836. So what then is the real difference between the zealous "believer" and the noble "non-believer"? Is it not the case that the zealous "believer" is in close contact with the rights decreed by the dogmas, for example, the right to possess one's marriage partner, the right to display "righteous indignation" or "holy wrath" towards the "ungodly" or those who think differently, the right to brand as "adultery", "sin" or "vice" every sexual thought or feeling that is not precisely a certain number of metres within the boundary set up as "normal" by the dogmas and traditions? If this is not the case, then he or she is certainly not a zealous believer. And is it not the case that the completely noble "non-believer" is unable to feel ill-will towards anything or anybody? He cannot even make use of the right accorded him by the dogmas to feel "holy wrath" or "righteous indignation". He stones no one by branding them as "sinful" nor can he wish the "punishment of hell" or "eternal damnation" on anyone. He does not even stone an unfaithful spouse or anyone else who has been "taken in adultery" or who has gone beyond the sexual boundaries set up by the dogmas. Indeed, is it not the case that the branded "non-believer" is sometimes a being that in no way whatsoever bears any special disposition towards marriage in its consciousness, and whose highest fundamental mental demands therefore in no way constitute the wish to possess or own a being for itself alone, whether of the opposite sex or its own sex. And is this being necessarily an "abnormal" being, in other words, a kind of failed individual who is a nuisance or an inconvenience in the fulfilment of the divine work of creation through which the Godhead enables the "perfect human being" to emerge from the animal? Is it not so that beings in this category have had important missions to carry out particularly in this great work of creation? What about the great Nazarene? Can one conceive of his mission being as successful if there had been a "Mrs Christ" with a family life to match: sons and daughters to bring up, support and feed? If he had been subject to the monopoly of marriage, how would it have been possible for him to experience love in such lavish abundance that the great commandment that is the fulfilment of all the laws could vibrate as a wave of light from his being throughout the world and down through the centuries in an eternal, imperishable decree: "Thou shalt love thy God above all things, and thy neighbour as thyself"? His very being would then have been a clear manifestation of "adultery" and thereby of desertion and unfaithfulness towards his spouse, even before he had uttered any word or statement, indeed, even while they were only thoughts in his mind. As we know, the marriage monopoly decrees that: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife". And furthermore, the same monopoly states that: "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart". But how is a married man to fulfil such a commandment and at the same time fulfil the great law of love? If a married man loves, in addition to his wife, another woman as he loves himself, he is committing "adultery", and the same applies if a married woman loves, in addition to her husband, another man as she loves herself.