Ixthos

1 hour ago, Spren of Kindness said:

I'm gonna try and be brave for a minute. I've noticed in my church particularly, many folks, including myself, aren't a big fan of using the word 'religion'.  Sure, we'll use it if the need arises (please select here, etc.), but for the most part, we tend to use 'faith' instead.  I'm curious, do any of y'all do this too?

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.

54 minutes ago, Trutharchivist said:

First thing first: Ixthos, you started a religion discussion thread without tagging me? I could've missed it entirely!

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!

54 minutes ago, Trutharchivist said:

That aside, moving on: I'm an Orthodox Jew. Generally, our faith is defined by the Thirteen Faith Principals of Maimonides (aka Rambam). They are as following:

1. That there's a G-d.

2. That this G-d is One, and there is nothing that can second Him, nor be equal to His Oneness.

3. That He has no body, nor the likes of a body.

4. That he was always in existence. This belief could have been phrased to mean that the world was created by G-d, but Maimonides tried to prove that even if you believe that the world always existed, as many people believed in his time, you can believe in Judaism, even though he himself probably didn't believe in that.

5. That G-d alone is worthy of worshipping, and nothing beneath Him is worthy of it.

6. That G-d contacts with mankind through His prophets.

7. That Moses is the greatest prophet ever and the father (in a way) of all the others, before him and after him. Moses - or Moshe, as is his Hebrew name, is different from other prophets in multiple ways, including: his prophecies came directly from G-d, while awake, without shocking him in any way, and sometimes - when he himself asked, a like other prophets, who got their prophecies through angels, while asleep, and even though it was only through angels it made them physically weak, and got them only when G-d decided to give them prophecies.

8. That the Torah is directly from G-d, including both Written and Oral Torah, and that not even a single phrase was written according to Moshe's ideas, and of course not someone else's, and the Torah we have today is this same Torah.

9. That the Torah is the only one that will ever be, and will never change or be replaced.

10. That G-d knows what happens in the world.

11. That all men will be rewarded according to their deeds.

12. That the Messiah, one of king David's descendants, will come one day and lead us.

13. That the dead will one day live again. 

I've written it already in a PM - hope it's not going too heavy on that.

That is an interesting point. I don't know about the English word, but the modern Hebrew word used for religion - dat - comes Frome the old Persian word for law. A word of the same root is still used to this day in Hindu-European languages - data, meaning information. Thus, there are people who don't like calling Judaism a "dat", probably because it's more than just rules. The problem with faith, though, may be the exact opposite: to think that faith is enough in and of itself, without any deeds tied to it.

Thank you for reading, and have a good morning/day/evening/night!

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.

2 minutes ago, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

Items a fried chili peopeli depend on.

Items a fried chilli peopeli depend on.

Just now, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

Items a fried chili peopeli depend.

Items a fried chili peopeli depend o.

1 minute ago, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

Item a fried chili peppeli depend.

Items a fried chili peppeli depend.

8 hours ago, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

I’m a fried chili peppeli depend.

Itm a fried chili peppeli depend.

@Chaos and @Argent thank you both

9 hours ago, Doomslug The Destroyer said:

I'm going to paraphrase something I read somewhere:

Religion is what allows humans to explain things that science cannot explain.

And I think, that that is absolutely amazing. Human creativity, paired with the unwavering faith that humans can show, create a Religion. Which is something absolutely amazing. But it can also be... extreme.

Religions can be something that brings people together, but also something that tears them apart. Such is the way of manmade/unmanmade things. 

Now, I don't usually frequent threads like this, where every response tends to be on the long side of things, as messages go, but I think that this thread is cool! And I'll try to talk here because theology and religion is an interesting topic.

So yeah.

And that third bit was kinda poetic I guess, but that's just me being me

K great thanks enjoy this stuff I guess.

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!

On 4/21/2022 at 9:21 PM, Frustration said:

So not too long ago a thread popped up discussing the morality of Jasnah killing the footpads in Kharbranth, and I really enjoyed it so I thought I'd ask a similar question.

In The Way of Kings Nohadon talks about a town in which a hogman is killed by three others, however there are four other hogmen in the town, and no amount of questioning revealed who was innocent.

If you were the lord of this town how would you have judged it?

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]

4 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

The statement that morals can arise without an authority is just as valid and there is loads of research that have shown signs of such.

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!

I'm by no means an expert on this, but I suspect that meat that doesn't come from animals would count as vegan to most, though certainly not all, vegans. The issue with vegans is, I think, mainly about harm or exploitation of animals. If an animal was involved at any point then it isn't vegan, but if something is turned into an animal product without harming an actual animal or exploiting an animal, then it is vegan. I think some may discount meat less for ethical reasons and more for health reasons, but if it just amounts to whether an animal was used or not, soulcast meat from non-meat would be vegan, and meat that has been transformed into something else would not be.

29 minutes ago, AquaRegia said:

While I agree with @Ixthos that the True Scotsman fallacy is a little trickier to apply to a group like "Christians", it is not invalid.  One can make that same nebulous "membership" arguments about Scots: is a Scot living in London still a True Scotsman™?  How about if one parent was English?  How about someone who moved to Scotland as a wee baby, or someone born to Scottish parents in America?  The concept of group membership is ALWAYS fuzzy.  If someone says "I'm a Christian", and they attend a Christian church, well, that's enough for me to operate under the premise that they are, in fact, Christian.  If I observe them violating the precepts of Christianity, I don't say "oh, they're not REALLY a Christian," I say "oh, they're one of THOSE kinds of Christians."

This, to me, invokes a different logical fallacy - the appeal to authority.  Not only that, it's an authority that some of us don't recognize.  Similar to "How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God?"  "It says so in the Bible." 

These kinds of spiritual or theological questions are simply beyond logic, and we are each left with the challenge to do the best we can with our imperfect knowledge.

Thank you - and an excellent focusing in on a potential issue with my statement. If you're interested in discussing it further feel from to PM me 

Also, I agree that it is potentially the fallacy of the Appeal to Authority, but only if Christianity isn't true. Now I obviously believe it is true (and to address the second paragraph's end, I believe Christianity is a rational and verifiable religion, but that, while closer to the thread's topic, is a massive topic that itself could completely derail this thread, I'll leave that point for now), though if Christianity isn't true it certainly would likely qualify for an Appeal to Authority - though if Christianity is true then it isn't an Appeal to Authority (or a fallacious appeal to authority), for the same reason that if there was a group founded by Joe called Joe's Team, which recognised Joe as their leader and absolute authority, that membership requires accepting whatever Joe said, then if Joe said someone wasn't in the group and they don't know them (assuming Joe is also completely trustworthy) then it wouldn't be an appeal to authority to say the person rejected isn't part of that group.

I disagree with that conclusion on that last paragraph, but I can appreciate and respect it 

Just now, Pathfinder said:

I feel I recognize what you are saying, which is why I replied that I feel you missed the point and would like to discuss via PM. I am fully available and capable of discussing and explaining, but I feel it would serve no one and only do harm to continue the subject matter here. 

Well about five seconds before you posted that I sent the PM, so lets continue from there - I appreciate you don't want to derail the topic here - that is the title of the PM after a fashion - but lets not get buried in the weeds here. I just felt I needed to clarify my position likewise.

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

I feel like, from my perspective, you are missing the point of the fallacy. As I said in the prior post, at this point I fear it has reached a point of digression from the original point of the thread and given the subject matter, risks becoming problematic with each subsequent post. As PMing has come up on multiple occasions on this post, if you would like to hear my response using cookies as I mentioned, feel free to PM me. 

I'm more than happy to continue this in PMs if you wish, but just as you are worried I missed the point of the fallacy I am worried you have missed the point of my post. I know about this fallacy, and many others as you no doubt do too, but I am concerned with the frequent tendency of people to misuse fallacies, to say something is an example of a given fallacy when it isn't an example of that fallacy, and being unable to explain why it is without resorting to some form of handwave. I gave examples of things I believe you would agree aren't examples of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and I appreciate you may not have the time or energy to discuss this here now, but your objection wasn't so much to address my points but rather to say "I think you missed the point," which I feel is itself not recognising the point of my post. I'm more than happy to continue this in PM, but I will briefly list my opening to our PM here in brief:

Example of the No True Scotsman fallacy - moving the goal posts for a category which has nothing to do with the category:

• No true Scotsman eats his porridge with sugar - the only criteria for being a Scotsman is to be a native born of Scotland, porridge has no play in it. They may not be fitting the ideal one may have of how Scotsmen SHOULD live, but that doesn't dismiss them from that category

Example of a thing which aren't the No True Scotsman fallacy - rejecting something from a category because 

• No true pacifist delights in causing harm to someone - pacifists by definition don't want to cause harm to someone, so if someone does then no matter what they themselves claim - or any number of people they know who likewise call themselves pacifists even if they enjoy arming people - they aren't pacifists

Which do you think Christianity fits in? If you claim Christianity is in the first category, what term then would you use for someone who DOES follow the teachings and walk the path of Yeshua? Should there be a term to distinguish those who Yeshua would approve of and those who He would not, as after all those would by definition be entirely determined by a single criterion that can be known?

Anyhow, I will PM you now, but I felt this issue needed to be addressed as far to often fallacies are misused and those who don't know anything about them other then seeing how they are used in online debates begin to miss the entire point of why those fallacies are addressed, and may themselves then fall into the fallacy fallacy in further discussions.

@Nameless, @Pathfinder, @AquaRegia, and @Orlion Blight if I may weigh in on this briefly, I think there are a few things that haven't been brought up that need to be considered:

• A key belief in Christianity is that Yeshua, Jesus, is the one who decides who is and who isn't a Christian - so if you are a Christian the fact that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian is a matter both Yeshua and several of the epistles written by the Apostles addressed at length;
• The "No True Scotsman fallacy" is very often used in a flawed manner, and ostensibly prevents anyone who claims to be a part of a group to be disqualified from that group. 

Lets look at the Scotsman example first. Lets suppose there was someone who claimed to be a pacifist. If this pacifist was someone who occasionally hit other people, or didn't physically harm others but instead psychologically abused them, they certainly wouldn't fit the definition of a pacifist - an emotionally abusive husband who claims to abhor causing harm to others is most certainly not a pacifist, even if they object to war. Yet what would happen if you said they weren't a pacifist? Obviously you would be correct, but if they objected, or if others from a society they were a part of objected to you claiming they weren't pacifists - and they would prove it by passing the fist to you! Or someone claims to be a rationalist and is in a society of rationalists, but engaged in non-rational behaviour that the group nevertheless claimed was rational. What about a vegan who knowingly eats meat on certain occasions and claims those occasions don't count - are they a vegan? We can clearly see that self identification is not enough, as they are violating the spirit of the idea they claim to represent. A Scotsman is someone who comes from Scotland, and that can't be changed by their actions. But someone who claims to be a part of a group that identifies with certain traits and tries to live up to them, you must consider their actions, even if they are part of a subset of that group that doesn't see anything wrong with their actions. A vegan isn't someone who calls themselves a vegan, a vegan is someone who doesn't eat animal products. A rationalist isn't someone who calls themselves a rationalist but rather is someone who adheres to the principles of rationalism. A pacifist isn't someone  who calls themselves a pacifist, they are someone who seeks not to cause harm to anyone. A Christian isn't someone who claims to be Christian, a Christian is someone who follows Yeshua. Self identification with a group based on an ideology isn't enough, you must match the standards.

Now, in Christianity it is important to remember several things - Yeshua taught that, on the last day, when everyone comes before Him in judgement, He will send several of them away, telling them to depart as He never knew them. And they will object, saying "But we did so many things in Your Name!" And He will say they didn't know Him, they didn't feed Him when He was starving, cloth Him when He was cold, comfort Him when He was in prison. And they will ask when He was starving, when He was cold, when He was in prison, and He will point out to them that when they denied these things to those who needed them, they denied them to Him. Now, are those self-proclaimed Christians this account, who Yeshua Himself claimed knew nothing of Him, would you say they are Christians? Doesn't Yeshua get to decide who does and doesn't follow Him?

The epistles likewise cover this topic, talking about false teachers and Brothers and Sisters who stray from the path and are in danger - thus this topic is covered over and over again in the Bible.

Now, you may say this doesn't count if Christianity isn't true, that if Christianity isn't true then Yeshua doesn't decide this. However, then you must consider then two things - the first being that the examples given above about pacifists, rationalists, and vegans must also then allow for people who like to harm people either physically or emotionally while decrying violence are pacifists, that people who engage in irrational behaviour can be rationalists, and people who choose to occasionally eat meat are vegans. And secondly, that Christianity has, as a core belief whether Christianity is right or wrong, the belief that not everyone who claims to be Christian is a Christian - that those who say "follow Yeshua" must also believe that Yeshua said some will claim to follow Him but actually aren't. Christianity is the belief that Yeshua decides who is and isn't a Christian, not others who may or may not be Christians (remember also when Yeshua was told by His disciples that there were those casting out demons in Yeshua's name but weren't among His disciples, and He told the disciples to leave them alone and not try to stop them). And if Christianity isn't true, then the ones who are Christian are still correct in that Yeshua still gave the standards He would use to judge who are and aren't His followers.

[Edit] Also, consider this: Muslims believe that Yeshua and the disciples were all devout Muslims, while in Christianity Yeshua is the Word of God and the disciples were the first Christians - those two claims are in contradiction. So, under three models, which were the disciples? Bearing in mind that millions of Christians and Muslims claim the disciples followed their faith - so does millions of people all claiming the same thing change anything?

• If neither Christianity nor Islam is true, what were the disciples?
• If Islam is true, what happens to the Christian claim, despite millions of Christians claiming them?
• If Christianity is true, what happens to the Muslim claim, despite millions of Muslims claiming them?

Arguments from a group, despite their size, are not enough to change the objective nature of reality. If every vegan claimed beef was actually vegan that wouldn't change beef to being plant matter.

I need to vent quickly.

Several times now I've been using YouTube to talk to others and debate them. And sometimes they seem to stop responding in the middle of the debate. Well, it turns out some of the time that's because YouTube decides NOT to post your comment ... but makes your account think it actually has. As soon as you look at that chain from a device that isn't part of your account, it isn't there.

Why? Why. If its not going to let my comment through, THEN DON'T PRETEND ON MY END THAT IT HAS. Give me a notification, tell me if there is a problem. I just had to cycle through three accounts to continue a discussion with someone online of a theological nature, and checking from each account only about two thirds of the messages I sent - split up to try and help them all get through - got through.

How many discussions have I and anyone else had where we think the other person hasn't responded been because my message didn't get through, or their message didn't get through? It's irritating.

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

They are FTL

  Reveal hidden contents

Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased)

Rosharans already have an ansible. (reported by Kurkistan)

Spanreeds are, basically, evidence that FTL is possible in the Cosmere. It's not the only example too. (reported by Blightsong)

Footnote: Heavily paraphrased, aggregated from multiple comments.
OdysseyCon 2016 (April 8, 2016)

 

The problem is that quote is - by its own admission - heavily paraphrased and cobbled together from multiple comments. Brandon has said his quotes are of secondary cannonical status, while what is in the books is of primary cannonical status, so the quote from Navani which states flamespren produce spanreeds with the slowest delay in responses tops a paraphrased quote. While it could still be that spanreeds are faster than light (ignoring the physical issues that concept introduces if relativity is in effect as is currently understood by physicists), the books themselves imply spanreeds do have a delay between when the first part of a gemstone moves and when its companion does. Perhaps that delay is less than light speed, but there isn't enough information to conclude that definitively. It could be that Brandon was trying to say one can eventually produce FTL coms using the principles behind spanreeds but that they currently don't do that, or it could be that he was saying they really do produce FTL effects already, but that quote isn't enough to conclude it either way, and Navani's quote still has to be taken into account - the most likely scenario is the spanreeds are FTL is that flamespren delays are still FTL while still having a delay and not being instantaneous, but it also could be the paraphrasing was misleading.

On 4/11/2022 at 0:18 AM, Frustration said:

Division is likely being saved for the back five, and Shallan likely doesn't hear Testiment scream because it's her spren.

Spanreeds and Oathgates are both faster than light.

I'm not so sure about spanreeds. From the Rhythm of War epigraphs, Navani speaking on the use of conjoined fabrials:

Quote

"Advanced fabrials are created using several different techniques. Conjoined fabrials require a careful division of the gemstone—and the spren inside. If performed correctly, the two halves will continue to behave as a single gemstone. Note that rubies and flamespren are traditional for this purpose— as they have proven the easiest to divide, and the quickest in response times. Other types of spren do not split as evenly, as easily, or at all."

This suggests there is some sort of latency in their response - so perhaps the movement is delayed slightly by distance, and with flamespren based conjoined fabrials the delay is only a millisecond for every kilometre. 

On 4/6/2022 at 3:08 AM, honorblades said:

On the contrary, I do think this is explicitly about the Death Rattles. And there are a few that to my eyes seem related, and none of which that we can satisfactory tie an event to ... Yet. 

I'm not convinced of that mainly due to how Brandon worded it: after mentioning the Death Rattles he says, "There are other things that I don't want to highlight people's attention on," which indicates he is talking about something other than the Death Rattles. The Death Rattles are foreshadowing for the future, but there is apparently something else as well.

On 4/6/2022 at 6:58 AM, honorblades said:

The Silence Above would make a fantastic title for SA5, sometimes I wish we weren't beholden to the ketek naming scheme... 

Now that is something I definitely agree with you on, at least as a Stormlight title (I actually like the ketek naming system), but Silence Above as SA6, for example, would be a cool name.

39 minutes ago, Invocation said:

I'd be willing to bet it's something to do with a complete restructuring of Surgebinding from what Ishar and Honor tied it to initially. Potentially to incorporate the other godspren like the Unmade and Cuisicesh. And maybe the Storm Striders.

The problem with that is it doesn't seem like something that was done across all the books so far - I don't think Ishar's involvement in the formation of the Orders was mentioned until WoR, though perhaps it was mentioned in tWoK, I'm not certain on that. This is something Brandon has apparently been doing throughout the entire first set of books, covered in each one.

25 minutes ago, Frustration said:

I think this will be more like Tones and Rhythms. We aren't going to see this until after it happens.

Probably, but its still fun to speculate! 

Putting this in the Cosmere section rather than Stormlight as this may or may not require discussing other Cosmere stories. The following also comes from the SP4 reveal live stream, though I've removed the parts from the quote that allude to spoiler information in that live stream, so I hope this is acceptable to post here.

Brandon said recently that there is some hidden foreshadowing for the back five Stormlight books:

Quote

[...]

Matt Hatch

Do you have questions that you've embedded that are not answered until the end of the Stormlight Archive?

Brandon Sanderson

Yes. Um, yes.

Matt Hatch

There are questions there. Okay, so you still believe in that kind of like-

Brandon Sanderson

I do still believe in that, but they're more vague. In Stormlight 1, there's a set of things called Death Rattles, which are...the best, for Wheel of Time fans, the best mimic you have for them is probably Min's visions. They are little hints of what's to come. And those are embedded for things that happen all the way through the ten books. And, you know, I've done...done things like that.

Matt Hatch

There's going to be some of us going back and reading Way of Kings and going like "Oh, you know, in Book 9-there it is!"

Brandon Sanderson

Yes, right, yeah. You should be able to do that. There are other things that I don't want to highlight people's attention on, but there's another big one in the Stormlight Archive that I've been doing all through the books that people don't realize is foreshadowing for the back five books. But it is! So, that'll be very fun. I can tell you what that is after the stream. It's something that I can do in my work that's very hard for other people to do in their works.

Secret Project #4 Reveal and Livestream (March 29, 2022)

Yes Brandon, that will be fun ... yes ... 

Anyone know Matt's contact details? 

So, what could this foreshadowing be? By implication it isn't the Death Rattles, but then what is it? The Letters? Wit's end of book interactions? A recurring point of discussion? Brandon indicated its something he can do in his works that is hard for others. Is it actually something related to other Cosmere works? But he also said its in the Stormlight Archive.

What are your theories?

On 3/27/2022 at 0:50 AM, apepi said:

I kind of have a bet that this could could be Ambition based, so I hope this is true.

It could try to tell us the history of Ambition fighting Odium and what happened there, which then lead Odium to going to Roshar(potentially damaged). That is why having a bit of stormlight knowledge helps(besides just there being Sigzil as the MC).

Agreed - I imagine of all the Shards Odium could face that Ambition, number one on the hit list even if it was the third one fought, caused the most damage to Odium in their conflict. And Odium's join history with Roshar and Ambition would be an interesting twist in the story - perhaps when Ambiton was being torn apart it managed to grab some of Odium in the process, and some of that power is present on this world too.

On 3/28/2022 at 5:42 PM, King-A-Train said:

I completely agree it’s likely to be Ambition’s magic system. To add to your points:

1.  The people of the planet have to constantly “move forward” every day. 

2.  Those that are invested have a “burning” heart inside of them. 

Could be grasping at straws, but we know Brandon likes his word play.

I fully agree, and nice catches! Those match Ambition well, especially how all-consuming Ambition can literally be.

On 3/28/2022 at 11:46 PM, cometaryorbit said:

Odium as primarily the Shard of opposition makes a lot of sense, given the line in RoW about how Rayse didn't like being contradicted but the power of Odium enjoyed it.

Also would allow it to be a bit broader than just Hatred (incorporating rage, fear etc.) but not all emotion like Rayse claimed.

Thanks! 

On 3/30/2022 at 6:01 AM, lacrossedeamon said:

I think that Autonomy might have also influenced this system. I see similarities in the how investiture is delivered here with how it done on Taldain, ie solar based. This system could have been a prototype that was later refined in Taldain.

Maybe after Ambition’s clash with Odium and fled here Autonomy found them and finished the job.

That could be the case, though I feel that Autonomy tries to divest itself of as little power as possible - all the magic we've seen associated with Autonomy seems low strength, and the Sand Lord tried to wipe out Sand Masters. Those could be coincidences, but it does suggest Autonomy doesn't like expending power, and the sunlight is very powerful. Still that does make sense, interesting suggestion - I especially like the idea Autonomy may have completed the death of Ambition - and perhaps that is where Trell came from. I still hold to the theory Silverlight is where Ambition died, but your suggestion is a cool one 

I'm really glad this thread is remaining so positive and open - as @Robin Sedai, these sorts of topics can get emotionally charged, but everyone here, regardless of what they believe, is still displaying that virtue regarded so highly in some faiths, being love for one another, and treating one another with respect even when disagreeing. It may be a manifestation of the particular idea behind this thread, that it is fundamentally about how religion has impacted the individual, and so arguments are much harder to make (after all, its a little hard for someone to respond to "religion has helped repair my relationship with my family / given me peace / made me a better person." with "No it hasn't!" when those are particular experiences one person is sharing, just as its hard to counter "religion has broken me" when again you can't argue against someone's pain without knowing more about them and their circumstances and hardships). I hope this thread gets more responses, this has been an interesting read, seeing the commonalities and differences of each person's experiences. Anyhow, to everyone who has posted so far, thank you guys - I personally enjoy discussing religion, and my faith in particular, and its nice to see my favourite forum having such  a discussion where everyone and anyone can contribute  have a great day or afternoon or evening everyone!

On 3/18/2022 at 1:40 PM, Oltux72 said:

Did it? Or was that the result of interactions? The people on Yumi's world spend a lot of time on rituals and pampering the spirits. The depiction of that can be seen as empty rituals. But what if they are not?

In fact are we even sure that the Invested arts of both worlds are even different? Could Painters turn the nightmares into something useful? Could Yumi's world make hion lines, but they just do not know the trick? Would other forms of art rather than stacking rocks work, if the population appreciated them as much?

Did it as in was Virtuosity's splintering responsible for their world being covered in darkness rather than Yumi's world, or for something else? For darkness it seems clear that, before the Nightmares came, their world was suddenly transformed. Perhaps Yumi's world likewise was changed to darkness but they found a way to transform it, but the story seems to focus on the idea of duality with Yumi's people, and the story is deliberately giving a duality with Painter's, especially the significance of each one's world's visibility in the sky of the other planet.

For the hion lines, that hopefully will be revealed in the story - Brandon did indicate that the link between hion and CYMB was intentional, with hion missing yellow while yellow is present on Yumi's world. I think it was also suggested this is basically a form of people interacting with magic and both seem tied to cognitive perception, so they likely are the same magic system, but different facets, each encouraged by the way the splintered power affects their worlds.

On 3/18/2022 at 3:20 PM, drunkenbotanist said:

Or are the spirits that Yumi binds becoming nightmares and they take several years to gain enough form to emerge but when they do if they become defeated the binding ends :/

 

The duality makes me want to look for ways that they are linked

 

Indeed - I'd be interested to see Yumi perhaps shape a nightmare into something like she does the spirits.

On 3/18/2022 at 3:23 PM, StormingTexan said:

I like this idea. I wish one of the villagers had asked for some Bamboo 

Well Painter is there now! Maybe he'll give that idea  try!

1 minute ago, Nathrangking said:

True. Brandon, does not believe in them.

Indeed! See Trell, Trell, and the Mastrells