the evolving mind

“It may be no accident that Christianity, which served as a vehicle for monogamy politically as well as intellectually, has often pitched its message to poor and powerless men.”
- Robin Wright (45)

Is sexual equality most attractive to those “under the thumbs” of others? Are monogamy laws most appealing to non-alphas? By decreeing that his omegas behave monogamously, did the invisible alpha of a people accomplish two things: 1) Assure people behave better in general, and 2) see to it that no single man starts to thinks of himself as above others and hence closer to their god, more powerful and more of a threat? More wives/lovers additionally means more offspring, and because blood is thicker than non-blood, more sons means more power.

As mentioned previously, in exploring the biological roots (evolutionary) of religion, Walter Burkert saw circumcision as a way of symbolicly making a man less. In a sense, as in the Exodus story of Zipporah, the foreskin is ransom paid. Burkert uses the story to illustrate:

“For ransom, a man has to renounce his masculinity – in this case, the mother steps in to make the decision. At the same time, a double substitution takes place, child for man, and foreskin for penis. Sanguinary mutilation, both real and symbolic, is necessary to ward of the pursuer.” (46)

The pursuer Burkert refers to is “God” in the heat of a primate threat display. Quick, before you are hurt, show submission!

Sanguinary, by the way, means bloody. And it is no coincidence that many Bible verses refer to blood sacrifice. In fact, the origin of the term bless is to consecrate with blood. To make sacred with blood.

In ancient times male children bled when circumcised (maybe they still do today, I don’t know). But as with animal sacrifices, the blood was the gift to the invisible alpha; the meat remained for the people. The ceremony is symbolic indeed. And what exactly does it symbolize?

This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:10)

I wonder, if females had a spare flap of skin visible on the outside of their vaginas, would removing this also have been demanded by the Great One? Were females left out of this covenant, in part, because they lacked the equivalent of foreskin?

As an added bonus, or as a primary motive itself, circumcision as sign of a covenant (loyalty contract) leaves heathens identifiable by their intact penises.

From within the grave the mighty leaders will say of Egypt and her allies, ‘They have come down and they lie with the uncircumcised, with those killed by the sword.’ (Ezekiel 32:21)

Sex can be disruptive of relationships. It is a very strong motive. Perhaps the strongest. For animals. Part of the original aim of many religions was, no doubt, controlling human sexuality. Even the decrees of ancient Egyptian gods reflects this. Sexual activity before entering a holy place were an explicit no-no. (47) It seems overt sexuality and the sacred don’t mix.

Relevantly, the lesser known 12th Biblical commandment, following the top-ten familiar to most believers, says this:

And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it. (Exodus 20:26, NIV)

What is wrong with nakedness? It can lead to sex and is associated with it.  And status displays.

Curb those sexual desires. Deuteronomy states -

“Cursed is the man who sleeps with his father’s wife, for he dishonors his father’s bed.” (27:20)

Human beings are such animals! Indeed.

Of course, there are a couple things to consider about the above. While “father” can mean father-figure, “wife” can also mean other-wife. So guys, don’t sleep with your dad’s other wife, for that will . . . dishonor his bed. Honor is a very status-saturated word.

In the Old Testament, as in chimpanzee societies, the sexual rules for betas were different than those for omegas. David and Samuel were certainly not absolute alphas. But they were above others. And hence the Bible openly reporting on their greater sexual freedoms. Multiple wives, concubines . . .

And even the New Testament tale of Jesus is pregnant with sexual themes. Chief among those is his birth to a virgin. A virgin — one sexually pure/clean. What does that mean?

Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. (Luke 2:11)

Jesus was not just anyone’s son. He was the son of THE almighty alpha. Paternity matters. In the town of David.  Lineage matters. Why? Those damn selfish genes. Their selfishness is covertly evident in the Bible. As animals, we can’t escape it.

What makes sex dirty? Confusion over paternity for one. Potential social upheaval for another. A smart alpha likes to limit both so he may placidly reign over a group whose children clearly belong to parents and allegiances he can track. For selfish reasons.

—

(45) Wright, R., The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Vintage, NY, 1995, p. 99
(46) Burkert, W., Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996, p.50
(47) Redford, D. B., The Ancient Gods Speak: A Guide to Egyptian Religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 92

Technorati Links: evolution, primates, religion, sexuality

Trackback URI | Comments RSS