My main messages

A rough overview of what is below is that I don't care what anyone believes as long as they are loving, or try to be as much as possible within constraints of life.

The fundamental is love (love as defined by the one receiving this message, including myself when I read it though I am not receiving it from myself); however this can not be always achieved and so one must at least strive for love. Messages that conflict with that sentence must be discarded or edited to no longer conflict.

To be more specific, since some may not interpret the above paragraph as I would, my essential messages for my people (the human species globally) include, along with the above paragraph (which is an essential message as well and which overlaps with the first one below a lot):

1. strive towards perfect love (well, if you don't believe in perfection in possible infinity, strive to increase love, defined by you if if you are an atheist and hopefully not psychopathic, else you MAY try to tune to e.g. a [your] deity defined definition of an ideal but in practice may have to rely on your own definition which you may or may not assume is tuned to that deity's definition) and if at all possible at least be loving (exceed neutral) towards self and each other someone and even to each something that is not a someone (e.g. the environment if you don't think it is a someone). However sometimes the best you can do falls below neutral. Such loving behaviour should be both within our species (including to other nationalities, races, spiritual paths [and I include individual belief systems, including mine, as spiritual paths of one] if you are in one [and atheists if you are non-atheist, and to non-atheists if you are an atheist], orientations, genders and ages, and with no instigation of war) and, though we would give our own species a "human family" edge, to members of other species (both DNA-based earth-based species and other species including any space-faring species we might encounter) and to each species as a unit and to the environment we are part of. Said environment is mostly the planet earth for now but that may be extended eventually through space exploration particularly if physics (not just knowledge of it, though this is unlikely) changes favourably and/or (more likely) new details of existing physics are discovered/revealed/uncovered. But I think we must clean up our nest, or go extinct, before we will be able to make the leap to settling outside the solar system; i.e. solving the interstellar space exploration problem could still take a while, which we might not have if we as a species continue in environmentally bad trends. Note, click on the November 2003 waning crescent non-essential (unproven pending further research) Extinction Reel judgement day imperative update/strengthening to the environment component of this message, though I no longer firmly believe said extinction warning but it may be true, and those not wanting extinction and wanting heaven on earth should check it out (try to verify or deny it by scientific and paranormal means, especially if the two match). If it is true I will help to try and avoid it with my creative ideas, as may many.
2. If you communicate with a someone you must know the definition of that someone. A corollary is that, for non-atheists: if you follow a deity name (e.g. God) do not use the name blindly but know what it means. Even if you default to an institutional definition (e.g. the Christian Nicene Creed) you should know what it is. Else how can you follow it and/or its commandments if any? Many people are just using the name God as a catchphrase without knowing what it means, and such a use of a name may go nowhere or be grabbed. Also different people may have different definitions of the name God so it is confusing unless you know each other's definition. Conversely, sometimes people following different names (e.g. God, Allah, Brahma) when they compare personal or organizational definitions MAY find that the definitions match which may reduce conflict in some cases and not lead to things like comments such as "My God's bigger than your God" and the like. Note that sometimes power and worship of power can corrupt. Good someones in the Lord of the Rings wouldn't worship Sauron even if he was the most powerful, for example, they would die fighting. But a name can have personal and/or organizational and/or historical aspects to the definition so even a definition such as "the one our people have always worshipped" or "the one who when I worship it gives me a good feeling" or "the one who inspired me" may be OK but I prefer if someone knows a better personal definition of their deity so they know what they are following. But some may say that Genesis (where I think the Jewish God is defined as the creator) and the Nicene Creed (where the Christian God is defined as the almighty creator) the are not definitions of their God but descriptions of it (they might say Him, but I do not) but that is flawed since the name God (in many languages) has been applied to many someones over the last 100,000 years for sure. If you say your God is the creator, that is your definition of your God, not a description, i.e. it is God=creator. Else any someone could grab the name, you might say the all-powerful someone would, but not if you don't define it as the all-powerful someone.
3. there is no someone who is BOTH all-powerful AND perfectly good (by my and probably any non-psychopathic human definition of good, [and it is the human definition of his or her deity that counts when a match is found, not any someone's definition of itself as perfectly good by its definition of perfectly good, and indeed many someones may define themselves as such by their definition of perfectly good and some are not nice someones, I suspect]). For example, (NOTE: as of 2010 I am no longer an atheist and ALL and LOVE2 are among my deities) in my case (I am not pushing the deities ALL and LOVE2 on anyone though, this is just an example, the message is that there is no someone that is both all powerful and perfectly good), I am assuming my deities ALL and LOVE2 are different and my definition of ALL does not mention good (but an all-powerful someone can be fairly good, and a perfectly good someone can be fairly powerful). If I was a perfectly good all powerful someone I would have made some major positive changes long ago while still leaving free will. But I am open to mathematical and theological (combined) arguments against this and perhaps the nearest match to both my former deity ALL and my former deity LOVE2 (neither of which am I pushing on anyone, unlike these messages) is one someone that is both all powerful (but not infinitely powerful if all power is not infinite, and thus may be constrained) and perfectly good by its own definition, and hence both the names ALL and LOVE would map (match, translate) to that someone for me. Another option is that there is no exact match to my descriptions of ALL and LOVE2 but the nearest match (nearest matching is done by LOVE2 if my theory is correct, else I have a backup series of nearest matchers I have described on newsgroups twice, and if you want clarification to this simplified page just ask me, e.g. about multicomponent goodness, maximum goodness versus perfect goodness, and all kind of things, where obviously a nearest match to a nonexistent perfect goodness would be a maximum goodness and I have said that before on newsgroups, I am pretty sure; if I put all the details on this web page it would be too long for anyone to read, and I have also covered much that I have not posted to newsgroups either) to each is the same someone. Also the Christian Nicene Creed and Genesis do not mention perfectly good hence I think my former deity the Catholic God which may have watched over me (I am an ex-Catholic) is the same as my former deity ALL. (It is all powerful and the ultimate creator, ALL[t] creates ALL[t+Delta t].) Again I am not pushing ALL and LOVE2 on anyone in this message or any of my essential messages but in this message am saying there is no someone that is both all-powerful and perfectly good, and to say there is is the ultimate idiocy in the series of "my God is bigger than your God", "my God is stronger than your God" and "my God is better than your God", so convert over to our faith or we will murder you. What faith?
4. there are many possible paths up a mountain, and many do in theory meet or exceed these messages and also my suggested UN/derived (click on) messsages, partially in place at The United Nations now, e.g. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (but note that I take the "other status" of Article 2 to include sexual orientation, i.e. sexual orientation is a form of "other status") already in place, and potentially further UN-determined/mediated loving standards and others could easily be adjusted from within to do so. My suggestions for UN discussion on that sublist (but which are also among my essential messages) are certainly derived by me. That is why I say UN/derived, as in suggestions by me for the UN derived by me from these main messages. These main messages are also from me after my years of inspiration/constraining/trial and thought; and I have guessed at who has inspired/constrained me, but I may be wrong, I do not get these messages by praying to a name and getting messages back, I think about it and maybe when I get it right it or they will let me go on, and atheists might say well when you get it right it will catch on. But the extinction reel one was a wall I was hit with leaving me at that point in my thought, and I guessed that wall was from ALL but I might be wrong, you can guess too and let me know your guess. Those UN/derived messages were derived BY ME, the one who was fingered as a lazybright fool to toil for our species these past years. Or for atheists, I am a systemically sensitive species focus of change, or a biological catastrophe theory nucleation point of butterfly unfolding. If major changes occur we (me, other scientists, others) can work on explaining it more later, but I certainly do not have anthropomorphic gendered deiti(es). Any occasional or regular special abilities that I have can perhaps be speculatively explained in terms of higher dimensional mathematics. But if there is evidence for them and you ignore it then you are not a scientist, you are in a cult.
5. not taking up a path unless it truly resonates with you, and have an individual connection with the path and not just blindly follow; i.e. an individual connection to the divine (or within the environment if you are an atheist),
6. individual responsibility to be a seed of good (e.g. to grow the flame of love within you by internal and external good thoughts and good deeds so as to make love/goodness a larger part of all/everything where you may try to tune to a deity defined definition of good but in practice may have to rely on your own definition of good which may be affected by said tuning if any).
7. believe anything that there is evidence for (but work to change it if it is not loving) and don't believe something that there is evidence against (but try to bring it into existence if it is loving) and feel free to believe anything you like that is loving (not harmful) and that has no evidence for or against it but don't shove such theories down anyone else's throat but feel free to share the beauty of them. Of course I am pushing these messages but I think there is some evidence for and need for them, and they, or one or some of them, can be rejected (though rejecting some of them, including some in derived messages, may be against the law so you should not reject those.
8. we are part of nature (or the environment) and not above nature if nature is defined as all/everything and the matter part of us (which some may think is all of us) is part of nature if nature is defined as all/everything, the universe (space and its contents), or the earth (for humans inside the thermosphere/exosphere boundary).
9. some similarities between the lives (and in many cases message overlap to some extent too) of some past major pagan and major non-pagan figures (including Jesus) and me; I claim I am similar to such past figures and present my biographical data and writings so far so you can make the decision. However I don`t want huge glory by such a claim but mostly backing for my messages, i.e. some may be more likely to view such messages as inspired. But if you have evidence to support my theory and have a command of or like "thou shalt not lie" you should not conceal that evidence, including from me and the media globally. Also knowledge of such similarity between past figures should lead to reduced intolerance and lots of loving diversity. Likewise if you want me to drop this claim you will have to prove it to be academically invalid by scholarly research, not just by saying it must be wrong. Given such an academic challenge I would have to spend more time in libraries myself before relinquishing my claim, though probably only five hours a week, and also have access to your references (not just your list of references, the actual papers and books and oral tradition stories/poems/songs).
10. Some notes on sexuality here, which are an essential message, are that: sex between incompatibles is an abomination, sex between compatibles is not, where by compatible I mean sexually compatible, such as a gay man is compatible with another gay man but is not compatible with a woman so for him to have sex with a woman is an abomination but loving consensual compatible sex between gay men is not, that is part of my law, my essential messages, and I am not gay, and shame on other non-gays for bullying the minority. And to have sex with someone while not thinking of that someone and instead thinking of another is also an abomination. An example is if a man is having sex with his wife and not thinking of her but thinking of some supermodel who is not there, or if a lesbian is having sex with a man and thinking of her distant female lover. But in that case even if she is thinking of the man it is a big no no since they are incompatible and I once speculated such behaviour causes strong negative effects within families and society. Other forms of abomination are pedophilia, rape, incest with relatives closer than second cousin, and bestiality.

Top: up to main Salmon on the Thorns page