Goddess Worship is not automatically Feminist

First off as a Monotheist Christian I believe God is All Genders and I have argued that Biblically.  In the context of Mainstream Christianity traditionally defaulting to viewing God as Male, it is the Biblical Evidence for the Feminine side of God that is in need of being emphasized.  But still God is both Male and Female and any other Gender that exists.

It is also a part of Patriarchal society to put Women on a Pedastool, the "good women" anyway.  Now this typically goes hand in hand with despising women who fail to live up to the Pedastool, but the fact remains saying nice things about women in theory does not a Feminist make.  This is something VraiKaiser talked about in their analysis of both Revolutionary Girl Utena and The Woman Called Fujiko Mine.  There was a particular author they liked to cite on that subject I wish I could remember the name of.  [Update: Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s novel Herland is what I was thinking of.]

The traditional Madonna/Whore Complex is a common way this manifests.  But it's still possible to have more nontraditional or outright diverse ideas about what makes a "good woman", allowing them to be sexually active or masculine or queer and still be part of the problem.  Hence the titular Fujiko Mine was a Whore to some men but a Madona to others, while Lupin is the one man who simply saw her as a fellow human being.

Another related issue is how some Lesbian porn made by straight men for straight men is not raunchy at all but about the idea of Lesbian sex being more "pure" then any sex involving what's traditionally viewed as male genitalia.

The Goddesses of Polytheistic Pagan Pantheons were basically their Pedastools, their various concepts of an ideal woman.  Under Christianized Greco-Roman society this role was taken over by reverence for The Virgin Mary (who the word Madona originally refereed to) or other Women in The Bible, and later Saints like Jeanne d'Arc (Joan of Arc).  Or in the Muslim world how they looked at Aisha and Fatimah (Aisha is a Madona to the Sunni but a Whore to the Shia, and to many enemies of Islam she's just a victim).

But going back to the Polytheists it was not uncommon for some patriarchal groups to favor the goddesses over the male gods.  After all it was Isis of all Egyptian deities who had a temple built to her in Rome.  Rome was probably the most strictly Patriarchal society in the Ancient World but there were times when at face value their religion might have you think otherwise.

But what's most interesting is Japan.  Japan has spent all of it's recorded history with a Solar Goddess named Amaterasu as the main central deity of their pantheon, she bested the typical Zeus figure for control of Heaven and is the official ancestor of the Emperor.  But none of that has prevented Japan from being a highly patriarchal society right down to the present day with them being the only "developed" nation where arranged marriages are still culturally acceptable.

If Anime and it's related media has given you a different impression of Japan.  That's partly because Anime is mostly outside of the mainstream of Japanese culture and so it is a medium subversives and outcasts including Feminists and LGBTQ individuals turn to hence the two Feminist Anime refereed to above.

But it's also true that for Male Otaku their Anime Waifus are their modern Goddesses, some quite literally, the various deres are their concepts of an ideal woman.  And because of how gender issues are different in Japan then in America some of the shows American Feminists like are ones Japanese Feminists don't and visa versa.

Now I try to be self aware of how this problem can also apply to myself.  My list of favorite Anime Characters looks at first glance like a bunch of Moe Blobs and the western characters who interest me are similar.  And I enjoy plenty of shows that AnimeFeminist and the Trans Lesbian Leftist AniTubers I follow don't approve of.  But my "Waifus" tend to be characters I relate to rather then look up to, Mikoto Misaka may have the power of Thor but she's still a flawed character who has to learn from her mistakes.

Now it's easy to tell when a Goddess worshiper is being blatantly Misogynist in-spite of their goddess worship.  What I'm more concerned with is how people who's heart is in the right place, who are trying to be Feminist, can screw up by grasping too hard on the Divine Feminine obsession. Wicca for example looks at first glance like a very Feminist religion but they have their own gender issues.  Also the idea that there is something inherently sacred about female biology often seeps into TERF rhetoric.

Now again within Judeo-Christianity I think we need to point out the Biblical Feminine side of YHWH and Jesus to correct mainstream assumptions.  And in the Secular sphere I see nothing wrong with Feminists reclaiming the various Feminine Idols of Patriarchal tradition, both the Madonnas and the Whores.  A Pop Starlet singing a song called "God is a Girl" or "God is a Woman" can be an important empowering anthem that I fully support.

But Feminism is ultimately about treating women as fellow equal human beings and that gender is a social construct.

I'm also not gonna deny that some of the ancient pagans had in some ways a slightly healthier more diverse attitude towards Gender then what mainstream Christianity has become since there were female War deities like Anath, Enyo and Nieth alongside the male ones.  And male Love gods like Eros and Pan and even a male form of Astarte attested in some Ugarit texts.

It's important never to forget that you're actually agreeing with the logic of Patriarchy when you start teaching that men are naturally biologically inclined towards being violent and aggressive and women are inherently more empathetic and sensitive.  True Feminism is seeing that it is the way society operates that conditions us towards being that way.

Marxism has become a Regressive Ideology

I'm really tired of seeing Left Tubers like PedRo/Zeria and BadMouseProductions act like you must be supporting the Status Quo if you're not treating the writings of a man who died in 1883 as the Inspired Infallible Word of God.

What Karl Marx proposed may well have been the most ideal system to implement while he was alive and for like maybe a century after.  But his ideas were also heavily dependent on the Industrial Revolution, the whole "working class" emphasis.  The Industrial Revolution is over, we're entering a New Technological Revolution now and so clinging to this idea that we need a "working class" is simply being stuck in the past.

As far as I'm concerned right now opposing the Basic Income is opposing poor people, I don't care what you're ideological excuse is.  And if your alternative to the Basic Income is to make it illegal to be unemployed then you have literally just called for what I consider the worst possible nightmare dystopia.  I don't care if in theory you want the law enforced in such a way that only the Employers and never the Unemployed would be punished, there is no way that is how it would ever be implemented.

I still hypothetically desire a Star Trek style cashless society, but there is no chance of implementing that in the next decade.  But there is something that could massively help the poorest and least privileged in society that we have a real viable chance of implementing in less then half of that time, and that is a Universal Basic Income.

If you're going to claim the UBI can never be "Progressive" because it's technically still "Capitalist" then you've missed the point of why we're opposing Capitalism in the first place. 

You're not going to fear monger me into opposing it because there are Billionaires who support it, I've never based my ideology on demonizing people.  Nor do I care about any guilt by association augments based on pointing to the "Libertarian" supporters who want implementing it to go with removing all the other social safety nets, I obviously oppose that.  I'm proposing we pay for it by implementing a 5% Wallstreet Sales Tax, raising the Capital Gains Tax and abolishing the 50c3 Tax Exempt Foundations (including Churches).  And also legalizing Weed and Taxing it.  The Wallstreet Sales Tax alone can make more then what is needed yearly to give every American a Thousand dollars a month leaving plenty of money aside for a Universal Healthcare System and other safety nets.  Plus I want to cut our Military spending at least in half as well as completely de-funding ICE, the DEA, the ATF and Homeland Security.

Opposing the UBI because you fear it would "Save" Capitalism simply proves you've put your ideology before your principles.

I will be voting for Andrew Yang in the Democratic Primary, and I also know from what I've observed that only he has a chance of beating Trump in the General Election anyway.  Yang's version of the UBI is not the best, but he's the only one championing it in this Election.

Is Jerusalem in The Torah?

I've dedicated some of this blog to dealing with the doctrines of Torah Only teachers (and people who don't like to be called that but are functionally the same).  One issue that comes with that is rejecting Jerusalem, which by that exact name is missing from the Five Books of Moses.

Masoretic and Septuagint versions of the Torah refer to the place that will become the permanent resting place of the Mishkan as a location YHWH hasn't chosen yet in Deuteronomy 12.  The Samaritan Pentateuch makes this a place already chosen and makes many other changes designed to say the Tabernacle should be on Mount Gerizim, but I've already spoken on why I reject those changes.

Indeed I shall admit that if I used The Torah alone to decide where to place The Tabernacle my first pick would be Bethel based on Genesis 28 and 35.  A second pick might be Shiloh based on what's said in Genesis 49, but as a location Shiloh isn't mentioned by that name in the Torah either.

The fact that I've argued against the Salem of Melchizdek being Jerusalem in favor of it being the same Shalem from Genesis 33 and 34 which is near Shechem, possibly the same place later known as Shiloh, makes it easy to seem like Jerusalem isn't in The Torah at all.  I do believe Moriah of Genesis 22 is East of Jerusalem where I believe Jesus was Crucified, but that's hard to prove definitively.

Deuteronomy 33:12 is saying the Beloved of YHWH will be in the land of Benjamin, earlier Chapter 12 talked about it being a Tribe chosen to house his Dwelling place.

The tribal allotments are strictly speaking primarily laid out in Joshua not yet in The Torah, but plenty in the Torah implies the basics of Joshua's allotment is correct.  For one thing Caleb is promised Hebron.  The Transjordan Tribes also explicitly take the Transjordan in The Torah.  Genesis 49:22 is possibly alluding to Jacob's Well thus giving Joseph Shechem.  Nephtali's association with a Sea possibly anticipates him getting the Sea of Galilee.  Zebulun and Issachar are also possibly associated with coast-lands in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33.

Benjamin meanwhile is the only son of Jacob born in The Land, so it's fitting that the site of his birth where Rachel died and was buried in Genesis 35:19 and 48:7 was on the way to Bethlehem Ephratah, not in that city as people often assume.  Rachel's real Tomb was at Ramah a little north east of modern Jerusalem.

I've discovered that some people think the Migdol Edar (Tower of the Flock) of Genesis 35:21 is a location in or near Jerusalem rather then Bethlehem as it is popularly identified, this is based on it being the stronghold of Zion in Micah 4:8, but that same verse is part of my argument that Zion is Bethlehem not Jerusalem.

Bethel was right on the border of Ephraim and Benjamin so it could fit.  But the point is there are hints of the general area of Jerusalem being important in The Torah.  And then there is the even more speculative idea I recently proposed about Genesis 10 and 11.

I'm more fascinated by the Decline in the importance of Hebron (aka Mamre and Arbah).  In Genesis that is where the Patriarchs ultimately spend most of their time, including where all three of them and three of their wives were buried.  And then later a big deal is made out of Caleb being promised Hebron which was also where the Anakim ruled which the Book of Joshua further deals with.  It is was later David's Capital for the first 7 and a half years of his reign, when he had only Judah.  But in The New Testament it doesn't seem to be mentioned even once.