Frustration

@NameIess I have to say I love how all of our conversations inevitably become us quoting books at each other, be they Sanderson or scripture. There's a lot of speculation around this topic, which I can understand, but I'm only going to go over what we have confirmed. Anything beyond that is largely speculation. No, and there's a long story to go with it. This is also something I'm a lot better at explaining in person. There is a maxim attributed to President Lorenzo Snow, though I can't confirm if he ever said it: However no official teaching was ever made about it, and President Hinckley said quite unequivocally that while, "As God now is man may become," is the official doctrine of the Church, "As man now is God once was," is not something the Church emphasizes. While God, as He is now, is unchangeable and the same yesterday today and forever, He also experiences time differently than we do, and may not necessarily always have existed in that state. However the Church does not make a claim one way or the other. Ah, I seem to have been unclear in my initial response. I wasn't trying to say that the answer was that the early Israelites didn't have a perfect understanding of God, just that the fact that they didn't, and that as I don't know exactly what their understanding was makes it difficult to answer with certainty. My personal belief is that the commandment to have no other gods was understood within a cultural context to forbid idolatry, not the worship of the Father and the Son. My apologies, that's on me. Lost, or intentionally destroyed, as the people who killed and stoned the prophets God sent likely wouldn't keep any scripture they wrote either. Indeed I can, and I will congratulate you, as you've put up a far better case for the Trinity than really anyone else I've had this conversation with. I do hope as well that the times in the New Testament, where Jesus draws distinctions between Himself and the Father can help you understand why we do not. That depends on who you ask, the others have given purposes that the Holy Ghost fills, I'll try and list the various interpretations. Trinitarians would say that it's just one of the ways that God manifests, or one of God's three forms, depending on which interpretation of the Trinity that they support. Historically the Holy Ghost was added to the initial creed of the Father and the Son being One some time later though the date of the council that took place in escapes me. Jehovah's Witnesses deny the personhood of the Holy Ghost, calling it the 'active force' of God, or in layman's terms, the name for God's power, without actually having any will or intelligence unto itself. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we believe the Holy Ghost to be the final member of the Godhead, and a divine being and personage of spirit, who ministers among the people of the world and testifies of the Father and the Son. Basically ideas that are inspired from heaven, or messages sent from God are often delivered by the Holy Ghost, who speaks directly to our spirits, which we interpret as thoughts and feelings.

Sorry for the late answer. Safari is alright if you use iphone(though I highly recommend Brave over all other mobile browsers). On a computer I recommend using one of the browsers listed in my last blog over Safari

No. Vin's spears were stone, not aluminum.

Kaladin at 3rd ideal was able to beat Vin in a fight Give him plate and infinate stormlight on top of that and there isn't a lot Vin can do. His healing alone would basically invalidate anything she tried, while she would still die in a single attack. Not to mention that even if Atium prevented Kaladin from touching her the whole fight(which I doubt), Kaladin could simply outlast her as unlike Stormlight pewter draging can be dangerous over extended periods of time, and still causes exhaustion. If Kaladin gets his Herald abilities on top of that then Vin losses even if she can draw on the mists.

Hey. Now I'll admit I could do better with posting the WoBs, but I do still cite them. And bold of you to assume I haven't memorized all of it.

Preservation doesn't care too much for protection, only stasis. The best example I can think of is that Preservation liked the Final Empire. That doesn't protect the skaa, it just keeps what exists in place

Well Dawnshards and using perpendicularites aren't shardaic intervention, so that. Either one is far more powerful than anything listed here. Assuming those are also off limits 1. Be a dragon, particularly one of the chasmfiend sized ones. 2. Get a lot of breath, as it's really the only known investiture they aren't already too invested to use. 3. Collect other important and powerful people to do things for you. 4. Profit

This actually got me thinking. The first successful insulin pump to be implanted in a human was in the early 1980s. They could also use this to continously pump metals into their system by detecting when they were running low.

Pi is way better Still doesn't make sense

Or Moash for that matter? I thought it was Marsh at first, but I realized that Moash made more sense

Any progress?

The Traveler is avaiable here

Anyone can fit into any house. That was kind of the purpose behind making them.

That one I do see. I have some strong Truthwatcher tendancies, and would be Ravenclaw.

I think it's funny, because if you ask most people they'd probably put anarchists in the order of Willshapers, but they never really appealed to me.

Well @Starlord716 that entirely depends on who you ask. I think the fandom read way to much into it in the first place. Personally I just ignored it and pretended it didn't exist altogether, and that was pretty easy to do.

Well I suppose I might as well answer the question. As I stated earlier, I'm an anarchist. I view almost all "laws" as inherently immoral. Power to force another to do something is so fundamentally terrible, that I do not think any human being on the planet deserves to have it. I also believe that the purpose of laws is not to define right and wrong, only to protect the rights of the individual from others. When people with power declare something to be a "law" that violates this principle it has also voided its standing as law and can be ignored, because at that point it's just an order with a threat behind it. Now often times it's not safe to violate said "laws", but I can't blame someone under durress for practicing self-preservation.

I'll second @NerdSandwich. I can't think of a situation in which the letter of the law would say "You must do this" while the spirit said "Don't do that." if you can think of an example I'd be more than happy to answer, I just can't think of any.

Both. Harmonium isn't an alloy of Atium and Lerasium, but something differemt altogether. If a vessel other than Sazed were to take Harmony the metal might be different, or it could stay the same, both are possible.

Well actually, there are way more than that https://www.17thshard.com/forums/topic/95797-the-ultimate-metal-count/#comment-1185305

The same way anyone else does, the letter is the exact writing of the law. I just have an interesting view as to what writings are law and what aren't. My full definition on that would be a long post about justification, concent and governance where I would explain how the only justifiable systems of government are theorcacies(or at least partially theocratic), or anarchy. However as that's highly political I'll refrain from doing so here.

That comes down to how we define a law. Personally I don't think someone with a big stick saying that something is a law makes it a law.

No one disputes this, but that wasn't my question. My basic premise is that while different the letter and spirit of the law do not conflict and a truly lawful person will obey both of them. Therefore the Knight Radiant quiz question asking you to choose between them is wrong.

Indeed, however can you not also keep the spirit of the law while violating the letter?

How does being a billionaire cause you to violate the law? Or be evil for that matter? Not neccesarily interpreting, but enforcing as well. Well, I am very religious. Indeed, I would agree with you. No set of man made laws can be perfect. I agree, and personally I think it should spark debate, in part because the law is imperfect. I also think that the reasoning and structure behind the law is every bit as important as the law itself. I would disagree with that premise. The spirit would depend on the law in question and the intent behind them. You seem to have my views on the law associated with me being authoritarian. I'm actually a borderline anarcist. Odd, I know.