Literal versus symbolic
Maurice Samuel, “You Gentiles”
Naturals and circumcised inhabit somewhat different mental realms. They use the same words but the emotional filling they grasp from them is different. Naturals tend to be more concerned with the literal and factual meanings of the words while circumcised are more sensitive to their metaphorical and symbolic meaning. Naturals are oriented toward practical and immediately applicable meanings of the words; pedocircumcised are more susceptible to spiritual meanings.
Naturals and pedocircumcised speak different emotional dialects. That of naturals is more practical, matter-of-fact, direct and individualistic whereas that of pedocircumcised tends to be pathetic, pious, fearful, moralistic, ambiguous and collectivistic.
It turns out that the same linguistic serves the purposes of different philosophies. The arguments of the one group are more or less unpersuasive to the other. Thus, the facts of naturals meet the beliefs of the circumcised. But there is no winner in a dispute between experience and symbolism or between logic and mythology. The more cerebral the religious argumentation the greater the misunderstanding.
The most obvious difference between naturals and circumcised is their attitude to sexuality. Pedocircumcising cultures have sexually suppressive religions and morals while naturals’ cultures are more open to sexual displays and tend to shake of the anti-sex moral.
The deities of naturals’ pre-Abrahamic mythologies used a more direct language and had a more practical philosophy. Not only did they not show signs of sexual frustration but some of them were specialized in sexual matters. Monotheism expelled these natural and shameful gods and generalized the meanings of words. The mental effects of pedocircumcision facilitated the increasing ambiguity of words. The all-inclusive super-abstract god of Abrahamics made words all-inclusive. Good and bad colored rational notions, moral-penetrated nature. Likewise individualism and concrete desires became vice.
To refer to pre-Abrahamic religions as sexually-liberated is historically incorrect because such was the original state of man and his deities. In fact sexually frustrating Abrahamics’ monotheism made the previous cultures appear loose-living in comparison. The anti-sex morality of Judaism made people feel guilty about their natural desires which in general the story of Adam and Eve seems to describe.