Ixthos

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 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.

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. 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: 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?

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

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. Indeed - I'd be interested to see Yumi perhaps shape a nightmare into something like she does the spirits. Well Painter is there now! Maybe he'll give that idea try!

Indeed! See Trell, Trell, and the Mastrells

Just replied to @Bnaya's response which likewise corrected me, but thanks I really should have checked the coppermind first! My new theory, salvaged from the old, is that Rushur Kris is Khriss's contact and relative. Let's not let coincidental name similarities be ignored!

Ahhh, okay, I'd forgotten about him. Thanks Okay, new theory - Rushur Kris is a descendent or relative of Khriss, and may be one of her contacts on Roshar, especially considering his speciality in the local and at the time of the prologue primary Rosharan arcane art of fabrial construction.

... Did Gavilar give Rushu's surname (or second name) as Khriss? If that is what Gavilar said rather than my mishearing her name, does that mean Khriss is masquerading on Roshar as Rushu, or that Rushu is her daughter or a descendent? Of course, I could have misheard that, but if not, that lends itself to three possibilities: Rushu is Khriss Rushu is related to Khriss (perhaps as a relative who relayed to Khriss what has happened with the development of anti-Investiture Rushu has no relation to Khriss, but has a similar surname The section of audio in question, transcribed:

What may be interesting is if Sigzil has been running for a few years ... from his perspective. But in actuality every time he Skips, he's actually travelling at the speed of light, not instantaneously, and so when he arrives on a new planet, depending on how far away he's travelled, decades or centuries pass. That would certainly add an interesting twist to the story, as it seems Scadrians (Ghostbloods or the society as a whole) have somehow build underground facilities on at least one other world. I read something in another thread, I need to find it again and upvote it if I haven't already, but someone suggested something along the lines of Sigzil now in a sense being the "spren" to Aux - the Dawnshard in Sigzel - if he still has it rather than just carrying an imprint - is what gives Aux the power to alter his Connections, etc., and so while Aux can still function as a living blade despite being dead, his other powers are in a sense reversed. The use of "squire" to refer to Nomad does put this in some question though.

I refer you to exhibit A, the use of the word "killer" in the story: Note especially the middle section that is also underlined. Most people on this world can't process committing violence, but those who can seem to be an asset - we were also seeing things in a city under the Cinder King's control. Also consider how the people first reacted when Sigzil tried to resist - they were shocked and called for the ember warriors, and how the people fled in the arena, the warriors not used to people fighting back.

There are several topics I still want to reply to, but this is one of two posts I felt needed to be made, and something that I've been thinking more and more about recently, and I think this is likely strongly linked to The Sunlit Man, and the overall Cosmere story. I'll try to be brief. This mainly focuses on three points: The local magic system likely is powered by a remnant of Ambition, possibly interacting with the warped state of the Threnodites who live there; The Nigh Brigade may be Threnodites themselves, or led by remnants of Ambition, and; Ambition likely was the one Shard that had the greatest designs on the rest of the Cosmere, and the other Shards. Still trying to be brief, I will elaborate on each point. The local magic system has three facets shown thus far - it powers the local equipment, it turns those the Cinder King chooses into his own mixed brand of Inquisitors / Koloss / Awakened / Shades, and the Cinder King himself is somehow a self-controlled version of the ember warriors. Focusing on the last two points, I will make this note - I have personally felt that Ambition is the Shard most likely to see people as a resource, something to warp and change as one wants to further ones own ends. This is speculation on my part, but I think both sides of this are shown with the Cinder King and the ember warriors. For the ember warriors, they were people the Cinder King deemed useful and then forcibly changed, turning them into a type of undead that obey him - as seen with Elegy, who likely didn't consent to the procedure and fought against him, but now is a near animal under his control, likely because of the change. This is a combination of Inquisitors and Koloss, making empowered warriors matching Inquisitors, and turning those who once fought against you into monsters for Koloss. They also are in a sense corpses animated by magic now also, similar to Inquisitors (I know that is debatable, but I personally see Inquisitors as a type of undead) and the Awakening (even putting aside the comparison drawn to Awakened corpses rising that Nomad made), albeit rather than taking a dead body and making it serve it is in effect killing a live person and warping them - though perhaps there is a way to reverse it, or grant them self control if they truly are lacking it. They also mirror Shades - note what Aux and Nomad discuss: I think Aux is wrong about that last part. I think the Cinder King's ember warriors are the result of the local remnant of Ambition - remember, Ambition left chunks in the Threnodite system, and then fled and died elsewhere (*cough* Silverlight *cough*), and thus could have left remnants in other systems. I think this is the result of the interaction of two different splinters of Ambition, the splinters left in the Threnodite people, and the local magic - it allows those who otherwise would become Shades to be transformed into something effectively undead, still losing the person who once was that body, but now in an actual body rather than as a Cognitive Shadow. Rather than the dead Threnodites becoming Shades - and perhaps the sun of this world would destroy any Shades that did form, and consider their aversion to killing - they are instead possibly killed and turned into physical cadavers, still lacking their original memories and still undead. The Cinder King himself is the flipside of this. At first I thought he was implied to be someone who was still in the process of turning into an ember warrior, but it now after seeing someone else forceably transformed, it seems clear he somehow is someone who retained human will, possibly a closer to human anatomy without the full loss of his chest - or at least that loss is hidden - and implicitly some sort of touch-based power that Nomad is immune to. And he is implied to be ambitious, taking over columns, and changing people - he is a sentient, self-aware and self-controlled version of the otherwise hapless victims of the embers, and has desires to expand his control and turn people into his tools - he is ambitious. Trying to be brief(er), the last two points will be somewhat more summarised - I'm trying to be brief but I might be rambling slightly. We know Brandon wants to make a novel called Dust Brigade, set on Threnody. It is therefore likely the Night Brigade are themselves Threnodites as well, though human or otherwise it isn't clear. They are hunting Sigzil - and possibly would also be interested in hunting Hoid - either with or to gain access to the Dawnshard Sigzil either has or had, as it isn't exactly clear where it is or if the Night Brigade has or wants to have a Dawnshard, or all of them. Either way, they also are seemingly displaying great Ambition, and are implied to be a threat to any world Sigzil, Nomad, remains on. Thus they may be one of the powers of Threnody the Ire were aware of, and as they likely have Ambition based Investiture, splintered though it may be, they may have large scale designs on the entire Cosmere, and the worlds and even the Shards within. Finally, we know Odium wanted to kill Ambition first, and Endowment thought Ambition would have been a threat - maybe Odium did the Cosmere a solid by killing Ambition - with Mercy, something implicitly at least partially a counter to Ambition (and see my theory on how Odium exploits the dissonance between Shards to take on multiple Shards at once, Odium's power being that of opposition and disagreement just as Honour is of bonds and Cultivation is of growth) - so it seems likely, especially considering Endowment sees the Shards as things that should be separate, that Ambition may have wanted to reunite the Shards to become stronger, the most Ambitious goal a Shard could have, even more so than Odium's. If anything of Uli Da remains, or anything is affected by Ambitions Intent, it likely is a threat to the Cosmere greater even than Odium - Odium may be the most dangerous Shard, the Shard that would plunge the Cosmere into war, stoking hatred and violence, but Ambition, or anything powered by it, would seek to become stronger and stronger, and while Odium would revel in war and may change people, Ambition would see the life in the Cosmere as a resource, and it may be what emerges under its control - or anything that is a remnant of Ambition - may be worse off than a Shade or ember warrior, with even less agency.

One of two posts I'm making quickly, this one being the shorter of the pair. This is a world that mirrors Nomad perfectly - Nomad has been rendered unable to inflict physical violence deliberately and must always be on the move, while this is a world where most of the people seem to have a strange aversion to killing or fighting in general, and where they always have to move, to avoid danger that relentlessly travels behind them. The second point is one Brandon already made, that this world matches Nomads need to keep moving, but the first I think is relevant also. Nomad can't force himself to directly harm people, and he always has to keep moving. On this world that behaviour, both parts of it, are the norm. Also, because this post is very short, and the second one is getting longer than I liked, I'll also just say this quickly. I like that we are in a sense seeing that may be a type of "what if?" story for the Cosmere - a "what if" someone from another world had visited Scadrial, and brought there own strange magic to oppose the Lord Ruler. "What if" Kelsier's crew was aided by an Awakener, or a Sand Master, or an Elantrian (with access to the Dor). Or even if Hoid had gotten directly involved. Sigzil has arrived on this world, with a great deal of knowledge about the rest of the Cosmere, and just entered into another people's struggle for survival against what is implied to be a would-be world conqueror (possibly with Scadrian support or an awareness of Scadrial). I think it is very interesting to see the story of someone who is fleeing from a terrible Cosmere-level danger, and stuck now helping a local resistance or refugee group that is struggling against a genuine threat to their own world, a dark lord who turns their own beloved people against them, and who himself is likely going to be annihilated if the Night Brigade reach him. It's like if Keliser's crew was fighting against Rashek, who himself is trying to contain Ruin, only for a Knight Radiant to show up who is on the run from something like Odium (though obviously we don't know the true level of danger the Night Brigade represents beyond the implicit threat they represent in Wit's cryptic statement about worlds dying).

Thanks for the notification! This is a big topic, and responding in full will take some time - I'll try to be thorough but brief for now, and I can go into further detail later if needed. My religious life affects me in overt and subtle ways, and likely in some ways I'm not even aware of. I was born into a religious household, though I myself hold some heterodox views on some topics, while in others I stick very close to the mainstream view, though I believe both mine and others eyes in the Church should keep our focus on God rather than on any given celebrity of the faith - people are people and will always let you down somehow. God knows my own flaws and failings better than I do. It's a bit difficult to say precisely how being religious affects me, especially because even among my peers I'm ... odd. Decoupling what is and isn't a part of my world view from what is just because of my ADHD, odd perspective, and other parts of my upbringing, from my religious beliefs is very challenging, especially because of the oddities in my religious beliefs compared to many of my Brothers and Sisters, who are still my Brothers and Sisters even when I (seldom) disagree with them. I tend to take a simultaneously spiritual and materialistic view of the world, especially as I personally believe the two aren't necessarily separate categories - that is an aspect of Greek thinking that I disagree with, and feel is too pervasive in the Church. For a long time I had difficulty reconciling the Seven Days of Creation with modern scientific views, and there still is a little wonkieness there, but mostly or perhaps completely have that reconciled now. I see God and the supernatural and spiritual in everything, but also nature as nature and governed by physics - again, the two are not necessarily separate all the time, and I think you can see the sunrise and say that it is equally the product of natural physics as it is a sign of God's love for us, just as you can say the laws of physics are the result of God's imposing order on chaos, the chaos itself formed specifically by God to produce randomness. ... and it is at this point where I had to stop myself writing for a sec before I launched fully into explaining my theological views, why God created Humanity, the nature of spiritual beings, the fall of man, and the nature and mission of Yeshua, Jesus. Needless to say, that may get a little much for the moment, but if anyone is interested PM me and I'll be happy to elaborate. To try to focus in on the core question asked here, having covered a few topics now and feeling more like I understand the question a little better, I would say it mainly has affected me by granting me peace. Peace in knowing God is in control, no matter what happens, how bad things become or how badly I fail or fall or am hurt. I have peace knowing that there is a purpose to existence and to humanity, peace knowing God and science are not opposites but that science comes from the study of the beauty of what God has done and that one can worship God by studying it and seeking to understand the pure mechanics of nature as well as its spiritual side without letting either one get in the way of the other. I have peace in knowing that all things work together for God, for those that love God, and that He is just and merciful, even taking into account how dark and terrible the world is. I have peace in Him. In the past, the present, and the future, my faith and hope in Him, and the certainty of how much everyone on the planet, people in the past and present and future, and creation itself, matters to Him, gives me peace. That is absolutely something that, all other things aside, I can say with absolute certainty is something that comes from my religious beliefs and faith in God, and wouldn't be there without it. God has everything in hand, and has not left this world broken, not walked away from a damaged creation, but has stepped in to help us, to suffer with us, and to save us - that He has done the work, the lifeguard who threw the rope and is pulling us back in, not requiring further effort on our part beyond holding on and trusting in Him. ... and I was getting into theology again. Though with this topic, I suppose it is hard not to. Anyhow, I hope that helps answer the question.

I agree it seems most likely Aux was Sigzil's original spren. Something I'm wondering is, as we know Rysn was forbidden to bond a spren after becoming a Dawnshard, if that has anything to do with Aux's state? Sigzil was told he had to take up a Dawnshard for the good of Roshar or the Cosmere, but that he had to let his spren die to do it, and so both reluctantly killed him, though with the BAM issue sorted the death wasn't as damaging?