Ixthos

33 minutes ago, Weltall said:

Brandon has said that you can't steal multiple powers from the same person, or at least nobody knows how to do it. He's also said that nobody knows how to non-fatally steal anything via hemalurgy (and they'd be worse than a drab due to soul damage) barring the edge case of stealing from a gold compounder who could theoretically repair the soul damage and be used as a hemalurgic donor multiple times.

Per Brandon, the rule is that the larger part of the body regrows the rest and if you happened to be split into perfectly equal pieces it would be random which one the soul claims dibs on and regrows from. Presumably Shardplate functions differently because it's not composed of a single spiritweb, though having more of the original armor to work with does give an advantage if there are competing attempts.

My point about it being counterintuitive is that - in the real world - if your body grew a new head you would expect the resulting person to be entirely new, none of the same memories or personality, etc. - you would expect a form of healing that preserved the person to use the head, where those traits are stored. In the Cosmere we know why those traits can be translated to a head grown from the body, but it still is an unexpected statement, especially considering that the body likely wouldn't loose mass to make the new head, the mass produces via the healing method, so using the larger mass, despite it being more "you" in terms of volume rather than intuitive function (which is why we think of storing heads rather than headless bodies if you can't freeze an entire body for cryostasis) wouldn't necesserily be necessery for Cosmere healing, even though it is.

18 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Just the opposite actually, iirc! Hoid (who else, lol?) was surprised that his body regrew a head rather than his head regrowing a new body

Woops, thanks for the correction! Either way, yeah, when someone heals in the Cosmere they don't duplicate, and the part that the body reforms from can be very counter intuitive.

It looks like the commentary is in text over the gameplay footage - otherwise, yes, this is Brandon playing Elden Ring!

I think the only spot that allows you to remove powers is the heart, which means the two spikes would likely have to be attached to each other in some way. If they are for separate powers they possibly would take both powers at the same time, as the reason you normally can only take one power from someone is because the process usually kills the person - there are quotes about hypothetically repeatedly spiking the power of healing from a twinborn gold compounder. If they are for the same power then they likely would only gain half that power each, much like how a spike, when split, divides up the stolen power between them with some loss - in this case there probably wouldn't be any loss besides the usual depletion between the spike entering their body and then entering someone else's.

The Lord Rulers described a similar situation where he claimed to have been beheaded once (and there are hints from a non-canon novel that a decapitated head will regrow the body, rather than the body regrowing a head [Edit:] Correction thanks to @Honorless, it was actually the body that regrew the head). For Shadeplate any portion of it can be coaxed into regrowing the entire plate, and if two people are competing it will only settle on one, the other competing attempt to regrow the plate being overcome - you seemingly can't get something to replicate via healing in the Cosmere. If Vin did cut Kaladin in half (thanks to the power of time travel ) then either the side Kaladin felt was where he was more centred, or the larger half, would probably be restored, while the other half wouldn't.

45 minutes ago, Trusk'our said:

I would venture to guess that the way the bones got inside the statues wasn't really magical; the "stone" is probably just a kind of concrete. 

That would make the most sense but it also kind of makes the setting feel a little less magical, even if it is the most practical way of doing it. I would have preferred it if the description in the book would have been that of concrete rather than stone though.

9 hours ago, Weltall said:

I think the intent of the question was more 'Why didn't he go there before Team Honor rediscovered it?', meaning he wouldn't need to worry about fighting anybody, unless he just happened to show up at the same time as one of Szeth's visits.

Ahhh, I missed that part. Looking back I see the line now: "why didn't he go there first." Thank you for the correction.

I think my last point still holds - he may not feel able to claim it yet as he is needed elsewhere, and perhaps he needs something to be completed with his ... other work first. It could be that he fully intended to claim it later but thought waiting until he was ready was best, as what were the odds of someone else finding it first? So when it was claimed by another he only then made his intentions towards it known.

Just now, Trutharchivist said:

You both are going to do puns for all of Genesis, aren't you. I'm sorry, I can't offer much aid with that.

You mean you are unAbel  (... wait, I already used that one ...) uh, I mean, maybe I should leave. Or ... Levi?

2 minutes ago, Trutharchivist said:

Something that might be of interest: the Yeshivah in which I learn, the Gush Yeshivah, has multiple lessons on the bible. The most notable people in my Yeshivah related to that, in my opinion, are Rav Yaaqov Medan, Rav Yoel Bin-Nun and rav Mordechai Breuer z"l (only the last one, the former two are still alive and healthy). Unfortunately, their writings are, as far as I know, only in Hebrew. An interesting note I wanted to make is that rav Breuer thought up an alternative to the Documentary Hypothesis, which he called Shitat Habechinot, or the aspects approach. To any Hebrew speaking person interested in the bible (well, what the Christians call the Old Testament, at least), I highly recommend watching rav Medan's lessons in YouTube.

Those all sound really interesting, thanks  I'll see if maybe there is an English translation, though I may not be able to get a hold of any copies before beginning, though if you have access to any of them I'd be very interested if you could cover some of what they say in the corresponding discussions, and I'll definitely search for and give Rav Medan's videos a watch.

Just now, Nathrangking said:

You may need to give it a  rest. Knowledge does not grow on trees therefore you should keep and guard what you have got.

True, and I appreciate that on the Eve of being granted such insights one shouldn't construct A-dam to hold it back. Such is one's Lot in life, I suppose, though one mustn't live in Terah of making so many mistakes, even if doing so leaves one unAbel to continue.

... okay, I think I'll stop. I Noah when I've said too much I don't want to be Cained.

Just now, Nathrangking said:

No offense taken . As puns go that one needs work.

Give me a day or six and I'll see what I can do 

(Yes, that one was bad too - I hope the floodgates don't open on that! I might need to ark myself what I'm doing if that happens! But listen to me Babbling right now!)

4 minutes ago, Nathrangking said:

The quotes were a mistake on my part. Genesis: From Creation to Covenant by Zvi Grumet is the name of the book.

Gotcha, thanks  I'll see if I can buy a copy. Also, understood on the quotes, typing mistakes do happen. I couldn't tell if you were deliberately teasing me or not, so I tried to tease back - sorry if that didn't go as well as I'd hoped, it isn't easy to tell how others will take what one writes, especially if trying to gently rib someone (and speaking of ribbing someone, that certainly is applicable for Genesis!)

Just now, Nathrangking said:

"I do. I bought a copy and have read it many times cover to cover."

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

4 minutes ago, Nathrangking said:

Nice! I look forward to these discussions especially those on Genesis. When I spent a year abroad after high school I actually took the time to learn in a Yeshiva program where one of the classes that I took did a close reading of the first 20 some odd chapters of genesis. My teacher actually wrote a book of scholarship on genesis.

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

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

19 hours ago, SwordNimiForPresident said:

I don't believe there is a god or conscious force guiding the Universe. Most creation stories seem aimed at answering the question "where did the Universe come from?". I find it odd that the answer most religions arrive at is that god made it since this raises the obvious question "where did god come from?". If god can just exist, I see no reason that the Universe can't just exist. Adding deities just seems like extra steps to me. I also take issue with the vast discrepancy between the creation myths of various religions and the actual observable Universe. We know, with a reasonable measure of certainty, what happened in the beginning of our Universe down to incredibly small units of time and it in no way relates to any creation myth.

I'll also add that I take religious holy texts (bible, torah, ect.) literally and in that regard I find most religions abhorrent for their treatment of people that are "other".

In the case of western religion, I take issue especially with their treatment of the afterlife. I have been created without the capacity for belief through no fault of my own. I literally lack the capacity to believe. I could meet god face to face, and would assume I was suffering from mental illness, severe head trauma or a reaction to a psychoactive chemical. Presuming one of the various western religions was correct, I am to be tortured for eternity in a pit of fire because of something I have no control over. That is evil. It's like making an ant farm so you can burn the ants.

This got a bit ranty and off topic from your question, sorry. I'm gonna leave it in anyway since it is relevant to the topic at large.

No worries, ranty is expected and often necessary for these sorts of discussions  

I'd really like to engage with you more on this - there are at least this topics that emerge from it - 1) the universe almost certainly requiring a beginning due to observed phenomena, 2) why God doesn't require a beginning, 3) how Genesis 1 relates to both a mythic and physical creation story, the physical one closely matching the current understanding of the universe's origins, 4) the paradoxes in nature and logic and how that relates to questions on what is and isn't credulous, especially with regards to God (i.e. why believing if God appeared to you you would think you are mad is an inconsistent position compared to the "insanity" present in reality), 5) how the Bible removes the "othering" of people, in particular Genesis 2, Genesis 12:3, and the entire New Testament, and 6) what scripture actually says about Hell, which is something I disagree with many of my Brothers and Sisters on. Just for the sake of brevity I will say that I think it is very clear in scripture, even if many other Christians disagree, that those who don't believe won't suffer eternal torment, only eternal destruction - i.e. you won't suffer forever, it is just that after the Resurrection of the Dead that all who aren't in the Book of Life will have to pay all dues and then cease to exist forever, their never being another Resurrection for them again.

I'm planning on covering a few of these topics in the thread I made a while back, https://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/107588-general-religious-discussion-thread, so if you like we can discuss this there. We also could in theory discuss this here as it does relate to the topic, or even in PM if you like. Either way I'd really like to engage with you more on this. I appreciate your views and I'm fairly sure that any discussion we have on this could be very productive, regardless of where we do so. Would you like to discuss one or more of these topics, and here, the general religious discussions thread, or PM?

1 hour ago, The Wandering Wizard said:

Olives and pizza taste really good together most of the time.

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

Wait, there are people who DON'T like pineapple on pizza?

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

... wait, are olives and pizzas also controversial?

1 hour ago, Trutharchivist said:

It's a nice enough idea, but it doesn't work if what you're looking for is truth, only if you look at the consequence. 

The thing is, if it's truth you're after, believing in God "just in case" doesn't really cover it up. It works only under the assumption you're afraid of the consequences there'll be if you won't believe in God and you'll find out that there is one. And if there is an omniscient God, I'm not sure he'll be taken with the "belief just in case" idea.

And the only reason I wrote this post is because of a weird, obscure Doctor Who reference that managed to sneak in. Sorry about that.

Agreed. I've never been a fan of Pascal's Wager, though I do understand the logic behind it. It feels a little too much like hedging, and I think there is sufficient reason to believe God exists without that form of philosophical perspective - though one can still arrive at the conclusion that God exists just through philosophy, as shown by the philosophers who do, though that approach certainly can also be questioned.

1 hour ago, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

as I said, it was something I read that I felt was somewhat relevant, not that I believe it. I agree with your reasoning.

Ditto as mentioned above 

On 5/17/2022 at 5:54 PM, SwordNimiForPresident said:

I believe the Universe can likely be explained through science and math, we simply lack the tools to measure it. I also believe the Universe is deterministic and that causality cannot be broken.

Do you feel that would rule out God, or that God can exist within or even above that? My own views hold that God is the source of logic and order and causality, that they are attributes that can only exist because of God, much like how a computer programmer can produce a simulation by encoding the rules they believe are valid into the system. Yet that same programmer can still interact with the simulation without it counting as violating causality, especially if some part of the programmer exists "inside" the simulation. Sorry, I'm just not really clear if you mean you think God does or doesn't exist, or if the universe is God?

2 hours ago, Szeth's Facepalm said:

Edit: ok i just read over that and realized it makes absolutely no sense and makes me sound kind of crazy. Erm. In the words of of Henry Cheng, thought is my native language and it does not translate well to english.

We've all been there  (seriously, some of my own posts have left me scratching my head a month later). I think your point did come across though.

There hasn't been much activity here recently, which may or may not be a good thing. In light of that, I'm wondering if it might not be a good idea for me to do a slow go-through of the Bible and cover certain things which I find particularly noteworthy, both as a means to generate topics of discussion and to help myself work through some of my thoughts on scripture. It likely won't be a methodical analysis, so I won't start at the beginning and go all the way through one chapter and verse at a time until the end (and side note, but chapter and verse almost always are terrible methods to do a Bible study as the original texts were not divided into chapters, except for example the Psalms). Instead, I'll start at the beginning and jump around randomly! Yes ... that is a much better method 

I'm not a professional Biblical scholar, though I do listen to and read and watch videos by those who do this in a more professional way (in particular videowise I gained a lot of insight through the late David Pawson's video series 'Unlocking the Old Testament' and 'Unlocking the New Testament', the current works of 'the Bible Project', and the work of Dr. Michael Heiser, among others), bearing in mind that I haven't the same level of experience as them, nor do I agree with them on everything. I'll probably be using the above links for a lot of the discussion and referencing things they mention, and those are absolutely essential resources for anyone who wants to understand the Bible in the context in which it was written, but I'll probably be saying several things that are observations I myself have made that may or may not have any value from a scholastic level, but which I think are interesting and significant.

What I'd like to do, and probably only will have the time to do in several weeks, is to start with Genesis, in particular the way the Seven Days of Creation are presented, and what I think is particularly significant about them - in particular, the incredible poetic structure built into them that I don't see people commenting on very often, if at all, yet which I feel is absolutely essential to understand its purpose. (It'll also give me a chance to draw out a diagram for it which I can use later, as I've been hoping to do that at some point.) I probably have the most to say about Genesis and Revelation, likely three topics at least for each, which are also primarily my main points of disagreements with many of my Brothers and Sisters, and hopefully this can lead to some productive discussion. I do have a few other points to discuss on other books in the Bible, and also specific things that are topics covered throughout the Bible (such as the Temple being a mini-Eden, the Divine Council, the nature and role of Man, etc.), but I'll approach that on a case-by-case basis.

Hopefully each will be a good topic for discussion here, and if anyone else from any religious tradition would like to do likewise, doing a breakdown of their own scriptures and their meanings and history, please feel free to do so! Also, a secondary reminder, if anyone is interested in discussing any religious topic, either one brought up here or anywhere else, please feel free to PM me 

(Also, @Trutharchivist, just to clarify one point I forgot to mention in the previous post, I forgot to mention a further caveat with point 8, as I believe scripture, even the Torah, is a collaborative work between Man and G-d, and I'm somewhat dubious on the topic of scripture not being "updated" by later scribes, but that is a secondary point. Otherwise on the previously mentioned topics I do agree with you and the Orthodox Jewish positions mentioned above.)

I hope everyone is having a wonderful week so far, and take care! 

24 minutes ago, Stormblessed0421 said:

@Ixthos, I agree with you, but I wasn’t trying to say that any denomination is more likely to be saved than another, I was recognizing than anyone can be saved if they accept Jesus as the only path to salvation through his death and resurrection, and asking about denominations to understand the viewpoints of the others on this thread.

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

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

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

5 hours ago, AFdooda said:

When I scrolled down here for a second only the word 'Bean' appeared and I got really confused.

Then the rest appeared and I was even more confused.

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

9 hours ago, #1 Taln Fan said:

@Ixthos if you scroll down, he's told the story here: 

 

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

On 5/3/2022 at 7:51 AM, Chaos said:

On the meeting people front, I got married through here so that's cool

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

12 minutes ago, mathiau said:

I really don't get what you're saying. Yes, matter energy is harder to use than free energy but I don't see how that matters, after all some types of free energy are harder to use than other (for example it's easier to use kinetic energy than thermic energy)

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