When discussing the role of Christians in the abolition of slavery, we must not overlook the fact that even in the 18th and 19th centuries, nearly the entire population of Europe and the United States belonged to some form (version) of Christianity. It was not Christianity itself that freed the slaves, but rather people capable of empathy and compassion, who stood up for their fellow human beings, even when they were of a different skin color. Side note: William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to abolish the Atlantic slave trade.

I quote Richard Dawkins verbatim: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control‑freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Many of the slaveholders in the Southern states were devout Christians who took perverse pleasure in whipping runaway slaves to death. So let's dispense with the nonsense that it was Christians who championed the liberation of Black people from slavery. Far too many of them profited immensely from it.

I don't think Jordan ever tried to create a matriarchy (except in Far Madding of course). He is quoted as trying to make all his societies as balanced as possible, and was shocked that others saw something different. There is no reason to think that Jordan was trying to counter balance any sort of real world religion. He was writing a novel, not making a comment on religion or trying to push back in any way. So I'm afraid I would have to disagree that Jordan was making his books matriarchal or that they were in any way some kind of counter point to anything in the real world, much less religions.

Like many readers, I have often wondered why Robert Jordan depicted his world with such an overflowing matriarchy. It’s not only the Aes Sedai, endowed with the ability to channel, who assume an almost pathological ruler-like posture, but the female gender also dominates disproportionately within the political structures of Randland. I have reflected on this topic extensively and came to the conclusion—whether rightly or not, I cannot say—that Jordan deliberately sought to create a counterbalance to the toxic masculinity present in Abrahamic religions. I have never studied the Qur’an in depth, but it was enough for me to have to digest passages from the so-called Holy Scriptures. Would you like some examples? Deuteronomy 22:13–21 (NIV summary): If a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin at the time of marriage, her parents must provide proof (the blood on the bed sheets). If the claim is true, she can be stoned to death; if false, the husband is punished. This law treats women as property and places the burden of proof entirely on them, allowing capital punishment for perceived sexual misconduct. Women not teaching in church 1 Timothy 2:11–12: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” Frequently cited as restricting women from leadership or teaching roles in early Christian communities. Ephesians 5:22–24: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.” Women are instructed to obey their husbands, reflecting a patriarchal structure. 1 Corinthians 11:3: “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Establishes male authority over women. God thus appears not merely as a proponent of slavery (as specified in my former blog) but as the embodiment of misogyny. The stoning of women—though recommended, indeed commanded, only in the so-called “Old Testament”—ignores the physiological realities of the female body, which numerous studies have documented: only about 48 percent of women bleed during their first sexual intercourse. The conclusion: 52 percent of women were innocently murdered at the command of the Creator God. I can already hear your objection: Yes, Jesus stood protectively before the adulterous woman, saying, “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone.” But hold on—he apparently had no problem with stoning, as long as it was carried out by the “righteous.” In light of these facts, it seems entirely understandable—and even commendable—to me that Robert J. sought to provide a vigorous counterpoint. As always, your most Sincerely Caelan best 73, --.../...--

True that. Being christian doesn't make one good, obviously...

Well thats great for a religion guided literally by GOD. Far more likely that some good men who happened to be christians fought for freedom than that good chrisitians fought for freedom because of their faith.

Even though the church, and christians more broadly, supported/encouraged retaining slavery for centuries, that does not nullify the fact that christians also were the driving force in its abolition in the late 1700's and 1800's.

That makes a lot of sense.

Thanks for the clarification! One can discern from this that, at times, evil—perhaps unintentionally—can also give rise to something good, something positive. It is rare, but it does happen.

Hilarious the clearly out of context support of slavery. The salad approach or choosing to ignore the parts that are no longer morally acceptable is a joke. As mankind advances it drags the morals of the church with it as they desperately attempt to stay relevant. The bible especially the old testament is a book of evil.

Lol at giving credit to the christian religion for the abolition of slavery only 18 centuries after the new testament and that after specifically supporting it earlier in the "holy" book.

Saying they were equally involved is incorrect. The male Aes Sedai made the ways and then the Ogier contributed the superficial decoration. It would be like claiming that someone who decals a car was equally responsible for the making of a car as Ford. The Ways were primarily created for the Ogier to be able to travel between stedding without having to deal with the longing and not for travel to human cities even if they ended up using it for that purpose later. The male Aes Sedai sheltered in the stedding where they were cut off from the one power and this was their gift to the Ogier for that sanctuary. It is believed though not confirmed that the befouled power used to create the ways is what caused the corruption.

The male Aes Sedai would shelter in the stedding, but missing the power would always drive them out. The madness was new and unprecedented, and I believe it's stated that they were hoping it would have passed by the time they left the stedding. They were not quite equally involved, it was a gift from one group of male Aes Sedai who had specialised in the study of Portal Stones. The Ways were living things in a way, and the structures inside are formed from themselves. The male Aes Sedai crafted the world of the ways as well as the ter'angreal Talismans for Growing so that the Ogier could grow the connecting Waygates.

That is never well explained from my standpoint - other then some held onto sanity longer than others. The taint did not affect them within the stedding. So if they were fortunate enough to make it to a stedding with little or no affect on their sanity, they could choose their moments to leave the stedding and perform their work. But that also leaves the question of how they coordinated their work (with other male Aes Sedai) when leaving the stedding would bring on the madness. How would they have built the Chunnel from both the French and English sides with limited or no communication from each side of the Channel? Why would they even build the Ways when putting their minds to the problem of madness might have been a better project to work on? Even if they were ultimately unsuccessful, they probably couldn't know that at the time... I guess maybe someone foresaw the world breaking into isolated anarchy of the 'Dark Ages' should technology and Traveling be lost. Maybe some worked on the madness issue while others did the Ways.

According to the old myths, both the Ogier and the male Aes Sedai were equally involved in the construction of the Deep Ways. The Ogier contributed their mastery of stonecraft; the design and shaping of the Ways lay in their hands, and they were intended to provide a safe and swift connection between the steddings and the cities of humankind. The male Aes Sedai, for their part, employed the One Power to make the very construction of the Ways possible. This raises the question of how the latter were able to accomplish such a feat, given that saidin had already been corrupted and many—if not all—male Aes Sedai had already lost their sanity, wholly or at least in part.

Jesus changed many things from the Old Testament. Try Mark 7:18-20. And Mark 2:27. No, the Bible never forbids slavery. But Christians were central to the abolition of slavery in Britain and the US. Also, some Christians defended retaining the institution of slavery. While never directly condemning slavery, Jesus did seem to at least hint at change in the days' societal norms - Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:39. And what I think is a direct knock on slavery - Luke 4:18. People throughout history interpret the Bible differently. They can hone in on one verse without taking context into account - what came immediately before and after doesn't matter, much less the context of the Bible as a whole. They take the salad bar approach - a little of this and a little of that, whatever fits into the way they want to live. Whatever would be inconvenient for them they ignore.

So did the God of the Old Testament suddenly change his mind in the New Testament? Is Jesus himself not identical with the God of the Old Testament? Did Jesus ever, even once, state clearly and unequivocally that owning people is an abomination? God never tired of insisting on dietary laws, dress codes, and strict observance of the Sabbath—yet it never occurred to him to include the monstrosity of slavery among the Ten Commandments. It would have been so simple: “Thou shalt not own people.” Basta.

But not with any freedom. Imagine the horror if she retained immortality wearing that yoke.

As far as I remember from Verin's explanation, not only is TAR not like the portal stone realities, it is a constant in all these "trouser legs of time". Along with the imprisoned Dark One, the only constants. Which makes no sense really. Why does Egwene or Perrin ever meet their infinite portal stone doppelgangers? Why isn't it neck deep in wolves? What would happen if a Shadow-aligned ta'veren got into TAR? If each reality has its own TAR - how does Verin call that a constant? Very loose with their terminology, these Browns. You can tell she isn't a White.

Moggie also survives. She is a survivor that one.

So here is my conclusion: just as our own history (up until modern times) regarded slavery as a normal institution—benefiting countless people massively by it (Liverpool’s wealth in the 18th and 19th centuries was largely built on the then-already illegal slave trade)—a social order like that of the Seanchan, living at a cultural level comparable to our European Middle Ages, should really come as no surprise. Your thoughts? Greetings and best 73 --.../...-- de Calean Christian doctrine is much more closely tied to the New Testament; your Biblical references are exclusively Old Testament. That said, I think there were references to slaves obeying masters and for citizens to submit to the government and pay taxes. - Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and so on... Slavery benefitted many societies throughout history at the direct cost of the slaves and the nations they were gathered from. I think that the slaveholders paid an indirect price of the moral degradation of their own society. Slavery was (and still is) normalized by many peoples. Eventually I think it reaches a tipping point where the abolitionists rise up, the slaves revolt, or it just kind of peters out... Seems cyclical.

I don't have the link for where it was stated, but I believe that Sanderson confirmed that Nakomi was an avatar for the Creator in the same way that Shaidar Haran was an avatar for the Dark One.

🥲

Since we are all (hopefully) agreed in condemning slavery and in regarding this kind of “ownership” of other human beings as abhorrent and repugnant, the Seanchan attitude on this issue should not surprise us, especially when viewed against our own far-from-flattering history. The Christian doctrine of salvation goes so far in its "holy book" as to enshrine slavery and its "rules," effectively normalizing it. Some examples appealing? Deuteronomy 20:10–14 In war, women and children may be taken as plunder. Deuteronomy 21:10–14 Female captives may be taken as wives after a waiting period. This effectively institutionalizes forced marriage / sexual slavery. Permanent, hereditary slavery of foreigners Leviticus 25:44–46 Israelites may acquire slaves from surrounding nations. These slaves are property for life and may be inherited by children. In contrast, Israelite slaves must not be treated as slaves permanently. They are to be freed after a servitude of 7 years, unless they are tricked (I can expand on this if you wish in another place...) Exodus 21:20–21 (NRSV) “When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.” The New Testament does not call for the abolition of slavery. Instead, it generally accepts it as a social reality and instructs slaves to obey their masters. So here is my conclusion: just as our own history (up until modern times) regarded slavery as a normal institution—benefiting countless people massively by it (Liverpool’s wealth in the 18th and 19th centuries was largely built on the then-already illegal slave trade)—a social order like that of the Seanchan, living at a cultural level comparable to our European Middle Ages, should really come as no surprise. Your thoughts? Greetings and best 73 --.../...-- de Calean