, which is why I wonder why you keep bringing it up
2. You’re missing the point point is that divinity is a theme of Kal just like for Kel

[Immortal Platypus]

1 hour ago, bmcclure7 said:

2. You’re missing the point point is that divinity is a theme of Kal just like for Kel

I'm not missing the point. I understand that you're trying to say that Kal has a theme of being divine. I'm understand that. I promise I'm not entirely stupid. I just interpret things differently. I don't think that divinity is a theme of Kal, anymore than I do for Yumi. 

3 hours ago, Nitpicking said:

Kaladin's parentage, my own crackpot theory:

We learn in the discussion of Adolin's name that the "-in" ending means "son of".

Kalad is one of Vasher's names, attested in Warbreaker.

So Kaladin must be Vasher's son.

while I think that would be really funny, I don't find it realistic. More likely is that he's named after Kalak and the Lighteyed "in" or "lin" suffix is the same as the dark eyed "din" suffix. If so, that's a pretty great name, it means "born unto eternity" or "born of eternity". 

...

but I want yours to be true over mine

Quote

A heretic has to be (or claim to be) a member of the religion. Someone like me, who is a member of no religion, is an infidel, not a heretic. The Catholic Inquisition could burn heretics (professed Christians who didn't follow their teachings) at the stake. Professed non-Christians would normally only be subject to exile.

colloquially, I agree. Definitionally, I disagree. However, there is still one more important note. Brandon has used words that were not the exact ones we would use in the past to represent words that they use in world that we don't have (for example, naming someone December instead of the month they had on their planet). it's possible they have a word that sums up heretic, infidel, and maybe even apostate. It seems very uncommon for someone to not be of the faith, at least as outwardly as Jasnah, so I could totally see their language evolving in such a way, differently than ours has.

[bmcclure7]

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I'm not missing the point. I understand that you're trying to say that Kal has a theme of being divine. I'm understand that. I promise I'm not entirely stupid. I just interpret things differently. I don't think that divinity is a theme of Kal, anymore than I do for Yumi. 

while I think that would be really funny, I don't find it realistic. More likely is that he's named after Kalak and the Lighteyed "in" or "lin" suffix is the same as the dark eyed "din" suffix. If so, that's a pretty great name, it means "born unto eternity" or "born of eternity". 

...

but I want yours to be true over mine

colloquially, I agree. Definitionally, I disagree. However, there is still one more important note. Brandon has used words that were not the exact ones we would use in the past to represent words that they use in world that we don't have (for example, naming someone December instead of the month they had on their planet). it's possible they have a word that sums up heretic, infidel, and maybe even apostate. It seems very uncommon for someone to not be of the faith, at least as outwardly as Jasnah, so I could totally see their language evolving in such a way, differently than ours has.

1. Well, he literally becomes a god by the end of it. So I don’t know what to tell you.  I mean you can go on and on about divinity not being a theme but you’re just wrong. I would agree with you but then we both be wrong.

I mean, you can say he’s not a god all you want, but from the perspective of Roshar yes he is if he want to appear in Asimare today, he would be worshiped as one. The same cannot be said of yumi . She’s revered, but I don’t think I will ever call her a God or attempts to worship her if anything, her attendance bully and guilt trip her around. 

 

2. I mean, you can come up with all sort of apologetics and reasonings all you want, but I think it’s just reasonable and far more simpler just to say that he simply made a mistake Use the word heretic instead of apostate. 
 

3. I don’t know what more to do in this discussion. I have put it out all the evidence and you just continue to deny deny what more do you want from me?