SCRIPTURAL SOCRATIC FOLDMATESHIPS

If we had a vertical tripartite religion with sexual sacraments based on making love, as we are designed, created, equipped, commended and commanded to in all honesty and in truth to do, with mutually responsive believers as an act or whoreship of the God.dess of Love and Lust which is doctrinal and scriptural such that love and orgasm be not subject to contract should atheists and those who oppose be labelled irrational unnatural fuddy duddy dysfunctional cranks?

What is vertical tripartite?
Three parties in a vertical row, no triangles allowed?
How is that applied to religion?
What is or isn’t a sexual sacrament?
How do you support your proposition that we were "designed, created, equipped, commended and commanded” and what or whom did this designing, creating equipping etc?
Is God.dess a new kind of domain name or a new kind of religious grammar where the only fullstops allowed are in the middle of a word in the middle of a question?
Are you serious?

Vertical tripartite means two love making worshippers at the base points and the God.dess, of love, at the apex. It is like a triangle contract of making love as whoreship between two believers, foldmates, of whom you can have many in parallel as opposed to dualistic duelistic relationships in series or the outmoded discredited marriage, mar/rage, idea. It is like a contract but you can never truly have a contract with God. The arrangement between the two base believers is an understanding rather than a relationship and unlike a generally in series relationship need never end with a crunch or fade out or loss of a friend. Believers who have multiple arrangements in parallel can be said to have parallationships, time permitting.

The sexual sacraments are generally intercourse or oral sex m>f or f > m the way it used to be in the Goddess of Love, Ashtoreth, Astarte, Artemis, Venus, Diana, etc religions in the middle east a few thousand years ago which whoreshipped, by way of sex, the female side of the deity which got replaced with innocuous bread and wine by more watered down but manipulative unscriptural women-as-pawns-in-deals systems seeking to distance themselves from naked all out love worship. Remember Jesus did offer one woman living water and the breaking of the bread, the breaking of the body, referred to orgasm stemming from the original sacrament understandings and Jesus and Mary M never did particularly advocate marriage.

We need to junk cardboard crap money and control religions and go back to natural slut (spiritual leader unto truth) religion for what our ever loving organs are designed by God for. If we are intellectually honest we all want it. Nobody is made to be only attracted to just one in 3.5 billion people. Such a person who says that is a liar. It is our birthright to have as many who like us as we want and have time for and for this reason we are born and for this reason we exist – to make those we like who like us happy and whoreship God that we be turned on sexually ever more ever more with ever more. At the moment, things being new, believing girl and guys who have thought things through are a bit thin on the ground but once things take off things will turn around. At the moment believers should evaginalize and outreach by whoreshipful seduction into their white circles.


The designed, created and equipped refers to girl / guy believers being born to have sex as whoreship with any other mutually responsive believer, which any intellectually honest untrammeled believer wants to do with other agreeable mature believers who know their religion, the original Magdelenian Christianity that got shoved aside by the Peter model, as a primary reason for existence rather than say having a job or just dating over endless cups of coffee or wasting time with gold diggers.
Our sexual organs, our operations section, are primed to be firing away all the time for whoreshipping, evaginalizing and orgasming in OMG praise, not just for the very very occasional baby.


Commended and commanded pertain to scriptural references e.g.
- love one another, not one other, and
- presenting your body as a living sacrifice, in love, and
- having been bought with a price glorify God in your body, which means intercourse as worship, masturbation as meditation, orgying, love orgying as fe.illowship and
- forsake not the coming of yourselves together as is the custom of some comforting one another all the more until the day comes
- where two or three come together in my name there am I in the midst of them
- that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together, point and loop, in love and
- so whether you eat or drink or whatever you do (like making love as worship as between believers), do all for the glory of God
- by this shall all people know ye are my disciples if ye have love, make love, one to another (and at the moment there are NO Christian groups where that is happening, hence very few teaching starved disciples at the moment.


A religion which does not involve having multiple agreeable believers, who have thought things through and have the requisite time, as sex partners for whoreship but rather fronts for contractual marriage using women, or men, as pawns in family and dynastic deals on land and property does not make much sense and religions that say sex is off limits to God and are humanistic, boring, isolative, undoctrinal, unnatural, finite, fuddy duddy and are even sick.
Even honest atheists would say having multiple sex partners who are mutually responsive, unrestrained and untrammeled is natural. Such atheists would simply deny the apex of the triangle. An “atheist” or “humanist” who is married pursuant to the traditional, outmoded but generally accepted as hypocritical “churchianity” model is however a joke and not intellectually honest, even being engaged in the tort of passing off, and a true atheist or humanist in such an outmoded arrangement would be obliged to divorce to gain credibility and respectability in the eyes of their peers and any enlightened partners. True believers and true atheists don’t get married and true believers and true atheists have multiple foldmates. Atheists, as said, deny the apex and mostly have only lateral sex while believers, have three dimensional sex, being in parallel. Non thinkers get married in stupid investment and money/asset pooling arrangements where some 50% do their money and time and mental health and are hoodwinked and outsmarted in the end as gamblers in contractual traps having been sucked into believing they only have a severely limited number of years on a rock going around the sun.

God.dess simply refers to God being both male and female at the same time as God is not male or female but assumed to be both and maybe more so the “.” goes in between God and dess. You could put a “/” there but it is not an either / or but a both at the same time.

The people are the base and the divine is the apex. Instead of a triangle why not a pentagon. Or is the triangle the next step up from a relationship based on duality or opposition.
Does the geometry continue to add sides until you get a shape with and infinite numbers of sides.
But I have to read your text, although you may have to explain.

Why is this exclusive for just heterosexual pairings?

If it’s a base and apex, what’s the difference between vertical tripartite and horizontal tripartite? Why not just say triangle?
Tip that triangle on its side and you would have one human and one 'divine' at the bottom, the other human at the apex...... then, if you tip it again..... Δ

David,
Wouldn’t it be easier to say ”Love well made is amazing”? Labelling the unnameable diminishes it.
Why such complex religio-ideological constructs for what is natural (unless as part of a process of deconstructing , which often happens, or for poetry’s sake)?

To Delano # 527

Thank you Delano for saying the people are the base and the apex, the zenith, is the divine. The, or any, two people are always the relative base but a pentagon has not just a base and an apex but two intermediary points which can represent two intermediate spiritual points and if we take the vertical tripartite arrangement to a vertical quinpartite arrangement then the intermediate two points are intermediaries between human and divine such as two facilitating angels, one each, so we also make love with and through angels as channels, clarifiers or magnifiers so to speak.
However for now we’ll stick to triangles.

In another sense, where we move to a pentagon (5 triangles) or octagon (8 triangles), and so on, we move ever towards a circle which we as foldmates are encouraged to develop over eternity as we collect unto ourselves our foldmate love whoreshippers with whom we whoreship unto the apex, perhaps pentagonally in communion with those who have gone before, who live in love for whom reflected passion and transmitted orgasm from us is praise and reality and a way of everlasting life, if you believe.

The triangular tripartite arrangement is a triangle, a trinity, ascending to the apex but as we move closer to the circle, or semi circle, we may conceptualize intimates and divine above, the outer circumference or the centre, as you will, and friends and antimates below. We remain the centre of our superstructure as those we ongoingly come together with accrete around us each with an overall and personal apex which is the God.dess of love overall, the centre of the spherical universe of love structure. People could keep charts on their computers. Someone could design a software lattice tracking program for all members to use and someone with lots of time on their hands could track everyone’s intersecting networks of love and lust for fun.

On the other hand, you could always see it as one triangle, one tripartite vertical arrangement with a consistent apex and an ever changing number of reciprocating base points relative to you. A structure like a geodesic dome may be more conceivable to some with the common apex being the centre with up to a standard set of six foldmateships per person on the surface.

In his discourse example of the 8 triangles, Socrates showed an example of a basis for an ever growing assemblage of triangles which can be tripartite arrangements, each with apexes but all part of a superstructure with a personal divine apex, and so with the accretion of your foldmates moving your overall structure more towards a circle or sphere, if you will, with an apex overall, or within all, you have an illustration of what Socrates, by his Socratic method, was outlining which could be said to constitute by way of the whoreshipfoldmate system of parallationships a geocentric social proofing for the divine. Socrates triangle accretion structure is the basis of an ever increasing more circular foldmate structure, (the magic circle club) with a centre / apex, which must be there, so we have a unique experiential space for the divine apex presence as every such structure must have a centre common to all.

In a geodesic dome where the centre is the divine and a common apex, so to speak, to all triangles, each having two circumferential points, any foldmate on the surface can have as many as six foldmates and once six are completed one can, time and frequency permitting, start on more, up to another six, at another point. Hence the geodesic dome was fittingly designed by one aptly named called Buck Minster Fuller, a bit of a linguistic proof.

The said Socrates illustration in Plato’s dialogue Meno, http://classics.mit.e..., allows not only an apex but also a nadir and thus is in line with your duality or opposition observations that is consistent with Newton’s third law of motion that every action is met with an equal and opposite reaction so we have God.dess at the apex and we have an opposing entity at the nadir. Some, depending upon their perspective, would tend to invert it but in so doing it nevertheless tends to point again towards the two opposing entities, apex and nadir, God.dess and devil (who for the wise is but a wealthy prosecutor pointing you away) in tension.
In this lattice structure we have the pure and holey ever loving ever sharing beautiful angelic and honest: pure hearted high and ascending sluts (spiritual leaders unto truth), the true believers, the true seekers and the deceived or hurt victims descending from the apex, in that order, and below: the impotent uninfilled purblind fuddy duddies, acquisitive gold/ghouldiggers, determined fools, ugly hypocrites and killjoys, rigid control freaks and scamming deceiving diabolical roaster toasters and assorted demons and devils, ever ready to take advantage of or claw back the children of the light, in that order towards the nadir.

By making love and celebratory sex, i.e. Augustine’s Just war, the joust war, the jaust war, with other true believing spiritual sluts and affirming that love and orgasms should not be subject to contract we move ever away from the clutches of those towards the nadir and of course by loving others in deed not word with a greater ongoing level of commitment in eternal honest sex loving our neighbour we love God.dess more. And what honest person is going to say they don’t love lots of unrestrained significance laden sex with any believer in love and lust they quite like who quite likes them who has come to a knowledge of the truth and is happy to share and, being so busy with a multiplicity of like minded lovers, has no time or quarter for jealousy?

The triangle is the next evolutionary step up from the lateral dualistic duelistic relationship between two points where God.dess as a relative apex becomes more influential in the life of any whoreshipper who, by so making love as whoreship ongoingly with as many mutually responsive and reciprocating agreeable believers as they like, their “neighbours”, comes to love God more. The infinite circle of foldmates is the ultimate with God.dess at the apex and the effect of the nadir becoming of lesser import with all sane people seeking to intercourse themselves ever higher.

As you see the geometry tends to add sides as we reach out or share evermore and so move to a structure with an infinite number of sides which is the circle or sphere, the white sex circle or sphere and you and yours are always at a relative base point centre of your circles and the apex common to each is a personal divine apex, the very shared and common to all centre.

So here by Socrates 8 triangle discourse we tend to have a manner of proof of God in line with Newton’s third law of motion overall and an answer to the evening of 23.5’s question is there a God, do we not?

To confirm from nature: the accreting Socratic triangular parallationship structures, as on the surface of the pictured geodesic dome, are reflected in the construction of a snowflake which generally always has six facets. God designs every snowflake to be different so no two snowflakes are ever the same but all generally have six facets, six arms, six points just like any corner point of a triangle does per the said Socratic triangulation accretion method on the geodesic dome surface as can be seen. Hence you have can snowflakeships where you, as a divinely appointed snowflake centre have six snowflakeships potentials with fold mates, snowflake mates, snowies, snaffles, flakies, with whom you make and share love as to one another, up to six in one flakefold, and not to just one other as in unscriptural marriages or relationships which lead to artificial stifling, frustration, over dependence, unhealthy confining of energies, boredom and denial of others’ desires for you.

You can have a number of sexual snowflakeships with snowmen or snowchicks, as white as the driven snow snowflakemates, snowdropmates, drop ins, as you have time and accept spirit filled energy for; maybe as many as six of each making a total of 42, 6 in the inner ring, 36 in the second ring. If you spread yourself very thin and have rarified snowflakeships where you seek to sexually and intimately be of blessing to many you could have 6 x 36 in the third ring making a total of 6 + 36 + 216 = 258 snowflakies, all of whom have their own folds of six’s too, all in a snowflake lattice of snowflakeships or foldmateships. Timewise you could have one different snowmate, drop in for each night of the week with one night off alone, unless you are are coming together for group whoreship in threes or fours etc in Heris Name.

Maybe on the seventh night you could all get and come together in divine whoreship as unto Herim.

cf Isaiah 1:18 Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins (marriage: marring and raging) are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

Psalm 51:6-8 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place. Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice.

Proverbs 31:21 She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household are clothed in scarlet.

Note a six sided polygon is called a hexagon, a holy sexagon. I throw it open to others to further refine.

All we need to do to create Heaven on earth is to find others with whom we are mutually responsive who, without qualms believe and act ongoingly accordingly by way of evaginalization or ever sharing whoreshipping and so commence our superstructures, in spirit and in truth, which come to interlink, and so ever share and ever whoreship. If the truth sets you free you shall be free indeed, in deed.

Enough of this structure stuff. I’ll leave people who love to play with the geometry to do so. Most won’t care. Most just want as many as they like who quite like them to cater to the many facets of their personalities and so love and make love to God more through loving many as most honest normal people will want all the mutually responsive foldmates they can handle to make love as whoreship with. Now that they have understanding and good ongoing committed purpose.

Remember, to commit to only one is to repeatedly deny others. If everyone has many and there is no doctrinal reason not to then no one has cause to be jealous.

However for those who still seek a conventional relationship and for those who even seek the more primitive concept of contractually binding, generally terminal, marriage, an unscriptural control instrument of the lower realms costing many heaps, they should at least have a renewable relationship agreement, an RA, in place as with no relationship agreement in place there is no commitment and only then for a term and upon terms. See my RA site for RA and notes.

Is the foregoing not the case and if not then why not?

The word tripartite emphasizes situationally the three points and the word vertical emphasizes that the apex is of a particular superior nature being the source of love and the one overall that physically infills the two at the base to make, give and receive love.

By saying that you tip the triangle to have one human and one divine at the base is a beautiful concept as then you are making love to god (if a woman) or goddess, if a male. Like, making love to angels. God comes down to earth and we worship God by making love to an infilled believer, Heris creation fashioned for making love as whoreship, literally infilled so they are ever keen to make love. When we are vessels filled with God’s spirit of love to make love (erections, enwettenments, extensionings tinglings) we partake in the divine and we are in essence though on a base line like God making love to the Goddess as we make love and we get to partake and share.

Love and orgasm is a free gift from God.dess and as a gift is to be orgasmically rendered back to God by loving physically, committedly, our inti-mate neighbours we vicariously love God.dess by making love by partaking of the sexual spiritual sacraments, fucking and sucking, in our space bodies we have here on earth, arbitrarily some male, some female, for fun and pleasure, edification, fellowship and whoreship. And as we accrue further foldmate believers who understand and believe and love to make love with whomever they fancy who quite fancies them our tripartite arrangements form lattices and we make more friends and discover more foldmates to make love with love, time permitting. Time is the only constraint.

If the tripartite arrangements are forming into a lattice it would be hard to tip one particular triangle so the apex of one human at the base goes to the apex. The idea that we build our ever becoming circle superstructure of triangles or means that we reach up by sharing, whoreshipping, and outreach to add more to our circle by evaginalizing with everyone ever moving away from the nadir but still with one apex over all. Socrates’ example is illustrative here to explain how the triangle accretion starts and does he not use the discourse to evidence the existence of earlier life, learning and immortality?

However as the lattice builds, a human, who is a relative base in any tripartite arrangement may be at a minor apex, and hence be seemingly ascended to a neophyte. With all part of an overall lattice of triangles with an overall apex, who is God.dess, and all knit, point and loop, together in love so we, as lovers, in foldmateships are teacher lovers to some and learner lovers in relation to those who are closer to the central apex, but to move ahead we should simply “study to show ourselves approved” and seek to love more and with more. It is a wonderful design of ongoing foldmateships with multiple lovers in a lattice which builds over time. Obviously logic demands and the discourse of Socrates points towards this building of our triangle based love circles being an eternal exercise of ever more love as we move towards the infinite, which is God.dess.

So we have a proof for God, do we not, and if not then why not?

Hence we have a new covenant long proposed by God with his people where we have God at the apex or centre and six other spokes per wheel and you can have a number of wheels to get you to where you want to go.

Till now many straights have been sucked in and blinded by iffy often terminal, costly and oft regretted marriage, forlornly misled by not being given proper teaching and led into a trap, in many cases a dead end or a cul de sac which takes as long to get out of as to get in, by those who should know better, if they know their scriptures, or con artists and racketeers in the wedding promotion industry who have something to gain by sucking the hapless in for their money.

As I posit that marriage should be compulsory for gays and banned outright for straights.

Understanding the procedures and the structures and gaining a knowledge of that which has been withheld makes for greater understanding, appreciation, belief, conviction and active sharing and loving. The enquirer ever seeks to know more and should not be turned away and should not be short changed by being told just to rely on faith. The enquirer wants to know what and why and not be told, for example, it is wrong to love a manageable number who likewise believe and do similarly, in parallel, to love one other, not one other, as Jesus, being of the God.dess of Love, loved in any way He liked all the women (“Love one another, as I have loved you”, as Mary M wrote in John’s gospel) of whom Mary M was the chief leader, a High Priestess of sacramental Love of the temples of Asherah etc. JC + MM, the double initiates, had their circles. They are our sponsors.

Labelling the unnameable bespeaks the infinite. Let’s abandon shibboleths.

It is natural for us to want to reach out and build networks by coming together, fucking together, point and loop, with those we like who quite fancy us. We should not deny our and their God given desires for love and lust. We should not dissemble. We should not disappoint.

In deconstructing we are seeking to reassemble, to build ourselves a mansion.

It is not a teaching for everyone. You do not cast your pearls before swine. People qualify themselves. Some primitive people have to go through the unscriptural con of marriage so as to learn from being burned and only then spurn, yearn and turn. Evolution of the soul, so to speak. Some people have to learn the hard way so let them, if that’s what they want.

hmmm, David ... dare I ask?wink It seems that one must must be formed by - and attached to - the judeo-christian/hellenic paradigm to ‘get' what youse on about ...... what if one is a cha’an buddhist or taoist - no god.s.ess.es.essi, no angels; no forms are permanent, have own-being and are inadequate?

es, as you note it does stem from the springs of the judeo-christian “paradigm”, hence the antipathy to unscriptural lateral marriage and to the subjecting of love and orgasm to contract and so instead loving one another, not one other, in acts of loving sharing whoreship in open spaces by the upright.
And as you note it is hand in hand with the hellenic as, as this is a Socratic forum, Socrates laid the base lines for the format for the ever multiplying triangles, each with a personally relative divine apex and overall divine apex. Buck minster fuller structures.

As to the other cited religions, do they not masquerade as but fronts to marriage or unequal yokedness and none espouse the apexual said foldmate triangles plan for our lives and for eternity?
They chant like some petrified chant hymns to have something to do with the property they own, bought from bequests, exactings and the like. They offer no God.s.dess.es or angels as such do not frequent them, they are cheap and shortchange. Their forms are impermanent and of no substance.
As you say: inadequate.

Steer clear of those scammers and cardboard corn flakey religions who front for marriage and laterals and want you to fill up their buildings bought with the blood, sweat, tears of dead people’s money and the deception of devils and demons so they can put their empty spaces to empty use with empty teachings for their own empty ends. They offer no unrestrained infilled sex as their worship and fe.illowship and their chants and meditations are impersonal, dreary and sexless.

The only valid use for their and any religion’s buildings is to stock them up with beds, spas and so on and so forth for the coming together of faithful excited believers so let’s get as many of these currently underutilized spaces as possible to work. We want them all humming and cumming and each member’s member filled with the spirit, point and loop, upper and lower chambers, for sacraments of living water as between believers as they do God’s will: living in love and lust and walking justly by faith.

By this shall all people know that you are truly my disciples if ye have love to make, one to another, not one other.

Your understanding of the different religious teachings seems a just a touch ”adulterated” by an agenda. i could dispute your understanding on nearly all the people and texts you’ve quoted or misquoted, but I won’t. there lies the path to the waste-lands.
OK leaving the ‘theory” aside ..... are you or have you been married? or are you a divorce lawyer doing indirect marketing?biggrin
Is this all built on some personal experience of unequal yokedness?

"adult e rated"

Never been married to a woman nor man.

Not a divorce lawyer: a law therapist.

There was unequal yokedness but I'm not so sure now.

My
link to my former Suppressive Relationships Support Group which paralleled the rise of Law Therapy.

Winning is the best therapy. Smart victims get paid.

"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives." -- Robert Heinlein

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in times of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy.
Cowardice asks the question: Is it safe? Expedience asks the question: Is it politic? Vanity asks the question: Is it popular? But conscience asks the question: Is it right? And a time comes when man must take a stand that’s neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it’s right.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

Hi David
I've read most of this thread ( not all) and from it seems you have a strong conviction that people in general are sexually suppressed (for the reasons you explain and I won't repeat here) and our truer nature is having a social group/community in which we meet to f**k or have sex of some kind with other people (m or f) and through this sexually free unattached experience we can attain some higher self that unifies us with god - whatever you perceive that to be.
I wanted to say all that just to clarify I got a gist of how you perceive human sexual relationships?
I am curious to know
If and how does your model of human relationships address child rearing? (I think about this because I wonder what happens when women and men in you're sexually free life want to have children and then need to care for them. I 'm not talking about marriage i am talking about the care-giving required to raise children and wondered how you address this.)
The other thought was, where else in the world could this be happening right now. Do you know which hunter gatherer communities in this world that are free of the institutions of church and government replicate this sexual behaviour?
(I have read only a small amount about anthropology and I am aware of some tribes that have different sexual relationships. For example I am positive I read somewhere about the pairing up of young men with older women (who were not view as child bearing) for sexual partnering , but sorry the exact reference has gone, so it made me think about your view, which seems predominantly based on our western psyche. Hence the question)

If and how does your model of human relationships address child rearing?
If you manage to find someone who thinks they are going to have children then you should consider a relationship agreement for an applicable period of years.
If you happen to have a number of foldmates in your extended circle who have children then it becomes a question of fridges. The more fridges the children can raid and the more beds they can sleep in with other mutually responsive foldmates of their own age the more they like it. Age doesn’t matter as long as the child initiates.
For some material on how to perceive relationships go to my page on the relationship agreement.
Do you know which hunter gatherer communities in this world that are free of the institutions of church and government replicate this sexual behaviour?
No