Thou shall not violate consent. You were never born and you’ll never die. The purpose and goal of all life is to give every being everything they want when they want it at the expense of no being.
Do unto yourself and others only that which they and you consent to be done unto they and you (this is the “rainbow rule”). (AKA Thou shall not violate consent.) Beings subject to time already exist in eternity, but began here and choose eternity here for better or worse. The purpose and goal of all life is to give every being everything they want when they want it at the expense of no other being (a restatement of the rainbow rule)…as far as is possible for beings subject to time. If it is impossible one way, find the possible way, and get out of it by moving with it…together.
John 3:16 restated:
Original, sort of: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Restated: For Being (Temporalität, Cosmos) so loved Dasein (Zeitlichkeit, cosmos), that the fullness of Cosmos incarnated in cosmos, that whoever (Dasein, Zeitlichkeit, cosmos) consents to (& so shares) that love reciprocally shall be sustained in that love now and forever, regardless of physical limitations.
The first way is an easier read.
I get 100 words or less. Here’s from the person who survived word hell.
I’ll add…
“When one has pleasure when another hurts it is certain doom for both. Someone is hurting. It is certain doom for all.”
I think I’m at 60 words now.
Jesus said take up your cross & follow me — for the joy set before him/us. Free grace is costly.
Free-of-interest is actually a higher interest.
Not all doom is bad.
I believe Nietzsche calls this amor fati, except he broke his brain, so take that with a grain of salt. & a pinch of mustard 
Previously…
You never answered my question:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 7#p2909367
be back later
in the mean time…
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … s#p2894817
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … it=missing
Ichthus. You’re getting desperate. I kicked your ass and I still have 40 words left.
Thou shall not violate consent. You were never born and you’ll never die. The purpose and goal of all life is to give every being everything they want when they want it at the expense of no being. When one has pleasure when another hurts it is certain doom for both. Someone is hurting. It is certain doom for all. Hell is a lack of imagination. Easy to hurt, hard to build and maintain or improve. Existence takes the easy path. It harms. The job is not to be like existence, and thus to produce no harm at all.
99 words.
Karma. 100 
So it’s not evil to be a traitor to someone who thinks they deserve sex from everyone they want?
I know what that is.
You’re a nation who demands loyalty via highly taxed underpaid labor just because someone was born in you or works in you. You want to disempower to prevent a revolution by deeming all “traitors” mentally ill with a trigger finger tic disorder. And you want the whole world to be like that so it conforms to what you want and makes it easier to implement your plan.
I vote no.
You didn’t tell me this was about kicking ass.
Dear Ec as a 16-year-old,
Sweet 16 & never been last, eh?
[b]Consent to influence others how you/they would consent to be influenced. In that way we co-create in compassionate alignment with eternity here and now.
This is a recipe for disaster, but it’s also a recipe for overcoming any disaster.[/b]
Signed,
Ich as a 16-year-old
We’re time travel pen pals now going on …. frick, you do the math.
You’re saying weird shit. My plans are cosmic in scope. Omni playacting realities where everyone gets everything they want at no expense to any being.
You have to structurally change existence to do that.
When existence didn’t structurally change after I solved all the equations. I had to go into problem solving analysis mode again.
My best guess is structural changes have to be unanimous.
I keep proving to people how the current structure doesn’t work, in an attempt to make it unanimous.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t in the current structure.
Oh, you’re trying to incite a war. You sound like a conflicted Marx. Here are the examples:
Example One from the summer of 1844:
“Ultimately this movement which contrasts universal private property to [exclusive] private property is expressed in the animalistic form of marriage (surely a form of exclusive private property) is counterposed to the community of women where they become communal and common property. we might say that this idea of the community of women is the open secret of this still very crude, unthinking communism. As we go from marriage into universal prostitution, so the whole world of wealth – that is, the objective essence of man – passes from the relationship of exclusive marriage with the private owner into the relationship of universal prostitution with the community. This communism – in that it negates man’s personality everywhere – is only the logical expression of the private property which is this negation. universal envy establishing itself as a power is only the disguised form in which greed reestablishes and satisfies itself in another way. …envy and the desire to level in fact constitute the essence of competition. crude communism is only the fulfillment of this envy and leveling on the basis of a preconceived minimum. It has a definite delimited measure. How little this overcoming a private property is an actual appropriation is shown precisely by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilization, the reversion to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and wantless man who has not gone beyond private property, has not yet even achieved it.”
He goes on to talk about how this first crude overcoming … abstract negation (very Hegel) is so because it undermines the most natural relationship (of man to woman) — as if it is a sort of canary in the coal mine or litmus. He also disses the prostitutor, whose “vileness is still greater” than the prostituted. Not popular views to hold these days, ironically. What happened to him in 3 years???…
Example Two from 1847:
“…nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which they pretend is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. // Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives. // Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of woman.”
There is an inkling of hope (sort of???) when he says immediately after that abolishing the present system of production will abolish the community of women, whether public (unfaithful marriages, or the Communist version?) or private (exclusive marriages?)… but not if you consider he has nothing to replace it with, and weighed against what he says immediately prior about social education (taking it out of the home or bourgeois schools, into “social” …schools???… is it a difference in curriculum?).
Anyway. Can we at least agree all stakeholders should at least each contribute something to shared goals, in accordance with self=other, so that no one is a freeloader, and no one is exploited? The more transparency, the more respecting of consent, the less divided the house will be.
Long story short: Do not grow the membership unless you have attained self=other unanimity amongst all stakeholders, current and potential.
Ichthus.
You really don’t get it. I’m not talking about THIS reality. I’m talking about perfect for all beings knowing all beings are different.
You’ve been talking to me all this time and you don’t understand.
The entire cosmos needs to be structurally changed.
Everyone goes to hell forever in the current COSMOS!!! STRUCTURALLY!!!
I don’t give a fuck about your stupid humans and their idiocy.
Ichthus.
I’m talking STRUCTURAL!!!
Some people never want anyone naked ever.
Some people want everyone naked forever.
Those are called mutually exclusive consents.
We ALL have to solve that problem.
It’s a STRUCTURAL problem at the foundation of all existence.
You’re talking about America and Marx and all of its bullshit.
Oh. I forgot. Biblical people don’t care.
I’ll tell you something. Jesus said there’ll always be the poor. Is that the bar of our collective dream?
I just have to remember you’re retarded.
You’re trying so hard to demonize me. I don’t demonize you. I responded to you as a peer. You are not my peer. Even I forget how peerless I am, and I type words in caps like I’m frustrated.
Retards. Tic disorders.
Stop fake fighting.
Goal post moving to a new reality??
Wow.
Declare me the winner, Ec. You don’t even have to mean it. You’re embarrassing both of us.
We all lost Ichthus. You do not respond to content at all. My 99 word Bible is better than your 1000 plus page Bible. Because it’s not only true, but succinct.
Your Bible is long and not one truth.
Imagine what I could do with 1000 pages.