Martinus: Livets Bog, vol. 5, sect. 1727

1727. One was thus created by Nature to be able to love only one's spouse. This form of arousal of sympathy was the only comprehensible one for the still very one-poled beings. And here one had unshakable thousands-of-years-old traditions and laws, the infringement of which sentenced their transgressors to the death penalty. How could a real sympathy or love outside purely male and female sympathy or love, a love between beings that were not one-poled, a love outside the purely animal principle of pairing, exist as something produced organically and be understood by people in whom the desire to own beings of the opposite sex and the right to possess them exist as their drive for self-preservation and as a vital necessity that is protected by the control that envy and jealousy have over their exercise of will? Did not Christ – with his free attitude of universal love, which was beyond the one-poled state, his heartfelt sympathy for all beings, men as well as women – have to be a being from another world and a representative of a kingdom that was not of this world? Indeed, is it not so even today that if a terrestrial human being shows intimate love for its neighbour and thereby love for beings of its own sex, it will be more or less the victim of mud-slinging of the most poisonous kind? Is there anything that the representatives of profanity and stupidity find more sensational or more welcome than the unbounded broadcasting of one's neighbour's most intimate and most sacred sympathies and love affairs or matters pertaining to his (her) sexuality? Does not the first section of the road of more elevated love go through impure people's excretions of poisonous pools of slander and stinking masses of mental fog? They have not yet realised that the mouth should not be a "rectum", a canal for the discharge of mental excrement and stinking fumes. They still do not have the ability of the advanced human being to eliminate, with the aid of cosmic chemistry, these mentally putrefying substances and poisonous particles in an odourless, imperceptible way. Is it not this stinking mental excrement, arising as it does from human stupidity, naivety, superstition, envy and jealousy, that has turned the organic evolution of life's principal characteristic, neighbourly love – and thereby love for one's own sex – into a mystery, into something "devilish", into something "animal", into something that in the worst case ought to be punished with nothing less than death? And is it not this black mental fog of superstition and ignorance that even today envelops in its clammy and asphyxiating atmosphere the beings that deviate from the flock's recognised traditions and ideas regarding whom one may love, and turns them into the most welcome objects for slander and evil? Was it not the same love and sympathy for one's neighbour, whether male or female, that deviated from the traditions of the flock, and that put Jesus on the cross and led others to the stake, the guillotine and the gallows? Indeed, the road forwards in Jesus' footsteps and having him as a model was certainly no bed of roses. The symptoms of this road are still, almost two thousand years later, perceived only as "abnormality", "morbid tendencies", "crime" and so on. And this view of the mystery of love in the terrestrial human being holds true not least among the most orthodox leaders, authorities and laymen of Christianity itself, and has thereby to a corresponding degree turned these beings into persecutors of the beginnings of the birth of neighbourly love, the promotion of which is actually their mission.