Is Kaladin literally just Jesus?

[Immortal Platypus]

31 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

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. 

I disagree. Even if he becomes something that cultures revere as a god, that doesn't make him a god. You and I would both agree that God is the only true God, not any of the Greek or Norse or Hindu gods, even though cultures do revere them as gods. 

And maybe instead of saying "you're just wrong" you could understand that we interpret things differently, and that art (including writing) is in the eye of the beholder. themes are only themes if they're noticed and interpreted as such. 

Quote

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. 

You think that, and I don't. Simple as that. I think it's reasonable to assume that in his dozens of drafts, he made the intentional decision to use the word he used, for a specific reason.

Quote

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?

I want you to accept that we can see things differently, and both be right. I have also put out evidence and counter-examples, and you deny those. Both of us can be right.

[bmcclure7]

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I disagree. Even if he becomes something that cultures revere as a god, that doesn't make him a god. You and I would both agree that God is the only true God, not any of the Greek or Norse or Hindu gods, even though cultures do revere them as gods. 

And maybe instead of saying "you're just wrong" you could understand that we interpret things differently, and that art (including writing) is in the eye of the beholder. themes are only themes if they're noticed and interpreted as such. 

You think that, and I don't. Simple as that. I think it's reasonable to assume that in his dozens of drafts, he made the intentional decision to use the word he used, for a specific reason.

I want you to accept that we can see things differently, and both be right. I have also put out evidence and counter-examples, and you deny those. Both of us can be right.

 

 

 

1. Using the Christian definition of God, I would say no, but using the definition of God used by the people in the world, I would say yes he is a god. And even if he was not he is perceived as a god, thus divinity is a theme of his character, whereas divinity is not a theme of the character yumi how many more times do I have to say this?

2. As a sidenote It is full to speculate what is in a man’s heart nonetheless for the purpose of argument, I will play the fool. As evident in his interviews. Sanderson is a progressive as such we can’t even be certain he accepts the divinity of Christ (using the Christian or Mormon standard)  (many progresses do not even if they call themselves Christian or Mormon) 

 

3. To continue this rather foolish sidenote. When discussing morality Brandon Sanderson seems to reflect postmodern ideas I won’t necessarily call him a postmodernist, but if he was, then he may not believe that there is anything to divinity other than perception. He may reject the idea of objective divinity outside of perception entirely. As I said, he hasn’t said anything so I don’t know this is just speculation.

 

4. I accept that we see things differently, but I will not accept is that our views are equally valid. Your view is based on being a stubborn fool who won’t accept evidence. Where’s my view is based on patterns in the text.

I have addressed all your counter examples and you just repeat them. 

Edited December 23, 2025 by bmcclure7

[Immortal Platypus]

2 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

1. Using the Christian definition of God, I would say no, but using the definition of God used by the people in the world, I would say yes he is a god. And even if he was not he is perceived as a god, thus divinity is a theme of his character, whereas divinity is not a theme of the character yumi how many more times do I have to say this?

name three characters who perceive him as a god. 

Quote

2. As a sidenote It is full to speculate what is in a man’s heart nonetheless for the purpose of argument, I will play the fool. As evident in his interviews. Sanderson is a progressive as such we can’t even be certain he accepts the divinity of Christ (using the Christian or Mormon standard)  (many progresses do not even if they call themselves Christian or Mormon) 

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything we're currently discussing, unless it's just your next paragraph.

Quote

3. To continue this rather foolish sidenote. When discussing morality Brandon Sanderson seems to reflect postmodern ideas I won’t necessarily call him a postmodernist, but if he was, then he may not believe that there is anything to divinity other than perception. He may reject the idea of objective divinity outside of perception entirely. As I said, he hasn’t said anything so I don’t know this is just speculation.

he might, but I don't think it's safe to assume that. I think the burden of proof would be to show that he rejects objective divinity, not that he accepts it.

Quote

4. I accept that we see things differently, but I will not accept is that our views are equally valid. Your view is based on being a stubborn fool who won’t accept evidence. Where’s my view is based on patterns in the text.

I have addressed all your counter examples and you just repeat them. 

is this how all arguments with you go? with you insulting your opponent until they yield? If you want to talk about not accepting evidence, you won't accept that Brandon said that Kaladin wasn't inspired by Jesus. In addition, my position is further anchored by their incredibly different personalities, and generally different deeds. You can cherry-pick examples as easily as I can, but Kal's overall arc and actions indicated a distinct difference from Jesus. Are there some similarities? sure. are they enough to say that he is based on Jesus, especially contrarily to the author's statement on the matter? absolutely not.

[bmcclure7]

On 12/23/2025 at 5:21 PM, Immortal Platypus said:

name three characters who perceive him as a god. 

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything we're currently discussing, unless it's just your next paragraph.

he might, but I don't think it's safe to assume that. I think the burden of proof would be to show that he rejects objective divinity, not that he accepts it.

is this how all arguments with you go? with you insulting your opponent until they yield? If you want to talk about not accepting evidence, you won't accept that Brandon said that Kaladin wasn't inspired by Jesus. In addition, my position is further anchored by their incredibly different personalities, and generally different deeds. You can cherry-pick examples as easily as I can, but Kal's overall arc and actions indicated a distinct difference from Jesus. Are there some similarities? sure. are they enough to say that he is based on Jesus, especially contrarily to the author's statement on the matter? absolutely not.

90 percent of Roshar worship the heralds as gods so literal pick any one of them. 
 

Name a single insult I gave you?

He said he was not intentionally inspired by Jesus, but he himself admits that Jesus has so infuse or notion of hero that he is not surprised people make the connection. You can have unintentional inspirations. The Lord of the rings itself was not intentionally a Catholic book at least not on the first draft. And yet even at that stage, it was a significant inspiration.

 

I admit that it’s not a one-to-one comparison and they’re definitely differences, but there are enough similarities that it’s not a coincidence like it would be for someone like yumi

 

Edited December 28, 2025 by bmcclure7

[Immortal Platypus]

On 12/24/2025 at 6:42 PM, bmcclure7 said:

90 percent of Roshar worship the heralds as gods so literal pick any one of them. 

none of whom know he is a Herald, so none of whom worship him. also, they would be more likely to call Kal a blasphemer for claiming to replace Jezrien if they really worship them that much.

Quote

Name a single insult I gave you?

fool, stubborn can be perceived as an insult, and it's technically not quite an insult, but repeatedly saying "you're just wrong" feels pretty insulting to me.

Quote

He said he was not intentionally inspired by Jesus, but he himself admits that Jesus has so infuse or notion of hero that he is not surprised people make the connection. You can have unintentional inspirations. The Lord of the rings itself was not intentionally a Catholic book at least not on the first draft. And yet even at that stage, it was a significant inspiration.

the title of the thread is "Is Kaladin literally just Jesus?". I'm not arguing there are no similarities, I'm arguing that there are enough differences, and critical ones at that, that it's not an accurate comparison. 

Quote

I admit that it’s not a one-to-one comparison and they’re definitely differences, but there are enough similarities that it’s not a coincidence like it would be for someone like yumi

is it a coincidence? You're the one that said that you can have unintentional inspirations. Yumi also fills the hero trope. Perhaps the similarities exist for the same reason they exist with kaladin, as they fill the same trope.

[bmcclure7]

3 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

none of whom know he is a Herald, so none of whom worship him. also, they would be more likely to call Kal a blasphemer for claiming to replace Jezrien if they really worship them that much.

fool, stubborn can be perceived as an insult, and it's technically not quite an insult, but repeatedly saying "you're just wrong" feels pretty insulting to me.

the title of the thread is "Is Kaladin literally just Jesus?". I'm not arguing there are no similarities, I'm arguing that there are enough differences, and critical ones at that, that it's not an accurate comparison. 

is it a coincidence? You're the one that said that you can have unintentional inspirations. Yumi also fills the hero trope. Perhaps the similarities exist for the same reason they exist with kaladin, as they fill the same trope.

1. Not yet but since he is coming back it will happen 

 

2. If fool is an insult then I apologize stoborn and wrong a correct discrimination of your arguments. So I refused to apologize for that. 
 

3. Fair point I agree that the author  has exaggerated the point but the point exists there is a connection a pattern between the 3. 
 

 

 

4. We have been over this She has no disciples and no divinity she only has the resurrection as the say one is an event 2 is coincidence 3 is a pattern. 

Edited December 30, 2025 by bmcclure7

[Immortal Platypus]

4 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

We have been over this She has no disciple and no divinity she only has the resurrection as the say one is an event 2 is coincidence 3 is a pattern. 

Kaladin doesn't have resurrection or divinity. one is an event.

[bmcclure7]

1 minute ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Kaladin doesn't have resurrection or divinity. one is an event.

I have already demonstrated that he has both he died and was reborn as a Harold. Harolds are divine at least according to the religions of Roshar. Making divinity a theme for him.

[Immortal Platypus]

On 12/30/2025 at 2:33 PM, bmcclure7 said:

I have already demonstrated that he has both he died and was reborn as a Harold. Harolds are divine at least according to the religions of Roshar. Making divinity a theme for him.

we disagree on that point. you can't use contested points as the basis for your argument and then say that my argument is invalid because of x "fact" that I don't think is interpreted correctly. That's bad faith arguing. 

Again, he didn't die, he became a cognitive shadow. If he went to the Beyond and then came back, that would be resurrection. Not becoming a Herald.

Again, it depends on your religion, and I don't agree with Heralds being divine. Also, your argument that he's become a god requires, by your own statement, either him becoming an actual god (which we both agree didn't happen), or him being worshiped as one, which also hasn't happened, and we have no proof it will. 

On 12/30/2025 at 2:25 PM, bmcclure7 said:

1. Not yet but since he is coming back it will happen 

also, if you don't mind, I'd ask you to avoid editing past posts to add in arguments, it makes it much harder for me to respond to them because I might not see them.

I disagree, and that's speculation which isn't fair grounds for an argument. I could speculate and say he's going to be killed by a Fused in book six which means he would be dead, making him not analogous to God - an unfair argument that relies on information we don't know. I think there's a strong possibility that instead of worship, he will be called a blasphemer, and even if he's not, I expect he will try to avoid being worshiped (as that fits with his character).

Quote

2. If fool is an insult then I apologize

apology accepted. 

Quote

stoborn and wrong a correct discrimination of your arguments. So I refused to apologize for that.

stubborn is absolutely correct, but is an ad hominem and completely unnecessary for this discussion. It was also directed at me, not my arguments. however, saying "you're just wrong" without providing a reason why, like you have, is not a correct discrimination of arguments, it is an unfair dismissal. 

Quote

3. Fair point I agree that the author  has exaggerated the point but the point exists there is a connection a pattern between the 3. 

which three, I'm confused. did you mean 2 as in Jesus and Kal?

I do agree that there are similarities between Jesus and Kaladin, but again, not enough to say that Kal is modeled after Jesus, especially when considering their vastly different personalities, reasons for their actions, and the author's statement on the matter..

Edited January 2 by Immortal Platypus

[bmcclure7]

13 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

we disagree on that point. you can't use contested points as the basis for your argument and then say that my argument is invalid because of x "fact" that I don't think is interpreted correctly. That's bad faith arguing. 

Again, he didn't die, he became a cognitive shadow. If he went to the Beyond and then came back, that would be resurrection. Not becoming a Herald.

Again, it depends on your religion, and I don't agree with Heralds being divine. Also, your argument that he's become a god requires, by your own statement, either him becoming an actual god (which we both agree didn't happen), or him being worshiped as one, which also hasn't happened, and we have no proof it will. 

also, if you don't mind, I'd ask you to avoid editing past posts to add in arguments, it makes it much harder for me to respond to them because I might not see them.

I disagree, and that's speculation which isn't fair grounds for an argument. I could speculate and say he's going to be killed by a Fused in book six which means he would be dead, making him not analogous to God - an unfair argument that relies on information we don't know. I think there's a strong possibility that instead of worship, he will be called a blasphemer, and even if he's not, I expect he will try to avoid being worshiped (as that fits with his character).

apology accepted. 

stubborn is absolutely correct, but is an ad hominem and completely unnecessary for this discussion. It was also directed at me, not my arguments. however, saying "you're just wrong" without providing a reason why, like you have, is not a correct discrimination of arguments, it is an unfair dismissal. 

which three, I'm confused. did you mean 2 as in Jesus and Kal?

I do agree that there are similarities between Jesus and Kaladin, but again, not enough to say that Kal is modeled after Jesus, especially when considering their vastly different personalities, reasons for their actions, and the author's statement on the matter..

1. You keep saying we disagree you actually show me where my argument is wrong. I know we disagree obviously, can you or can you not refute my claim?

 

1.5 Again what you consider to be divine DOES NOT MATER . With the story he is. Making divine a theme for him. Are you capable of see the difference a story and reality?

2.There not contest because that would mean you could come up with a counter argument not simply say you disagree 

 

3.I provide many reasons for why you were wrong read what I said.

4. Christ, Kel and Kal. Those are the 3 I am taking about . 

Edited January 3 by bmcclure7

[Immortal Platypus]

On 1/2/2026 at 10:30 PM, bmcclure7 said:

1. You keep saying we disagree you actually show me where my argument is wrong. I know we disagree obviously, can you or can you not refute my claim?

Yes. My point is that a) I wouldn't call what happened to Kal "dying", meaning I don't think he died (a major part of your point), b) I don't think heralds are divine, meaning that I don't interpret him becoming a Herald as a major indicator of divinity, c) I have refuted your claim time and time again, but you simplify my argument down to the leading statement of "I disagree". I clearly have more substance than that, given the length of my posts and the amount of arguments found inside.

Quote

1.5 Again what you consider to be divine DOES NOT MATER . With the story he is. Making divine a theme for him. Are you capable of see the difference a story and reality?

it does matter. I don't think he is divine, even within the realm of the story. That is the disagreement. You can't just say "he's divine in the story" and use that to debunk my whole argument because we disagree about that. I don't think he's divine in the story, I interpret what happens in the story and what it means differently than you. 

Also, yet another ad hominem attack that, the way it is phrased, contributes nothing to the conversation while also insulting me again.

Quote

2.There not contest because that would mean you could come up with a counter argument not simply say you disagree 

as a preface to my response, I'm not entirely sure what you're responding to with this sentence, nor am I certain what exactly you're trying to say with it. with that said, I will respond to it in the way that makes the most sense to me, and if I misinterpreted your meaning, I apologize. 

I have come up with counterarguments, you have dismissed them by straw manning them, saying that all I'm saying is "I disagree" and not backing them up. you haven't responded to my point about Kal becoming a cognitive shadow, which is different from truly dying, nor have you had any response to my point about heralds not being divine except to say that it doesn't matter what I think and then saying "they are" and implying that there's no way they could not be. I'm not sure how much more you want from me.

Quote

3.I provide many reasons for why you were wrong read what I said.

You're going to have to be more specific on what you're responding to, because this could respond to my entire post from your POV. It's also helpful to just relist what you've said instead of making me guess what you're talking about. I don't know what thing of yours you're talking about, nor do I know where in the large amount of things you've said I could find it. Please be more specific. I do my best to make it easy to track what I'm responding to (hence the multiple quote boxes), and I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy. 

I have to assume you're talking about the following post when you say you provide many reasons, and I both disagree with you saying you provide many reasons and I disagree with the conclusion you draw from it. Also, I have read what you said, several times. If you cite exactly what you're talking about, that would help me. Maybe I missed something the first time around, but I won't know unless I know what specifically you're talking about. Anyway, this is the post I assume you were talking about, below it you'll find my response.

On 12/30/2025 at 2:33 PM, bmcclure7 said:

I have already demonstrated that he has both he died and was reborn as a Harold. Harolds are divine at least according to the religions of Roshar. Making divinity a theme for him.

first off, I already responded to this whole thing in my previous post, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "read what I said" unless you didn't read my post. To make it even more clear, I will change the text in the quote boxes to be highlighted different colors so you can see what argument maps to which of your statements. I will also add new arguments, also color coded for you.

I disagree, I think that you have said that those things happened, but a) define them differently from me, and b) haven't responded to my criticisms about those points.

I didn't say it outright, but obviously I disagree with this. The reason I disagree with this conclusion is because I disagree with your supporting evidence, and those disagreements are outlined in the other parts of my response.

On 1/2/2026 at 9:21 AM, Immortal Platypus said:

we disagree on that point. you can't use contested points as the basis for your argument and then say that my argument is invalid because of x "fact" that I don't think is interpreted correctly. That's bad faith arguing. 

Again, he didn't die, he became a cognitive shadow. If he went to the Beyond and then came back, that would be resurrection. Not becoming a Herald.

Again, it depends on your religion, and I don't agree with Heralds being divine. Also, your argument that he's become a god requires, by your own statement*, either him becoming an actual god (which we both agree didn't happen), or him being worshiped as one, which also hasn't happened, and we have no proof it will. 

*if you would like, I can also quote that statement next time I post.

Quote

4. Christ, Kel and Kal. Those are the 3 I am taking about .

alright. my prior response still stands, so I'll quote that in case you'd like to reread it.

On 1/2/2026 at 9:21 AM, Immortal Platypus said:

I do agree that there are similarities between Jesus and Kaladin, but again, not enough to say that Kal is modeled after Jesus, especially when considering their vastly different personalities, reasons for their actions, and the author's statement on the matter..

[Chaos he/him]

Hi. Let's take the temperature down a few notches. Thanks.

You all may wish to review this:

 

 

[bmcclure7]

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Yes. My point is that a) I wouldn't call what happened to Kal "dying", meaning I don't think he died (a major part of your point), b) I don't think heralds are divine, meaning that I don't interpret him becoming a Herald as a major indicator of divinity, c) I have refuted your claim time and time again, but you simplify my argument down to the leading statement of "I disagree". I clearly have more substance than that, given the length of my posts and the amount of arguments found inside.

it does matter. I don't think he is divine, even within the realm of the story. That is the disagreement. You can't just say "he's divine in the story" and use that to debunk my whole argument because we disagree about that. I don't think he's divine in the story, I interpret what happens in the story and what it means differently than you. 

Also, yet another ad hominem attack that, the way it is phrased, contributes nothing to the conversation while also insulting me again.

as a preface to my response, I'm not entirely sure what you're responding to with this sentence, nor am I certain what exactly you're trying to say with it. with that said, I will respond to it in the way that makes the most sense to me, and if I misinterpreted your meaning, I apologize. 

I have come up with counterarguments, you have dismissed them by straw manning them, saying that all I'm saying is "I disagree" and not backing them up. you haven't responded to my point about Kal becoming a cognitive shadow, which is different from truly dying, nor have you had any response to my point about heralds not being divine except to say that it doesn't matter what I think and then saying "they are" and implying that there's no way they could not be. I'm not sure how much more you want from me.

You're going to have to be more specific on what you're responding to, because this could respond to my entire post from your POV. It's also helpful to just relist what you've said instead of making me guess what you're talking about. I don't know what thing of yours you're talking about, nor do I know where in the large amount of things you've said I could find it. Please be more specific. I do my best to make it easy to track what I'm responding to (hence the multiple quote boxes), and I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy. 

I have to assume you're talking about the following post when you say you provide many reasons, and I both disagree with you saying you provide many reasons and I disagree with the conclusion you draw from it. Also, I have read what you said, several times. If you cite exactly what you're talking about, that would help me. Maybe I missed something the first time around, but I won't know unless I know what specifically you're talking about. Anyway, this is the post I assume you were talking about, below it you'll find my response.

first off, I already responded to this whole thing in my previous post, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "read what I said" unless you didn't read my post. To make it even more clear, I will change the text in the quote boxes to be highlighted different colors so you can see what argument maps to which of your statements. I will also add new arguments, also color coded for you.

I disagree, I think that you have said that those things happened, but a) define them differently from me, and b) haven't responded to my criticisms about those points.

I didn't say it outright, but obviously I disagree with this. The reason I disagree with this conclusion is because I disagree with your supporting evidence, and those disagreements are outlined in the other parts of my response.

*if you would like, I can also quote that statement next time I post.

alright. my prior response still stands, so I'll quote that in case you'd like to reread it.

1. I don’t know what to tell you, but his body stopped functioning so I don’t know. What do you call that other than death. If your heart stops speeding and your brain use the function what can that be but death. Certainly everyone thinks he’s dead so you can call it whatever you like, but it doesn’t change what it is.

 

2. Again You again can interpret it however you want but within the story it’s clear that people will interpret it as divinity.

3. Again, no one cares about your definition.Within the story, these events have happened according to their definitions. All that matters disagree all you like it won’t change the facts

You disagree with my supporting evidence, but you don’t refuse it that’s why I’m frustrated and that’s why I called your argument, stubborn.

Imagine if you said prophecy important part of Mormonism because its founder Joseph Smith was a prophet. And I said I disagree that Joseph Smith was a pro profit so therefore prophecy cannot be part of Mormonism. That is what your argument is like. 

 

 

[Immortal Platypus]

1 hour ago, bmcclure7 said:

1. I don’t know what to tell you, but his body stopped functioning so I don’t know. What do you call that other than death.

But he didn't go to the Beyond. It's far more akin to Lazarus being raised from the dead than Jesus being Resurrected (I assume we can agree that those are different?), but I don't even think that is the most accurate comparison, just a more accurate one. I can understand why people would call it death, but I wouldn't. I'm not quite sure what I would call it, we don't really have an equivalent thing in our world to it. The closest thing I can think of is translation, as in, Enoch was translated. Actually, that seems like a pretty good analogy. The next closest thing I can think of is John the Beloved being transfigured (not sure if that's the correct term, I can't think of it if it isn't) so he would not taste death before the Second Coming, but that doesn't seem quite as similar. Either way, neither of those examples have them dying. Hebrews 11:5 says that "... Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found" (italics added), which seems a lot like what happened to Kal. Certainly we can agree that comparing any of the people in those examples to Jesus isn't an accurate comparison. 

Quote

If your heart stops speeding and your brain use the function what can that be but death.

Translation, when Jesus raises the young girl whose heart didn't beat and whose brain didn't function, he said he raised her from sleep. I think translation is the most accurate. 

Quote

Certainly everyone thinks he’s dead

then they wouldn't worship him, nor would they think he's a god. You're contradicting yourself, unless you're going to say that they will think he's a god when he returns, to which I would reply that a) we technically don't know he's going to return, and if he does, we don't know when, and b) that would also technically mean that the resurrection part of death/resurrection wouldn't have been fulfilled. 

Quote

so you can call it whatever you like, but it doesn’t change what it is.

I agree with your last part there. You can call it death/resurrection, but that doesn't make it so. 

Quote

2. Again You again can interpret it however you want but within the story it’s clear that people will interpret it as divinity.

if it was as clear as you say it is, we wouldn't be having this argument. Plus, just because people do something doesn't make it right or accurate.

Quote

3. Again, no one cares about your definition.Within the story, these events have happened according to their definitions. All that matters disagree all you like it won’t change the facts

please be more clear in what you're responding to. I wrote about 11 paragraphs in my post you quoted, so if you put the paragraph number next to it, that would be more clear about what exactly you're responding to. It makes it really have to have a productive discussion when you say things against my points, but don't tell me which point so I have to guess. 

Within the story, it doesn't define these things as clearly as you seem to think. It doesn't say Kaladin died, nor does it say he didn't. That's why it's open to interpretation. It doesn't say Heralds are divine, only that many consider them to be so. Why does your opinion on the definitions matter and mine doesn't? 

Quote

You disagree with my supporting evidence, but you don’t refuse it that’s why I’m frustrated and that’s why I called your argument, stubborn.

you called me stubborn, not my argument, but I digress. I don't disagree that the evidence happened, hence I don't refuse it, that would be truly foolish. I simply believe that you are misinterpreting what the events are and what they mean. for example, obviously Kaladin became a Herald. I'm not going to argue that, it's obviously true. But I will argue that it doesn't make him divine, as I wouldn't necessarily call Enoch "divine" and from my perspective, translation is a far more accurate comparison to becoming a Herald than resurrection is. 

Quote

Imagine if you said prophecy important part of Mormonism because its founder Joseph Smith was a prophet. And I said I disagree that Joseph Smith was a pro profit so therefore prophecy cannot be part of Mormonism. That is what your argument is like.

he was a what? You have a typo of some sort in there, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to be.

And correct my if I'm wrong, but I doubt you think prophecy is a part of our church. If you thought we had genuine, God-chosen prophets in our church, you'd be a member. Also, your argument seemingly holds water. If I said that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes in prophecy because Joseph was a prophet, you would be totally fair in saying that you don't believe he was, and thus don't believe that our church is true. And for the record, saying that prophecy is an important part of our church because Joseph Smith was a prophet isn't an argument I'd make, the argument I'd make is that prophecy is an important part of our church because God has chosen and ordained prophets to lead our church and he guides them with revelation, and they guide us, using that revelation in the form of prophecy. I'm still not quite sure what argument you're trying to make, and the example of my argument you provide doesn't hold water, and isn't at all what you're actually arguing, nor is my argument what you portray it as.

Also, again, I find it very disrespectful of you to keep using a name for our church that I have repeatedly told you we don't like to be called, and I have asked you to stop using it. The phrase "Mormonism" implies that we worship Mormon, not God, and thus we don't like it.

[Chaos he/him]

I think you two can leave it there, and perhaps others can add more here. That might be best. 

[RedBlue]

On 12/18/2025 at 6:40 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?

The comparisons you’re drawing aren’t wrong, but they are very general. One could use this sort of list to compare Kaladin to any number of religious or mythological figures.

For example, here are ways in which Kaladin is ‘basically just’ the Buddha:

1. He’s connected to royalty
2. He goes through multiple deaths and rebirths (metaphorically)
3. He spends a long time struggling to find a ‘formula’ for living a good, moral life
4. ‘Demons’ (Moash, various Fused) attack him to try to prevent him from making a breakthrough
5. He summons a ‘goddess’ (Syl) in response to the demon attack
6. He succeeds in discovering this ‘formula,’ and it involves a numbered list of steps he has to follow
7. He develops supernatural powers upon making his discovery
8. He learns that other people made this discovery before him, but the knowledge had been lost to time
9. He is a charismatic leader with a collection of followers who learn from his example
10. He eventually transcends to another state of existence, but does not die like regular people
11. His followers go on to spread the things he taught them

I think it goes without saying that Kaladin is not a Buddha, or a Buddha allegory. There’s too much that doesn’t fit, the iconography is completely different, and most of the points above are overly general or too much of a stretch. And for the same reasons, I don’t see him as a Jesus allegory either.