Immortal Platypus

It was a war. what is a war besides an attempt to kill the people on the other side? and genocidal intent isn't what makes genocide wrong, it's what makes it genocide. It's a part of the definition, at least criminally

don't forget that the F35 missile systems wouldn't be effective, they target sources of heat much, much hotter than humans. There is still some function to them, but it's certainly not going to be particularly effective. That makes their only way to kill the Radiant dogfighting and shooting them (repeatedly) with the machine gun. Give them the benefit of the doubt and aluminum rounds, and that makes the fight more even, but still not even close, especially when if the Radiant touches the plane they can do all sorts of funky things with it.

I could absolutely see that happening, but it depends on the specific trick, i think.

But he didn't go to the Beyond. It's far more akin to Lazarus being raised from the dead than Jesus being Resurrected (I assume we can agree that those are different?), but I don't even think that is the most accurate comparison, just a more accurate one. I can understand why people would call it death, but I wouldn't. I'm not quite sure what I would call it, we don't really have an equivalent thing in our world to it. The closest thing I can think of is translation, as in, Enoch was translated. Actually, that seems like a pretty good analogy. The next closest thing I can think of is John the Beloved being transfigured (not sure if that's the correct term, I can't think of it if it isn't) so he would not taste death before the Second Coming, but that doesn't seem quite as similar. Either way, neither of those examples have them dying. Hebrews 11:5 says that "... Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found" (italics added), which seems a lot like what happened to Kal. Certainly we can agree that comparing any of the people in those examples to Jesus isn't an accurate comparison. Translation, when Jesus raises the young girl whose heart didn't beat and whose brain didn't function, he said he raised her from sleep. I think translation is the most accurate. then they wouldn't worship him, nor would they think he's a god. You're contradicting yourself, unless you're going to say that they will think he's a god when he returns, to which I would reply that a) we technically don't know he's going to return, and if he does, we don't know when, and b) that would also technically mean that the resurrection part of death/resurrection wouldn't have been fulfilled. I agree with your last part there. You can call it death/resurrection, but that doesn't make it so. if it was as clear as you say it is, we wouldn't be having this argument. Plus, just because people do something doesn't make it right or accurate. please be more clear in what you're responding to. I wrote about 11 paragraphs in my post you quoted, so if you put the paragraph number next to it, that would be more clear about what exactly you're responding to. It makes it really have to have a productive discussion when you say things against my points, but don't tell me which point so I have to guess. Within the story, it doesn't define these things as clearly as you seem to think. It doesn't say Kaladin died, nor does it say he didn't. That's why it's open to interpretation. It doesn't say Heralds are divine, only that many consider them to be so. Why does your opinion on the definitions matter and mine doesn't? you called me stubborn, not my argument, but I digress. I don't disagree that the evidence happened, hence I don't refuse it, that would be truly foolish. I simply believe that you are misinterpreting what the events are and what they mean. for example, obviously Kaladin became a Herald. I'm not going to argue that, it's obviously true. But I will argue that it doesn't make him divine, as I wouldn't necessarily call Enoch "divine" and from my perspective, translation is a far more accurate comparison to becoming a Herald than resurrection is. he was a what? You have a typo of some sort in there, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to be. And correct my if I'm wrong, but I doubt you think prophecy is a part of our church. If you thought we had genuine, God-chosen prophets in our church, you'd be a member. Also, your argument seemingly holds water. If I said that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes in prophecy because Joseph was a prophet, you would be totally fair in saying that you don't believe he was, and thus don't believe that our church is true. And for the record, saying that prophecy is an important part of our church because Joseph Smith was a prophet isn't an argument I'd make, the argument I'd make is that prophecy is an important part of our church because God has chosen and ordained prophets to lead our church and he guides them with revelation, and they guide us, using that revelation in the form of prophecy. I'm still not quite sure what argument you're trying to make, and the example of my argument you provide doesn't hold water, and isn't at all what you're actually arguing, nor is my argument what you portray it as. Also, again, I find it very disrespectful of you to keep using a name for our church that I have repeatedly told you we don't like to be called, and I have asked you to stop using it. The phrase "Mormonism" implies that we worship Mormon, not God, and thus we don't like it.

Yes. My point is that a) I wouldn't call what happened to Kal "dying", meaning I don't think he died (a major part of your point), b) I don't think heralds are divine, meaning that I don't interpret him becoming a Herald as a major indicator of divinity, c) I have refuted your claim time and time again, but you simplify my argument down to the leading statement of "I disagree". I clearly have more substance than that, given the length of my posts and the amount of arguments found inside. it does matter. I don't think he is divine, even within the realm of the story. That is the disagreement. You can't just say "he's divine in the story" and use that to debunk my whole argument because we disagree about that. I don't think he's divine in the story, I interpret what happens in the story and what it means differently than you. Also, yet another ad hominem attack that, the way it is phrased, contributes nothing to the conversation while also insulting me again. as a preface to my response, I'm not entirely sure what you're responding to with this sentence, nor am I certain what exactly you're trying to say with it. with that said, I will respond to it in the way that makes the most sense to me, and if I misinterpreted your meaning, I apologize. I have come up with counterarguments, you have dismissed them by straw manning them, saying that all I'm saying is "I disagree" and not backing them up. you haven't responded to my point about Kal becoming a cognitive shadow, which is different from truly dying, nor have you had any response to my point about heralds not being divine except to say that it doesn't matter what I think and then saying "they are" and implying that there's no way they could not be. I'm not sure how much more you want from me. You're going to have to be more specific on what you're responding to, because this could respond to my entire post from your POV. It's also helpful to just relist what you've said instead of making me guess what you're talking about. I don't know what thing of yours you're talking about, nor do I know where in the large amount of things you've said I could find it. Please be more specific. I do my best to make it easy to track what I'm responding to (hence the multiple quote boxes), and I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy. I have to assume you're talking about the following post when you say you provide many reasons, and I both disagree with you saying you provide many reasons and I disagree with the conclusion you draw from it. Also, I have read what you said, several times. If you cite exactly what you're talking about, that would help me. Maybe I missed something the first time around, but I won't know unless I know what specifically you're talking about. Anyway, this is the post I assume you were talking about, below it you'll find my response. first off, I already responded to this whole thing in my previous post, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "read what I said" unless you didn't read my post. To make it even more clear, I will change the text in the quote boxes to be highlighted different colors so you can see what argument maps to which of your statements. I will also add new arguments, also color coded for you. I disagree, I think that you have said that those things happened, but a) define them differently from me, and b) haven't responded to my criticisms about those points. I didn't say it outright, but obviously I disagree with this. The reason I disagree with this conclusion is because I disagree with your supporting evidence, and those disagreements are outlined in the other parts of my response. *if you would like, I can also quote that statement next time I post. alright. my prior response still stands, so I'll quote that in case you'd like to reread it.

hmm. I forgot about that. For the record, however, information provided by unreliable narrators (potentially including Nohadon, idk how certain what he said is) can be wrong, so take it with a grain of salt. And that assumes Dalinar works with him (even while resisting him, at least subtly), and that they can get stormlight off-world to power Radiants. But it was a much more major reason than I remembered, so that's my bad.

perhaps that is a reason, but if Dalinar were to move humankind off of Roshar somehow, I think that Odium would still be bound to the system, mitigating what harm he could cause, so I don't think that's the reason.

a few minor corrections: they don't have Radiant power, they're just living Plate/Blade. I agree that I don't think they'd scream, because they're living, but I'd be interested to hear if you think that Unoathed Plate would block the Surges of a Radiant wearing it.

we disagree on that point. you can't use contested points as the basis for your argument and then say that my argument is invalid because of x "fact" that I don't think is interpreted correctly. That's bad faith arguing. Again, he didn't die, he became a cognitive shadow. If he went to the Beyond and then came back, that would be resurrection. Not becoming a Herald. Again, it depends on your religion, and I don't agree with Heralds being divine. Also, your argument that he's become a god requires, by your own statement, either him becoming an actual god (which we both agree didn't happen), or him being worshiped as one, which also hasn't happened, and we have no proof it will. also, if you don't mind, I'd ask you to avoid editing past posts to add in arguments, it makes it much harder for me to respond to them because I might not see them. I disagree, and that's speculation which isn't fair grounds for an argument. I could speculate and say he's going to be killed by a Fused in book six which means he would be dead, making him not analogous to God - an unfair argument that relies on information we don't know. I think there's a strong possibility that instead of worship, he will be called a blasphemer, and even if he's not, I expect he will try to avoid being worshiped (as that fits with his character). apology accepted. stubborn is absolutely correct, but is an ad hominem and completely unnecessary for this discussion. It was also directed at me, not my arguments. however, saying "you're just wrong" without providing a reason why, like you have, is not a correct discrimination of arguments, it is an unfair dismissal. which three, I'm confused. did you mean 2 as in Jesus and Kal? I do agree that there are similarities between Jesus and Kaladin, but again, not enough to say that Kal is modeled after Jesus, especially when considering their vastly different personalities, reasons for their actions, and the author's statement on the matter..

Kaladin doesn't have resurrection or divinity. one is an event.

the dead shard bond you talk about a) takes a week to form and b) is found only with Blades, not Plate. Plus the Unoathed we see didn't take a week to bond their blades/plate, and the Maya/Adolin bond isn't necessary to be an Unoathed, as evidenced by the other 9 Unoathed, including a literal spren.

none of whom know he is a Herald, so none of whom worship him. also, they would be more likely to call Kal a blasphemer for claiming to replace Jezrien if they really worship them that much. fool, stubborn can be perceived as an insult, and it's technically not quite an insult, but repeatedly saying "you're just wrong" feels pretty insulting to me. the title of the thread is "Is Kaladin literally just Jesus?". I'm not arguing there are no similarities, I'm arguing that there are enough differences, and critical ones at that, that it's not an accurate comparison. is it a coincidence? You're the one that said that you can have unintentional inspirations. Yumi also fills the hero trope. Perhaps the similarities exist for the same reason they exist with kaladin, as they fill the same trope.

a) tiny, microsopic holes in the leg/arm armor that the mistborn can't see. That's ventilation covered. Radiant and Unoathed Plate are canonically able to do something like this b) this point is not applicable because of my previous statement c) there are a couple problems with that i) it's chromium, not cadmium ii) that's not what compounding fortune does iii) even if it were, the fullborn likely wouldn't have enough metal for such an incredible amount of luck

name three characters who perceive him as a god. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything we're currently discussing, unless it's just your next paragraph. he might, but I don't think it's safe to assume that. I think the burden of proof would be to show that he rejects objective divinity, not that he accepts it. is this how all arguments with you go? with you insulting your opponent until they yield? If you want to talk about not accepting evidence, you won't accept that Brandon said that Kaladin wasn't inspired by Jesus. In addition, my position is further anchored by their incredibly different personalities, and generally different deeds. You can cherry-pick examples as easily as I can, but Kal's overall arc and actions indicated a distinct difference from Jesus. Are there some similarities? sure. are they enough to say that he is based on Jesus, especially contrarily to the author's statement on the matter? absolutely not.

no WOB, I would guess so. The Unoathed don't really have much in the way of "bonds". The Blades/Plate kinda just appeared in the PR from the CR without any bonding necessary

I disagree. Even if he becomes something that cultures revere as a god, that doesn't make him a god. You and I would both agree that God is the only true God, not any of the Greek or Norse or Hindu gods, even though cultures do revere them as gods. And maybe instead of saying "you're just wrong" you could understand that we interpret things differently, and that art (including writing) is in the eye of the beholder. themes are only themes if they're noticed and interpreted as such. You think that, and I don't. Simple as that. I think it's reasonable to assume that in his dozens of drafts, he made the intentional decision to use the word he used, for a specific reason. I want you to accept that we can see things differently, and both be right. I have also put out evidence and counter-examples, and you deny those. Both of us can be right.

dead Plate does, Szeth remarks on it in the prologue of tWoK.

personally, I think they still fit as either an ethnical or racial distinction. different races tend to have very few biological differences, so even if there aren't many, I think it still fits. I also think they have a very big culture difference from the skaa, but a major part of that is wealth, so idk if that counts.

I like that idea, it's something I could absolutely see Brandon doing. Does it fit perfectly, mechanically? I don't think so, but I'm no coppercloud expert.

Do you think Radiants could wear Unoathed Plate and wield Unoathed Blades without the deadeye screaming effect? Would it block their Surges (I'm pretty sure their own Plate doesn't)? Does anything change once they reach 3rd Ideal? 4th? 5th? Personally, I think they could, but I don't think their spren would like it. I also think Unoathed Plate would block their Surges. I also have 0 evidence for this.

slightly more powercrept than Shardbearers, significantly less than radiants

I'm not missing the point. I understand that you're trying to say that Kal has a theme of being divine. I'm understand that. I promise I'm not entirely stupid. I just interpret things differently. I don't think that divinity is a theme of Kal, anymore than I do for Yumi. while I think that would be really funny, I don't find it realistic. More likely is that he's named after Kalak and the Lighteyed "in" or "lin" suffix is the same as the dark eyed "din" suffix. If so, that's a pretty great name, it means "born unto eternity" or "born of eternity". ... but I want yours to be true over mine colloquially, I agree. Definitionally, I disagree. However, there is still one more important note. Brandon has used words that were not the exact ones we would use in the past to represent words that they use in world that we don't have (for example, naming someone December instead of the month they had on their planet). it's possible they have a word that sums up heretic, infidel, and maybe even apostate. It seems very uncommon for someone to not be of the faith, at least as outwardly as Jasnah, so I could totally see their language evolving in such a way, differently than ours has.

huh, I would've thought I'd remember that WOB. it could mean something like that, that was my original idea back when I first heard it, but I don't know how much I like it anymore. It's never really evoked Son of God to me though

it doesn't appear in the books, at least until WAT, and probably not there, but I don't know for sure. They are intertwined, but are not the same. My guess as for it's meaning is that maybe Kal is a direct descendant and they use the title like the title Son of David? true. The major miscommunication here is because I misunderstood the meaning of fallacious, but I have since corrected that understanding.

the Shard thinks the vessel is the Shard, but the vessel can tell the difference. personally, I think the vessel's opinion is the more relevant between the two. And Tanavast was aware he was different from Honor as seen in WAT. While true, there are other examples that prove the same thing while not having that flaw. For example, TLR protected the members of the Steel Ministry, so he is heroic. Obviously he's not, but he did protect them.