Ixthos

No, I mean could you say the name of the book (unless ... you put that in quotation marks. Is the book actually called that?! )

That's awesome! Do you know the name of the book they wrote?

I think Ishar, despite his power, is still somewhat vulnerable - if he went he would need some method of getting there with enough of his forces to take over. If he tried to go by himself he would have to climb the mountains - I don't think he can get in unless he also unlocks the corresponding gate in Urithiru first, and once he is there he needs to fight against many Radiants from multiple orders. And this all would also require he goes himself, as he is the only being in his forces that we know of who stands a chance of taking the Tower, and he may not be able to leave his kingdom yet for whatever reason.

No worries, ranty is expected and often necessary for these sorts of discussions I'd really like to engage with you more on this - there are at least this topics that emerge from it - 1) the universe almost certainly requiring a beginning due to observed phenomena, 2) why God doesn't require a beginning, 3) how Genesis 1 relates to both a mythic and physical creation story, the physical one closely matching the current understanding of the universe's origins, 4) the paradoxes in nature and logic and how that relates to questions on what is and isn't credulous, especially with regards to God (i.e. why believing if God appeared to you you would think you are mad is an inconsistent position compared to the "insanity" present in reality), 5) how the Bible removes the "othering" of people, in particular Genesis 2, Genesis 12:3, and the entire New Testament, and 6) what scripture actually says about Hell, which is something I disagree with many of my Brothers and Sisters on. Just for the sake of brevity I will say that I think it is very clear in scripture, even if many other Christians disagree, that those who don't believe won't suffer eternal torment, only eternal destruction - i.e. you won't suffer forever, it is just that after the Resurrection of the Dead that all who aren't in the Book of Life will have to pay all dues and then cease to exist forever, their never being another Resurrection for them again. I'm planning on covering a few of these topics in the thread I made a while back, https://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/107588-general-religious-discussion-thread, so if you like we can discuss this there. We also could in theory discuss this here as it does relate to the topic, or even in PM if you like. Either way I'd really like to engage with you more on this. I appreciate your views and I'm fairly sure that any discussion we have on this could be very productive, regardless of where we do so. Would you like to discuss one or more of these topics, and here, the general religious discussions thread, or PM?

Yup which also reminds me, there is a pizza that I want to have again, but you need at least three people to each also have a different pizza to share the slices as otherwise it's too strong. It's a blue cheese pizza, and it is so so nice, but so so strong! A nice mix of other pizzas, some with olives, etc., is essential.

Wait, there are people who DON'T like pineapple on pizza? I mean, not on EVERY pizza, but there are so many different types of pizza, and ones with pineapple can be amazing! Same with olives! The type I normally enjoy has an avo guac, and pineapple certainly doesn't go with it, but on another type it certainly can. And again with olives, vegetarian pizzas with olives are lovely. ... wait, are olives and pizzas also controversial?

Agreed. I've never been a fan of Pascal's Wager, though I do understand the logic behind it. It feels a little too much like hedging, and I think there is sufficient reason to believe God exists without that form of philosophical perspective - though one can still arrive at the conclusion that God exists just through philosophy, as shown by the philosophers who do, though that approach certainly can also be questioned. Ditto as mentioned above Do you feel that would rule out God, or that God can exist within or even above that? My own views hold that God is the source of logic and order and causality, that they are attributes that can only exist because of God, much like how a computer programmer can produce a simulation by encoding the rules they believe are valid into the system. Yet that same programmer can still interact with the simulation without it counting as violating causality, especially if some part of the programmer exists "inside" the simulation. Sorry, I'm just not really clear if you mean you think God does or doesn't exist, or if the universe is God? We've all been there (seriously, some of my own posts have left me scratching my head a month later). I think your point did come across though.

There hasn't been much activity here recently, which may or may not be a good thing. In light of that, I'm wondering if it might not be a good idea for me to do a slow go-through of the Bible and cover certain things which I find particularly noteworthy, both as a means to generate topics of discussion and to help myself work through some of my thoughts on scripture. It likely won't be a methodical analysis, so I won't start at the beginning and go all the way through one chapter and verse at a time until the end (and side note, but chapter and verse almost always are terrible methods to do a Bible study as the original texts were not divided into chapters, except for example the Psalms). Instead, I'll start at the beginning and jump around randomly! Yes ... that is a much better method I'm not a professional Biblical scholar, though I do listen to and read and watch videos by those who do this in a more professional way (in particular videowise I gained a lot of insight through the late David Pawson's video series 'Unlocking the Old Testament' and 'Unlocking the New Testament', the current works of 'the Bible Project', and the work of Dr. Michael Heiser, among others), bearing in mind that I haven't the same level of experience as them, nor do I agree with them on everything. I'll probably be using the above links for a lot of the discussion and referencing things they mention, and those are absolutely essential resources for anyone who wants to understand the Bible in the context in which it was written, but I'll probably be saying several things that are observations I myself have made that may or may not have any value from a scholastic level, but which I think are interesting and significant. What I'd like to do, and probably only will have the time to do in several weeks, is to start with Genesis, in particular the way the Seven Days of Creation are presented, and what I think is particularly significant about them - in particular, the incredible poetic structure built into them that I don't see people commenting on very often, if at all, yet which I feel is absolutely essential to understand its purpose. (It'll also give me a chance to draw out a diagram for it which I can use later, as I've been hoping to do that at some point.) I probably have the most to say about Genesis and Revelation, likely three topics at least for each, which are also primarily my main points of disagreements with many of my Brothers and Sisters, and hopefully this can lead to some productive discussion. I do have a few other points to discuss on other books in the Bible, and also specific things that are topics covered throughout the Bible (such as the Temple being a mini-Eden, the Divine Council, the nature and role of Man, etc.), but I'll approach that on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully each will be a good topic for discussion here, and if anyone else from any religious tradition would like to do likewise, doing a breakdown of their own scriptures and their meanings and history, please feel free to do so! Also, a secondary reminder, if anyone is interested in discussing any religious topic, either one brought up here or anywhere else, please feel free to PM me (Also, @Trutharchivist, just to clarify one point I forgot to mention in the previous post, I forgot to mention a further caveat with point 8, as I believe scripture, even the Torah, is a collaborative work between Man and G-d, and I'm somewhat dubious on the topic of scripture not being "updated" by later scribes, but that is a secondary point. Otherwise on the previously mentioned topics I do agree with you and the Orthodox Jewish positions mentioned above.) I hope everyone is having a wonderful week so far, and take care!

Understood I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise, and your point is a good one about understanding other denominations' viewpoints.

I'm not entirely convinced that the Stormfather in the prologue was fake, but I certainly think it is a possibility, and if it is so then I agree Ishar is the most likely individual to have the power and motivation to do so, including the sensing of a Herald dying like Ash did with her father. I don't think this is a crack theory, but a fully viable one, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

I'm a Christian though I do feel there is a strong danger in presenting ourselves as sects or denominations (reading all the cites verses and chapters in context, 1 Corinthians 1v10-13, possibly 3 John) with a few obvious exceptions (2 John, Jude, Revelation 1-3). Anyone who calls Yeshua their Lord and Master, who repents of their sin - who hates their sin - and believes in Yeshua as both man and God and sent by God, I call my Brother and Sister, regardless of whether they are Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant - everyone else is my Neighbour, and still loved. The church I was brought up in was Methodist, and so I likely have a view more influenced by Methodist theology than by any other given denomination, but I myself am not Methodist, I am God willing, like many and God willing most others in many and God willing most other denominations, a Christian.

Has confusion been replaced by the light of knowledge ... coming from a burning Brandon Sanderson during the Oathbringer flashback when Dalinar set a city on fire?

Thank you, though for some reason all I see is a box that is constantly trying to load something. It looks like I may not be able to access that link.

Now THAT sounds awesome! If this wouldn't be prying, would you be willing to share the account of how it happened?

I think @cometaryorbit is saying (and cometartyorbit, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you), that the Investiture has to be in the form of Investiture rather than in the matter or energy of the item, and presumably also needs to be shaped correctly or at least of the right type to fuel the magic powering the device, in order for the device to function. To use your thermal vs kinetic example, thermal energy is in fact related to kinetic due to the intensity of vibration the atoms are experiencing, thus thermal energy is kinetic energy at the scale of the atoms and molecules. But that motion is random, which is why the item, despite being hot, doesn't move. If all those random movements suddenly were focused in the same direction, however, if they all aligned, then the item would "cool" but also move in their unified direction. Thus even though a cool moving object and a hot stationary one (all relative to some reference frame) have the same energy one of them can make use of it and the other can't. Matter is composed of energy, and energy and matter and Investiture in the Cosmere are all different phases of the same thing, but for the magic to work that energy must be in the correct form - Investiture - of the correct type, and the system must be able to absorb and use it. It can't just convert the existing mass or energy of the item into usable Investiture unless there is some other system in place to do that. All objects are "hot" in the Cosmere, with Investiture bound into them, but some are "hotter" than others, but that "heat" needs to be focused and directed, and unless such systems appear to allow them to go from "hot" to "fast," most items will require something else to give them a "push," and be unable to use their stored power bound in their ordinary matter.

Actually ... yes, come to think about it. I think it might be because in Scripture I can only think of a couple of times the word religion being used, while all other times faith is given centre stage: we are always encouraged to endure in the faith and to persevere, to live by faith (and the right kind of faith, not blind but trusting), and the most famous faith quote: "These three things remain - faith, hope, and love - and the greatest of these is love." I suppose a large part of that is because the way Yeshua and the Apostles presented the Gospel was that of repenting and believing, so having faith, rather than presenting the ritual and formalism implied in the word religion. I'm so sorry @Trutharchivist! I was planning on tagging you after the thread took off if it did - I wasn't planning on leaving you out! I agree with almost all of your points, with a couple of caveats on a few of them, namely 3 (G-d's interactions with Adam and Eve in Eden and the Angel of the LORD - so I believe G-d exists beyond the world but He can also manifest within it; otherwise I do agree for "yet even the Heavens cannot contain G-d," 1 Kings 8:27), 7 (Moshe is either the most important prophet or among the greatest with a unique relationship with G-d that other prophets didn't have, but Deuteronomy 18:15 does talk of a new prophet who will done day come and who will be like Moshe), and 9 (The Torah, and the TaNaK in its entirety, are unique documents shaped by the Will of the LORD G-d, though G-d did promise in Jeremiah 13:31-34 that He would one day make a new covenant that was the culmination of those that came before it), but ultimately those are just caveats and minor variations on what you said, not so much disagreeing but presenting a slightly different perspective on them while agreeing with their heart. For the point on the word dat, I never knew that - its always amazing to find out something new that gives new light on a previous topic. I do like the observation another friend made once that the Torah can also be understood as Instruction or "the Maker's Instruction," so not rules but guides that should be followed to gain what is meant for one in this life. Its a guide book that shows how to live, and not following the advice it gives is like trying to swim against the current and away from peaceful waters. On the topic of faith, an example given in the Book of James that really helps make things clear for me is the example he gives of how faith and works came together in Abraham - as the TaNaK says, "Abraham believed G-d, and it was counted to him as righteousness." The observation in James 2:14-26 was that Abraham manifested his faith by obeying G-d - to leave the land of his fathers and to believe that G-d could do what he promised He would do. Its a little like if someone says to you "I trust you," and you then ask them to do a trust fall with you. If they do trust you then they will do it, but if they don't then they never really trusted you to begin with - the trust fall isn't their trust, but it is the manifestation of their trust - their trust confirms their friendship with you, not the fall, but the fall is the proof of their trust.

Items a fried chilli peopeli depend on.

Items a fried chili peopeli depend o.

Items a fried chili peppeli depend.

Itm a fried chili peppeli depend.

@Chaos and @Argent thank you both That likewise reminds me of a quote by Martin Luther King Junior: "Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals." The problems start when one starts to put one over the other in ways they aren't intended to function. And lets not forget what happens when philosophy enters the picture! I don't think religions are automatically man-made (and depending on your religious beliefs there could be a plethora of beings that could have been involved, differing in levels of power to inherent nature) though some certainly are man-made even by the admission of their followers, or are claimed to be made by a partnership between the divine and mortal. They certainly are a recurring element of human nature though, and most or all religions certainly do gain at least a human flair after the fact, that is for certain! Brandon I think has done a great job of showing different types of religions and how they can have their positives and their negatives - how they can bring out the best in people and their worst - and how even "bad" Cosmere religions such as Shu-Dereth can have good people following them, and vice versa. We mustn't forgot how those behaviours aren't just confined to religions, but religions often are the purest examples of the extremes in human nature. Feel free to join in or leave at any point you like, and to come and go in this thread as you please nothing kills enthusiasm faster than feeling forced to engage - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the topic whenever your ready. Feel free to be as poetic as you like!

I think, just like how all Windspren look alike and all Cryptics seem to be the same general shape with their patterns varying but not discription of a change in their size, that Seons and Skaze are all superficially similar to other Seons and Skaze, with just the symbol and symbols changing between them. Indeed, I imagine Seons and Skaze to be identical in size, just varied in construction, and probably close to the same size most spren would manifest as well - I think in many ways splinters are like electronics, being functionally identical physically due to the laws of the universe. But that doesn't mean their personalities are identical, as Hoid noted. His own observation was a reminder to himself that not all Skaze have the same attitudes, and he repremanded himself for assuming they did. If they all looked different he likely wouldn't have defaulted to assuming they were identical mentally also

Hi guys, hope you are all well and having a great week so far So, considering that at least two religion-based threads that were explicitly open to all (Do you believe in God? and How has being religious impacted you?) seem to have been going well and not turned into flame wars (though there was at least some threat of derailment in the first one), I was hoping a more general religious discussion based thread might hopefully turn out well as well. However part of the success of the previous two topics may well be because they are primarily based on ones own relation to God and to faith, and so it is a lot harder for the natural human tendency towards open argument at the slightest challenge to ones deeply held beliefs and worldview, both religious and secular, to be engaged - you can't argue someone does or doesn't believe in something if you don't know them personally, or say that someone you don't know in person is lying about the impact, positive and negative, that religion has had on them, so those threads likely could remain civil because those impulses had no place to be vented. Still, I think this forum is one with a diverse community in terms of belief and culture and that respects one another, even when disagreeing. I haven't seen too many hostile posts or obviously enraged discussion here, with a few exceptions (Shallan, Adolin, and Kaladin shipping discussions still haunt my nightmares ...) so I'm hoping this sort of discussion won't necessarily become a shouting match, but rather a place to share ones perspectives and beliefs, and perhaps even arguments for and against certain positions and beliefs - it certainly is a topic I as a Christian enjoy discussing, and I know if can be done well and civilly. With that in mind, I think there may be two ways to go about this, subject to the consensus of the group and the rulings of the mods: Option 1 - this thread becomes an open discussion where anyone and everyone can have a hopefully civil discussion on the topic of religion and reasons to believe or not to, so long as everyone remembers to be calm; Option 2 - this thread becomes a place where those interested in having religious discussions can indicate a willingness to engage in those discussions with others, and so can be PMed by anyone else interested to engage with them. (If going with this option I'll edit this post to include a list of those who wish to engage in religious discussion, and if they later change their mind I'll edit the list to reflect that.) Now Option 1 does run the risk of the thread becoming a flame war where two or more cliques form who become intractable opponents, or for a few bad actors to stoke an otherwise peaceful discussion into open hostility, but it also lets everything remain in the open and encourages one to post according to the rules of the forum, where those who break the rules or become overly unpleasant can be reprimanded. Option 2 lets discussions remain focused in more selective discussions, with everyone involved being those who are invited and can discuss things privately and with the assumption of mutual respect, but it also runs the risk of angry discussion away from the eyes of others, which can also prevent good arguments others reading the discussion may have from being seen and prevent them from be able to contribute. If the decision is to go with Option 1 then I imagine the Mods may keep a close eye on this thread, so I would like to preemptively invite them to weigh in on the right way to go about this - Option 1, Option 2, or something else entirely - and if they or anyone else has any suggestions to make on how to allow this to progress smoothly. So, inviting a few of the Mods and Admins to have a look at this thread and weigh in (I apologise if I miss anyone on the staff who would be best suited for this, or if I invite the attention of any Mod or Admin who feels another member of the staff would better be suited to respond): @Chaos, @firstRainbowRose, @AonEne, @Argent, @Greywatch, @Jofwu, @Kaymyth, @LewsTherinTelescope Regardless of whether the thread goes along Option 1 or Option 2, if you are interested in religious discussions with me please feel free to PM me at any time, and though I may not always respond promptly I will always try to do so. I am a Christian, though I do hold some views that some of my Brothers and Sisters disagree on, and I believe Christianity is a rational faith, though going in depth on both of those topics would be their own discussion. If this thread uses Option 1 then I'll be more than happy to elaborate on my beliefs and what I am still learning, as well as my justifications for my beliefs, but otherwise feel free to PM me I think any religious based discussion in this thread should wait until after the staff have stated their stance on this, though if you are interested then voicing your willingness to participate should be fine. Either way I hope this does become a place where we can all come together in peace. Regardless of how this topic goes I hope you are having a wonderful morning, afternoon, evening, or night. Take care, and I hope all goes well with you. I love you guys, and please remember to love each other and to respect each other, even when disagreeing. Have a good one!

In a way I think this is the Cosmere's Trolley Problem, an ethical dilemma where the key part is that there is no-way not to cause some form of harm, or where every decision negatively affects someone or could have room for complaint. That isn't to say these problems are identical, only that there is no-way around the problem - with the Trolley Problem the choices are to determine which way the train goes, so it can't be stopped or diverted, that it must hit at least one person. With this problem there can never be a way to isolate who is innocent and who is guilty. There is, however, a little more room in this problem than in the Trolley Problem - the King can set the parameters on how the accused are treated: Pick someone at random to treat differently or treat them all the same; the ultimate punishment or letting them all go; something painful or something painless; something permanent or something only temporary. Unless doing something different to one of them randomly there will always be a certainty that either the innocent will suffer or the guilty will go unpunished, and even if selecting someone randomly to exempt or treat less harshly that still gives a greater than average chance that one of the guilty will suffer less than the innocent. In the real world I think there may be ways to extract the truth of the matter from them, to determine who is innocent and who is guilty (perhaps by having them each rank the guilt of the others around them, and assuming no shared malice among the guilty towards the innocent the innocent would be most likely to be considered the least guilty by that vote, though even that risks the innocent still being ganged up on by the guilty). For this thought experiment - and ultimately that it what this is, but much good can still come from thought experiments, even if some cause emotional turmoil - I would say the King, if he has the resources for this, should put the men in forced labour for the dead man's family if he had any, as they would be without support. Failing that, however - as it may not be possible or practical in a kingdom to keep a watch on them, though tattoos and branding may be effective to ensure no-matter where they go they would be known as potential murderers who had their sentence deferred - death may have been required, though only if binding the accused to forced labour for the man's dependants can't be guaranteed, or they can't be marked as those who must remain . However, I think a key point was noted that needs to be factored in, and which moves this away from the comparison to the trivial form of the Trolley Problem, but not out of the domain of the Trolley Problem entirely - Nohadon (and so Brandon) made this key observation at the end: each problem must be judged by its own context and situation - there is no single solution that fits every example. For the Trolley Problem we know there are versions which make it much easier for the average person to choose to divert the Trolley, or not divert it, as the case may be. If the death required to save others is our own, or that of the person who put the others in danger, people are often more willing to divert the train to hit the individual. For the dilemma, I would think it key to also judge the character of the accused, and if they are motivated entirely by an urge for self preservation rather than malice towards the other hogsmen, it may be possible to yet extract the truth from them with the knowledge they will all die, but how they die will depend on their determining of the innocent - that they will all die in pain except if they say who really is innocent, and if two or three of those who are actually guilty nominate the same man other than themselves, then their deaths will be less painful - and the innocent will be freed - or that they may have just bought life for themselves, but again imprisoned or with forced labour. Though again this is assuming we can go beyond the bounds of the thought experiment to see if the innocence can be determined, that judging based on the situation will help determine the course of justice, as each situation is different. [Edit] Given how our previous discussion went I am somewhat reluctant to engage with you again so soon and on another philosophical and laws of logic related topic, but this would seem to contradict Hume's Guillotine - you can't get an "ought" (moral) statement purely from an "is" (factual). Moral statements can't come from natural law and can only come from each other, or each other in conjunction with an "is". I would be interested to see the research you mentioned, as that would be a paradigm shift from Hume's writings.

Planescape: Cosmere: Torment "What can change the nature name of a man Nomad?" I'll admit, though I never played the game, when I first read Sigzil's description of his problem as a Torment, I immediately thought of Planescape: Torment. I've watched playthroughs of the game, and I've read up on it, and while I still don't have any intention of ever playing it (seriously, some parts of that story are so dark, including the actions the character took in different times), I think this has some rather nice parallels with Nomad's story. A VERY old character who's name we aren't told - Nomad and the Nameless One Effectively immortal, his body healing from extreme damage Travelled across multiple different worlds Some form of torment - its in the name - Nomad and his inability to harm people, and the Nameless One's ability to draw people to him who are in pain, as well as the pain he himself caused Being hunted by a strange group that won't give him any rest, and associated with darkness in some way - the Night Brigade and the Shadows (bonus points if the Night Brigade are from Threnody and use similar technology to Nazh's Shade gun) Wise-cracking and useful non-human helper who has a history with the main character - Aux (ahem, the knight and his dull-minded squire) and Morte Sassy woman who he meets fairly early on who is dismissive of them but (at least implied for Nomad) will end up spending more time with them and learning their value - Rebeke and Annah-of-the-Shadows May or may not have had a past association with a powerful, ancient woman associated with thorns - Cultivation and Ravel Puzzelwell A single question - (for the readers) "what can change the name of Nomad?" as Brandon has said he will gain a new name later, and "what can change the nature of a man?" (also, I'm hoping at some point Sigzil visited Silverlight, as I think Silverlight is similar to Sigil - so maybe Sigzil visited Sigil) What do you think? Any other possible similarities? Hope you're having a wonderful day or afternoon or evening or night!