THE EVOLUTION OF

VIRGINITY

DARWIN AND MARY

A N A B R A H A M I C M A N I F E S T O

B y B e n H o f f s c h u l t e

- 2 -

PREFACE 3 CHAPTER I The origins of origins 5 CHAPTER II The son of man 8 CHAPTER III More evo-devo 11 CHAPTER IV The human brain 14 CHAPTER V Hagia Sophia 17 CHAPTER VI Back to evolution 20 CHAPTER VII The rock 23 CHAPTER VIII Wait and see 25 CHAPTER IX Conjectures 28 CHAPTER X Objections 31 CHAPTER XI Why? 34 CHAPTER XII Environments 37 POSTSCRIPT 40 BEN HOFFSCHULTE (Zwolle, 1946) studied law in Groningen and Amsterdam and philosophy at the Gregorian University in Rome. He worked in an investment bank in The Hague and in a family company in Zwolle. He was an active member of the European Sociobiological Society. After a long year as bookseller in the Jewish quarter of Antwerp he became in 1995 an antiquarian bookseller in Leuven, Belgium. He translated several books and published, in the form of a novel, an 'Abrahamitisch Manifest' in Dutch (2005).

- 3 -

P R E F A C E

Many books have been written about Darwin and his theory of evolution, even more so about the virgin Mary and her son Jesus, but never have these subjects been brought together in one book before. They are certainly strange bookfellows and serious confrontations will be inevitable, but both parties can benefit from the collisions. The Modern Synthesis of darwinism and genetics is under attack from various angles. Biblical and, for that matter, koranic fundamentalists reject the idea of a long evolutionary process on grounds that lack scientific relevance. However, the evolution-development-controversy challenges some basic assumptions of the Modern Synthesis and is likely to turn evolutionary theory upside-down in the next few decades. In 1965 Lancelot Whyte published an interesting booklet on 'Internal Factors in Evolution' in which he challenged the established synthesis by emphasizing the importance of the developing organism and its constraints on evolvability. Meanwhile, embryologists have formed a real school of developmental biologists under the name Evo-Devo. In my own words I would put the problem this way: variations and mutations are always 'incarnate' in developing organisms and not floating in the air as external factors of evolution. The crucial question is from where variations and mutations enter the organism or: where is the origin of life located? The virgin Mary is an entirely different subject. There is much established wisdom concerning her role in the salvation of mankind, wisdom which is challenged by modern science, last not least by the theory of evolution. But there is one obvious point of convergence between these spheres of thought: if Mary conceived as a virgin, then virginity must exist and if it exists it must have evolved in some way and, presumably, for some reason. Generally theologians are not really interested in biology, nor are biologists usually very interested in theology, let alone in mariology. There is no biological, evolutionary theory of virginity and 'official' theologians have made it clear, that they are not willing to adapt their doctrines to biological insights. Virginity has become a hot topic in sex-education in the USA and two recently published books seem to have been inspired by this old-fashioned idea: 'Virgin. The untouched history' by Hanne Blank and 'Virgins. A cultural history' by Anke Bernau. Both books pay much attention to strange folklore about the phenomenon and they criticise the chastity-programs in the USA as a rebirth of values with negative side-effects. Yet the first book, which was set up as a pioneering study on a neglected subject, concludes in a rather positive way, that 'in spite of our changing culture, virginity and virgins will continue to matter profoundly to us all'. Perhaps the penetrating mind of a thinking male is needed for the idea that a 'theory of virginity' would be a welcome contribution to an inclusive science of homo sapiens, a kind of E = mc² of biological anthropology. In any case, without a good theory on the subject, cultural values relevant to it boil down to

- 4 -

what is called 'social constructs' that belong to the domain of subjectivism. The result is a relativism in which no culture is better than another and any view will do as long as the views of others are correctly respected. In this booklet the author intends to sketch, in a series of short chapters, the outlines of a synthesis for the future. Being neither a biologist nor a theologian, he is unable to write the modern summa himself. This will be the task of a more gifted man, or woman, and the author can only hope that his book will have contributed some ideas to the final achievement.

- 5 -

C H A P T E R I

T H E O R I G I N O F O R I G I N S

The conscious search for origins is a typically human faculty. Why? Survival is possible without knowledge about the origin of things. Only humans seem to need this knowledge. Aristotle thought, that one cannot know the nature of a thing without knowing its cause or origin. This specifically human concern with origins must have a cause or origin itself. Presumably the human concern with origins originated along with growing awareness of the causal relation between sex and reproduction. This relation is not at all evident, but was rather forced upon our remote ancestors against a reluctance to accept it. Conscious recognition of this causal relation brings along accountability for its results and its acceptance is not at all uncomplicated. Malinovski famously described a population in which this causal relation was even explicitly denied. Efforts to hide it deceive the offspring concerning the origin of its existence. Accountability for the procreation of mortal life is an awkward situation and cannot be borne by individuals. People need to form groups in order to be able to bear the negative repercussions of exposure to conscious offspring. Within the group and between the generations there is competition for the best account of the origin of human life. Individuals are expected to accept the established stories. We are no exception to the rule. Our discussions about the origin of human life are of the same nature as those of our remote ancestors in the period of hominisation. Stories about the origin of human life obviously presuppose the existence of words. The origin of words or wordlanguage is the most difficult of all questions, but if this complication is left aside our problem is already big enough. It is the offspring, with its apparent ability to raise implicit and even explicit questions, which forces the ancestors to account for their procreation and to justify their actions vis-à-vis their progeniture. Hence it is from the future that our hominisation has been brought forward, so that the ancestors rather descend from their offspring than the other way round. This conclusion contradicts classical mechanics in which cause and effect follow each other in time. However, the context of quantum-mechanics seems to allow for the idea of a reversed causality in which the future can determine the shape of the past. After all, human consciousness is essentially anticipation of what is likely to arrive. Conjectures about a causal relation between sex and reproduction suppose some delicate anatomical changes such as erect posture, frontal copulation, the rapid growth of the pre-human brain and, last not least, the genesis of virginity. Rudiments of the hymen do exist in various species, but in homo sapiens it exists in the context of questions about the origin of human life. It rather exists

- 6 -

in those questions themselves and, perhaps, in the answers. It seems to constitute, then, the very soul of our intellect which cannot really be separated from the latter. If this is true, the entire body of ancient and modern science would be based on the existence of the hymen. Little wonder then, that the hymen itself has hardly ever been made an object of scientific research: it belongs to the very origin of our concern with origins. Without at least implicitly recognising it we would not be able to raise abstract scientific questions and reach the level of mathematics. Here is the sphere of Gödel and of logical incompleteness, where basic assumptions are questioned and human interactions are in danger of regressing to violence with sticks and arrows. In this sense the hymen belongs to the heart of peace between conscious members of homo sapiens. We must repeat the above argument without such rash conclusions. It was suggested that the entire edifice of modern science is somehow based on the existence of the hymen. This could easily be falsified by stating – and proving – that the hymen doesn't exist at all. That is indeed what many freethinkers have tried to do, but without success. In the writings of Darwin, even in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, hymen and virginity are absent.. There are cultural reasons for that. Modern science has a background of religious dogmatism in which these topics did play a very prominent role and belonged to the exclusive domain of theologians and clerics. Ordinary laymen were not supposed to be able to develop a serious theory on the subject and those who tried it generally only confirmed this prejudice. It is much easier to write about the descent of man, and woman, without having to account for the genesis of the hymen. In the biblical creation-story this genesis coincides with the origin of the Sabbath as day of rest in the midst of highly creative natural activities worldwide. It is supposed to contain a divine prohibition which had been transgressed, with the consequence of divine ire and punishments. Of course this should not be taken too literally, but rather be understood as a kind of poem about the origin of the human situation. In the creation-story of Genesis the hymen seems to be absent, yet it is present in each word of the carefully arranged narrative. Even the Bible couldn't have been written without the hymen as star of redemption. Still, why are we so concerned with origins? It is because humans are obliged to account for their reproduction vis-à-vis their progeniture, that is vis-à-vis their future. It is through their offspring that human beings are human, not through the apes. Darwin himself was very cautious about our lower descent and he merely pointed at some similarities, also in the expression of our emotions. His adepts drew the rash conclusions with which darwinism has become a part of modern culture. They suggest that human beings are a kind of apes and cannot really be blamed for behaving as such. Needless to say that the contribution of darwinism to civilization has not be very edifying so far. If it is accepted that the whole of modern science is based on the edifying existence of the hymen, one can hardly be amazed about its remarkable absence in the edifice itself. One should leave that edifice, walk around it in the gardens

- 7 -

and ask by what it is supported, if it is stable at all. The theory of evolution can only be stable thanks to the hymen. The Greco-Roman goddess of wisdom, peace and science was the virgin Athena/Minerva, born intact from the head of her father Zeus/Jupiter. This religious intuition should be modernised and rendered accessible for people who are used to modern prejudices. This booklet is intended as a guide. The absence of the hymen in the body of modern science is highly remarkable, but in traditional metaphysics it is evidently present. Parmenides described how fiery horses carried him upwards to the divine woman who revealed, that being is and not-being is not. In other words: virginity belongs to the real world and where it is absent there is nothing. Hence the intimate correlation between metaphysics and mariology in the high Middle-Ages, ages that were certainly more enlightened in this respect than the so-called Enlightenment. But forgetfulness is no absence and memories can be refreshed, even against the violent nihilistic propaganda of our decadent world.

- 8 -

C H A P T E R I I

T H E S O N O F M A N

The previous chapter has introduced hymen and virginity as heuristic entities by excellence. If they cannot be integrated in a theory or world-view, that view is incorrect and has to be adapted. Every world-view is subject to scrunity by the offspring and has to be changed in case its criticism turns out to be adequate. There is conservative resistance to adaptation as well as premature acceptance of the ill-considered views of youngsters. We are all part of this dialectical cultural process and can read about it in newspapers and many other periodicals, books, blogs, etc. Yet, those texts never really mention the natural fundament of their existence, since that would be too abstract for both their authors and their readers. It is very much as with the scapegoat of René Girard which is not within the text, but rather structures it from without. The inevitable son of man who is going to criticise established doctrines on human life is the very structuring scapegoat of human culture, of all human culture, always and everywhere. He is most certainly pre-existent and must have been present before homo sapiens came into being. Without this pre-existence there would be neither homo sapiens nor human culture and civilisation. Whether the final breakthrough of this truth coincides with the return of the Son of Man, I am not able to tell, but his position in evolutionary hominisation could illuminate the gospels in which the Son of Man is a stubborn exegetical problem. Is the theory of evolution perhaps destined to shed light on the gospels? This seems to be the case indeed. Neither can the theory of evolution really be understood without the son of man, nor can the Son of Man be fully understood without the theory of evolution. Yet there are still lots of exegetical studies being produced in which the Son of Man is depicted as a perennial problem without any reference to the unsolved questions of evolutionary theory, while evolutionists speculate about hominisation without having a clue about the Son of Man-problem in biblical exegesis. This is one of the many bad consequences of overspecialisation in the field of science. It would be unscientific to exclude virginity and the son of man from the scientific study of life on the pretext that, as Mary and the Son of Man, they are also part of an established religion, even if that religion doesn't show much interest in common ground at the expense of its own infallibility. The scientific study of these topics may raise the question whether some aspects of the established doctrines are consistent with the nature of virginity. For instance, is it reasonable to say that Mary must have kept her corporeal virginity intact even during the birth of Jesus as Son of Man or is this ancient doctrine rather a contradictio in terminis which has to be corrected? In other words, can science be entrusted with the task to determine the nature of virginity or is this the exclusive realm of priests and other religious leaders who rely on revelation

- 9 -

from on high? Here we have the core of Averroïsm, the doctrine that science ( = philosophy ) can discover truth without the help of religion ( = revelation ). After the Middle Ages, in which this doctrine was widely rejected, science gradually threw off the joke of religion while aspiring at a purely rational explanation of things. Could the end of the story be a rational explanation of virginity as well as a refutation of religious doctrine? Yes, it can, but merely to a very limited degree, whereas science, including the theory of evolution, has to acknowledge a superior wisdom in the nature of things. It is like a Divine Comedy, but it has to be explained. The Son of Man is supposed to be God's answer to human longings for a descent of the best partner. Actually, the function of the hymen is to support the selection of the best partner to which human beings are obliged according to the very logic of evolutionism. If that partner is really born he is the very fulfilment of the hymen and a special miracle for its preservation would be superfluous. It is not the competence of science to determine whether Jesus was the best partner and as such real God from God, but if he was, the miracle of the virginal birth as contained in ecclesiaistical doctrine is both superfluous and superstitious. Why it has nevertheless become a part of that ecclesiastical doctrine is another question which science cannot answer, but perhaps history can solve it and thus re-establish a fruitful harmony between science and good religious faith. The dogma of some thinkers that a virginal conception is contrary to reason and has to be rejected, can easily be falsified by referring to the mystery of virginity itself, to the role of the son of man in evolutionary hominisation and to the reversed causality according to which humans descend from their offspring rather than from some inferior species. Since the creator works in and through the offspring, it is a plain truth that God created, brought forward, man to his likeness and is still doing so today. Why, then, should it be impossible for that same creator to cause a virginal conception in order to fulfil the entire purposiveness of human nature? It is in the order of things! However, a special miracle for the preservation of Mary's hymen while giving birth to Jesus would attest to a divine misunderstanding concerning the nature of virginity, since the Son of Man himself really ìs that preservation as best partner from best partner, true God from true God. The absence of the son of man in scientific speculations on evolutionary hominisation can easily be explained by historians of science. After the so-called Enlightenment scientists were supposed to do their work without religious prejudices since religious knowledge was not considered to have any positive influence on a scientific view of the world. A man like Stanley Jaki praised Christ as the saviour of science from his christian point of view. However, his belief and ecclesiastical obedience are absent in the minds of most scientists and to them the place of the son of man is vacant, though no evolutionary hominisation could. have taken place without him. They are like people who ignore the existence of the chair on which they are sitting. But

- 10 -

Stanley Jaki would also have affirmed the said doctrine on the virginity of Mary as being a traditional part of revealed truth over and above science. This is the core of the controversy.

- 11 -

C H A P T E R I I I

M O R E E V O - D E V O

It has been suggested in the first chapter, that the contradictory existence of the hymen is at work in our concern with origins. If this is true we are not likely to ever discover its origin. Did it, perhaps, always exist in an eternal world? Or was it, per chance, created? If there is evolution, why, then, did it evolve? The best theory on its function is derived from Havelock Ellis and holds, that the hymen is an aid in the selection of the best partner. This theory presupposes, that human nature is directed to select fit partners for its procreation. This is obviously true and Darwin attached much value to female choice. Selection of the best partner is an obvious obligation for individuals of the sexually reproducing species homo sapiens and in the course of this optimising selection ideas of good and sublime partners naturally emerge in the brain, thus forming the base of ideas of God, who is, in his highest essence, the best of all possible partners. It is easy to dismiss this reasoning by saying, that God is a chimera, but this doesn't prevent the idea of the best partner from coming up logically in the human mind nor does it do away with virginity. It is good to know, that the enlightened naturalist de Buffon dismissed the hymen as a chimera, yet it was, and still is, a quite normal feature of homo sapiens. Whether the hymen created God or God the hymen is a riddle for evolutionary psychologists! Anyway, only through the looking glass of the hymen can homo sapiens discover truth about his own nature and without it there can be no science at all, not even evolutionism. In laboratories this dependence of science is obvious, since no result can be achieved without glass in microscopes, telescopes and many other instruments including the spectacles on the nose of the scientist him- or herself. This pre-existent network of mediations is generally forgotten once the scientists start to draw their conclusions from those glassy perceptions. They have to satisfy the sponsors of their research who want to see return of investment and don't leave them time for reflection. This explains why entire schools of scientists are blind to the context of their research and continue to repeat the established mistakes of their colleagues. They chase the God-particle with very pricey and highly sophisticated instruments because they are unable to perceive it for free with an enlightened brain. But even the most sophisticated instrument cannot emancipate science from its humble beginnings between the legs of our remote ancestors. This pedigree has to be acknowledged lest science leaves the orbit of reason and becomes an end in itself, even against humanity. How much better, thererfore, are the sabbath and the sabbaticals! They are intelligently designed for the enlightenment of mortals in order to link them with the best partner to whom they refer. They are, like the hymen, salutary entities in the course of time and they enable those who observe them to grasp

- 12 -

the reversal of things which is the highest truth of our universe. And there is no easy-going evolution in that universe, that is no evolution by chance alone, since a free recognition of the best partner implies that things are arranged to bring about that effect. Then the hymen was created by God rather than God by the hymen. Meaning can only be found in development, not in evolution by chance, which may be the reason why some people stubbornly stick to evolution rather than having to acknowledge the ins and outs of the developing organism. The problem of Evo-Devo can only be solved by supposing the existence of intelligent causation from the future, but this should have been at work, then, from before the beginning of the universe, that is before the so-called Big Bang. The best partner who is implied in the course of human social life should be the same being, therefore, as the one who created the entire world and thus transcend the imagination of human beings. Here is place for revelation indeed, but even so the biblical story of creation can be a human arrangement of adaptive intuitions. The full duration of evolutionary development is recapitulated in six days up to the emergence of virginity as meaningful part of a perfect world. It is obvious that it can only have been created as such from the future, through sons of man ( Elohim ) by He who is and will be ( JHWH ). The creation of Eve from a rib of Adam is not as unscientific as it seems, if one knows that the os penis, the penis bone, disappeared during the emergence of homo sapiens along with the growth of the hymen and other intricate pelvic changes in the female of the species. Phylogenetic dreams may have been of some help in the formation of the biblical story of original creation. The perfect world of virginity is not without its shortcomings. Homo sapiens was mortal from the beginning and so were all animals. This part of the story of Genesis cannot and should not be taken literally, not even if the logic of christian doctrine is shaken by it. There was no other original sin than the neglect of virginity after its emergence. That is why the story emphasizes the importance of this new development which was, together with the sabbath, destined to play a major role in human civilisation. In his Studies in the psychology of sex Haveloch Ellis rightly said, that the hymen has played a very pronounced and specific role in the social and moral life of mankind. But birthlabour did not enter the world as a divine punishment, even though it may belong to the existential pains that make people recognise a better partner than they can be themselves. Other shortcomings add to the intensity of this human longing and searching for the best partner to whom the best of all virgins has to be dedicated. If there actually was no other original sin than the neglect of virginity after its emergence, it doesn't really make sense to dramatically emphasize an immaculate conception of Mary, especially not if this should imply that she didn't labour for the birth of Jesus and physically remained a virgin ever since. Yet, this dogma belongs to the full truth of catholic doctrine and is even adorned with papal infallibility, so that its rejection is, officially, a mortal sin. Little wonder that scientists shrug their shoulders and neglect the topic of

- 13 -

virginity alltogether. But it is not necessary to reject this subject if peripheral concepts of a superstitious nature can be reinterpreted in line with good science. It is likely that the conception of the virgin in whom the whole of creation was destined to be fulfilled took place in a perfect, immaculate way. This does not exclude, however, that she fully entrusted her virginity to Jesus and for mere joy didn't feel pain before and after he was born in good health. Who would dare to assume that the virgin Mary failed to fully entrust her virginity to her creator and Lord of the sabbath?

- 14 -

C H A P T E R I V

T H E H U M A N B R A I N

It is deemed to be impossible for humans to discover the origin of the human brain, but some good conjectures can be derived from sociobiology, anthropology and religion. We must be aware of the enormous complications caused by erect posture and the rise of offspring that had the knowledge of good and evil. Violent conflicts between the generations made reproduction the most dangerous of enterprises and without armament nobody dared to face the birth of a free son. As a baby, child and boy he could be tolerated, even loved, but as an adult man he could turn out to be a repressive and murderous rival, a danger which had and has to be contained. The control of human reproduction asked for sophisticated brains and elaborate procedures for the initiation of progeniture into the life of the tribe. The pre-human brain exploded and expanded in a relatively very short period for which there is no adequate explanation so far. The anthropologist Bigelow has coined the nice phrase, that every increase in the size of the pre-human brainis the result of the mixed emotions of love and aggression. The safest way to contain a son is to kill him. Then you can have another son and kill him as well. But if you kill all your sons you die without male offspring. Hence it is imperative to find a way of peaceful coexistence between fathers and sons. It may be enough to kill only the first son and to frighten other sons with this awful example. Those other sons will try to avoid the fate of the first and behave according to established traditions. If chaos returns, another son can be killed and so on. The death of the first son and source of initial peace is attributed to a divine being who governs the fate of the tribe or nation. Freud speculated about the murder of the primal father, but it really is the primal son who is at stake. This hidden son is not only the cause of the rapid growth of the (pre-)human brain, but of human culture and civilisation as well. He is very much the universal scapegoat of René Girard and the Christ of the gospels. There are no human brains with an autonomous position vis-à-vis the son of man, since their very growth depends on his pre-existent development during evolutionary hominisation. Nor are the sons themselves autonomous, since they depend, in their turn, on the son of man whom they are facing when they grow up. Brains that consider themselves autonomous are doomed to end up with being murderous and repeating their ancestors. It is imperative, therefore, to acknowledge the dependence of human consciousness on the sons of man who happen to exists for us in and through virgins. The only alternative is a parasitical dependence on armed murder and deceit, the natural fate of all if no special grace intervenes. This is in a nutshell the whole drama of modern atheistic humanism which is still going on. The explanation for the rapid growth of the human brain is, that there is no

- 15 -

explanation without the assumption of a pre-existent son of man whose development is caused by some ultimate creator in the future. It is no good to study evolution as if the student and his brain weren't part of the world and wouldn't need an explanation. And if that son of man is crucial for the development of humans as crown of creation, it is reasonable to assume that the same force also governs the development of other species, of all life on earth, of the earth itself and of the entire world. The idea of Wallace that natural selection can explain the evolution of life on earth, but not that of homo sapiens, is not adequate, since natural laws are universal. It is like saying that all the planets rotate around the sun, except the immovable earth. But Wallace nor Darwin could conceive of a reversed causality and the role of the son of man in evolutionary hominisation fell outside the scope of their naturalism. They can hardly be blamed, but the idea of neo-darwinists that the selection of random mutations is enough for the explanation of life on earth belongs to realm of fantasy and wouldn't deserve any attention if they didn't have such negative effects on human civilisation. Only through the addition of virginity and the son of man to the current evolutionary discourse can this discipline be redeemed from its destructiveness, but it is doubtful whether the uneducated ideologues of darwinism are impressed by this argument, since destruction may be exactly what they want to achieve in order to make ample room for their own primitive dominance at the expense of things they don't want to understand. Darwin didn't need to fear the son of man. He lived in a still christian country with anti-parrricidal laws and means to punish dangerous sons, armies to ward off enemies, still many churches with the edifying example of a suffering son who did the will of his father untill death, a religious wife who wouldn't stir up his children against him, etc. All his efforts to father his ten children went through his mind when he thought about nature, but he was not reminded of the contradiction of virginity nor did bishop Wilberforce remind Huxley of this unsolved problem of evolution. The successor of Louis Pasteur in Paris, Élie Metchnikov, however, was honest enough to mention the problem and to call it a bigger threat to the theory of evolution than the hippocamus minor or the posterior lobe of the brain. But his own little theory on the subject actually was a bit weird and now it still is, with Evo-Devo, the biggest threat to easy-going evolutionary fairy-tales. Meanwhile, christian fundamentalists are deadwrong in totally rejecting the idea of evolution on the pretext that it contradicts the literal text of Genesis. They too are in need of a remedy and the proper drug may be the same as that for their opponents: think seriously about virginity! In fact, all human thinking is about that contradiction and about the chances to hide it for the son of man. 'Cogito ergo sum' has become a famous parole in the modern philosophy of human autonomy, but it should really be: 'Est, ergo cogito'. On the one hand the human brain is a big machine for containing the son of man and on the other hand it is a machine for the detection of deceit. Between those two competing functions sits the hymen as heuristic entity and fundament of all

- 16 -

good science. Note that in jewish mysticism the sabbath is called a pearl and that one of the great symbols of classical Chinese civilisation was a pearl equilibrating two fierce dragons.

- 17 -

C H A P T E R V

H A G I A S O P H I A

It is perfectly reasonable to believe, that the great good of virginity is fulfilled in the acquisition of the best partner. There are good reasons for the belief that Jesus was that fulfilment. If he was, he should be one with God as best partner and creator, according to the Nicene creed. But there is no good reason for the belief, that Mary kept her physical virginity intact during and after the birth of Jesus. Was Jesus not good enough for Mary and did she have to remain a virgin for a better partner than him? Or was the idea perhaps, that Jesus, as óne with the creator of the hymen, could not be supposed to have damaged his creation during his birth from the virgin Mary? Or should the mother of Jesus simply be as virginal as the many pagan goddesses of her cultural environment? If so, the dogma of the virginitas in partu is of a ceremonial nature and can be changed. In the great struggle between sabbath and sunday the Roman party used to say that the sabbath was not a moral, but a ceremonial law and could be changed without offending the decalogue. In fact, the ten commandments were fully preserved in Roman-catholicism except for the sabbath and the prohibition of images of the divine. After a period of intense competition between the observants of those days, the sabbbath was rejected in favour of the sunday as the day of Jesus' resurrection The sunday as the christian day of the Lord has ancient roots, but it was only formalised in public law under emperor Constantine. If christendom had sticked to the sabbath, its adoption by Constantine would have been much less probable. But if the shift from sabbath to sunday was providential, this does not exclude that a shift back is possible and desirable in special circumstances. The moral character of the sabbath is not evident to us if we do not see how this day occupies the place of virginity in the creation-story of Genesis. In jewish mysticism the sabbath is still called the very crown of creation and welcomed as queen or princess. It is obvious that commemoration of the creation of virginity also has a moral character, so that neglect of the sabbath is equal to neglect of virginity. Since Mary and Jesus were observant jews, the commemoration of virginity was part of their observance of the sabbath. But the sabbath was already abolished in the Roman empire when the question of the virginitas in partu was raised at official councils of the Church. Consequently, the sabbath could not play a positive role in the development of christian doctrine and hence it has become an official christian dogma, that Mary kept her physical virginity intact even during and after the birth of Jesus. This doctrine was not officially pronounced before the middle of the sixth century during the controversial Fifth Ecumenical Council in buildings adjacent to the unsurpassed Hagia Sophia of Constantinople. The proper answer to the said question would have been, that the virginity of

- 18 -

Mary was preserved physically in the life of Jesus as well as in the sabbath which they both had observed without the slightest hint that it should be abolished in favour of another day. But this adequate answer would have raised the question why the Roman empire had not adopted that good and salutary tradition. In fact, the dominant opinion of christian leaders was that the sabbath had become null and void under the new testament and no positive role was envisaged for its preservation. The greatest miracle of the sabbath is that it managed to survive christendom in spite of the efforts of its leaders to have it eradicated. And this war is still being waged without proper solution. The adaptation of christendom to the Roman sunday at the expense of the sabbath has drawn the christian creed into doctrinal aberrations which are in urgent need of correction. Rehabilitation of the holy sabbath in christendom would be a major event in the abrahamic history of salvation and there is no better place for its solemnisation than the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople. Turks and muslims will then have to grow accustomed to the fact that this temple belongs to Mary, whom the Koran considers to be the most favoured of all women. But the greatest obstacles to such a happy outcome would perhaps not be Turks or muslims, but rather the pious leaders of christendom who reject the exposure of their fallibility and stubbornly refuse to transcend the ceremonial doctrines of their predecessors. The first marian dogma concerned the question of the divinity of Jesus, which was answered in the sense, that it was allowed to call Mary mother of God. As such she was then considered to be ever virgin, including a physical preservation of her virginity. But this miracle implies that Mary was entirely free from original sin according to the - much later - third dogma which would have been contradictory had Mary died lateron, so the fourth dogma, her physical assumption into heaven, was contained in the previous ones. Quite a few Roman-catholics are now advocating a fifth marian dogma, proclaiming the virgin to be co-redemptrix and mediatrix. And this fifth dogma is supposed to be the last one, just as Moscow is considered by some to be the third and last Rome. Correction of the second dogma in favour of the sabbath does not exclude the third and the fourth, but seems to modify them to the effect that a more spiritual interpretation can be accepted. There is, however, no contradiction with a fifth dogma mentioned above. On the contrary, a rehabilitation of the sabbath of Mary and Jesus would emphasize their most intimate cooperation in the redemption and salvation of mankind, prefigured at the wedding of Cana and finalised by an Abrahamic council in the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople. In conjunction with a proper rehabilitation of the sabbath the fifth dogma is the best way of saving the previous two and there is no reason to exclude a sixth and even a seventh marian dogma in case that can be approved by an accepted and relevant authority in the seed of Abraham. The doctrinal importance of the sabbath as suggested by the above reinterpretation would strongly recommend this day as day of the Lord for the entire seed of Abraham, indeed for all the peoples of the earth to whom this

- 19 -

blessing has been promised. To invoke here a separation of church and state would be as much off the mark as invoking a separation of truth and science where hymen and virginity are concerned. A synthetical, abrahamic sabbath coming forth from a restored Hagia Sophia would evidently deserve to be welcomed by all civilized states on earth. But an evolution towards that outcome doesn't seem to be very probable now without a simultaneous breakthrough of various abrahamic deadlocks. The most important of those deadlocks concerns the role of islam in the history of Abraham's seed. What is the function of islam in history?

- 20 -

C H A P T E R V I

B A C K T O E V O L U T I O N

Pooling the divergent currents of Abraham's seed does not belong to the usual concerns of those who call themselves darwinists, but there is nothing in Darwin's work which does exclude such concerns. Actually, darwinism implies, that all individuals of the sexually reproducing species homo sapiens should occupy themselves with critical selection of the best partner. This is not an incitement to modern eugenics, since such critical selection is not limited to this world alone, but extends to higher levels of being beyond the realm of death. Science cannot determine whether such a partner exists, but it can affirm that it is reasonable to keep looking for him, even if his existence cannot be revealed by modern scientific instruments. Darwin was not a philosopher, but in nature he keenly observed a constant struggle for life and he was aware of female choice. What Darwin observed was, as far as sexually reproducing species are concerned, in fact a struggle for the best partner, very much what Plato called the omnipresent Eros. Religion is the highest sphere of the natural quest for partnership. There may be several or even a multitude of good partners, but only one can be the very best, so monotheism is a logical outcome of the human search. Since the best partner is crucial for survival, religion is often also a sphere of violent interactions between different traditions, as can be observed in human history. Competition between Israel and Rome may be the most influential of all and it is here that the function of islam has to be discovered. The Greco-Roman world was competing for the favour of heaven and it has appropriated the gospels with the consequence, that christianity became a Greco-Roman religion in conflict with Israel. Wasn't there any salvation left for the jews who were marginalised after having tried to marginalise christians when these were still weak? The rise of christendom in the Greco-Roman world was completed in the sixth century under the emperor Justinian who not only codified Roman law 'In Nomine Domini Nostri Iesu Christi', but also had the unsurpassed Hagia Sophia built in honour of the incarnated word of God. Apparently no future was left for old Israel which had been surpassed by Rome. But in that same sixth century of our era the prophet Mohammed was born for the task to create an abrahamic counterbalance to Rome and that is exactly what he did. Why? Mohammed appropriated the promise to Abraham by stating, that the son whose sacrifice was prevented was not Isaac, as in judaism and christianity, but his halfbrother Ismael as favourite son of Abraham and ancestor of the Arabs. This was a darwinian struggle, but not simply a struggle for life. It was a fierce struggle for the favour of the best partner as highest asset in the human struggle for life.

- 21 -

Mohammed simply appropriated God's partnership and challenged the Greco-Roman world which had done the same vis-à-vis Israel. But the equilibration of injustice is not yet justice. The muslims didn't restore the sabbath, but introduced another day, the juma, on the day before the sabbath. Thus the situation had become even more complicated with three competing days of rest or prayer in the name of one and the same God of Abraham. Real justice would be a synthetical restoration of the sabbath in, of all places, the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople, but this is only possible if the papacy is ready to correct an influential dogmatic aberration at the expense of its own infallibility. If so, the papacy could finally use the keys of Peter and bring about harmony in the seed of Abraham. But it is still not sure whether the Hagia Sophia can be liberated for the purpose. Obviously this is all part of evolution, but not merely the result of genetical engineering by a very clever designer. It is equally the outcome of spiritual guidance towards an end which was known providentially, because it was brought forward from the future. If there is such guidance in human history it is reasonable to suppose that there is similar guidance in nature, both operating from the future. In other words, causation from the future does not only govern the relatively short period of human history, but also natural history and geological time. If human beings do not see patterns of meaning in their own history they are not likely to find it in the life of other species and in the rest of nature. The Western perception of meaning in history started with the rise of the Roman empire and its baptism under emperor Constantine. It lasted through the Middle-Ages until the conquest of Constantinople by post-christian Turcs and then gradually dissolved in modern times. Post-christian interpretations of history gained dominance after various revolutions and the present ideology is that of mere unqualified survival on the one hand and confident islamism on the other. There are indeed rudiments of christian doctrine in the modern world and they seem to be strongest in Rome, but Europe is deeply divided and heavily committed to established secularism. Apart from the Pontifex Maximus there is no authority in Europe that could legitimately propose a return of christendom to the sabbath and it seems to be more likely now that the islamic juma will become a dominant day of the Lord in Europe than that the papacy will contribute decisively to a restoration of the sabbath. But there is also still an undercurrent of confident judaism expecting the Messiah, saying with Franz Rosenzweig, that only at the coming of the Messiah it will become clear whether Jesus was him or not. Evolution is the unfolding of organisms in line with their genetic programms. Without causation from the future there can be no evolution nor, for that matter, any origin of species. God is basically the source of variations and mutations, but on a higher level the source of good partnership and of the Holy Spirit. As sublime partner God must be faithful to his pledges to Israel and correct the Roman deviation of his ways without undoing the good that Rome has accomplished in the world. It is the greatest hope of mankind that God will reveal his best partnership. To

- 22 -

this end the Hagia Sophia has been preserved and it is up to mankind to make the right choice for or against the divine proposition. A negative answer would be a choice for perdition, since it is becoming crystal-clear that modernism has nothing to offer but failure upon failure without good perspectives, whereas a positive answer opens the minds of humans to a partnership from heaven which transcends the ages and will give mankind another Shavoe'ot or Pentecost together with believing muslims. Evolution of Abraham's seed in line with its genetic programm is the only way of salvation for a species that has exhausted its lease on life and should now be guided away from the abyss that false gods have prepared for it.

- 23 -

C H A P T E R V I I

T H E R O C K

The historical edifice of the Roman catholic church is not in all respects what one would expect from an institution by the Jesus of the gospels. It has caused a lot of suffering and bewilderment. It has become a major source of atheism in the Europe where it held sway for centuries. It cannot fully be defended by honest minds as a foundation of the Christ who promised salvation and bliss. Some people would say it is still the best institution Europe and mankind have ever had. This may be true, especially in view of a proper reading of the end of the gospel according to John. In it Jesus famously repeated the pastoral mandate to Peter thrice and then predicted in a solemn way how Peter would die. The pastoral mandate is supposed to be for Peter and for his successors as well, including for the present pope, but the prediction by Jesus of Peter's end has not received the honour of an equally extensive interpretation. Modern exegesis has emptied the Bible of almost all its meaning. This seems to be a protestant revenge on catholicism for which it got biblical fundamentalism as a counterrevenge: the two sides of sola scriptura and sola fides. But a sober reading of the end of John's gospel offers an entirely new perspective on the history of the church of Christ. Yes, Peter was impetuous to the point of being a madcap and his successors have often been like him. How could Jesus choose an imperious mind like him as his vicar on earth? It seems to be a ploy and that is what it is indeed. Jesus was speaking not only to Peter, but also to his successors up to this day. Jesus spoke to the historical papacy which is such a big problem for many christians and then predicted, that it would some day glorify God by its death. Mysterious text! How can the death of a human being glorify God? This may have been sacrificial language, but it does not exclude the fuller sense of a glorifying act of the papacy at large. 'When you were young you girded yourself and went where you wanted, but when you are old an other one will gird you and carry you where you don't want to go'. The most common reproach to the papacy is that it girded itself and often had its way according to its wishes. The famous papal claims, such as the Donation of Constantine, were already denounced by Dante, who nevertheless looked upon everything as part of a big Comedy. Protestants were more dramatic in their criticism and invoked the Bible against their fancied Antichrist....who only did what Jesus had predicted: gird himself and go where he wanted to go. It did its historical duty like Judas. This dimension of the petrine office has not been elucidated by the Roman catholic hierarchy so far and, more remarkably, not by its critics either. There is no tradition about that 'other one' who will carry Peter where he doesn't want to go, nor about the future glorification of God. Atheists are not likely to proclaim the latter, but serious orthodox and protestant christians as well as

- 24 -

jews and even muslims would have had reason to emphasize the relativity of the papacy in view of this prediction at the end of the last gospel. The more the papalists used the pastoral mandate of that text as support for unlimited papal authority, the more it became clear that they were deceiving their listeners and readers by applying that mandate to all popes and the death only to Peter himself. There was more between heaven and earth than dreamt of in their propaganda. All the same, this dangerous text has never been obliterated by the papacy, though there was some resistance to its translation from Latin into the various vernaculars of Western Europe, but that was true for the entire Bible and not only for the end of the last gospel. How that text should be read in detail is still unclear, but it seems to be safe to say, that a spectacular dénouement of papal history can be expected for the near or distant future. The Roman catholic hierarchy would do well to take this into account and to consider its ways. In any case, the predicted glorification of God should be a major event for Europe that has become the craddle of modern atheism after having been exposed to papal claims for centuries. Some kind of historical justice should be as much part of the predicted events as of a final judgement. The evolution of the papacy and of the Roman catholic church at large is of evident importance for the whole of mankind. If Jesus has predicted an end to the former for the glorification of God, it is not less true, that Jesus has guaranteed, that the gates of hell will not overcome the church built on Peter's rock. After the predicted end of the papacy the world will not, therefore, be free for some post-christian ideology. The earth will not be inherited by the loudspoken propagators of easy-going consumption nor by those who consider liberty to be the highest value on earth. The gates of hell will not prevail, but there may be a universal sabbath after being agreed upon in the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople. It should happen in the context of a re-interpretation of the ancient doctrine of the virginitas in partu of Mary and, ideally, of a promulgation of the fifth Marian dogma. The rock of Peter will be interpreted in the light of a new evolutionary perspective on hymen and virginity and the true nature of things will be revealed in a new science of wisdom which is indeed the fundament of the church of Christ as much as of human civilization in general. It is evident that human beings have the task to search for the best partner. This is the new scientific truth of human development, written in the hearts of all humans and now once more in their brains as well. Homo sapiens is prefectly fine-tuned for the search of God and it is reasonable to assume, that this has been organised from the future by a creator who is himself the best partner for whom humans are searching naturally. It is indeed an aberration not to seek God and the result of this deviation can only be negative. But it is perfectly true that any real God is always transcending established ideas concerning his nature. Some of those ideas have to be rejected as mistake if one wants to approach the fullness of God without traditional prejudices.

- 25 -

C H A P T E R V I I I

W A I T A N D S E E An old saying of jesuits is, that important decisions should not be taken in periods of chaos, since their consequences cannot be determined. We are living through a period of chaos and the papacy could well get the advice to do nothing, especially not such a spectacular thing as the proclamation of a universal sabbath. Other groups may be more influential in the Vatican now, but their advice is likely to be the same: wait and see. Why take the risk of a declaration of fallibility if its implications are not clear? Why advocate a universal sabbath as long as the sunday is still going strong here and there? If the christian faith still is the strongest on earth, why then seek a compromise with other branches of Abraham's seed? As long as God could still work some miracle in favour of the Roman catholics, why give in to smaller numbers? If Rome has successfully destroyed the jewish temple, why then should it dedicate a temple to the sabbath now? Recently the Vatican has reintroduced a prayer for the conversion of the jews to Jesus Christ with the implication, that jews should become Roman catholic. This may happen, and has happened, to individual jews by some special intercession, just as there are catholics who became jewish. But it is certainly not the vocation of all jews to reject their traditions and to obediently accept those of the Roman catholic church. The device 'wait and see' could, if applied to this expectation, last another millennium, whereas a solution to the perennial conflict between Rome and Jerusalem is urgently needed on a global scale. It is true that jews, like all other human beings, must recognize Jesus as Son of Man and prime mover of hominisation, but would it be reasonable to expect them to reject their sabbath in favour of an evidently inadequate doctrine as that of the virginitas in partu of Mary? No, obviously not! Intelligent Roman catholics, and there are some, know full well, that there can be no christian and abrahamic union around the papacy, which they acknowledge to be the main stumbling block as far as christian reunion is concerned. What better solution could there be than an enlightened council in the Hagia Sophia? But that temple belongs to Turkey at the moment. It is not available on exclusive christian conditions. It should have an abrahamic dimension and then perhaps serve as catalyst for the sabbath. There can be no peace in the Middle-East without a pooling of the traditional days of rest and/or prayer. Turkey and Israel intend to help eachother. Russia seeks a link with Tsargrad. In short, the ingredients are just waiting for the proper cook as well as for the proper diners. But still: wait and see is a tempting device. Without an adequate view of history, geopolitics boils down to serving ones own interests, which is the basic sphere of human and political action. But the

- 26 -

interaction of self-interests does not by itself create any positive order. Conscious interventions for new combinations are required for the rise of higher structures. The search for ever better partners is the true soul of human progress which has to be spiritual in the first place. The supply of energy is as important for a civilisation as a functioning sewerage, but both are not enough for true progress. A day of rest for higher interests is of crucial importance for survival, even in a biological sense. The religious reorganisation as outlined above is urgently needed and cannot be postponed with the indifferent advice to wait and see. Perhaps the redeeming initiative cannot come from the Vatican nor from Washington or Brussels, but rather from a newly orthodox Russia. After a period of marxism-leninism Russia has returned to its old orthodox mission of being a bulwark against islam in the South and catholicism in the West. It is natural for Russia to consider Tsargrad as a vital interest, but a reconquest does not belong to the solution now. There is, however, an ecclesiastical strategy which would fulfil the old mission of Holy Russia. Orthodox christianity has the same problem with Mary's virginity and the sabbath as Roman-catholicism, but without papal infallibility it may be more open to a revision as outlined above than the decaying culture of the West. And in Russia evolution is as much determined by the Son of Man as in the rest of the world, since it is the same system everywhere. The previous chapters contain enough information for a modest, but persistent Russian proposal of an abrahamic sabbathcouncil in the Hagia Sophia. This would be a worthy continuation of the last tsar's peace-proposals and his generous contributions to the Peace Palace in The Hague. And there is more. The sabbath has also played a role in the year 1054, when papal envoy cardinal Humbert excommunicated the orthodox patriarch of Constantinople. One of the reproaches of the cardinal was, that Byzantium observed the sabbath as a feast-day instead of keeping it as a day of mourning because Jesus was dead on a sabbath. This papalistic nonsense flourished in western Europe and reinforced its special branch of anti-jewish animus which contributed to the background of Hitler's final solution. There would be a better solution if the orthodox world discovers its vocation to bring about a sabbath-synthesis in, of all places, the Hagia Sophia of Tsargrad. The West is intellectually misled as a consequence of papalistic distortions and a systematic neglect of the irony contained in the conclusion of the gospel of John. There is little chance, that truth will ever come forth from a West which is still dominated by that papacy. Its environment has become the craddle of popular atheïsm. God has died in precisely that part of the world where popes and cardinals have ruled for centuries. But not the living God of Israel is dead, only the distorted God of the Roman sacerdotiun died away for the sake of a providential revelation of Holy Wisdom. By taking the proper initiative, an old-new Russia can help to redeem Europe from its one-sided papacy and set the West free for grace from the living God. The good Polish pope stopped short of reaching this goal, because he didn't use the proper key for opening the

- 27 -

Gate, but a verily Holy Russia can guide us towards a real solution.

- 28 -

C H A P T E R I X

C O N J E C T U R E S

With the very first scientific theory of virginity behind us and a sabbathcouncil in the Hagia Sophia ahead of us, we can now start to draw conclusions about human nature and civilisation. It is of great importance to know that the human species is intimately directed towards the best partner, who is God. It is theoretically possible, that this best partner does not exist, but then the human species is doomed to a meaningless existence to which one cannot resign without cynicism. All the same, the search for the best partner is reborn in any generation and cannot be eliminated. Human civilisation is the story of its search for God. Since it is important for human beings and groups to acquire the best partner, this search is also the theater of competition and violence. It is in the nature of things that those civilisations which claim a special relation with God as best partner tend to be expansive. The most expansive civilisation in history has been christendom, at a distance followed by an ambitious islam. In fact scientific and technological secularism is a far greater threat to christendom than any other religion and a pooling of abrahamic days of rest is the only way to bring back a proper hierarchy of values. For historical reasons this pooling should take place in the Hagia Sophia of Istanbul. The building has been a church for almost 900 years and a mosque for nearly half a millennium; it is a museum now since 1934. The addition of a synagogal dimension imposes itself as a logical abrahamic conclusion. Muslims rightly preclude a one-sided christian reconquest, but an equitable abrahamic solution should appeal to their sense of historical justice which is the raison d'être of islam. In the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union and the sudden return of religion as a factor to reckon with, violent islam was revived as well. It must have become clear by now to even the thickest skull that violence brings no solution to any problem. But violence not only aims at success; it also aims at the failure of others whose success is percieved as a threat. By killing the competitors, however, one is not assured of a better future, though it is a basic strategy in nature to eliminate those who are perceived as rivals. It is, however, more human and intelligent to find ways of mutual aid and coexistence. There are certainly lots of intelligent muslims who understand that violence will never bring them closer to their best partner, God, and that compromises are imperative. The same applies to jews and, indeed, to christians. I know of no more suitable historical compromise than the sabbathcouncil which Russia may help to promote if it is sufficiently enlightnened for it. The right building for the operation needs only marginal restoration. It has some ugly big shields with prominent islamic names that have to be removed for architectural reasons, but the koranic text in the dome has to be preserved at all

- 29 -

costs, since it is of universal relevance*. Its proliferation would raise the reputation of the prophet more than any other islamic activity and give him a lot of free publicity in the whole of christendom. In the end good muslims are likely to embrace the sabbath as their day of rest as well, since there is no theological reason whatsoever why they should refuse to participate in the abrahamic ecumene. The jews already have the sabbath and christendom will get it through the Hagia Sophia and , if needed, through Russian help to that effect. But if the Vatican would refuse to cooperate, what then? Is there a plan B? No, there isn't. Rejection by the Vatican of these and other proposals concerning the Hagia Sophia and the sabbath would block any abrahamic ecumene and leave no alternative road towards that goal. It would be a natural reaction of the Vatican to reject a road which leads to its own demise. The possibility that Jesus is in favour of such an outcome isn't likely to convince people whose office is dependent on papalism. Preservation of established functions is a basic instinct of human beings and, a fortiori, of human institutions. In fact this deadlock already exists since 1054, before the break-through of papalism and of its critics, such as the greatest poet of christendom, Dante. No doubt the great Florentine would now be among the advocates of a solution in the converted Hagia Sophia, even though he placed Mohammed deep in the hell of his Comedy. What Dante did not divine in his days is, that islam has the task to preclude an unlimited proliferation of the Roman sunday. As stern defender of the rights of Rome he may have preferred such proliferation, but it is not the will of God as can easily be concluded in our days from the facts of history. A compromise is imperative and a spiritual ascension of the prophet to the dome of the Hagia Sophia for the sake of the sabbath would be a solution that Dante could fully support with all his poetical imagination. An updated Divine Comedy may already be in the making, but obstruction by the Vatican and its more or less myopic supporters is still likely. Setting aside weapons the only reasonable solution is in the force of arguments. The Vatican would invoke its own traditions as decisive, but this amounts to circular reasoning. A doctrine may be as old as Methuselah, but it can be wrong all the same. The preservation of the virginity of Mary as a miracle in her own body is a misrepresentation of the truth, that her virginity was fulfilled and fully preserved in Jesus as best partner from best partner, true God from true God. Even if the fallibility of the pope is only marginal, it is real enough for being corrected in the context of a sabbathcouncil in the Hagia Sophia. God is everywhere and the preservation of Mary's virginity is everywhere as well if it is preserved in the forthcoming universal sabbath. Sticking stubbornly to the tradition of the fathers without using ones own brain can only lead to stagnation and sclerosis. * 'God is the light of the heavens and the earth. His light resembles a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass; the glass is as it were a shinig star, kindled from a blessed tree, an olive, which is neither of the East nor of the West' - Koran, Sura 24, 34-35.

- 30 -

Denying the relevance of the topic would be mere ostrich policy of religious leaders as well as of the proponents of science, since it is clear enough, that a lot of animosity has accumulated precisely about the topic of virginity. If evolutionists are supposed to acknowledge their mistakes, it is only a matter of justice, that their religious opponents confess their sins as well. After all, the venerably old doctrine of the virginitas in partu of Mary will not be dissolved into nothingness, but in the real 'ubiquitas' of Christ the Son of Man and Lord of Hominisation.

- 31 -

C H A P T E R X

O B J E C T I O N S

So far, so good, but the real world is full of profiteering arms manufacturers and weaponmongers, who would do their utmost to disturb serious peace processes at home and abroad. What about them and their vested interests? A collapse of the worldwide armsbusiness would mean a collapse of the worldeconomy, unless the money for swords would henceforth be spent on plowshares and houses of worship. In view of human nature this is not very likely. Men want to be able to kill their sons and do not feel at ease without the ability to silence them. They naturally depend on the presence of overkill and may recognize the existence of God, but are not, therefore, ready to admit that the Son of Man existed before they came into being. They are unable to perceive their own nakedness. Such is the real world which doesn't seem to have been improved substantially by many ages of possibly salutary female choice. Individuals may convert to the belief, that the virginally conceived Son of Man has overcome the wicked world, but the secular state is separated from religious beliefs and has to deal with human nature as it is, not as it should be according to some prophets. Acceptance of the sabbath by modern secular states is constitutionally impossible, since that day belongs to the domain of religion and is, for that matter, incompatible with modern politics. But these very doctrines may be in urgent need of revision now, especially under the challenging threat of islamic fundamentalism. We are forced to make up our minds. The christian sunday cannot be restored and the islamic juma is equally one- sided, but the sabbath offers an exodus, because it is the oldest of the abrahamic days, dating back as far as the emergence of conscious virginity. We only need to agree on accepting its wisdom and grasping its strenght, which surpasses all the weapons of this world. As long as the defenders of religion are divided among themselves, secular states are justified in their principled neutrality if they cannot pacify the dissidents. They have every reason to prevent a return of religious wars. But if a universal sabbath is harmoniously proposed by serious religious leaders, secular authorities are bound to accept the idea and to support its implementation. The logic of the operation can be explained with reference to natural and historical facts and be understood by greater and smaller minds alike. Even arms manufacturers and weaponmongers may be able to see, that they have to adapt to new developments when the market for their obsolete arms is shrinking rapidly under the new dispensation. And for selected war-profiteers it will be better to enter a strict monastery and sing religious songs for the rest of their lives. Another objection may come from mathematicians who hold that without

- 32 -

quantification there can be no science at all, let alone a science of virginity. It wouldn't really be difficult to mathematise hymenology by guessing the probable number of virgins in a population, by estimating their total weight as well as their overall height when piled one upon another. But let's be more serious about science. There can be no mathematics without geometry and geometry is a rather practical craft. Human territory is the female of the species in the first place and the earth only in the second place. In geometry the female body including the hymen is already processed and there cannot be any mathematics at all without a previous confrontation with virginity. There can be no mathematics as long as there is nothing at all, which is why Parmenides had to be introduced to the realm of being by a goddess and why Socrates had his Diotima. That was European history in ascent. The pre-mathematical digestion of virginity gives substance to the whole edifice of science and all mathematicians partake of it when they develop their equations and their conjectures. That is why hymenology doesn't figure within science, but supports it from without, like Athena/Minerva. And Hypatia of Alexandria was a virgin in the first place and a gifted mathematician only in the second place. The emergence of order in chaos presupposes the decision of a strongman to preserve virgins for their best partner. This will to protect them precedes the rise of social order as prerequisite for any perception of order in chaos and hence of a mathematical cosmos in the universe. What Isidor of Sevilla said about music applies to hymen and virginity as well: sine musica nulla disciplina potest esse perfecta, nihil enim sine illa. No modern or post-modern philosophy can do without the hymen, nor for that matter without its truth, which is God as best partner. Atheism results from oblivion in sexual matters, which is wide- spread among people who drank a bit too much and intend to drink more. But atheism is also the result of an intellectually closed world, created by a fallible papacy that came to believe in its own infallibility. Intellectually the modern world is an hermetic circle ever since 1054 and the schism between Constantonople and Rome. The theological deficiency of the West could not be healed by islam nor by the reformation. Only the Shoa could bring change to the minds of catholic leaders and guide the Roman-catholic church to the relative openness of the Second Vatican Council. Yet, no grand new theology emerged from its implementation and now it seems that the mood is rather one of closing windows than of drawing consequences. The sad spectacle of Abraham's seed can easily be changed into a show-down of God's wisdom, but the latter supposes an abdication of Peter as prince of the apostles, which is against the established doctrine of a bureaucracy that doesn't want to be fallible and would rather extend the cardinalate to the ends of the earth and even far beyond. Who will be cardinal-archbishop of the moon or, for that matter, of Mars of Venus? Recently it was suggested by a Roman-catholic official, that on other planets there may be populations, that did not succumb to the original sin of our species and still live in a paradise. It is interesting to note that they would not need redemption either and could do well without

- 33 -

Mary and Jesus. Yet, it would be made clear to them why they nevertheless need to be guided by the pope, his cardinals and his nuntii, such is the nature of the perpetuum mobile ... Objections are coming from two sides. Libertines fear, that the sphere of the hymen is a snare which could draw them too close to the realm of belief, whereas believers, especially the Roman-catholics, cannot conceive of a scenario in which Peter dies for the glorification of God. Actually there would be no human remedy against a headstrong refusal of Roman-catholic officials to admit doctrinal fallibility and even the one who is destined to carry Peter to where he doesn't want to go, may fail to achieve his goal. The devil is a clever fellow who doesn't give up as long as he sees ways to escape arrest. The papacy has entire armies of intellectual defenders of its faith, like the jesuits who used to fight under a banner that said, that if the pope calls a black thing white, they will call it white as well. This perversion must be brought to a reasonble end.

- 34 -

C H A P T E R X I

W H Y ?

Why things are what they are cannot be determined by man, but that is no reason to distort the facts. It is natural for females of the human species to be virginal in the beginning and only barbarians can consider this to be void of meaning. Salvation is said to depend on a silk thread. An entire world suspended from a heavenly conceived hymen is as strange as the God-particle of modern physics, yet its possible existence has to be recognised by all sober intellectuals, whether they like it or not. Why this is so, is humanly unknowable, but some conjectures can be proposed. It may be a comedy that things are what they are. If a problem has no serious solution, one should think of a comic one. The mere idea that the whole modern world stumbles over the hymen is not serious, but very comic indeed. A sense of humor may be the best passport to the higher spheres of truth. 'Why did God become human?' - 'Cur Deus homo?' - was the question of Saint Anselm, which he answered in a serious and feudal way. God was so deeply offended by the disobedience of Adam and Eve, that only the death of his own son could appease his anger. Christians were very grateful, that, things being so, Jesus was submissive enough to accept death and thus appease the anger of his father. But who is the father who is appeased by that death? Who is so pleased by the spectacle of a son dying on a cross? Isn't it the human father who cannot endure a growing son who is going to surpass him in strenght and power? The normative death of a divine son stills his fear. Why this is so, is another mystery, but here again we can try to propose an answer. In evolution the sons of man have always been obstacles for reproducing fathers, hence Jesus dying in obedience to his divine father comforts the human fathers of sons by whom they feel threatened. Duns Scotus, however, did not consider some sin of man to be the real cause of hominisation in the soteriological sense. 'Incarnatio per se intenta' means, that God had intended to become human, no matter what the outcome of the paradisial scene would be. In other words, God wanted to show his partnership anyway, which is indeed in the nature of things. Saint Anselm thought to be able to demonstrate the existence of God by stating that the greatest thing one can imagine necessarily exists, since otherwise it wouldn't be the greatest thing one can imagine. But what is the benefit of the greatest thing to mortal man? Humans need the best partner, who can redeem them from death. The logic of Saint Anselm equally applies to the best partner, but it would be immoral to accept that the latter doesn't exist. That is why Kant restored God in morality, since it is not primarily a logical, but a moral truth that God exists. God ought to exist! It is in the nature of the best partner to show his partnership to those who are

- 35 -

worthy of it. The first test is whether a person tries to be a good partner him- or herself, since there should be an 'analogia entis' between God and man. It is in the nature of God to become human and to meet the human need for partnership, but evidently under strict conditions. It is necessarily true, that the intention to become human was already present in God when the world was about to be created. But original sin was equally foreseen, since the sexual reproduction of mortal human life is always accompanied with guilt through the shortcomings of human partnership. There is a natural openness of human social life towards the revelation of sublime, divine partnership. In christian anthropology it is said that man is 'capax Dei'. Again, why this is so cannot be determined by human beings, but it can be understood and loved. Cur? Why was the world, including man, created? Because God wanted to show his partnership to mortals who are in need of it. The devil is the one who tries to be the best partner himself without paying due respect to God. Hence he is the deceiver and the murderer from the beginning, whose strategy consists in the denial of a better partner. He has already been defeated, but still a limited freedom of movement is granted to him in the world of darkness. He is trying to escape his fate by seducing mortals to ever new perspectives of good life on this earth. He may be natural rather than supernatural, since it is in the nature of man to pose as a good partner rather than as an insufficient one. And if the devil is natural, God could be natural as well, namely the Son of Man who existed before the world came into being. Why? Because God already knew how evolution really works before life on earth emerged, to wit by mutations added from the future and tested in confrontations of struggling organisms with their natural, including human environments. We are human through ages of gradual adaptation to sons of man who were born through virgins. There is no science which offers an escape from the Son of Man and would allow for a purely secular explanation of the genesis of human life. Homo sapiens may want to overcome his own sacred origins, but all his efforts are doomed to failure after failure, no matter how much money is invested in research and propaganda. Regarding the human situation the biblical creation-story is pretty adequate, certainly if it is enlightened by revelations of the Son of Man. It needs explanation and interpretation, but it has not been surpassed by any other story so far. This is undoubtedly also due to the fact that it gives an exclusive account of the origin of the sabbath, that is of virginity, while evolutionists tend to ignore it. The first virgin lost her virginity to some man who was not her best partner, God. But he was the only one who was available in her circumstances, which is why she was called Eve 'the mother of life'. She did not yet give birth to the fulfilment of life, since that was Jesus in conjunction with his mother Mary. Mary lost her virginity to Jesus, who was her best partner, so that, in fact, she didn't loose it at all, but preserved it in him. It seems to be necessary to believe this, but it would be wrong to add for whatever reason that Mary physically remained a virgin apart from Jesus. The importance of this point, which may seem to have been somewhat overemphasized in the course of this booklet, lies

- 36 -

entirely in the urgent need to mobilise the sabbath for a reorganisation of the seed of Abraham. There should be a theological fundament for reinterpretation of ecclesiastical traditions concerning Mary. It is not a maladaptation to modern neglect of virginity, but a necessary 'aggiornamento' of mistaken Greco-Roman theologians who couldn't yet appreciate the link between virginity and the sabbath. If even many jews do not see that link either, it can be shown to them through the Hagia Sophia as axis of a universal sabbath and as temple of JHWH's wisdom, Chokma. Why? Because God wants us to do so.

- 37 -

C H A P T E R X I I

E N V I R O N M E N T S

The Talmud was completed around the year 500 CE, the Palestinian Talmud somewhat earlier than the Babylonian one. Both compilations are negative about Mary and Jesus, the former being called a whore and a hairdresser, the latter the son of a Roman soldier. The Talmud has great authority in orthodox judaism, so mutual respect between orthodox jews and orthodox christains seems to be excluded. But such respect is not absolutely necessary. Christians and muslims are free to defend the sabbath and to promote its implementation. They have a real sabbaththeology and they are not in need of jewish scholars. Jews do not need to participate in a sabbathcouncil if they prefer to stick to their Talmud. Christians and muslims who don't want to, needn't participate either. The sixth century CE was a highly remarkable one. The jews badly needed an ideology for survival in a hostile world and the Talmud has helped them to survive over the centuries. The same age saw the codification of Roman law 'in Nomine Domini Nostri Iesu Christi'. It also saw the erection of the Hagia Sophia and a designation of Mary as 'ever virgin', even in the birth of Jesus. Furthermore it saw the birth of Mohammed. These important events have to be put into perspective with the help of an enlightening evolutionary theory of hymen and virginity. The natural concern of homo sapiens with the best partner is the fundament of ideas about God. A real God must be able to do justice to the hymen, which includes a virginal conception and it could also include the feat of being born through a virgin without violating her. However, a fuller understanding of the values involved leads to the conclusion that a natural birth of the saviour wouldn't diminish the virginity of the blessed virgin, but rather sanctify it, as already suggested by Lumen Gentium of Vatican II. If the sabbath is added to it as a correction of doctrinal developments, this view would make a real difference for our appreciation of that remarkable sixth century CE. Orthodox christians are proud of the sanctity of their first seven ecumenical councils whereas Roman catholics have their infallible pope. The twain shall never meet as long as they refuse to admit the fallibility of both pope and council concerning the importance of the sabbath in relation to virginity. Muslims may learn much from it about the historical function of islam as protector of the sabbath against a final globalisation of the Roman sunday. And jews may appreciate the way in which Jesus managed to proliferate their holy sabbath quasi-incognito with the help of the two most expansive worldreligions. The ensuing abrahamic harmony will be benign and only suppose a serious observance of the sabbath, but those who see that day of rest as a device for protection of the environment are welcome to do so. Environmentalism is usually misguided concerning its priorities. Care of the

- 38 -

human environment is beginning with the care of virginity. Homo sapiens is living in a dialectical relation with his future offspring. Human consciousness is essentially anticipation of an indeterminable future of which virginity presumably will still be part, because it has been designed to do so by an intelligent Lord of History. Hence it is a safe bet to observe the sabbath and to expect its fulfilment. But in another sense the observance of virginity is as unnatural as observance of the sabbath or the prohibition of abortion. Spontaneous sexual urges point in a different direction and the many recent liberalisations of moral laws, especially in Europe, amount to a modern regression to more primitive stages of human development. These symptoms have to be taken into account when a remedy for our decaying civilisation has to be designed. Humans can be selfish and destructive; they tend to destroy what doesn't seem to serve their interests. It will not really be possible to save the human environment democratically without dictatorial enclaves. The many-sided spirit of virginity has to be imposed upon the world against its will and against current prejudices. Inevitable measures will be detrimental to the economy, at least to the gain of profiteers. What could be the merit of sabbath-observance? Business is interrupted at the expense of possible profit. Growth is impeded by antiquated principles. This reminds liberals of a virgin who doesn't want to give in to rape and they are likely to invoke human rights against any reduction of their liberty. Hence: crucify the sabbath! But the search for the best partner will automatically connect selfish human beings with the sphere of virginity. Lower natures may react with resentment to this reference to higher circles. In spite of the beneficial and wholesome nature of those circles, those who come from below will hate them till their hearts surrender to what is transcending their imagination. Sinners always hate shimmers of virtue. The previous chapters describe a journey through the contradictory world of virginity. The level of abstraction may have been too high for many readers and probably not more than a few of them have been convinced of what the author wanted to convey. A highly rational treatise cannot convert the loving heart without which virginity wouldn't have been discovered as a value in the first place. Pistis precedes Sophia. Yet, a reference to the famous saying of Pascal, that the heart has its reasons that reason doesn't know, has its shortcomings. The same words could be uttered by a madman who is eating his own excrements in a mental asylum. What the heart holds dear has to be checked by reason and this applies to the veneration of Mary as well. Virginity is not a sphere where reason cannot enter and where religious emotion rules supreme. It has evolved in nature and its evolution tells a lot about the nature of things in general. All of us are most intimately connected with a sublime, optimum partnership that the eye cannot see, but the heart and mind know very well. It has been argued in the preceding chapters that it is unreasonable and immoral not to believe in God or not to seek him by whom and for whom exists what exists. Stanley Jaki called Christ the saviour of science. As far as the theory of evolution is concerned it would be more adequate to say that Mary is its saviour

- 39 -

or salvatrix. Reason the more to grant her the title of co-redemptrix, but that was not the subject of this booklet. Its main topic was the curious role of hymen and virginity in the human intellect as well as the need to organise a real council in the Hagia Sophia for a solemn rehabilitation of the venerable sabbath. If this message has arrived in other minds and bears good fruit in them, the author has reached his goal as stated in the prologue.

- 40 -

P O S T S C R I P T

The evolution of Roman law from the Lex duodecim tabularum via the codifications of emperor Justinian through the Middle Ages to a modern Pontifex Maximus who adopts the sabbath for Abraham's seed would constitute an important development in legal history. In ancient Rome the Pontifex Maximus was the ultimate authority for interpretation of the law and the emperors were eager to seize this authority as a reinforcement of their power. After Constantine the title and the authority went to the bishops of Rome who are still using it in official documents. Moreover, as everybody knows, those bishops are widely considered to be successors to the key-bearing apostle Peter, having the authority to open the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whether the time for this operation has arrived must be decided by God in heaven. In any case it is true, that if the sabbath didn't already exist it would have to be invented, like virginity. In view of its importance in this booklet the title could also have been: 'The evolution of the sabbath'. On both subjects many books can be written by people more qualified for it than the author of these lines. The same applies to a new interpretation of evolutionary thought after a full digestion of virginity. Darwin got the idea of a struggle for life from Malthus, who suggested that dwindling resources would allow only the strongest to survive. But in this process the more sensitive individuals of a species are more open to change than the strongest, so that those who survive in the end are not necessarily those who managed to elbow out their competitors. False conclusions have been drawn from vulgar-darwinism. Likewise, not those fathers survived who managed to kill their sons, but precisely those who managed to adapt to the nature of their offspring and served it best. This could be called: 'survival of the better servants' and this principle is crucial in evolutionary hominisation. Also, the original variability of life-forms is a precondition for evolution, but it would be circular reasoning to state that the emergence of variability is explained by the fact of evolution. Theories of evolution are full of conjectures which should be refuted from a philosophical point of view. Many good books are likely to be written on the reversed causality, sketched between the lines of the preceding chapters. Since Evo-Devo is a serious development in its own right those books are not in need of encouragement by this author. Critics of this booklet may argue, that the basic message of its contents is regressive in the sense that it advocates things of the past, like the sabbath and the Hagia Sophia, whereas the world is progressing all the time in a quite different direction. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. The present world is in urgent need of a substantial day of rest as centre of meaning in human civilisation. A synthetical sabbath is no regression to an obsolete day of yore, but rather progress towards a new one. Likewise, the Hagia Sophia will not be restored unaltered to an old use as either church or mosque, but adapted

- 41 -

to the present situation of Abraham's seed for a timely sabbathsynthesis. But it is perfectly true that the message is conservative inasmuch as it advocates the presence of the past in new developments in order to avoid the progess run amok which is so characteristic of our modern world. Evolution itself is conservative and preserves old information in new adapations. The progress of the West is essentially schismatic since 1054 and can only be healed by some restoration which includes the sabbath. There are good dogmatic reasons for the reinterpretation of things as outlined in this booklet and a choice of the Hagia Sophia as catalyst for the operation is historically fully justified. Yet, there may be good alternatives as well and if the magisterium of the Roman-catholic church has better arguments in favour of preservation of papal infallibility, I may still be ready to accept them.