Why the hatred for Jon?

[Mladen]

And the Starks are evil now? When did this thinking come about? Having Stark blood doesn't connect him with 'evil'. Does warging make him evil? Does having a direwolf make him evil? Where is the connection to 'evil', because I sure don't see it.

Yes, to R'hllorists. Not in general, but the R'hllorists, any connection to darkness, ice is evil. Not literally Starks, but seeing Bloodraven in flames and identifying him as an enemy shows where in R'hllorist equation Starks stand.

[butterbumps!]

No, you're ASSUMING that. There is nothing in the text that states "AAR is PURE FIRE". Nowhere. You are jumping to the conclusion that if someone is AAR, they have to be fire, and that's not true. The "hero" R'hollorists are looking for is the person who will lead the fight against the Others. Jon is half fire. I don't see anything that would exclude him.

Uh, no, I don't. That's a ridiculous statement, actually, because the Starks are associated with ice and winter. Do you think that being part Stark associates them with death? If Jon can't be both fire AND ice, then why does he have the abilities of the Starks? Does having the Stark abilities preclude him from having the Targaryan abilities? Of course not.

Also, the rotten part of an onion can often be peeled away to the good part underneath. Only an onion that is rotten at its CORE is all rotten.

Just because they see AAR as their savior doesn't mean that he has to be a champion for their specific religion. AAR is supposed to save MANKIND. Not just the R'hollorists. And R'hollorism isn't the ONLY RELIGION that has prophecies about a savior who will fight the Others. Plus the prophecy for AAR is almost identical to that of TPTWP. Why? To me, that's an indication that they are talking about the same person. But if it's the same person, then how can he/she be a champion for both?

To me, this 'savior' is simply the person who has been prophesied by more than one religion to come and save mankind, but he or she will be a champion for all humanity.

Jesus Christ taught Christianity. He was spreading the word of God. He was a priest and not analogous to this situation at all.

This situation is that there is a threat to all life and humanity. One person is supposed to lead the fight against this threat. This person ISN'T spreading religion, he's saving mankind. It's completely different from someone like Jesus Christ.

And the Starks are evil now? When did this thinking come about? Having Stark blood doesn't connect him with 'evil'. Does warging make him evil? Does having a direwolf make him evil? Where is the connection to 'evil', because I sure don't see it.

I also don't think anyone is getting what I'm trying to say:

Azor Ahai Reborn is simply a title. Whether it's Dany or Jon, neither of them are connected with R'hollorism. Dany worships the gods of her fathers- the Seven. Jon worships the gods of his fathers- the old gods. Neither of them, by these standards, would be considered a champion of R'hollor. Nor should they have to be, to save the world.

Sure. When the "pope" of a religion tells us that their messiah is meant to vanquish death and darkness, and when observers of the religion present light/ dark, life/ death, fire/ ice as mutually exclusive, then yea, understanding their messiah as being unilaterally not about complements is a total assumption. ok.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at wrt to the part about Stark and Targ abilities. Where in god's name are you getting the idea that I'm arguing that Stark abilities preclude Jon from Targ abilities, or that I'm arguing Jon is one and not the other?

And yes, everyone who is not a Red and has some semblance of logic would see an onion with rot and simply cut off the rot. But according to the Reds, said onion is a "rotten onion." They do not recognize complements or balance between opposites. If you're looking for a belief system that deals with mutual dependence, balance or complement, then it's the old gods and the Faceless that pertain. Not anything to do with R'hllor.

AA is supposed to save mankind............according to those who believe in R'hllor. Like how Jesus Christ is supposed to save humankind according to those who subscribe to Christianity.

I get what you're trying to say. But I think you are not understanding my point.

"Savior" is a neutral term that refers to some champion that saves the world, yes? But "AA" refers to a very specific construction of "Savior," and "AA" is not interchangeable with "Savior." Every point of view has a different idea of what a savior looks like. AA happens to be the one the pyromaniacs are fond of.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Just as Jesus Christ isn't the "champion" for Buddhists, Jews or many others, AAR can't be a hero of any religion. AAR is part of R'hllorism doctrine, so I don't see how you can say that he won't be champion for any particular religion, when in fact AAR is champion of R'hllorism.

But this can be viewed from another perspective. I'll go with Jesus example, it's the easiest:

The Old Testament prophesied the coming of a messiah. People [believers of the Old Testament] expected what they wished to get: a liberator from Roman oppression and what have you. And then they got Jesus that some people proclaimed as the prophesied messiah but others were like, no, it can't be him, that's not how he's described in the Books, the messiah has not come yet. Ever since, there is no consensus on whether Jesus was the prophesied one or not. It depends on one's religion...

So IMO, R'hllorists might be equally dissapointed by the figure that some will proclaim as the savior, AAR, PtwP and whatever name is given, and they might end up denouncing him/her as the savior of their prophecies. After all, the best kind of messiah is the one that has not come yet. You can speculate all you want about how he/she will be like and no real presence is actually there to disprove you...

[Narvi]

You want to see hate go to a Dany thread.

[sj4iy]

Sure. When the "pope" of a religion tells us that their messiah is meant to vanquish death and darkness, and when observers of the religion present light/ dark, life/ death, fire/ ice as mutually exclusive, then yea, understanding their messiah as being unilaterally not about complements is a total assumption. ok.

I'm saying that you're ASSUMING that AAR has to be 'all fire'. Because not even Benerro says AAR has to be 'all fire'. It's nowhere in the text. At all. Unless you can provide me with a specific quote saying "AAR has to be all fire", then you're making a baseless assumption.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at wrt to the part about Stark and Targ abilities. Where in god's name are you getting the idea that I'm arguing that Stark abilities preclude Jon from Targ abilities, or that I'm arguing Jon is one and not the other?

Because you are saying that having Stark to him automatically excludes him from being AAR. I'm saying that having fire in him did not preclude him from having Stark abilities. Why would having the Stark side preclude him from wielding fire?

And yes, everyone who is not a Red and has some semblance of logic would see an onion with rot and simply cut off the rot. But according to the Reds, said onion is a "rotten onion." They do not recognize complements or balance between opposites. If you're looking for a belief system that deals with mutual dependence, balance or complement, then it's the old gods and the Faceless that pertain. Not anything to do with R'hllor.

Just because they don't recognize complements or balance doesn't mean anything at all. Nothing their religion says matters. They aren't looking for a priest. They are looking for the one who will fight the Others and save humanity. All that matters is what the prophecies state.

“In ancient books of Asshai it is written that there will come a day after a long summer when the stars bleed and the cold breath of darkness falls heavy on the world. In this dread hour a warrior shall draw from the fire a burning sword. And that sword shall be Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes, and he who clasps it shall be Azor Ahai come again, and the darkness shall flee before him.”

"The flames do not lie, else you would not be here. It is written in prophecy as well. When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone."

“Benerro has sent forth the word from Volantis. Her coming is the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy. From smoke and salt was she born to make the world anew. She is Azor Ahai returned ... and her triumph over darkness will bring a summer that will never end ... death itself will bend its knee, and all those who die fighting in her cause shall be reborn ...”

"When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone.”

Absolutely none of those say anything at all about AAR being 'fire'. Whatever 'doctrines' they hold mean nothing in regards to who AAR will be.

AA is supposed to save mankind............according to those who believe in R'hllor. Like how Jesus Christ is supposed to save humankind according to those who subscribe to Christianity.

...and those who believe in the Seven believe The Prince that was Promised will be the one to save mankind. And the Dothraki believe that the Stallion that mounts the World will be their savior. We have Azor Ahai and The Last Hero who fought the darkness before.

Are you seeing my point here? All of these cultures have legends. All of them are seeing prophecies talking about legends who will come again and save the world. Why do you think R'hollorism is so special? Why is THEIR champion the one who will save all mankind? Why isn't it the Prince that was Promised who will save mankind? Why not the Stallion that Mounts the World?

Look at the prophecy concerning The Prince that was Promised:

'Born amidst salt and smoke, beneath a bleeding star. I know the prophecy.' Marwyn turned his head and spat a gob of red phlegm onto the floor. 'Not that I would trust it.'

It sounds exactly like Azor Ahai Reborn...yet it is describing the champion of the Seven.

My point is that you are attributing this 'savior' to only one religion when there's no reason to do so. To me, it's clear that AAR and TPTWP are one and the same. That each of these religions have received prophecies about the same person. I don't see this person being a 'champion' of one religion over another...to me, that makes no sense. The only two people we have so far in the running are Dany and Jon, and neither of them are R'hollorists. If it is Dany, why would she be R'hollor's champion any more than Jon would?

I get what you're trying to say. But I think you are not understanding my point.

"Savior" is a neutral term that refers to some champion that saves the world, yes? But "AA" refers to a very specific construction of "Savior," and "AA" is not interchangeable with "Savior." Every point of view has a different idea of what a savior looks like. AA happens to be the one the pyromaniacs are fond of.

Look what I said above. Just because R'hollorists have declared this savior to be the next coming of their legendary warrior doesn't mean that they are correct. It simply means they have interpreted the prophecy through the lens of their own understanding...just like the Valyrians did, and just like the Dothraki did.

[Bran17]

Do I disagree that Dany is the owner of Planetos, the main character of the story, and that failure to see this immutable truth is purely a result of one's hatred for the character? How could I possibly disagree with such unassailable truths.

Is there a particular reason why you're trying to open this blessed line of discussion in a "why people hate Jon" thread?

I didn't open this line of discussion, someone else did while being sarcastic. I just agreed with him.

My personal opinion is that there are 6 main characters in this series: Dany, Jon, Tyrion, Bran, Sansa and Arya.

But I also think that if(I hope not) someone ends up being "THE" main character, it's Dany, and that's pretty obvious so far. It's not a matter of what I want or what I like, I see it as a fact. If you disagree, it's okay.

And who else has dreamt about fighting the wights with a flaming sword on top of the Wall?

Oh, so the story has ended now? We're not supposed to consider anything that might happen in future books because everything is already decided and we've already been told who AAR is? Oh, wait. No, we haven't.

Actually, she can't. The flames show her what they will. She simply interprets what she sees. The only thing she controls is her interpretation, not her flames.

Where does she dream she's holding a flaming sword and fighting dead people on top of the Wall?

It's obviously NOT obvious since you yourself don't believe it.

It's the only Valyrian steel sword that has been pulled from a fire and reforged.

...and where is Dany's magical flaming sword? I would consider that a big part of the AAR prophecy.

And again, did the story end without my knowing it? Are there not TWO BOOKS left where anything could happen? Did this story already determine Dany as AAR? If you think it's TOO OBVIOUS that Jon could be AAR, then why doesn't it seem too obvious that Dany is? Didn't Jon also end his chapter amongst smoke and salt with a bleeding star? Were we not cut off before we could see what happened next?

You seem pretty sure of yourself for reasons I don't get. I think Jon is AAR, but I don't completely dismiss Dany. You are completely dismissing Jon in favor of Dany despite the fact that she's not wielding a flaming sword around, which, you know, I thought was a pretty big part of that prophecy.

- Jon knows AAR legend, I think. He's the LC of the NW. I don't see why that dream is an irrefutable evidence of him being AAR. I mean, he may be, but we don't know. It could be a red herring or just a dream, after all.

- It didn't end, but if we are trying to theorize, we have to stick to the facts. If we're counting on stuff that didn't happen yet, any character who's alive can be Azor Ahai.

- Yes, she doesn't control the flames. She wanted a glimpse of Azor Ahai, she saw Jon. If the flames respond to her questions consciently, why hasn't she saw Jon before?

Why would she be so sure that AA is Stannis? Probably because she asked to see AA and the flames showed Stannis to her. Unless both of them are AA, the flames aren't reliable.

- She dreams she hides a dragon who burns an army of white creatures. If the dragons are the modern Lightbringer, the dream is prophetic too. If Jon's dream is so important, I believe her dream is too. They're both Azor Ahai, apparently.

- I don't believe it, because it would be cheap. I don't want Daenerys to be AA, but she fits the prophecy perfectly. If she isn't AA, someone else(who doesn't fit the prophecy like she does)is.

Do you get what I mean? It would be ridiculous.

And if the person is going to do what it takes to be AA from now on, it's even worse, it would feel contrived and rushed, specially when Dany's fulfillment was almost literal.

- Yes, I think it was determined that she's AA when Maester Aemon died.

- "Didn't Jon also end his chapter amongst smoke and salt with a bleeding star? Were we not cut off before we could see what happened next?"

Salt = Tears

Smoke = Cold

Bleeding Star = Bloody star-shaped sigil

Daenerys:

Salt = Sand, her own tears

Smoke = Literal smoke

Bleeding Star = Red comet

Nissa-Nissa = Mirri(representing Drogo and Rhaego's lifes)

Lightbringer = Dragons(fire made flesh), forged with Mirri's life

I'm sorry, but it's not even a contest. The way she fulfilled the prophecy is way more convincing.

PS: We're totally off-topic. :lol:

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

I dont think Bennerro's POV of the AA prophecy is the same as Mel, his version seems to equate the darkness with the Old Blood of Volantis, Mel's version equates the darkness with the others and there other prophecies here and there.

I don't think there is an absolute truth as to which prophecy is right, GRRM is a writer that likes to just raise questions rather than answer them.

Both Ben and Mel's interpretations are fair game, it's hard to discount one over the other.

It seems more likely that the relevance on these saviour prophecies will be about how they affect POV characters and how they affect society and not about who the saviour of the prophecy actually is.

Rhaego being the STWMTW but dying is an example of how ancient prophecies in the stories are being used, as it changes Dany's view of prophecies over the course of the next books.

[butterbumps!]

I'm saying that you're ASSUMING that AAR has to be 'all fire'. Because not even Benerro says AAR has to be 'all fire'. It's nowhere in the text. At all. Unless you can provide me with a specific quote saying "AAR has to be all fire", then you're making a baseless assumption.

Because YOU are saying that having Stark to him automatically excludes him from being AAR. I'm saying he can have both.

Just because they don't recognize complements or balance doesn't mean anything at all. Nothing their religion says matters. They aren't looking for a priest. They are looking for the one who will fight the Others and save humanity. All that matters is what the prophecies state.

“In ancient books of Asshai it is written that there will come a day after a long summer when the stars bleed and the cold breath of darkness falls heavy on the world. In this dread hour a warrior shall draw from the fire a burning sword. And that sword shall be Lightbringer, the Red Sword of Heroes, and he who clasps it shall be Azor Ahai come again, and the darkness shall flee before him.”

"The flames do not lie, else you would not be here. It is written in prophecy as well. When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone."

“Benerro has sent forth the word from Volantis. Her coming is the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy. From smoke and salt was she born to make the world anew. She is Azor Ahai returned ... and her triumph over darkness will bring a summer that will never end ... death itself will bend its knee, and all those who die fighting in her cause shall be reborn ...”

"When the red star bleeds and the darkness gathers, Azor Ahai shall be born again amidst smoke and salt to wake dragons out of stone.”

Absolutely none of those say anything at all about AAR being 'fire'. Whatever 'doctrines' they hold mean nothing in regards to who AAR will be.

...and those who believe in the Seven believe The Prince that was Promised will be the one to save mankind. And the Dothraki believe that the Stallion that mounts the World will be their savior. We have Azor Ahai and The Last Hero who fought the darkness before.

Are you seeing my point here? All of these cultures have legends. All of them are seeing prophecies talking about legends who will come again and save the world. Why do you think R'hollorism is so special? Why is THEIR champion the one who will save all mankind? Why isn't it the Prince that was Promised who will save mankind? Why not the Stallion that Mounts the World?

Look at the prophecy concerning The Prince that was Promised:

'Born amidst salt and smoke, beneath a bleeding star. I know the prophecy.' Marwyn turned his head and spat a gob of red phlegm onto the floor. 'Not that I would trust it.'

It sounds exactly like Azor Ahai Reborn...yet it is describing the champion of the Seven.

My point is that you are attributing this 'savior' to only one religion when there's no reason to do so. To me, it's clear that AAR and TPTWP are one and the same. That each of these religions have received prophecies about the same person. I don't see this person being a 'champion' of one religion over another...to me, that makes no sense. The only two people we have so far in the running are Dany and Jon, and neither of them are R'hollorists. If it is Dany, why would she be R'hollor's champion any more than Jon would?

Look what I said above. Just because R'hollorists have declared this savior to be the next coming of their legendary warrior doesn't mean that they are correct. It simply means they have interpreted the prophecy through the lens of their own understanding...just like the Valyrians did, and just like the Dothraki did.

Ok, this seems to be going nowhere.

1. The passage I quoted you about how the Reds see AA, and what they believe AA needs to overcome, tells us, in no uncertain terms that cold/ darkness/ death are the "enemies." In light of how R'hllorism is a religion of mutual exclusivity and conflict of opposites, and certainly in light of Mel's little "rotten onion" speech in aCoK, it is abundantly clear that their concept of a hero or messiah would have no part in ice or darkness or death. The Reds see these things as servants of the "Great Other," who is AA's mortal enemy.

2. Yes, there is absolutely every reason to understand "AA" as exclusively attributable to the Reds. It is no different than looking at our own religions and understanding the Jesus Christ is the savior to Christians and not the entire world at large. Please stop telling me that this self-evident truth "makes no sense."

3. Jon can be a savior. I happen to believe he's going to perform some type of heroic role. But branding him as the champion of fire makes as much sense as branding him as "the Great Other," or "Drowned God," or "Black Goat of Qohor."

Maybe take a closer look at all these religions and assess them adjacently to what you believe a savior in ASOIAF looks like, and how well Jon's character meshes with it.

I dont think Bennerro's POV of the AA prophecy is the same as Mel, his version seems to equate the darkness with the Old Blood of Volantis, Mel's version equates the darkness with the others and there other prophecies here and there.

I don't think there is an absolute truth as to which prophecy is right, GRRM is a writer that likes to just raise questions rather than answer them.

Both Ben and Mel's interpretations are fair game, it's hard to discount one over the other.

It seems more likely that the relevance on these saviour prophecies will be about how they affect POV characters and how they affect society and not about who the saviour of the prophecy actually is.

Rhaego being the STWMTW but dying is an example of how ancient prophecies in the stories are being used, as it changes Dany's view of prophecies over the course of the next books.

Right, but in both cases it's about the total conquest of everything on the side of death, darkness and cold. That's the consistent R'hllorist tenet.

[sj4iy]

Ok, this seems to be going nowhere.

1. The passage I quoted you about how the Reds see AA, and what they believe AA needs to overcome, tells us, in no uncertain terms that cold/ darkness/ death are the "enemies." In light of how R'hllorism is a religion of mutual exclusivity and conflict of opposites, and certainly in light of Mel's little "rotten onion" speech in aCoK, it is abundantly clear that their concept of a hero or messiah would have no part in ice or darkness or death. The Reds see these things as servants of the "Great Other," who is AA's mortal enemy.

2. Yes, there is absolutely every reason to understand "AA" as exclusively attributable to the Reds. It is no different than looking at our own religions and understanding the Jesus Christ is the savior to Christians and not the entire world at large. Please stop telling me that this self-evident truth "makes no sense."

3. Jon can be a savior. I happen to believe he's going to perform some type of heroic role. But branding him as the champion of fire makes as much sense as branding him as "the Great Other," or "Drowned God," or "Black Goat of Qohor."

Maybe take a closer look at all these religions and assess them adjacently to what you believe a savior in ASOIAF looks like, and how well Jon's character meshes with it.

...you've completely missed my point.

I'm saying that:

AAR and TPTWP are the same person.

The 'champion' who fights the Others will be the champion to ALL religions and ALL peoples, not just R'hollorism. He (or she) will be fighting to save humanity. Not for any dogma or doctrines or beliefs...just simple "saving humanity".

Despite your protestations, you have yet to show me where this 'champion' is described as 'all fire'. Simply fighting the darkness, cold and ice does not mean someone has to be 'all fire'. You have assumed this for reasons I don't understand. Even the R'hollorists themselves don't say "AAR is all fire!"

If Jon is Targaryan, he can wield fire. That's the only part of AAR's prophecy that I see in regards to 'fire'. AAR has to wield Lightbringer, a flaming sword. I don't think it's an accident that Jon is an excellent swordsman.

[sj4iy]

I'm sorry, but it's not even a contest. The way she fulfilled the prophecy is way more convincing.

PS: We're totally off-topic. :lol:

So, because we were literally left on a cliffhanger and don't know if Jon has actually completely the prophecy you completely discount the fact that Jon could be AAR?

[butterbumps!]

...you've completely missed my point.

I'm saying that:

AAR and TPTWP are the same person.

The 'champion' who fights the Others will be the champion to ALL religions and ALL peoples, not just R'hollorism. He (or she) will be fighting to save humanity. Not for any dogma or doctrines or beliefs...just simple "saving humanity".

Despite your protestations, you have yet to show me where this 'champion' is described as 'all fire'. Simply fighting the darkness, cold and ice does not mean someone has to be 'all fire'. You have simply assumed that for reasons I don't get.

If Jon is Targaryan, he can wield fire. That's the only 'fire' part of AAR's prophecy that I see in regards to fire.

Yea, I did not miss that point. If you're that keen on having me address it, then ok: the idea that PtwP=AAR is an assumption.

The idea that the "champion" who fights the Others will be the champion to all religions is an assumption, and more than likely incorrect being as how there's "cold gods." I am assuming that someone who fights against the "cold gods" is not really championing that religion.

The idea that the Others are actually the uniform big bad of the series is a massive assumption. Have you noticed the part about "endless summer, death bending knees, the dead rising as AAR's army?"

I have, in fact, shown you how AA= fire: The passage I quoted you about how the Reds see AA, and what they believe AA needs to overcome, tells us, in no uncertain terms that cold/ darkness/ death are the "enemies." In light of how R'hllorism is a religion of mutual exclusivity and conflict of opposites, and certainly in light of Mel's little "rotten onion" speech in aCoK, it is abundantly clear that their concept of a hero or messiah would have no part in ice or darkness or death. The Reds see these things as servants of the "Great Other," who is AA's mortal enemy.

How one can read the passages about R'hllorism, Benerro's description of AA's deeds naming the side of ice as the enemies to defeat, and the above comment by me, and come away with believing that I'm making an assumption about this is fairly ludicrous.

And you seem to keep missing the point or changing the goal posts. No where am I positing that fire and ice are mutually exclusive. The idea that fire and ice are mutually exclusive comes from the REDS. Not me. I am trying to explain to you how they see the world, in light of how we're talking about the applicability of their version of messiah to other characters.

I do not at all believe that someone who combats ice must be all fire. Frankly, I think both fire and ice are the problems, and I think the old gods and the Faceless have it right. That's MY view. The Reds would call me the Great Other for that, because, once again, they are a religion about mutual exclusivity and conflict, where everything that isn't fire is evil.

[Han Snow]

It could be that this story George is telling, won't really spell it out to us who = who from all the different prophecies contained within it. It's like some kind of a game, depending on the circumstances and the moment the POV's put on their "hero" or "villain" masks, they change and switch it as the story needs them to. The same, I believe, applies to the prophecies. We can try to guess who = who, but I think George will mix the roles until the very end...

Though, we could look at it differently; when we analyze the major characters to their very core, we see who they really are. Theon and Jaime are bad and rotten but their souls are not evil, they seek the light, they yearn redemption. Dany wants to bring the enlightenment to the people, on her own terms, her own way, but she does it trough half measures and half acts, never fully going all the way. She is Good, but events beyond her control keep pushing her to a more extreme place, so at the end of ADWD, Fire and Blood have never been more more apt words for the last known living member of the Targaryen dynasty... And if we look at it from the perspective that R'hollorists seem to have; that Azor Ahai is the embodiment of fire, its living champion, I'd say that GRRM is not playing tricks with us here and what the books actually spell out, is completely true. Danaerys will play the role of Azor Ahai, the Champion of Fire.

So, who is Tyrion, who is Jon? I don't know about Tyrion, he seem to be the Joker card in this tale, a snarling shadow influencing certain outcomes, pulling strings in the background... And Jon? Well, Jon to me represents the one who will actually bring enlightenment to the troubled people of Westeros. The Lightbtinger. Schmendrick perhaps goes to far in finding connections to RL legends, heroes and events but the gist of it seems logical to me. I tend to believe that the first Lightbringer was also a child of two worlds and not an actual sword: Bran the Builder, the founder of House Stark and the the child made from the union/pact between The Last Hero, Azor Ahai and a COTF female, .

In the end a few words for the OP. Most people don't hate Jon, even here on this board where people tend to be extreme, but especially not the regular reading audience who doesn't engage with internet debates and shit.

[sj4iy]

Yea, I did not miss that point. If you're that keen on having me address it, then ok: the idea that PtwP=AAR is an assumption.

The idea that the "champion" who fights the Others will be the champion to all religions is an assumption, and more than likely incorrect being as how there's "cold gods." I am assuming that someone who fights against the "cold gods" is not really championing that religion.

The idea that the Others are actually the uniform big bad of the series is a massive assumption. Have you noticed the part about "endless summer, death bending knees, the dead rising as AAR's army?"

I have, in fact, shown you how AA= fire: The passage I quoted you about how the Reds see AA, and what they believe AA needs to overcome, tells us, in no uncertain terms that cold/ darkness/ death are the "enemies." In light of how R'hllorism is a religion of mutual exclusivity and conflict of opposites, and certainly in light of Mel's little "rotten onion" speech in aCoK, it is abundantly clear that their concept of a hero or messiah would have no part in ice or darkness or death. The Reds see these things as servants of the "Great Other," who is AA's mortal enemy.

How do can read the passages about R'hllorism, Benerro's description of AA's deeds, and the above comment by me, and come away with believing that I'm making an assumption about this is fairly ludicrous.

And you seem to keep missing the point or changing the goal posts. No where am I positing that fire and ice are mutually exclusive. The idea that fire and ice are mutually exclusive comes from the REDS. Not me. I am trying to explain to you how they see the world, in light of how we're talking about the applicability of their version of messiah to other characters.

I do not at all believe that someone who combats ice must be all fire. Frankly, I think both fire and ice are the problems, and I think the old gods and the Faceless have it right. That's MY view. The Reds would call me the Great Other for that, because, once again, they are a religion about mutual exclusivity and conflict.

I'm not changing goal posts, I'm stating why I believe Jon can be AAR. You are automatically dismissing my arguments because you have created this idea that AAR HAS TO BE "all fire" even though it is never once stated that he does. It says he will have to beat the darkness and the cold. Okay. That doesn't mean the person who fights it has to be 100% fire. There's never a requirement for that.

The 'onion' metaphor you keep bringing up has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. Melisandre is saying that men are good or evil, and that they can't be shades of grey (which is obviously wrong, in any case...exactly how I said an onion can be bad on the surface and still be good underneath).

“A grey man,” she said. “Neither white nor black, but partaking of both. Is that what you are, Ser Davos?”

“What if I am? It seems to me that most men are grey.”

“If half of an onion is black with rot, it is a rotten onion. A man is good, or he is evil.”

This conversation has absolutely nothing at all to do with AAR or whether he has to be all 'fire' or not. Look at Stannis. He's even LESS fire than Jon is, yet she fervently believes that Stannis is AA come again. If, as you claim, the R'hollorists believe that AAR has to be 'all fire' to fight the ice, then why would Melisandre believe absolutely that Stannis is AAR? That's the flaw in your argument. You are saying that only someone who is completely fire can be AAR, yet we have a case where a powerful priestess has devoted herself to a man who is only 'fire' by his maternal grandmother. Why does Benerro suddenly think that Daenerys is AAR? Because she has dragons...not because she's 'all fire'. Otherwise they would have gone to the Targaryans long before that and said "hey, you're all fire, so you must be AAR".

Jon's Stark side doesn't make him 'part evil' or connects him to the Others. That, to me, makes absolutely no sense at all. He is not 'all rotten' for being a Stark. He's trying to fight the Others. How does that connect him to them?

My argument is that AAR doesn't have to be connected to R'hollorism at all, that AAR and TPTWP are the same person. And, as of right now, I believe that person is most likely Jon, although it could be Dany as well.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Why does Benerro suddenly think that Daenerys is AAR? Because she has dragons...not because she's 'all fire'.

And how are dragons described to us? Fire made flesh.

[butterbumps!]

I'm not changing goal posts, I'm stating why I believe Jon can be AAR. You are automatically dismissing my arguments because you have created this idea that AAR HAS TO BE "all fire" even though it is never once stated that he does. It says he will have to beat the darkness and the cold. Okay. That doesn't mean the person who fights it has to be 100% fire. There's never a requirement for that.

The 'onion' metaphor you keep bringing up has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. Melisandre is saying that men are good or evil, and that they can't be shades of grey (which is obviously wrong, in any case...exactly how I said an onion can be bad on the surface and still be good underneath).

“A grey man,” she said. “Neither white nor black, but partaking of both. Is that what you are, Ser Davos?”

“What if I am? It seems to me that most men are grey.”

“If half of an onion is black with rot, it is a rotten onion. A man is good, or he is evil.”

This conversation has absolutely nothing at all to do with AAR or whether he has to be all 'fire' or not. Look at Stannis. He's even LESS fire than Jon is, yet she fervently believes that Stannis is AA come again. If, as you claim, the R'hollorists believe that AAR has to be 'all fire' to fight the ice, then why would Melisandre believe absolutely that Stannis is AAR? That's the flaw in your argument. You are saying that only someone who is completely fire can be AAR, yet we have a case where a powerful priestess has devoted herself to a man who is only 'fire' by his maternal grandmother. Why does Benerro suddenly think that Daenerys is AAR? Because she has dragons...not because she's 'all fire'. Otherwise they would have gone to the Targaryans long before that and said "hey, you're all fire, so you must be AAR".

Jon's Stark side doesn't make him 'part evil' or connects him to the Others. That, to me, makes absolutely no sense at all. He is not 'all rotten' for being a Stark. He's trying to fight the Others. How does that connect him to them?

My argument is that AAR doesn't have to be connected to R'hollorism at all, that AAR and TPTWP are the same person. And, as of right now, I believe that person is most likely Jon, although it could be Dany as well.

This is an example of changing goal posts. I didn't say that Jon or AAR has to be connected to R'hllorism in order to be AAR. AAR is defined by the specific deeds a certain set of people see as the greatest, world-saving good. These deeds include championing fire to the exclusion of everything on the other side, which is "evil," according to them.

That you claim the onion discussion has nothing to do with R'hllorist theology is unbelievable to me. It has everything to do with R'hllorism. It shows us the way they see the world. This is how they define good and evil. If one doesn't grasp the concept that's being illustrated here-- that only that which represents light, life and fire is good, and the slightest bit of those opposites = evil--- then you're missing the entire framework of R'hllorism. That they see everything that is not fire, light and life as "evil," has everything to do with how they see their messiah. If they believe that everything that's not fire = evil, then they don't believe their messiah has a mix of both. Even without Benerro's passage that makes this even more apparent, this seems fairly self-evident to me.

I'm not creating the idea AAR has to be all fire. I'm trying to explain the way the Reds see the world. Take it up with the Reds.

[sj4iy]

This is an example of changing goal posts. I didn't say that Jon or AAR has to be connected to R'hllorism in order to be AAR. AAR is defined by the specific deeds a certain set of people see as the greatest, world-saving good. These deeds include championing fire to the exclusion of everything on the other side, which is "evil," according to them.

That you claim the onion discussion has nothing to do with R'hllorist theology is unbelievable to me. It has everything to do with R'hllorism. It shows us the way they see the world. This is how they define good and evil. If one doesn't grasp the concept that's being illustrated here-- that only that which represents light, life and fire is good, and the slightest bit of those opposites = evil--- then you're missing the entire framework of R'hllorism. That they see everything that is not fire, light and life as "evil," has everything to do with how they see their messiah. If they believe that everything that's not fire = evil, then they don't believe their messiah has a mix of both. Even without Benerro's passage that makes this even more apparent, this seems fairly self-evident to me.

I'm not creating the idea AAR has to be all fire. I'm trying to explain the way the Reds see the world. Take it up with the Reds.

I haven't moved the goalposts by saying that their 'savior' isn't going to be ONLY their savior.

All cultures have legends or prophecies about a hero who has defeated or will defeat the Others. I find it extremely unlikely that one religion is correct while the others aren't. That's my point. Whatever the R'hollorists believe in their religion will have absolutely no bearing on who will become their prophesied champion. If Jon showed up with a burning sword fighting the Others, they'd say "this is our champion sent by R'hollor!" no matter what his bloodline might be.

[butterbumps!]

I haven't moved the goalposts by saying that their 'savior' isn't going to be ONLY their savior.

All cultures have legends or prophecies about a hero who has defeated or will defeat the Others. I find it extremely unlikely that one religion is correct while the others aren't. That's my point.

Ok, then if this is the case, perhaps referring to a specific permutation of one religion's messiah to mean "anyone who will help save the world" is not the best way to communicate that.

And, I think technically, the only religion/ culture with a myth of the Others specifically is the North so far (Last Hero). The idea that the "darkness" in the AA legend refers to the Others is a major assumption. The Reds want to eliminate all cold and darkness entirely, not merely the extremity of the Others.

[UVA]

Just because they see AAR as their savior doesn't mean that he has to be a champion for their specific religion. AAR is supposed to save MANKIND. Not just the R'hollorists. And R'hollorism isn't the ONLY RELIGION that has prophecies about a savior who will fight the Others. Plus the prophecy for AAR is almost identical to that of TPTWP. Why? To me, that's an indication that they are talking about the same person. But if it's the same person, then how can he/she be a champion for both?

To me, this 'savior' is simply the person who has been prophesied by more than one religion to come and save mankind, but he or she will be a champion for all humanity.

So you positing that the various doctrines of a prophesied hero are merely culturally-based interpretations of the same absolute, immutable truth, i.e., that a savior will come to save all humanity? If so, it must follow that these beliefs are not in opposition to each other if they are appealing to what is ontologically the same prophesy.

I haven't moved the goalposts by saying that their 'savior' isn't going to be ONLY their savior.

All cultures have legends or prophecies about a hero who has defeated or will defeat the Others. I find it extremely unlikely that one religion is correct while the others aren't. That's my point. Whatever the R'hollorists believe in their religion will have absolutely no bearing on who will become their prophesied champion. If Jon showed up with a burning sword fighting the Others, they'd say "this is our champion sent by R'hollor!" no matter what his bloodline might be.

If you think that no one religion 'has got it right' then why have you been so vociferously defending R'hllorist interpretation of the savior?

[sj4iy]

Ok, then if this is the case, perhaps referring to a specific permutation of one religion's messiah to mean "anyone who will help save the world" is not the best way to communicate that.

...I don't recall being nearly that flippant about it. I never said 'anyone' could do it. I said that it's likely one of two people- Dany and Jon, and I said that I don't see anything disqualifying Jon from being this prophesied savior simply because one religion has pegged him as their legend come again.

And, I think technically, the only religion/ culture with a myth of the Others specifically is the North so far (Last Hero). The idea that the "darkness" in the AA legend refers to the Others is a major assumption. The Reds want to eliminate all cold and darkness entirely, not merely the extremity of the Others.

The Last Hero and Azor Ahai are very similar in purpose, even if they are not the same person (but we can't verify anything about it, so there's not much point in arguing over that).

I don't see how Azor Ahai DIDN'T fight the Others. That's the only 'darkness' we know about in the story.

[butterbumps!]

...I don't recall being nearly that flippant about it. I never said 'anyone' could do it. I said that it's likely one of two people- Dany and Jon, and I said that I don't see anything disqualifying Jon from being this prophesied savior simply because one religion has pegged him as their legend come again.

The Last Hero and Azor Ahai are very similar in purpose, even if they are not the same person (but we can't verify anything about it, so there's not much point in arguing over that).

I don't see how Azor Ahai DIDN'T fight the Others. That's the only 'darkness' we know about in the story.

I'm not sure how that first part pertains to anything. Simply put, AA is the R'hllorist version of "savior." If you are claiming that you do not believe any one religion has it right, then it makes no sense that you'd keep referring to this one religion's version of "savior" as THE savior.

There's a ton of different darknesses in the series. Light vs Dark is like the most basic, universal dichotomy ("the only story" one might say). And not all darkness is evil. Only R'hllorists consider darkness categorically evil. The Citadel brought light from the darkness in terms of learning. The dragons brought light in the darkness of Ghiscari oppression. In fact, in the passage you quoted by Benerro, he refers to conquering the darkness of slavery. Conversely, Bloodraven points out that the strongest trees have their roots in the darkest places.