Orlion Blight

It means you subscribe to the Protestant heresy

Serious answer though: if you are a Trinitarian Christian (believe in the Trinity) but are not a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, you have a good chance of being a reformed Christian! 

I had a spicy Hawaiian pizza once. One of the best I've ever had! 

19 hours ago, Spren of Kindness said:

Could you link that post?

Well, I can't, now! It would spoil the older, better film!

4 hours ago, Spren of Kindness said:

We're watching All Quiet On The Western Front in my history class.  We're about halfway through, I think, and it's the saddest movie I've watched all year.  I'm probably going to spoil it for myself by reading the book, but even still.  It hits hard.

I mean, it's basically history. You can't spoil history. 

Besides, the movie ends like a movie, so you won't have spoiled yourself by reading the book. 

Now, reading one of my more popular posts from years ago, on the otherhand....THAT will spoil the final scene of the movie! 

And hopefully you're watching the older black and white one. If it's the colored remake, then your history teacher has failed you. 

7 minutes ago, Frustration said:

How about Honorblades then?

And if they seriously are going to argue that it's exploitative to a piece of metal, or a stormcloud with a face I'm going to lose my mind.

Refer to my first post: if it brings you happiness, vegans are against it!

Just now, Frustration said:

So what about Radiant soulcaster?

It still requires the use of spren through the nahel bond at the very least. 

The vegans I'm talking about are frustratingly pedantic *guffaw*

Now, Hemalurgy might be all right.

3 hours ago, Emery the Steelrunner said:

 

Wouldn’t that make yeast leavened bread not vegan? Yeast is a fungi just like mushrooms, just single celled.

@Orlion Blight

Makes sense to me, since these same vegans don't drink beer because of yeast. If they end up eating leaven bread, well.... they need to think about their ideology more! 

@Frustration Human labor is fine, it's animal exploitation that's wrong to the groups I'm talking about.

Now, how that applies to food that needs to be pollinated...well, it's infuriating and expensive to provide food to these folks, sooo I basically leave it up to them. 

Doesn't soul casting require the use of spren? We all ready know honey isn't vegan because it utilizes bees, and there are certainly classes of veganism that consider mushrooms to not be vegan (which is to say: definition of life/animal is perhaps loose enough to include spren).

Anyway, because soul casting uses spren, any food from it could plausibly be considered not vegan, even grain.

An chouta is not vegan because it brings joy to people, and a tenant of veganism is to replace joy in this life with misery

45 minutes ago, Oreo made of cheese said:

Yeah I completely forgot about that show

 

Yeah, that happens with Evangelion. Sometimes, it all *claps* returns *clap* to nothing. It just keeps tumblin' down, tumblin' down, tumblin' dooooownnnn! 

Look, all I'm saying is that the greatest TV show should also have the most Neon Genesis Evangelion references. 

Avatar has, like, half a reference. Owl House currently has 4.

Big Bang Theory has none.

I mean, it's mathematical!

1 hour ago, Oreo made of cheese said:

Yesssse this is my favorite line  "shut up Andrias" Say's Darcy

 

Have you seen the preview for next week's episode? It's going to be crazy!

Her latest episode appearance was fantastic!

Ah, but Amphibia is about to be a complete show in a couple weeks! 

19 minutes ago, Mason Wheeler said:

This almost holds up, until you remember that Mistborn Era 2 is a "something different to not get burned out project."  That's literally why Brandon created The Alloy of Law in the first place; it wasn't originally part of the plan.  And given the frankly mediocre quality of the Skyward sequels (the first was honestly really good, but the later ones... not so much) their prioritization irritates me.

I never forgot

I still stand by my statement. Mistborn Era 2 evolved from a silly side story to something considerably more Cosmere aware. That Cosmere awareness and all the ways it can potentially interact with Stormlight does not give it a "break from Stormlight" quality.

And ultimately, Stormlight is certainly the one project that took precedent over all others. 

As far as the quality of Skyward and its sequels, I don't care so long as it "refreshes" him and keeps him out of contractual problems. Afterall, I'm not reading them! 

22 hours ago, Mason Wheeler said:

This.  Here's my unpopular opinion: Brandon really should not have wasted time on multiple Skyward sequels and secret projects when we have been waiting and waiting and waiting for The Lost Metal since two freaking Stormlight books ago!

As someone who was "famously" upset about the delay of The Lost Metal, it's important to blame the right projects! 

Skyward, I do not blame. Apocalypse Guard? That timesink of a project ate up time and because he was under contract still had to provide a YA title (the first Skyward). The other Skyward books follow his rhythm of "write something different to not get burned out" projects, so I don't blame them either. 

He wrote the Lost Metal during our before the Secret Projects, so I don't blame them either. 

The year he failed to write the Lost Metal "when it should have been written", he said in the State of Sanderson that he could have written that or a Magic the Gathering novella. He chose to do the latter for free. 

So, the main projects he wasted time on that led to the delay of the Lost Metal are The Apocalypse Guard and Magic the Gathering.

Assuming he wasn't lying and it turned out he wanted to release the Lost Metal after certain plot developments in a certain fourth Stormlight book. Which, if that turned out to be the case, fine, I guess there isn't much you can do except lie or say, "hey, these books point to a major future plot point but please don't think too hard about it!"

Been going through the Phineas and Ferb series on Disney+

I, too, would like to clarify that I don't want to derail the thread but will do so anyway to say I am not, nor will be, part of a DM conversation on the matter 

41 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

To be clear, this is not meant to offer commentary on any religion. Just to clarify the purpose of the "no true scotsman fallacy". 

 

The point of such a fallacy is exclude malfactors or negative association from a group by saying someone who does a certain practice is not a "true" member of the group. The reason this is a fallacy is because the individuals taking the negative action can certainly believe themselves to be "true" members of the group as well as others can view them as "true" members of the group thus disagreeing with the assertion that they are not "true" members of the group. Further this dissociation can result in the "true" label being a moving goal post that is moved so often as to lose all meaning. 

 

The fallacy thereby is to show that the idea of "true" membership is an effort of deflection in order to absolve oneself of responsibility for the actions of individuals that are members of one's group that they claim membership of. 

 

Once again, not stating this applies to any religion, nor any post. Just explaining the mechanism of the fallacy.

 

Edit: just in case so to show I am only explaining how it works and not offering commentary on any group or individual, I have linked the wiki definition of the fallacy below that says the same thing

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman#:~:text=No true Scotsman%2C or appeal,by excluding the counterexample improperly.

 

Quote from wiki article:

"An appeal to purity is commonly associated with protecting a preferred group. Scottish national pride may be at stake if someone regularly considered to be Scottish commits a heinous crime. To protect people of Scottish heritage from a possible accusation of guilt by association, one may use this fallacy to deny that the group is associated with this undesirable member or action. "No true Scotsman would do something so undesirable"; i.e., the people who would do such a thing are tautologically (definitionally) excluded from being part of our group such that they cannot serve as a counterexample to the group's good nature."

I'll flat out say this is the sense that I meant it in my post. 

30 minutes ago, Nameless said:

The 'no true Scotsman fallacy' only applies when someone is unquestionably a Scotsman. The definition of 'Scotsman' is basically anyone who was born in Scotland. In my opinion, the definition of Christian should not be 'anyone who believes in some version of Christ'. If I had to give a definition of Christian, it would be anyone who believes the Bible is God's word and has repented of their sins, coming to faith in Christ. If you drop the requirement of believing the Bible, then there's no way to tell if your 'Christ' is the same Christ as everyone else's.

Of course, if you include the "belief in the Bible", you'll end up excluding a whole lot of people that were undoubtedly Christian, such as those who were killed by Nero for being Christian before biblical content was codified a couple centuries later, let alone circulated in any meaningful sense. It would also exclude apostles like Peter and Paul, which seems kinda absurd.

Now, that's just Christian as a general label. There are certainly categories of Christian where belief in the Bible is necessary. So someone could be Christian without believing in the Bible, but they wouldn't be Protestant Christian. 

As far as "same Christ", the concept of Christ is also not consistent across the categories of Christianity across its entire history. You have a Trinitarian Christ (which you subscribe to) and a non-Trinitarian Christ (which I guarentee a bunch of posters in this forum believe in) as a general idea. But there's also the fully human Christ, the fully divine Christ (Nestorians and some Eastern Christians), the Catholic/Orthodox Christ (fully human and fully divine, "without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other; without dividing them into two separate categories; without contrasting them according to area or function. The union does not nullify the distinctiveness of each nature. Instead, the properties of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one person."), a Transcendent human Christ, a...well, you should be getting the picture now. 

You might be able to say someone is a different category of Christian from, say, yourself, but you can not say if someone is not a Christian however wild or unorthodox their particular Christ beliefs are. 

1 hour ago, AonDoor said:

You raise a good point. The key in that sentence is "self-professed." One can be a "self-professed"  Christian without being a true Christian. True Christians follow the teachings of Christ. It's that simple.

The issue I find with such statements is that it's fairly close to a "no true Scotsman fallacy."

Which is there because of another fallacy: the idea that being Christian means you are morally good. 

And that is simply not the case. In observation or theologically.  I feel, in fact, there is plenty of Christian theological arguments that would argue that humanity is, baseline, an immoral, fallen race of damned souls that are only elevated from their decrepit state by the actions, choice and grace of Christ.

Which, granted, was an unnecessary (but fun! ) tangent to say: No one can say someone is not a Christian because they find that person abhorrent or does abhorrent things. Being a Christian means you believe in some sort of Christ, and you can't really tell someone, "I believe in Christ!" that you somehow know that they do not. 

Watching Moon Knight myself. 

So far, it isn't hot garbage. 

One really shouldn't shortchange the moderators. They are probably watching this thread like a hawk, waiting for me to mess up... but I'm too slippery for them! They'll never make the charges stick!

58 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

hey does anyone have a link to the backer kit thing?

Those tend to be sent out later

Well, it was really touch and go there, but the Kickstarter managed to get funded! 

39 minutes ago, Eternal Khol said:

What are you talking about? Did brandon do some secret reading of the prologue or something?

Accordingly, I do think this is an inappropriate forum for that discussion. 

I'm not sure what the appropriate forum WOULD be, but probably in Stormlight.

Ok, it's here: