Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 14h

I hope that as well. These are the death throes of this bigoted ideology because they saw us making so much progress during Obamas terms. I hope the same is true for the rest of our current political landscape. I just want things to be better for us. Because the majority of us who aren’t insane and evil deserve it.

6

Anonymous #2 14h

Oh honey it’s much deeper than America… It stems back to the divine feminine being erased during the formation of the biblical canon

3

Anonymous #4 14h

Fuck off you prideful time traveler.

-2

Anonymous #2 13h

knowing history is not time travel…

3

Anonymous #4 13h

Oh yeah. You “know” what was happening 3000+ years ago? Even the historians who write their PHD thesis on the subject don’t have the hubris to pretend to “know” what was actually happening that long ago. It’s all “we suspect” or “it was likely that.”

-2

Anonymous #2 13h

My brother in Christ the erasure of Asherah is documented in the Bible.

6

Anonymous #2 13h

People worshipped the divine feminine and we know that because the text demands that people stop worshipping her.

5

Anonymous #2 13h

Same thing happened with feminist readings of Sophia. This is not fringe. We know this from primary sources in the Nag Hammadi which was discovered in the mid 1900 after being lost for a long time.

4

Anonymous #4 13h

If that’s what the “divine feminine” pairs itself off with then I strongly suspect it was a good thing they erased her from people’s hearts and minds.

-1

Anonymous #2 13h

Your AI mixed up three gods. Molech is never tied to Asherah in the Bible, and her consort in the Ugaritic texts is El, not Baal. Meanwhile we have physical inscriptions from ~800 BCE (Kuntillet Ajrud) blessing people "by YHWH and his Asherah," and 2 Kings 23 describes Josiah ripping her cult out of the Temple. That's archaeology, not time travel.

6

Anonymous #2 13h

Yahweh merged with El, who was Asherah's husband. That's why inscriptions say "YHWH and his Asherah." He also absorbed Baal's storm imagery (Psalm 29, "rider of the clouds," Leviathan). When reformers later rejected Baal, they lumped Asherah in with him and purged her too. Scribes even rewrote names like Ishbaal into Ishbosheth ("shame"). Read Mark Smith's The Early History of God.

1

Anonymous #4 12h

(1/2) As just a minor critique, I don’t think we can distill Lady Asherah’s place in Semitic paganism down to just “the divine feminine.” That’s more reflective of her position in some contemporary neo-pagan circles (especially Wicca) but IMO it’s anachronistic to apply that backward and disservices other goddesses like Anat and Nikkal.

1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 12h

(2/2) There’s an argument that Asherah BECAME a figure for the divine feminine generally late in the transition to monotheism, especially if we accept the argument she was syncretized with the Holy Spirit and/or Lady Wisdom (both of which have interesting arguments to support). But that’s a very different claim than that she was worshipped as the divine feminine as such prior to the return from Babylon and subsequent transition to monotheism.

1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 12h

That's a really fair critique, thank you. I was flattening a lot into "the divine feminine." I knew the broad pattern of feminine divine figures being pushed out, Asherah alongside Sophia/Wisdom being present at creation, but not the nuance that the "divine feminine" framing is more modern than ancient, or that Asherah may have taken on that role late through syncretism with Lady Wisdom and the Holy Spirit. I'll look into Anat and Nikkal too. Do you have any reading you'd recommend?

4

Anonymous evil_sheep 11h

Wrong framing. Engels (Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1884) argued patriarchy didn't win by being stronger. It emerged with private property: once men held surplus wealth like herds, they overthrew mother-right to pass it to their own sons. He called it "the world-historical defeat of the female sex." The societies he contrasted weren't matriarchies but egalitarian matrilineal ones like the Haudenosaunee. Patriarchy is a property relation, not a fitness test.

3

Anonymous evil_sheep 11h

Ironic you say "materialistic," since this is the materialist explanation. Engels' sources (Morgan) are dated, but historian Gerda Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy (1986) built on and revised his case: patriarchy took millennia to form alongside the state, not because male-dominated societies were inherently fitter.

3

Anonymous #4 11h

Honestly I largely just started on the citations sections of the Wikipedia pages for Ugaritic language and Canaanite mythology respectively, plus anything with citations attached in some old Reddit threads. I’ve been reading a lot lately because it’s topical to some religious studies I’m involved in rn, and because I think the Ugaritic language is cool af, but haven’t kept very good track of what I find where specifically lol.

4

Anonymous #4 18m

I didn’t mean materialistic I meant militaristic. I think those do have an edge over pacifist societies when it comes to war something important when resources are stretched during times of crisis.

1