society of the thought crime of unauthorized love (adultery)
didn't answer me. He waved me off. "Hush," he said, "I want you
to read another story." He went back to the bookshelf and brought another
Bible to the table, a modern paperback version. He handed it to me. "Read
from the Book of St. John, Chapter Eight, Verse One to Eleven."
the Book of John, the chapter, but I couldn't read the requested text. It
wasn't there. The chapter in the book started with Verse Twelve. I told him
and then asked me to read the title page of the book that he had handed to me.
The title page indicated that this was the Study Edition of the New English
Bible published in 1976 by the Oxford University Press. I closed the book, and
without a comment I gave it back to him.
approvingly, and without the lightest change in his expression he handed me
the old leather bound volume once more. It contained the complete text of the
chapter that I had been requested to read. I read the text. It tells the story
of a woman who had committed adultery. She had been taken in the very act. The
scribes and the Pharisees had brought her to Jesus for judgment in the hope
that they might entrap him. The entrapment appeared to be a sure thing. The
law of the land, according to Moses, required the death penalty by stoning a
person to death, for the offense that she had committed by having had
unauthorized sex. 'But what sayest thou?' the accusers demanded. They demanded
that he judge the woman, knowing full well that he, the renowned healer of the
people, would never agree to the death penalty. But if he didn't agree, he
would speak against the law of the land, and that was treason. It was a
perfectly contrived frame-up that they had developed, designed to destroy him
one way or another.
to the story, Jesus acted at first as though he hadn't heard them. Still,
since they pressed the issue, he had to react. He looked up at them and
suggested to those assembled that whoever of them was without sin should cast
the first stone. At this point the story revealed that they were all convicted
by their own conscience and left the scene, one by one. Neither did Jesus
condemn the woman.
I put the
did they impose the death penalty for such a human act?" Steve asked.
"Who or what did they protect with this cruel law?"
they didn't aim to protect the woman," I replied. "They wanted to
kill her. Nor would her husband and family have benefited by her death, as
they would have suffered a great loss. Nor would society have benefited from
it," I said to Steve. "Society doesn't benefit from murdering
one-another. I suppose, only the scribes and the Pharisees stood to benefit by
this cruelty increased their power."
so?" Steve demanded to know.
like being interrogated to the deepest level of my being.
your time," Steve counseled, "this is important. This goes very
suppose they had to protect the grassroots platform of their own power,"
I said to Steve.
reached across the table and congratulated me with a great big smile.
"You are almost correct," he said. "The death penalty wasn't
imposed to protect anything. It was imposed, and if need be enforced, to block
the development of the Principle of the General Welfare in society. That's the
same effect the Pharaohs had as their goal by mutilating the slaves. Except
the Pharaohs did it more gently. Under the cruel Hebrew law applicable to
adultery, fear and the
death penalty imposed the blocking effect. Here the entire community was
demanded to do the execution, lifting up stones and causing injuries to the
victim till the victim would be dead. I can't think of a more effective method
for preventing the natural intimacy in society. Every empire aims to prevent
the unfolding of the Principle of the General Welfare in society. It is the
same here. Towards this end, their interpretation of the marriage bond was
largely centered on property rights."
explained that under this law a husband owned his wife as property. "She
was deemed to be his property in as much as the rulers of that society owned
the people who were deemed the property of the church, so to speak. The rulers
realized that the idea of people being hierarchically owned had to be
established at the very grassroots level of society, for the notion to be
effective as an instrument for maintaining power over society on a feudal
basis. It had to be rooted in the ground, so to speak. This was required in
order that it could serve as a foundation for the entire hierarchical power
structure that the priesthood was a part of, or the ruler. How else could
an oligarchy create and maintain its private zoo? This structure of the
ownership of people as property supported the status of all feudal rulers.
Everything rested on this foundation. It legitimized the power that the church
had assumed over the people, which literally owned the life of its subjects as
the cruel law amply illustrates. It also legitimized the self-assumed rights
of kings and emperors, who claimed to own the whole society, to do with as
they pleased. And this worked. The people complied willingly under the rule of
said, "The rulers of the empires couldn't possibly allow the foundation
of their power to become eroded, certainly not at the grassroots level. The
slightest challenging of the notion of people being owned as property,
especially at the grassroots level, had to be regarded by the rulers as an act
of the highest form of treason that they were obliged to meet with the death
penalty. This harsh penalty reflected the severity of the danger that an
expanding sense of unity represents to the feudal system. They imposed the
death sentence to protect their own illegitimate status, even while they were
spouting out Moses' law, 'thou shalt not kill.' That duplicity is still going
on as you may have realized. They even found it necessary to put the blame on
Moses, for dishing out this cruelty. Evidently, their blaming Moses for it
served to obscure the real issue, as nobody would question Moses. This gave
their political cruelty the desired legitimacy."
story of the adulterous woman follows the imperial vertical model, the
black-cross model of fantasies of insanity," I said to Steve. "All
the elements are there. The story defines a process that is clearly imperial
and fascist in nature, as one would expect it to be. Still, the Decalogue
forbids adultery, doesn't it?" I replied to Steve.
shook his head. "Axioms, axioms, axioms!" said Steve. "People
blabber out slogans without being aware of what they mean. Adultery,
democracy, these words are used so loosely. They have become twisted into
stereotyped images. In the West, democracy has become the rule of the rich who
are able to finance their own servants into positions of power in order to
protect their looting enterprises. The concept of democracy has been
adulterated. It has become corrupted. It no longer signifies the rule of the
people by the people for the people, that the original idea stands for."
laughed. "Just try to stand for election for President in our home
country on a platform that is not approved by the establishment. Just try it,
and you'll get shot down. You will most likely be killed before your name even
gets onto the ballot. That's what it means to adulterate the idea of
democracy. You introduce elements that have nothing to do with the original
idea. It's like a gas station that mixes diesel oil with gasoline and sells
that adulterated stuff as high grate fuel. It means that you take an idea and
twist it and distort it, to make it suitable for your agenda. Often the
outcome is such a gross perversion of the original concept that its underlying
idea becomes totally lost. That's what it means to adulterate. The very
concept of marriage has become adulterated, Peter. It has been grossly
adulterated by the priests, and not by the people. The concept has been turned
paused and sighed. "I wish you could read German," he said and
brought another Bible from the bookshelf, an old German version.
specialty is Russian," I replied. "I know some German, some Spanish
that I learned recently. I must admit, my German isn't great. It's adequate
for most occasions, but not for interpreting ancient Biblical texts."
are very old texts," Steve said as he found the Decalogue. He said that
the Decalogue is first introduced in the Second Book of Moses. It's called
Exodus in the English Bible. "Here it is, Chapter Twenty." He said
that there are four fundamental principles presented among the Ten
Commandments of the Decalogue. These are in essence simple statements of the
principles without which the human society cannot function. He said he would
like to read them to me, translated from the German, with a slight change in
the sequencing to illustrate the nature of the commandments. He read the last
four commands: "Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not
lye against thy neighbor; and thou shalt not 'ehebrechen.'" He explained
that the term "ehebrechen" literally means that one mustn't break
what is honorable. It means that one mustn't negate and interfere with the
bond that Love has forged, or is forging. One mustn't adulterate that bond.
"And that is all that the Decalogue says," said Steve.
then doesn't say a word about married loving, or unmarried loving, or
homosexual loving, or lesbian loving," I said.
merely says that one must never break the bonds that Love has forged, or
dishonor those bonds," said Steve. "This includes all possible bonds
that we find reflected in the wide model for Universal bonds that the
Intelligence of the Universe has established, such as the molecular bonds that
are as numerous in their diversity than the grains of sand on the seashores of
the world. Every type of bond that we can imagine exists fully established in
the Universal model, as manifest in the molecular bonds. Even the homosexual
bond that society cries about with indignation, is a natural bond under the
molecular model. Most gaseous hydrogen, for example, exists in molecular form
as H2, rather than in pure atomic form. As I said earlier, the hydrogen atom
has one electron and room for two. This means that two hydrogen atoms tend to
join naturally and share each other's electrons in order to fill the empty
room that each one has, whereby each one has its electron shell completed.
This 'homo'-molecular union is not uncommon. In a similar manner two oxygen
atoms join in a, O2 molecular bond, by sharing the four electrons each one has
in order to fill each other's four empty rooms. The oxygen's 'homo' union is
also quite natural in the triple-bond form as O3, the famous ozone molecule,
in which each of the oxygen atoms shares two electrons with two different
atoms, filling all the empty rooms by which each one's outer shall is filled.
The various forms, of course, have a purpose. The O3 molecule, for example, is
needed to protect life on earth against the intense ultraviolet radiation
coming from the sun."
paused. "The 'mixed' bonds of course are far more common than the 'homo'
bonds," he said moments later. "Also the mixed bonds come in a
vastly wider array of different shapes and sizes, from triple bonds to bonds
that unite hundreds of atoms, as in the long carbon-polymer chains."
you saying that all bonds are of equal value?" I interjected.
isn't the right term to use here," said Steve. "Value isn't an
absolute concept, but validity is. I would say that all molecular bonds are
equally valid, even while they fulfill different needs and different purposes,
as the harmonizing Intention of the Universe requires. And this applies also
to our human bonds. I would say that we have a wide range of bonds before us
to choose from, according to our specific needs for creating an efficient
civilization. We might choose several types in sequence or in parallel, in
order to create the most efficient platform for our individual involvement in
enriching civilization. For example, we now have a bond of three established
between us here in this house. That's a valid bond. We also have individually
several bonds of two established. These are also valid. Some day in the future
you may establish a bond of seven, and another if five and another of four,
and so on. And they will all be valid, Peter. Whatever Love draws together
into a more efficient union for its intention, is valid and needs to be
honored, or else we would dishonor the Universe that has created the model for
it all. In honoring these bonds we fulfill the Decalogue."
the Decalogue, concerning marriage, implies a single bond of only two people,
exclusively," I interjected.
think that whoever wrote the Decalogue had a much wider sense than that,"
said Steve. "Historians suggest that the Decalogue came from Egypt,
probably from the Hermetic background, where it was deemed that God can have
no name, or else all names must apply. I can't see how the small and exclusive
marriage model came from this background. It was likely added later by
interpretation to serve some rulers' objectives. However, this results into a
poverty dominated world. Can you imagine the poverty that would rule if the
artists of the world were restricted by law to 'paint' only with a single
shade of a single color, with a single geometric form of expression?"
slightly. "An artist can't produce anything useful with that," I
said. "Even the black and white world of early photography was more
expressive than that as it used an infinite range of shades. Most artists
would likely get by with six or seven different colors creating other colors
and shades of colors applying a large range of combinations that bring a
boundless pallet to their expression of ideas."
you say?" said Steve. "Some do wonders with less. Now compare this
with the Universe. The Universe paints with 120 different types of atoms in
combinations of usefulness that are so rich in expression that it makes
'infinity' appear small. And every one of these combinations appears to be
valid by its usefulness, if not vital, or even essential. It is hard to image
how much of the universe would disappear if some of those vital 'bonds' would
suddenly be blocked. All life might vanish."
that what you said earlier, is being done with the circumcision," I
interjected. "Didn't you say that some people who had the circumcision
done to them in later years, described the change as suddenly having to live
in a world without color? Wouldn't that change a person's outlook on life, his
aspirations, his reactions, his relationship with other people, even his
functioning in society, and all that even without the psychological stress
the trap that over three-quarters of a billion people are living in,"
said Steve. "That's an invalid way of living. No model for it exists in
is hard to imagine how frustrated the artists of the world would become if
they lost all sense of color," I interjected.
most people were circumcised at birth, so that they will never know what they
lost, or what human living is really like," said Steve. "However, as
tragic as the result may be, mankind has subjected itself to another type of
'circumcision' that is more universally practiced, and is more deep-reaching,
and more limiting. Our social platform of the small and tightly confined
marriage bond has created a similarly 'circumcised' society. Do we have any
appreciation of the wide world of potential 'color' in human living that
ancient doctrines still deprive us of? We simply don't know, do we? Mankind
has never given itself the chance to know the difference between the color
that it has the potential to experience, and what it allows itself to
experience of it. Nor do we have a yardstick available to us to measure the
cultural and economic losses that we thereby suffer and accept. We only know
that the world is a mess, laced with wars, divisions, isolation, domination,
starvation, ruled by forces of empire, filled to the brim with nuclear bombs,
and its empty forests echoing with the 'song' of crows that demand
depopulation. We simply haven't got a clue what the dimension of Universal
Love really is, and what its color is in human terms, and what its freedom can
accomplish. We live contend in our circumcised landscape, as if this all their
is, and complain about the darkness that is covering the land. The sexual
circumcision isn't nearly as tight as this accepted landscape has become. A
few people have experienced the difference, and with a few of them now
speaking out, the dreadful artificial landscape of the sexual circumcision is
changing. It is getting lighter. But socially, society remains committed to
its 'circumcision' that blocks the brighter, Universal colors of Love, and woe
be to whoever challenges the legitimacy of the 'circumcision' even if there
exists no model for it in the natural world."
you saying that the small marriage bond of two mixed 'colors' is
invalid?" I interjected.
shook his head vigorously. "I am not saying this at all, Peter. In the
Universal sense the small mixed bond is totally valid too, but not
exclusively. It's not all there is. There exists a wide world of possible
bonds that are all valid. Every bond of Love that we can imagine already
exists and is totally valid within the model of the bonds that the Universe
has established, by which it exists with near boundless dimensions. Everything
is valid there, from the smallest bond to the largest imaginable. Except in
the molecular world, the linking of only two atoms, like in the case of a
single man and single women, is actually rather rare in the vast sea of
possible bonds. Also, the resulting bond that we see happening in this
particular case isn't as deep-reaching as many others. As I mentioned earlier,
the bond that forms common table salt in the form of a molecule of sodium and
chlorine is not as tightly locked. Sodium has 1 atom and chlorine 7. As the
two join, the sodium gives up its atom to the chlorine, that thereby gets a
full house of 8 in its other shell, which is called its valence, while the
sodium thereby has its next inner shell exposed that thereby becomes its
valence, which of course contains a full house. Thus, both are happy. However,
the transfer of the one electron in the process of forming the bond creates an
electric imbalance. In this case, the electric imbalance becomes the
attracting force. The result is called an ionic bond. This bond isn't as
deeply linked as the covalent bonds are that are most common in the universe,
but it is just as valid. Everyone of the countless types of bonds that exist
is valid and enables the fulfillment of certain types of purposes. The
Universe becomes exceedingly rich thereby. Shouldn't this vast range of rich
'colors' be reflected in our human bonds of love and in our social structures
built on these bonds? The ionic bond appears to represent the bond of
attracting passion that draws the Principle of the General Welfare to the
foreground, on which civilization depends. I would say that it has a vital
role to play, even though it is one of the smallest forms of the possible
what about the national bond?" I interjected. "Isn't the cultural
bond that binds a group of people into a nation, just as valid and vital as
the smallest bond? This means that we are not as completely 'circumcised' as
it appears we are."
national bond reflects the nature of the 'metallic' bond," said Steve.
"Metals form infinitely extended 'homo'-type bonds. Metals form endless
networks of covalent bonds between identical atoms. The entire network shares
each ones valence electrons, right across the entire lump of metal. Take the
case of sodium, which is a metal by nature. It has a single valence electron.
When brought together with another sodium atom, the two atoms share their
valence electrons, but they are too 'small' to complete each other's valence.
The shared electrons thus move around across the entire resulting molecule.
They become delocalized in the process. With their electrons delocalized, the
atoms become electrically charged. In other words they now become held
together by the electric nuclear force, one of the strong forces of the
Universe. In the case of metals, the atoms become tightly packed by this
force. This means that in their tight configuration each sodium atom is
touched by eight other sodium atoms, whose electrons become likewise
delocalized. There exist many types of metals. Some of the metal atoms have
more than one electron in their valence to contribute to the common 'sea' of
electrons that envelops them all. Magnesium, for example, contributes two
electrons, which results in greater strength of the metal. Also magnesium
becomes more tightly packed thereby, so that each atom stands in direct
contact with twelve others, increasing the strength of the resulting bonds
still further. There exists no inherent limit as to how far these networks of
covalent bonds can be extended. The inner core of the earth, for example, is a
single cohesive 'molecule,' so to speak, that is 1200-km in diameter."
you suggesting that this aspect of the Universal model corresponds to the
larger bond of a nation?" I interjected.
of the hundred-plus elements that exist, are metals," said Steve.
"Each metal is special. Each has special qualities and characteristics.
Of course you have to respect and honor these special bonds that create the
special qualities. You likewise have to honor the unique national bonds. If
you scrap the national bonds on the road to establish a world-empire, you
violate the model the Universe is built on, and the result becomes a mess. So
you see, Peter, each bond that Love has forged is valid, and those are as many
as the sea is wide. Unfortunately society, in its small-minded ways, scraps
almost all aspects of the Universal model. It says that only a single bond
between a single man and a single woman is valid. Even the national bonds are
now being deemed invalid, and are now on the road to being scrapped
altogether, by the masters of empire."
I would say, in doing so, society commits adultery on a vast scale," I
interjected. "It then mutilates its perception of the natural model and
applies the screwed-up version to itself. Why are we surprised that this
creates a mess everywhere it is done, so much so that nothing much works
anymore? In this sense the terms 'adultery' applies to the physical mutilation
of people as well, such as by the sexual circumcision. The sexual circumcision
then is a form of 'adultery' just the same. It mutilates the divine design; it
adulterates it; and the result is in this case too, that nothing much works
anymore in society."