Synopsis of Femdom Christianity by William Bond

As noted in a previous post, in parallel with the legendary Guru Rasa von Werder's new Women-only religion, Woman Thou Art God, the great Apostle William Bond also has a Matriarchal religion for men as well.  Though a bit jarring and controversial, one can see how it really makes sense overall.  All words below are William's verbatim unless otherwise noted.

Femdom Christianity

Ancient Priestess, (Crete)

SYNOPSIS

We live in a world where boys and men are encouraged to be tough and macho. We can see this in so many Hollywood films where the hero is tough and extremely violent. This is not new thing as we have many stories from history of violent, macho heroes. Who is loved by the most beautiful women in the film.

The big problem with this, is that a world ruled by these macho men is also a world of violence, wars, genocide and chaos. So we have to question whether encouraging young men to be aggressive and violent is a good idea.

The opposite way of seeing men is in the figure of Jesus who has a reputation of being, “meek and mild”. His teaching are an embarrassment to many Christians as he taught people to people to, “turn the other cheek”, to “love your enemies and bless them that hate you”. He even predicted that, “the meek shall inherit the Earth”.

Jesus Meek and Mild

This is the total antitheses of a macho man who would be condemned as a wimp if he behaved like this. It is also not the behaviour of Old Testament heroes like David, Moses or Samson who likewise were violent men. It is even not the behaviour of Mohammed who also used violence against those who opposed him.

Clearly, we would live in a far more loving and caring world if all men behaved like Jesus, but as the Bible shows, when he was betrayed and false allegations made about him he didn’t resist. Then he was whipped and crucified and he was powerless to prevent this happening.

So does this show us that, yes if would be wonderful if all men behaved like Jesus but this is impossible in our brutal, macho world. So if this is true why has this story survived for two thousand years?

Clearly Jesus is the antithesis of the macho man that most patriarchal societies promote, so how it is that his story has survived? The reason seem to be is that his story is so popular among ordinary people. The patriarchal elite may disapprove of the behaviour of Jesus but if the common people like him, then the ruling elite go along with this, if it gains popularity for the Christian Church.

Most patriarchal writings teach us that it is natural for men to be “tough and macho” and that you are not a “real man” unless you behave like this. Yet, if this was true why do patriarchal societies have to indoctrinate men to behave like this?

So could it be that men like Jesus because they see themselves in his behaviour? While women like Jesus because he is the type of men they would like to be with? As many people have pointed out even though Jesus is glorified in the Christian religion, he would be condemn by his own Church if returned in our modern world.

Certainly a male behaving like like Jesus would be bullied at school and in the workplace and be condemned as a wimp or a masochist. Yet there are men who naturally behave in the way Jesus taught.

We can find such men in the homosexual community although there are also very macho gay men. While in the heterosexual community we find femdom men who want to serve and worship women. Men like this are condemned as perverted masochists for wanting to do this.

Yet femdom desires can teach a man to be loving and caring for women and other people. But such men are clearly not macho and this is why patriarchy prefers to call such men masochistic, rather than loving men. 

Unfortunately because of patriarchal pressure, some femdom men feel they need to assert themselves to try and prove they are ‘normal’.

Of course in the Bible we don’t find Jesus wanting to serve and worship women. On the contrary, it is claimed he did sacrificed himself to appease a angry male god and this is why Jesus is popular in the homosexual community. For a male to sacrifice himself to another male is something they like.

In the heterosexual community it would make more sense for Jesus to sacrifice himself to a Goddess and this it seems is suggested in the Gnostic Gospel, “The Sophia Of Jesus Christ”. Sophia is the ancient Jewish Goddess of wisdom.

Jesus is not the only sacrificial/saviour god there were others before Jesus and these religion were very popular. So popular that before Roman imposed Christianity onto the Roman Empire, the three most popular religions were, the Egyptian Isis religion, the Mithras religion and Christianity all had sacrificial/saviour gods within them.

So why would the whole concept of a loving sacrificial male god be so popular? It could be that this is what men are really like, but it is only patriarchal indoctrination that turns them into brutal macho men.

The very passive and masochistic behaviour of men is shown to us by the military. Where the army can easy train men to become so obedient that in WW1 millions of soldiers walk out of trenches to face certain death from machine-gun fire, because they were ordered to do so. The Japanese air force took it a stage further when they used suicide bombers in WW2.

In fact the whole patriarchal society is dependant on men’s blind obedience to those in authority over them. Unfortunately, the whole of patriarchal history shows that patriarchal rules care little for the people they rule as they exploit them.

It would make far more sense if our world was ruled instead by caring women. This I think is what the creators of all sacrificial/saviour religions tried to promote. Unfortunately, all were destroyed and distorted by patriarchal rulers so only Christianity now survives but censored and changed to the degree that patriarchy could tolerate it.

The second part of the book is about why God is female and not male. Mystics tell us that God is One, one mind, one spirit. Oneness comes through unconditional love and we find this in the maternal love of females for children, though some women can extend this to everyone else. So Universal love has to be feminine in nature.

So it is a waste of time worshipping a male god because the masculine is about, individualism and separation which leads to loneliness, fear, conflict, violence, hatred and chaos.

So all of us lost our contract with God when we started to worship male gods because we were on the wrong wavelength in prayer or mediation. The feminine God loves us all unconditionally which is the message Jesus was attempting teach us. But in the Bible this message had to work in the confines of a loving father god which didn’t work very well.

Our history is a history of conflict, violence and hatred because it is dominated by the masculine with male rulers and religions of male gods. We can reverse this when we worship the feminine, which is what femdom men are attempting to do. (Even though they might get it wrong when, ‘topping from the bottom’.)

We live in a world dominated by patriarchy and it seems that the masculine way is all-powerful. Yet the true power of the universe is the All-powerful feminine One. We are at the mercy of masculine power when we lose our contract with the Feminine One. So a Goddess religion based on Omnipresent and Omnipotent Female One is the way we can regain our power and create a loving and caring world.

So the instincts of Femdom men might be right, even though their desires might be distorted by patriarchal indoctrination. Women are also indoctrinated by patriarchy to believe they are weak and naturally submissive. But some women have somehow followed their own instincts and questioned patriarchal dogma.

It is through such women that we had women working together to empower themselves. So that during the 19^th and 20^th centuries we have had Feminism and the Suffragettes who have given women greater political and economic power.

Some these women have understood that God is female, like Emmeline Pankhurst who once said. “trust in God SHE will provide”. And it is from this understanding that they become powerful.

(End of synopsis. For more information about this tooic, please see Rasa and William's shared blog here.  Enjoy)

AJAX SAYS:  That was a great synopsis, William.  A lot to think about here indeed.  Keep up the great work! 

Kingdom Of The Women: A Case Study Of The Mosuo

The following words are from the legendary Guru Rasa von Werder and the great Apostle William Bond, commenting on an article written by Choo Waihong.

KINGDOM OF THE WOMEN

here’s a letter from William Bond:

Hi Everyone,

There is a new theory about homosexuality that suggests that humans lived in a society very much like the bonobo ape. Evolutionary theory always had a problem with homosexuality because same sex relations doesn’t produce children. The new theory suggests homosexuality comes about to bond people together like we see in the bonobo ape society.

So it does give further proof that we we once lived in highly sexual, Matriarchal communities. (Though the article doesn’t mention Matriarchy.)…………………………..William

The article is written by Andrew Barron, a professor at Macquarie University:     “Homosexuality may have evolved for social, not sexual reasons”

Rasa Von Werder says:   “Sex supplies a need for love, not merely procreation.”

 HI William & Ajax ----   YES SOCIAL BONDING WITH SEX IS A GOOD THING.  AND IT WOULD BE ANOTHER REASON PATRIARCHS DON'T WANT SEX TO BE 'FREE'  & 'OPEN' - IT PACIFIES MALES.  

KAY GRIGGS EXPLAINED IN HER INTERVIEWS HOW THE MILITARY ACTUALLY SEEKS YOUNG MALES WHO ARE MENTALLY UNSTABLE, -- LIKE PSYCHOPATHS, THOSE WHO ARE EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY UNHINGED, TO USE THEM FOR THEIR PURPOSES, ONE OF WHICH IS TO ASSASSINATE PEOPLE.   THEY TAKE ALSO DIRT-POOR BOYS FROM THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, WITHOUT EVEN PAYING THEM MUCH, TELL THEM TO GO HERE & THERE, KILL THIS PERSON - THE BOYS GO CRAZY AFTER A WHILE, THEY DON'T EVEN GET PROPER MONEY FOR MURDERING PEOPLE.  THESE ARE KILLINGS WHICH THE BOYS DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT'S ABOUT - I IMAGINE POLITICALLY INSPIRED ONES, OR ACTS OF TERRORISM TO DESTABILIZE AN AREA.  THAT'S WHAT THEY DID TO TIM MCVEIGH, THEY DROVE HIM CRAZY.

AND SO OF COURSE THEY DON'T WANT HAPPY, STABLE PEOPLE, THEY WANT  CRAZED MISERABLE PEOPLE TO BRAINWASH.

DR. JAMES W. PRESCOTT EXPLAINS THE PRINCIPLES OF 'BODY PLEASURE & THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE'.  HE PROVED HOW SOCIETIES WHICH GIVE PHYSICAL PLEASURE TO INFANTS (BREAST FEEDING, SKIN TO SKIN CONTACT WITH MOM, HOLDING, CARRYING, ROCKING) & WHICH PERMIT PREMARITAL SEX & DO NOT HAVE SEXUAL REPRESSION OF WOMEN ARE LESS VIOLENT THAN THOSE SOCIETIES OPPOSITE OF THAT.  I HAVE A BIG CHAPTER OF HIS WRITINGS IN MY BOOK  CALLED 'BREASTFEEDING IS LOVE MAKING BETWEEN MOTHER & CHILD.'

ON THE JACKET OF THE BOOK I WRITE THAT BREASTFEEDING, CLOSENESS & INTIMACY WITH MOM FOR A MINIMUM OF 2.5 YRS  (5-6 YEARS IS BETTER, THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DOESN'T STOP DEVELOPING UNTIL THEN) BEGETS SECURITY, SERENITY, PSYCHIC & SEXUAL HEALTH AS WELL AS OPTIMUM BRAIN GROWTH, WHILE LACK OF SAME CAUSES VIOLENCE, DEPRESSION & ADDICTION IN ADULTHOOD.

LACK OF CLOSENESS, INTIMACY WITH MOM IN INFANCY/CHILDHOOD CAUSES  *****SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION*****, ADDICTION, HOMICIDE, SUICIDE, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY -- IN OTHER WORDS, BEING MISERABLE, DYSFUNCTIONAL  TO THE MAX.  OUR  PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY IS ONE IN WHICH 'ATTACHMENT DISORDER' IS PANDEMIC - MOST IF NOT ALL OF US ARE SUFFERING FROM LACK OF MATERNAL AFFECTION--(WHICH GIVES US THE SENSE OF SECURITY, STABILITY & SAFETY) BECAUSE PATRIARCHY DEGRADES THE MOTHER/CHILD RELATIONSHIP.  IT DOES NOT SUPPORT, ENCOURAGE MATERNAL LOVE - IT PLACES OUR RESOURCES NOT IN MOTHERS BUT RATHER INSTITUTIONS.-- IT'S WOMEN WHO HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED--ENCOURAGED, APPRECIATED AS THE LEADERS OF CHILDREN, NOT PATRIARCHY & ITS AGENCIES (IN THE PAST, MOSTLY RUN BY MALES & THEIR PRINCIPLES—fortunately, this is changing & eventually they will be lead by women......

(MALE DOCTORS, THERAPISTS, PSYCHIATRISTS & PSYCHOLOGISTS.  CHILDREN DIE UNDER THEIR LEADERSHIP - ENTIRE ORPHANAGES HAVE BEEN EMPTIED TO DEATH AS MALE DOCTORS TOLD THE CARE GIVERS NEVER TO TOUCH THE CHILDREN EXCEPT TO FEED & CLEAN THEM........THE MILITARY HAS ALSO DONE EXPERIMENTS ON INNOCENT ORPHANS, KILLING THEM ALL.)

THIS PRINCIPLE CORRELATES WITH SEXUALITY - DR. PRESCOTT SAYS, & I AGREE, YOUNG PEOPLE SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE TO DO THEIR SEXUAL GAMES (LIKE PLAY DOCTOR) & AS THEY GET OLDER, ALLOW THEM TO DO AS THEY WISH SEX WISE.  YOU NOTICE HOW SEXUALITY IS TURNED INTO SOMETHING DANGEROUS & IMMORAL?  THE PREACHING OF DISEASES IS THE MAIN TUTORIAL RECEIVED BY TEENS:  SEX IS SO DANGEROUS, DON'T DO IT...............................

  BUT SEX IS LOVE (GENERALLY SPEAKING, IN MOST CASES, NOT IN ABUSE & RAPE OF COURSE), YOUNG PEOPLE NEED LOVE.  (NOT TO BE ABUSED, LET THEM HAVE LOVE WITH EACH OTHER, STOP REPRESSING THEIR SEXUALITY LIKE IT'S IMMORAL, DANGEROUS & UGLY.  HE TEACHES ON THIS EXTENSIVELY.

AND OF COURSE WOMEN ARE SLUT SHAMED.  AS SOON AS WOMEN GET INJURED, VICTIMIZED, EVEN DEAD WOMEN--YOU REMEMBER MRS. O.J. SIMPSON?  AFTER HER DEATH THE DEFENSE SLUT-SHAMED HER, AS THEY DO MANY WOMEN KILLED BY MEN - IMPLYING THAT 'SHE WAS A SLUT, THEREFORE, IT WAS ALRIGHT TO KILL HER, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, HE SHOULD BE GIVEN A MORE LENIENT SENTENCE BECAUSE SHE WAS A SLUT.  'SLUTS ARE IMMORAL, THEY DESERVE TO DIE.' 

THAT'S HOW PATRIARCHY WORKS - SHAME PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WOMEN, SCARE THEM. WHEN PEOPLE IN LEADERSHIP IMPLY YOU ARE IMMORAL—PEOPLE IN CHARGE WHO CAN HURT YOU-- IT'S SCARY.

INDEED, SEXUAL FREEDOM IS AN IMPORTANT FACET OF FEMALE EMPOWERMENT.  LOOK AT THE MOSUOS.  THEY HAVE WHAT'S CALLED 'WALKING MARRIAGE.'

THE KINGDOM OF THE WOMEN WHERE MEN NEVER RULE

It’s a place where women rule, marriage doesn’t exist and everything follows the maternal bloodline. But is it as good for women as it sounds – and how long can it last?

Imagine a society without fathers; without marriage (or divorce); one in which nuclear families don’t exist. Grandmother sits at the head of the table; her sons and daughters live with her, along with the children of those daughters, following the maternal bloodline. Men are little more than studs, sperm donors who inseminate women but have, more often than not, little involvement in their children’s upbringing.
This progressive, feminist world – or anachronistic matriarchy, as skewed as any patriarchal society, depending on your viewpoint – exists in a lush valley in Yunnan, south-west China, in the far eastern foothills of the Himalayas. An ancient tribal community of Tibetan Buddhists called the Mosuo, they live in a surprisingly modern way: women are treated as equal, if not superior, to men; both have as many, or as few, sexual partners as they like, free from judgment; and extended families bring up the children and care for the elderly. But is it as utopian as it seems? And how much longer can it survive?
Choo Waihong set about finding out. A successful corporate lawyer from Singapore, she left her job in 2006 to travel. Having trained and worked in Canada, the US and London, she felt drawn to visit China, the country of her ancestors. After reading about the Mosuo, she decided to take a trip to their picturesque community – a series of villages dotted around a mountain and Lugu Lake – as many tourists do. But something beyond the views and clean air grabbed her.
“I grew up in a world where men are the bosses,” she says. “My father and I fought a lot – he was the quintessential male in an extremely patriarchal Chinese community in Singapore. And I never really belonged at work; the rules were geared towards men, and intuitively understood by them, but not me. I’ve been a feminist all my life, and the Mosuo seemed to place the female at the centre of their society. It was inspiring.”

Warm, curious and quick-witted, Waihong made friends quickly. She discovered that Mosuo children “belong” only to their mothers – their biological fathers live in their own matriarchal family home. Young Mosuo are brought up by their mothers, grandmothers, aunts and uncles.
From the perspective of an outsider – particularly one from China, from where the majority of tourists come – the Mosuo are “condemned” as a society of single mothers, says Waihong. “Children are born out of wedlock, which in China is still unusual. But this isn’t how the Mosuo see it – to them, marriage is an inconceivable concept, and a child is ‘fatherless’ simply because their society pays no heed to fatherhood. The nuclear family as we understand it exists, just in a different form.” 

It is common for Mosuo women not to know who the father of their children is, and there is no stigma attached to this

Men and women practise what is known as a “walking marriage” – an elegant term for what are essentially furtive, nocturnal hook-ups with lovers known as “axia”. A man’s hat hung on the door handle of a woman’s quarters is a sign to other men not to enter. These range from one-night stands to regular encounters that deepen into exclusive, life-long partnerships – and may or may not end in pregnancy. But couples never live together, and no one says, “I do”.
“For Mosuo women, an axia is often a pleasurable digression from the drudgery of everyday life, as well as a potential sperm donor,” says Waihong.

Women own and inherit property, sow crops in this agrarian society, and run the households – cooking, cleaning and child-rearing. The men provide strength, ploughing, building, repairing homes, slaughtering animals and helping with big familial decisions, although the final say is always with Grandmother. Although men have no paternal responsibilities – it is common for women not to know who the father of their children is, and there is no stigma attached to this – they have considerable responsibility as uncles to their sisters’ children. In fact, along with elderly maternal great-uncles, who are often the households’ second-in-charge, younger uncles are the pivotal male influence on children.
“Mosuo men are feminists by any standards,” says Waihong. “Boys think nothing of looking after their baby sisters, or taking their toddler brothers by the hand everywhere. I was once made to wait before talking business with an elderly Mosuo man until he had bathed his family’s twin baby girls and changed their nappies.”
A few months after her first trip, Waihong returned to Lugu Lake. A teenage girl, Ladzu, had offered to teach her the Mosuo language, which is passed down orally, and introduce her to her family. Her visits grew longer and more frequent. She became godmother to Ladzu and her brother, Nongbu. Ladzu’s uncle, Zhaxi, a local character and successful entrepreneur, offered to build her a house. Thus she began to put down roots.

“I grew accustomed to shuttling between Singapore and Lugu Lake, navigating a hectic city life and a different rural rhythm in the mountains,” she says. Her longer stays – she now lives with the Mosuo for a few months, three or four times a year – gave her the chance to discover more about this private, often misunderstood community.
In the absence of marriage as a goal, the only reason for men and women to have anything resembling a relationship is for love, or enjoyment of each other’s company. If it runs its course, the usual reasons for staying together – for the children, societal or financial reasons – don’t apply. As an unmarried woman in a community where marriage is non-existent, Waihong felt at home.
“All Mosuo women are, essentially, single,” she says. “But I think I’m seen as an oddity because I’m not from here, and I live alone, rather than with a family. I get a lot of dinner invitations, and my friends are always egging me on to find a nice Mosuo lover.” Has she? “That would be telling.”
With life centred on the maternal family, motherhood is, unsurprisingly, revered. For a young Mosuo woman, it is life’s goal. “I’ve had to advise many young women on ovulation, so keen are they to get pregnant,” she says. “You are seen as complete once you become a mother.” In this respect, Waihong, who doesn’t have children, is regarded more keenly. “My sense is that I’m pitied,” she says, “but people are too polite to tell me.”

What happens if a woman doesn’t want children? “That’s simply not one of their choices. To even ask that question is to see the Mosuo through our eyes, our way of doing things. The question is not pertinent,” she says.
And what if they can’t have children, or produce only boys? “They will formally adopt a child, either from an unrelated Mosuo family or, more commonly, from one of their maternal cousins,” she says. “A few generations ago, before China’s one-child policy – which extends to two in rural areas – families were huge. There are a lot of cousins around.”
To western eyes, this is the less progressive side of the Mosuo way of life. Is a society that, in many ways, emancipates women from marriage, and gives them sexual freedom, actually producing glorified 1950s housewives who have no choices other than motherhood? It’s a frustration that Waihong feels with her goddaughter Ladzu, now 22. “She is a mother, and leads a very domestic life,” says Waihong. “For a young Mosuo woman, that’s not unusual. But I wish it were different. For me, it’s a waste.”
But things are changing. Since (mostly) Chinese tourists began arriving in the early 1990s, bringing paved roads, an airport and jobs for Mosuo people, their traditional way of life has started to feel outdated to its young inhabitants. Ladzu and her friends may still be living for motherhood, but she is part of a pioneering generation in transition: she is married, and to a Han Chinese man. She still lives at Lugu Lake, but in her own house, with her husband and son, who was born in February. She is not alone: although her grandmother’s generation, in their 60s and 70s, still practise “walking marriage”, as do many women in their 40s, about half of women in their 30s live with their “partners” – the fathers of their young children. A minority of men and women marry outside the community and move away.
“I know one Mosuo man who is living in [the nearest Chinese city of] Lijiang, married with two children,” says Waihong. “Equally, I know a young Mosuo woman, working as a tour bus driver, who has a child on her own and lives in her mother’s household.”
Education often makes the difference: there is a junior high school at Lugu Lake, but the nearest senior school is 100km away, and few children attend. Even fewer head on to further education. “I know a handful of men and women who have become civil servants or college lecturers,” says Waihong. “But most only have their junior school certificate.”

In many ways, it doesn’t matter to young Mosuo: tourism is providing careers – from waiter to guesthouse owner, tourist guide to taxi driver – until now, a foreign concept. This new rising class has money and the chance to meet people outside the Mosuo community; many families are renting out land for hotels to be built on. Subsistence farming is on the way out, slowly being replaced by the commercial farming of prized local crops. Where land is still farmed for the family, mostly in more rural parts, children head home to help with the harvest. “And they know there will always be food on the table for them, back home with Mum,” says Waihong.
It is a society in transition, in a country that is changing fast. Feminist activism is on the rise in China, battling ongoing discrimination;

China still describes unmarried women over 27 as “leftover”. Can these naturally emancipated Mosuo women – and men – show Chinese society a different approach to family life? “Yes,” says Waihong, “to wear their singlehood with pride.” Young Mosuo are carving out a different path from their parents, embracing “western” marriage and family life with gusto. Zhaxi, who built Waihong’s house, says there will be no Mosuo culture left in 30 years. She is less sure. “I think their traditional family structure may come to be seen as halcyon, once they see what the alternative is,” she says. “They were the original trendsetters, 2,000 years ago; they don’t know how good they have it.

AJAX'S COMMENTARY:

Very true indeed, Rasa and William.. And very good words overall, both of you. Interesting article about the Mosuo people as well. We can certainly learn a lot from them, and they seem very progressive in many ways, particularly in terms of sexual freedom. The absence of marriage as we know it is particularly striking indeed. It certainly answers the question of whether the patriarchal institution of marriage was initially invented by men to control Women, or the other way around--clearly the former, not the latter, is true. Thus, before the advent of patriarchy, things were likely very similar to the Mosuo concept of "walking marriage" or "open marriage" (which is not even really marriage, so much as it is an errant translation of the Han Chinese term for it into English), and seems to be largely more akin to the modern-day Western concept of "friends with benefits". Vive le difference!

As for their less progressive aspects mentioned in the article, such as their rather stifling "everybody must procreate" mentality (i.e. compulsory or quasi-compulsory motherhood), which is anachronistic and outmoded at best in an overpopulated world and likely does more harm than good, I would like to add that we need to avoid the "package-deal fallacy" in that regard when using them as a model for a future Matriarchy. Some purists would of course not want to make any concessions to modern times, while that would be a non-starter for everyone else.

Overall, the Mosuo represent a very important case study of Matriarchy and how it evolved.

Preview Of William Bond's Latest Project

In parallel with the legendary Guru Rasa von Werder's new Women-only religion, Woman Thou Art God, the great Apostle William Bond also has a Matriarchal religion for men as well.  Though a bit jarring and controversial, one can see how it really makes sense overall.  All words below are William's unless otherwise noted.

Femdom Christianity

Ancient Priestess, (Crete)

Introduction

We are today are so use to male domination religions that only worship a male god with an exclusive male priesthood, that most of us don’t question this. As the result, many people would be shocked if we had a religion that only worships a female deity with only a female priesthood.

So to balance this up I thought I’ll write about a female dominated religion and explain what it would be like. I have focused on Christianity because much of the teachings of Jesus seem to be very feminine in nature and would make more sense in a Goddess religion.

Anyway I have written a book of Nine chapter about my ideas on this and published it on this blog.

It starts off with Jesus’s teachings like “turn the other cheek” as well as they way he allowed himself to be betrayed, whipped and crucified. Pointing out the similarity in his teachings and behaviour with Femdom men.

I then go on to write about Gnostic Gospel, “The Sophia of Jesus Christ” and link the Goddess Sophia with the Ancient Great Mother and the Golden Age. I also link this with the work of the archaeologist Mariji Gimbutas.

I also mention the sacrificial/saviour gods before Jesus like Osiris, Orpheus, Dionysus, Bacchus, Mithras and Odin.

Finally I go into mysticism and the dance between the feminine and masculine. Where the feminine talking us back to a world of Oneness and harmony and the masculine taking us into individuality but also separation, conflict and chaos. Then why it is important for the feminine to dominate and control the masculine to prevent it destroying our world.

AJAX'S COMMENTARY:  Very interesting and thought-provoking stuff overall.  Jesus was certainly no fan of patriarchy, and as we shall see, he was really far more down with Matriarchy.

Femdom Christainity: Chapter One

Jesus Meek and Mild

In most Christian Churches we find main focus is a image of a half naked man called Jesus nailed to a cross. Looking at this objectively without any religious explanations, this is an extremely weird image.

Christians do attempt to explain Jesus’s crucifixion and claimed he died for our sins. Though Christians disagree about what this means. As a child every time I went to church I was told the following.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

Suggesting that it was God’s idea to have Jesus crucified, though why he had to do this to grant people eternal life, is not made clear. Some Christians claim that Jesus was the Passover Lamb. In this Jewish ritual all the sins of the community was put on the lamb and was then sacrificed. While other Christians claim that Jesus was sacrificed to appease an angry God. Which is not the behaviour of a loving, reasonable or even sensible deity.

Human sacrifice to appease an angry male god is nothing new and was commonplace in ancient times. We see this in the Bible in the book of Genesis where Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, but at the last moment God changed his mind and Isaac was saved. After this there was no more human sacrifice in Judaism. So it wouldn’t make sense for Jesus to be sacrificed if he was Jewish. So there has to be another explanation for this.

To try and make sense of all this, we can get from Christians long convoluted explanations like the following.

“When we say "Jesus died for our sins," we are saying that He died because of our sins. Sin leads to death (Romans 6:23). We were sinners consigned to death, and we had no way to stop sinning. Jesus came into our world and lived a perfect life, so death had no hold on Him. Yet, in His grace, Jesus chose to die on our behalf. He took our punishment for us. As He died "for our sins," as our substitute, He prayed that we would be forgiven. Since our penalty has already been paid, God will forgive all who put their trust in Jesus.”

The behaviour Jesus doesn’t make sense, as he knowing allowed Judas to betray him, he made no resistance to his arrest, he refused to defend himself against any accusation, and finally allowed himself to be whipped, abused and finally crucified. So if we take away all the religious justifications for his behaviour, we are left with a man with that seems to have extreme masochistic tendencies.

We even find this in his in his teachings. As we can see in the following two examples, taken from the King James version of the Bible.

In Matthew chapter 5 verse 38

Ye have heard that it hath been said. And eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you. That ye resist not evil: but whosoever she smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee and not turn not thou away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said. Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you. Love your enemies, bless them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you:

That ye many be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth the rain on the just and on the unjust.

We can see a similar concept in another Gospel.

Luke chapter 6 verse 27

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you.

Bless them that curse you and pray for them which despitefully use you.

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take away thy coat also.

Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again

And as ye would that man should do to you, do also to them likewise

For if ye love them which love you, what thanks have ye for sinners also, love those that love them.

And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? For sinners also do even the same.

And if ye lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thank ye? For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive much gain.

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the highest: For he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father is merciful.

Judge not and ye shall not be judged: condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

Now for obvious reasons many Christians are embarrassed by such teachings and try to ignore them as it makes Jesus seem like a wimp. This is why many Christians prefer the teachings of the Old Testament with its macho heroes like David, Moses and Samson who stood up for themselves and fought back.

Yet clearly if every man was to follow Jesus’s masochistic teachings we would live in a far more caring, loving and compassionate world.

Jesus also said, “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:5). The joke that goes with this is, “If that’s alright with everyone else”. Suggesting that aggressive and competitive people will always end up ruling the world.

So this then seems to be the problem. Yes, if would be great if every man was to act and behave like Jesus as it would end conflict, wars and oppression in our world. But in the end he was totally defenceless and unable to fight back when aggressive and violent people decided to arrest him on trumped up charges, then abuse and crucify him.

The Bible has no-answer to this. But we also know that his teachings were probably censored as many versions of the Bible was destroyed when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. In the 20th century some of these lost gospels were re-discovered and called the Gnostic Gospels. One of these is the “Sophia of Jesus Christ”. Sophia was the ancient Jewish Goddess of wisdom before Judaism became a monolithic religion. 

In the “Sophia of Jesus Christ” or "Pistis Sophia" she is called, “the Mother of the Universe”. In ancient times people worshipped the Great Mother who gave birth to the universe, so this is telling us that Sophia is the ancient Great Mother. This then gives us a clue for why Jesus voluntary sacrificed himself.

Scholars, points out that the story of Jesus is not original or unique because many pagan gods like Osiris, Orpheus, Dionysus, Bacchus, Mithras, Odin, Bader and Loki also had similar histories. The story of a god-man who performed miracles like healing the sick, then was condemned to death and crucified was commonplace in many pre-Christian religions. Most of these gods died on trees or stakes and some like Dionysus and Jesus died on crosses.

Though Osiris was murdered by his brother Set or Seth and cut up into many pieces, before the Goddess Isis found all pieces and magically brought him back to life so she could conceive her son Horus.

These were called sacrificial/saviour gods, the idea being that humankind is saved by the voluntary sacrifice of these gods. So how can this happen? The biggest cause of all the suffering of our world is that it is ruled by men.

We can see how the masculine operates in the animal world where male animals fight and even kill each other for access to females and dominance.

Now this is not a big problem when animals fight with horns, teeth or claws but a far bigger problem when we have men fighting each other with spears, swords, rifles, machine guns, bomber aircraft, guided missiles and nuclear bombs. For this reason men today have not only become a danger to himself but to the whole planet.

Not only this, masculine aggression, also leads to oppression and exploitation. In all very masculine societies of the past we find slavery, serfdom, and extreme oppression of women.

The feminine is in total contrast to this, as the instincts of the females, in nearly all animals, is to give birth and nurture her young. So the feminine is maternal, nurturing, loving and caring and for this reason it would make far more sense if compassionate women ruled the world instead of men. This then makes logical sense so why aren’t people clamouring for this?

In our patriarchal world the feminine is seen as a weakness. Loving men are condemned as wimps and told that they are not ‘real men’. This is why so many Christians ignore the teachings of Jesus as they think they are too wimpy.

As we see in many Hollywood films the masculine is glorified. To the degree that even woman are influenced by this and feel if they wants to gain respect she also has to act and behave like a masculine man. So we live in a world where women are encouraged to act like aggressive, cruel and ruthless men but men are not encouraged to be as loving and nurturing as women.

Because men are encouraged to be macho men, our history shows us a world ruled by macho men is a world of conflict, wars, exploitation and chaos. Even men do not like living in a cruel world like this as men are exploited by other men and used as cannon-fodder on the battlefield.

So did Jesus try to create a Goddess religion where men worshipped women? To many people this might seem preposterous but we accept it as normal to have religions where men dominate women so why not have the reverse of this?

AJAX'S COMMENTARY:  Very well-said, William. We have an interesting paradox here.  The patriarchal religions, especially Roman Catholicism, preach that "suffering is good for the soul", and yet patriarchy is the cause of most of the world's suffering today.  So is patriarchy good for the soul?  Of course that highly evil, corrupt system is NOT good for the soul!  And IMHO suffering in general is best thought of as the "teacher of last resort".  For further information, read on.

End of preview.  For Chapter 2 and subsequent chapters, please see Rasa and William's shared blog here.  Enjoy!