Thanks for clarification, it's really worthwile considering this option as well!

What you say is probably true: evil deeds are not committed solely at the behest of religious dogma (one need only recall the atrocities of Stalinism and National Socialism). Yet since God evidently represents the highest authority for believers, His mandate—be it commandment, injunction, or imperative—is the least likely to be questioned and is followed with the greatest zeal and devotion. When God curses the descendants of Ham and relegates them to the status of second-class beings, is it any wonder that people then set about enslaving and persecuting them with fervor, regarding them as second-class human beings—right up to the present day? Critical thinking has no room to arise in such a context. But of course you are right again: This subject seems only loosely connected to the history of Randland. Or perhaps not? It keeps that subtle tension and invites the reader to question the connection. Its late, and tired recruits love their evening-Grappa, and thats exactly what I intend to do. Have a nice evening and love to hear from you again!

It is undisputed that there are religious people who do good, and they deserve full credit for it. On the other hand, there is nothing in the realm of human empathy or humanism that atheists could not also do — or perhaps even do better. In any case, when they perform good deeds, they do not cast a glance toward a heavenly reward, but act for the sake of the good itself. And one more thing: good people do good things, bad people do bad things — but it takes religion to make good people commit atrocities. Have a nice Christmas holiday, best 73, --.../...-- from Calean

Exactly my thoughts as well!

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.

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, --.../...--

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.

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.

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.

🥲

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

Thank you very much for your comforting words. The one positive aspect of ageing as one’s memory fades is that, after a while, one no longer even notices it oneself. Isn’t that wonderful? Only those around us then still have to cope with our creeping foolishness — truly their problem!

I believe that over the many years of this forum’s existence—with its changing readership and shifting contributors—the mysterious figure of Nakomi has often been examined and debated. Since those discussions are not truly accessible to me, and because this figure remains so enigmatic, I put the question to you: Who is Nakomi really? A spirit, a personification of the very fabric of time woven by the Wheel itself, a guardian figure, or perhaps an embodiment of the Creator? I look forward to your answers. First Encounter: Nakomi appears to Aviendha in the Aiel Waste. She seems like an elder Aiel woman, posing questions that compel Aviendha to reflect on the future of her people. Second Encounter: She reappears before Rand al’Thor, just as he is about to leave Shayol Ghul. There she speaks only a single line—“Yes, that is good, that you must do”—and then vanishes. Unclear Identity: Robert Jordan left only one brief note about Nakomi (I guess I must have read it somewhere, the exact content I can’t recall, sorry). It did not explain who she was or what role she was meant to play, which made it extremely difficult for Sanderson to weave her into the narrative.