Answering Questions on my Posts and Complements

Since I haven't had time to answer questions on individual threads and a person "private messaged me" wanting to engage in conversation, I descided to use the time that I normally post to answer questions that have been since the beginning. I thought that I should make a post to announce that I was answering questions so that people would know.

If I had answered questions on the individual posts, people would not realize that I was doing that since I haven't been. They would thing I am, as usual just adding to it.

I wanted to let people know how I will respond in the future.

After I finish up to catch up here, in the future, I will be responding to questions or comments that are decent the following week after posting in the post itself.

Those who have wanted and been waiting or hoping I will respond will be able to see this thread. They probably wouldn't be looking around at my past threads thinking I will respond. They may move on to other posts, be creating posts themselves or commenting on them and not think to look at an anciant post. As those who want answers see the title they know what their questions were and will see them addressed. Those that didn't have questions probably would not be interested in this post.

I've been trying to finish up to catch up so I'm giving up time and sleep to catch up.

I also want to make sure the people, who I want to thank, receive their thanks and those who deserve complements receive their complements. I have to make this announcement so that they will "in the know"

To clarify,

After finishing up to catch up here, in the future, I will answer questions on a post the following week after posting it and it will be within the post itself.

next issue

Numbers 24:17 "I shall see him but not now, I shall behold him but not now"

Balaam prophesies of the Moshiach. His comming was to be in the future, long after that time.

"There shall be a star out of Jacob"
There wasn't a new star during David's time but there was a new star recorded in anciant chinese records. The star appeared about 4 B.C when Jesus would have been about four. This delay of four years was necessary because when Herod was made aware that the prophesied future king of the Jews was born, he wanted to kill Him and so ordered all males from birth to the age of two be killed. He was informed by "wise men" who saw the star and came from the East to Jerusalem to worship Him. They asked Herod "Where is He?" They propbably thought He would be born into royalty. Herod did not want to be dethroned. Herod recognized that time had elapsed between the star appearing, their discovering it, recognizing it as the star that would be a sign of His comming and their travel time to Jerusalem. He asked them when the star appeared but they did not respond. They realized then they shouldn't have tell him. This star that was on anciant record was most likely the star they followed.

Matthew 2:1-6
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen His star in the East and are come to worship Him."
Verse 4-6 "And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them, Where should Christ be born? And they said unto him, in Bethlehem of Judaea for thus it is written of the prophet, And thou bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda for out of thee shall come a governor, that shall rule my people Israel."

More to come

"Crushing the princes of Moab and uprooting all the sons of Seth. This would be when the Moshiach returns

Jeremiah 48:45-47 verse 47 states " Yet will I bring again captivity of Moab in the latter days" The word "again" tells that more than once the aforementioned prophesy will occur.
There is also the words "Latterdays". We are in the Latterdays. This has been determined by other prophesied signs that have been occuring in these times. Some are prophesied to happen before the return of the Messiah.

Isiah writes out of order as I have said before. In this case He was seeing the Messiah's first comming with His birth and the wrapping up scene at His return in the future. He was seeing from beginning to end, although there will never be an end to His kingdom. So I should say from beginning to the new beginning, His reign. It was like he was seeing His life in a flash.

More to come

First before getting into the scripture at issue, Jesus Christ's mission was not to be a prophet although He had the gift of prophesy. He could prophesy when needed. As a matter of fact, Jesus prophesied about the Temple at that time and came to pass about 37 years after He spoke.

I know that you don't enjoy reading New Testement scripture but I thought you would have to know what He prophesied in order to know what came to pass. So here it is;

Luke 21:4-6 and Matthew 24:2 and Luke 19:44

This is Luke 21:4-6
"and as some spoke of the Temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, He, {Jesus} said..."These things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which, there shall not be left one stone upon the other which shall not be thrown down."

This prophesy came to pass. The Temple was burned and the gold in it melted and those that burned it pulled the bricks apart to get the gold that had melted within. Now all that is left to tell it's time is the western wall. If you have ever looked at it closely when people stand there facing it, praying or reciting, there are slips of paper that are slipped between the spaces in the bricks. These spaces were made by those who thought gold might have melted there. I don't think any gold would have melted there because it was apart from the Temple and just surrounded it. The gold would be in the Temple itself.
Maybe they thought there was gold mixed within whatever held it together. Just a theory! But the Temple was in rubble.

How to know whether a person is a false prophet

Deuteronomy 18:20-22
"The prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak in the name of other gods even that prophet shall die. and if thou say in thine heart, HOW SHALL WE KNOW THE WORD WHICH THE LORD HATH NOT SPOKEN? WHEN A PROPHET SPEAKETH in the name of the Lord, IF THE THING {PROHESY} FOLLOW NOT, NOR COME TO PASS. That is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken., but the prophet hath speoken it presumptuously."

Jeremiah 28:9
"The prophet which prophesieth peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass then shall the prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him."

Deuteronomy 13:3
I read your username and realize that not being decieved is important to you.
This is your username's scripture
"Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet or the dreamer of dreams for the Lord your god proveth you wether you to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul."

Verse 5 says
"And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death because HE HATH SPOKEN TO TURN YOU AWAY FROM THE LORD, your God.......TO THRUST THEE OUT OF THE WAY WHICH THE LORD, THE GOD COMMANDED THEE to walk in.

Jesus the Christ lived and taught God's principles. He was not teaching people to worship other gods. As a matter of fact, Jesus taught how to worship the God of abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus taught how to pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with this.

Matthew 6:9
"After this manner, therefore pray,
Our Father, which art in Heaven HALLOWED {To Consecrate, to make or declare sacred}
be thy name. Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done, on earth as it is in Heaven."

This shows respect and reverance towards the God of abrahan, Isaac and Jacob.
His main mission, the major part, during the meridian of time, was to make the atonement. He also taught principles that had been forgotten or abandoned. He restored them.
Such as

Leviticus 19:18 "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of my people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, I am the Lord."

Verse 34 "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt, I am the Lord your God."

Deuteronomy 10:19
"Love ye therefore the stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt"

"And it shall come to pass in that day that the prophets {false} shall be ashamed, everyone of his {his own} vision when He {the Messiah} hath prophesiedneither shall they wear a rough garment {to wear what some prophets wear, humble clothes}

When the Messiah comes again, they will know, all will know, He speaks the truth and therefore the false prophets will be revealed and they will know they can't pretend to be a prophet anymore. This is because all truth will be revealed.

The next verse has nothing to do with Jesus because He wasn't a tiller of the soil or entrusted with cattle. I didn't say that part pertained to Him. Because it is in the previous verse, you think so. That He is individual false prophets, who, as you say admit they are not real prophets.

When people,
{ those that will survive the antimessiah by fleeing into the wilderness or mountains}
will see the nail prints {wounds} in His hands and ask "What are these?"
And He shall answer "I was wounded in the house of my friends."
being a Jew by birth, not adopted into it, the jews are all related through Isaac {Israel} and so they are like family, as they were when they were wandering in the wilderness. Although they were organized into tribes and had areas designated to them, they were to treat eachother as extended family. I am talking about when they were all living together in the wilderness as one nation. These are Jesus' extended family. He is not talking about His father, mother, brothers, sisters. None of those in His household were in any way a part of His crucifixition or affliction.

The next verse 7

"Against my shepherd who is MY FELLOW"
One of the many names or titles attributed or given to Jesus to describe Him, was "Good Shepherd" {name for sheep herder, not cattle}. Since Jesus was a carpenter by trade, this shepherding is spiritual shepherding a flock of people.

An aside, Jesus Christ was also called "The Lamb of God" that is symbolic of His mission to atone. He was as a lamb "without blemish" as only those could be slain.

As said before Jesus was a carpenter by trade before the appointed time to begin His mission. Therefore verse 5 is not His literal trade. "For man taught me to keep cattle"
Joseph {a kind of foster father} taught carpentry to Him. I think of Jesus, the creator of the earth, creating with the finest materials before the foundation of the world, on earth, humbled as man, creating with wood, the material, that He, with Heavenly Father's design , created.

I just wanted to share that.

Man did not teach Him to be a spiritual shepherd, to shepgerd a flock of Heavenly Father's children. Heavenly Father appointed and anointed Him to do so.

Now, the significant words of this verse are "My Fellow saith the Lord". The Lord is saying this sheperd is "my fellow". The Lord almighty, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would not associate Himself or be a party to {an accomplice} with a false prophet. That is ungeard of. He has dealt with {targeted} them but not related Himself to them as the word "MY" suggests. This sounds like a personal relationship. A relationship is implied in that word "My". The relationship may be a business relationship {for want of a better word} such as, my prophet or messenger, a person doing a duty for the Lord. It also may be a physical or biological relationship such as Father and Son. However it is,
a relationship is implied with the word "My"

Try this sentence {the Lord is speaking} "My false prophet"

This shepherd with the wounds in his hands is God's Fellow!
He is doing the work of the G-d and He is the son of G-d.

I'm prefacing this with this thought.

Translating the Tanakh
{I think this is the right word} if it's not the right word don't use the { i....} word.
If you do, I won't respond in the future. I will use this word for now because I think the Torah is the five books of Moses and the books of the law.

Translating the Tanakh's Hebrew into English and the New Testement's Greek into English has cause mistranslations. Jews and Greeks for example may have a word that has some similarity but is not exactly the same. I'll use a hypothetical, the word perseverent, if that were being translated from Greek to Hebrew {for the sake of example}, a Greek may see it as determined but a Jewish person as stubborn. There is a similarity in that a determined person may be stubborn but not all determined people are stubborn. They may be doing what is right and being perseverent. This is semantics.
Every time language is translated there is a question of the semantics whether it is Hebrew to greek or Greek to Hebrew. Mistranslations are for the most part not intention, to deceive you.

Those who have studied language, linguists, can correct the mistranslations. Those in the Old Testement and New Testement have been corrected and the corrections published. I don't think that you "Deut", would be interested in the book so I don't have a reason to mention the title.

I have found the Dead Sea Scrolls online which show the actual parchment with writing, {fascinating} and each chapter and verse of Isaiah with word for word english translation next to it. It also explains how the Hebrew is writtem. I am using that as my text and defense of Isaiah 53. By the way, the Isaiah scroll was found in cave 4. It's called now "the Prophet's cave".

Isaiah 53

1. Verse 3 "...despised and rejected..."
2. Verse 5 "...wounded for our transgressions..."
3. Verse 7 "...He was ppressed and He was afflicted yet He opened not His mouth..."
4. Verse 9 "...He was given a grave with the wicked even though He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth.
5. Verse 10 "...APPOINT HIS SOUL AS A SIN OFFERING..."
That spells a SAVIOR AS ATONEMENT
6. Verse 11 "...MY RIGHTEOUS shall JUSTIFY many..."
The Savior had to be perfectly righteous, sinless, in order to atone for others' sins.
If he had sin and was punished he would only be atoning for himself not anybody else.
"...even my righteous servant for many... and their iniquities He will bear..."
7. Verse 21 "...He laid bare to death His soul..."

This is not a result of looking to see what will depict Jesus. Events in Jesus' life are described.
This is not, finding a scripture in this or that place. These scriptures are found together.
Therefore this is not isolating a scripture.
This is not reading out of context.
The Moshiach {a Savior} is described as well.
This is viewing a chapter that describes the mission of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
Jesus Christ fulfilled this prophesy, in Isaiah chapter 53

This chapter only descibes Jesus Christ because there hasn't been any other person in the history of humanity on this planet that lived all that these scriptures describe and was sinless to be as it says "a sin offering". As mentioned before, in Jewish law, a lamb had to be physically perfect, a representation of Jesus Christ's spiritul purity in order to be worthy to be an offering to G-D.

However, you may not interpret Savior as a person who saves a soul from sin, spiritual death or permnent seperation from G-D as well as physical death.
You may just see Him as delivering from physical death, violence or control.

Isaiah 53 has so many descriptions of the Moshiach and what happened to Jesus the Christ that the odds of so many being in one chapter are astronomical, off the charts. There are too many to think it's a coincidence.

Isaiah 53:11
"He shall see of the trevail of His soul and shall be satisfied, by His knowledge shall my righteous servant JUSTIFY MANY, for He shall bear their iniquities."

This servant is not Israel because Israel was not always righteous and even when the Israelites were for the most part, righteous, nobody was sinless and therefore they couldn't JUSTIFY many. They couldn't justify anybody's iniquity. A definition of "Justify" on "Dictionary.Com", a handy reference, is "to free of human guilt and penalty" and another definition is "to declare free of blame, absolve"

How would G-D allow the Israelites to free people of human guilt or penalty when they were guilty and if they weren't guilty why would they have to be freed of guilt or penalty. If you are not guilty you are innoscent and therefore there wouldn't be any guilt or penalty. Therefore it has not been established that the servant spoken of is the Israelites. The Israelites = servant theory does not have merit in this chapter and verse because it contradicts the law of the time. The Israelites are not the servant in this verse. People who remember the law would realize that Isaiah is speaking Messianically.

The Israelites were not allowed to absolve themselve. Jewish law did not allow them to save themselves in their own sins therefore they wouldn't be able to save others in their sins. That is if they themselves have sinned. That is why G-D commanded them to sacrifice.

G-D has priorities. What is repeatedly said or Commnaded be done is the dominant theme and reveals G-D's priority.

There were so many laws and severe penalties such as the death penalty for dishonoring the Sabbath that there was obviously a need for reconciliation. Since the time of Abraham, it was crucial to build an altar and make sacrifice. Since the time of Adam's first sin there has been a need for reconciliation. An Atonment is crucial in G-D's view and takes precedence over Ahaz unbelief at the moment. The feasts that the Israelites were commended to have were symbolic of reconciation or G-D's deliverence.

Ahaz didn't want a sign that he and his kingdom would be delivered {physical protection}from attack so Isaiah didn't offer one. Why would he if Ahaz didn't want one. Isaiah descided or G-D impressed him to offer a sign that would be a spiritual deliverence.

You might say why would Isaiah offer a sign of spiritual deliverence when he didn't want a sign of physical deliverence? If you believe it is a sign for a physical deliverence at the time, I would say, Why would Isaiah offer a sign of physical deliverence if he didn't want a sign? The difference is, Isaiah asked Ahaz to ask for a sign of physical deliverence which Ahaz didn't want but Isaiah did not ask if Ahaz wanted a sign of eventual spiritual deliverence for those of his kingdom, Isaiah just gave it. He didn't leave it up for Ahaz to descide because Isaiah knew that Ahaz was not a spiritual kind of guy {to put it mildly}. He knew he didn't really care about the spiritual well being of his kingdom. If Isaiah had given a sign of some spiritual deliverence for his time, that is if G-D thought they deserved it, Ahaz wouldn't believe it anymore than he would believe the other sign for a physical deliverence. Ahaz probably wouldn't communicate it to the people that would be another's job. So Isaiah gave a sign for future generations that He knew would be recorded as it was and that future generations would read it and prepare themselves.
Isaiah was being a prophet that day and not a war advisor.

Ahaz should have wanted a sign for the spirtual welfare of his kingdom. That is why G-D calls a prophet to be a guide to offer. Since Ahaz did not want a sign to know what he should for the physically well being of his kinddom Israel was offering a sign that would direct future geberations spriyually and hipe of a messaish that would bring reconcilation.

"Deut", more to come

Ushta god is love

You are answering quastions posted to you elsewhere, I do not believe that , this is the correct place for that. It also seems kind of unfair to those you are responding to since they cannot answer you here.

Just my two cents
Ushta te
Ashai

Deut, you brought up "tense" as in past, present future.

Isaiah 53 begins with "He SHALL grow up..." That is future tense.
In the next verse is present tense with the "Is" but past tense with the "despised"
"He is despised and rejected..."
Just like Isaiah flips from past to future, future to past and "back to the future",
Isaiah seems to be doing the same with tense within a chapter.
How could he be despised when his growing up is yet in the future. I'd like to have a talk with Isaiah and tell him I'm grateful for his prophesies but ask why did you write that way?

Maybe he cared more about what he was writing then the grammar. He probably wrote as he received revelation so he wouldn't forget it. Obviously G-D didn't reveal the future to him in chronological order. Maybe G-D was thinking if everything was spelled out, people wouldn't think to study His word. Just a theory !

To answer another question,
I have read the entire bible twice and study it weekly.

You suggest I pick verese to, in your words "argue". I will not do that. I don't want to argue or debate.

The only way you will know the true translation and interpretation with understanding is to pray. Daniel did, three times a day!I mentioned that in the post that you thought was garbage but I'm getting you past that now.

One reason I've been silent towards you is because if you would never be willing to accept Jesus Christ as the Moshiach, why explain Him to you? It would be fruitless.

It's puzzeling that you would want to read my posts {as mentioned before} when you think some posts are rubbish. More puzzeling is that you want to know more about what you have already determined is rubbish. I was thinking you were doing it for sport as some do, a lark, to make fun. That is one reason I have been silent.

By the way, I am not trying to convert you, only the spirit of G-D has the ability to be a witness to your spirit, to convert the heart and mind. I just share what I know.

More to come, "Deut" but we're almost done. What a relief!

First, Isaiah 26:19

The Dead Sea Scrolls version is good enough for me and should be good enough for you or any Jew since it has been given the honor of being enshrined in a building built just for the express purpose of enshrining it.

This building is right across from the Jewish museum of antiquity in Jerusalem, built in the shape of the Ark of the Covenant.

The Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah 26:19
"Your dead ones shall live WITH my dead body and they shall arise {resurrection}..."
As mentioned before they {all that die} shall arise in the resurrection and live immortally.

Because of Christ's atonement made on the cross, they {all people}, shall not have to suffer a spiritual death which would be because of sin that causes permanent seperation from G-D.

You say you are reading the original text but the Dead Sea Scrolls predates the Massoretic Text by centuries.

I've read the difference of opinion over a word in Psalms 22:16 "lion or pierced"

Zechariah 12:10
"They shall look upon me, whom they have pierced..."

The only difference between the word translated "like a lion" and "they pierced" is
the length of a vowel. The two might easily be confused.

Anciant translations, of the Hebrew text into various languages, think the word is
"Pierced" The Lxx Septuagint was compiled two centuries before the crucifixion and therefore an unbiased witness. In the Lxx Septuagint the word is "Pierced".

The Massorite is from the second century and standardized in the tenth century.
The Massorah is "a collection of critical annotations made by Hebrews scholars called the Masoretes to interpret text. The Hebrew alphabete only has consonants. The Masoretes formulated rules for reading each verse, involving a system of vowels. This was done for pronunciation. The language of the Masora is mostly Aramaic. since the Masoretes were adding vowels and the difference between lion and pierced is the length of a vowel {the stroke}. It is very possible and probable {reasonably so} that pierced was changed to lion.

This concludes my answers to questions on my Post
"Interpretating Prophesy, Has A Prophesy Been Fulfilled or Yet to Be"

In the future I will not respond to any questions or comments that are disrespecting.
This does not just apply to you, "Deut". It applies to anyone who is offensive or disrespectful. You may think that not responding is disrespectful but there is a difference in ommission, not doing what is wanted and commmitting an offense. Being offensive. I did not have time to respond. I only have one day to give to this but now I'm trying to catch up.

Questions or comments that include but are not limited to these words on the ...

"Don't Use Or You Will Lose {my response}" List

1. Crap

2. Garbage

3. Senseless

3. Idiot

4. Liar

5. Boring {as if I asked for a critique}

These are those I've read thus far. There may be others I will find on past threads that I will have to add to the list.

If I see them I will not respond and if it is offensive to the degree that I don't want to read responses to my posts {questions and comments}, not only you won't be able to get a response from me but others won't as well. Then I would have to use the ignore button. You didn't know how I felt so I'm addressing your questions now because you didn't know better.

If you don't agree express yourself with courtesy. If you don't have anything good to say, say nothing at all.

I descided to respond and give you a second chance. It's kind of like how G-D is and I try to exemplify Him, His love, as best I'm able. After all I'm "God is Love"

However I have limits. I don't mess around, so I have conditions.

When I say Shalom! I have, every time, been sincere. If I am offering you peace why would you want to respond with disrepect? I've heard the saying "Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem" We should exemplify the Peace here that is wanted and parayed for. We should be examples to other that we can tolerate differences.

Becaue I'm using precious time to answer a question, if you want a question answered,
you have to descide whether you would rather be insulting or have your question answered, it's your choice, it's your call.

A. Insult

or

B. Be respectful

If you choose "B", I will respond when I have the time.

If you choose "A" I will choose to use my "ignore" button

I found a saying on the internet "There aren't any rewards for critics"

Shalom "Deut"
Let's enjoy Peace

I'll be addressing other people's questions for awhile. I have a lot up catching up to do.

This is my response to complements given in my Post in Hindu
"Path to Saintliness, Purification, The Supreme Being is Pure Love"

Heartfelt thanks to:

Moses the God Archetype
Thank you for the thought "I will be blessed for my Faith and devotion"
Faith is the key to blessings and miracles.

I LOVE the smiley you gave to me. It's my favorite. I was hoping a person would give that smiley to me. If I put it in one of my posts, it might seem I was praising myself. I love it. When I post, sometimes I see the smiley in my "peripheral vision" {I'm not a good speller}.

Fallen Goddess
Thanks for making me feel special with your comment.

WOW, I feel the love in the Hindu room!

+++++++++++++++++ spirit
you lifted my

I was trying to illustrate that with the words

I'm sending love to you.

Response to questions or comments in the Post.
"The Jade Emperor, the first cause of the universe, Utopia, Spiritual Warfare"

Master Vigil

Why I posted. To share similarities like you, as you shared on my Post in Comparitive Religeon. On the Post about the Holy Spirit. I thanked you twice for your comment before I read your comment to this Post. I wanted to thank you again, this time for your respect towards what the Holy Spirit is to me.

As regarding my Post in Taoism. I just quoted what was written about Taoism, a print out from the website, Religious Tolerance . Org. If there should be correction then they should be informed. That website has a link to this website. A website that wants to create religious tolerance is a good website to have around. I used the information on the printout to make comparisons. In a way, I am looking to see what we may agree upon, what we may have in common or to see similarities, what may be relevant. That, in a way, may create compatibility. If Taoism accepts opposites as compatible with each other than even if the doctrines I presented are opposite to Tao they would be compatible in the Yin Yan sense of it. Thereby creating a balance. That is, if what you say about opposites being compatible is true of all things, even doctrines themselves. However, it was not my intention to present opposites in any individual religeon room. That is not the place to do that. So, whatever I have presented in any individual religeon room was, {I thought} compatible.

Finding similarities {if there are any}, helps with creating a oneness with others, those of other religeons. It is not a complete oneness but there is, at least, a oneness regarding that doctrine. Either your or another's mentioned a oneness with others. One doctrine that unites most faiths is the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." There is a website called "Global Oneness" that listed all the religeons that share this principle. This is the list:

1. Native Spiritual Traditions
"Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do, we do to ourselves.
Chief seattle

2. Taoism
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and regard your neighbor's loss as your own."
Tai Shang Kan Ying P'ien

I quoted these because your avatar looks like you either are a native american or you embrace some of their beliefs. You may just like the picture but I thought I would share a native spirtiual principle that is similar if not the same as the golden rule in Christianity. In addition, I wanted to include the Taoist because Taoist was being discussed in the post. These are the others but not with their quotes. Those can be found within my post, "Why did God place us on earth away from him, Plan of Salvation..." in Comparitive Religeon.

3. Judaism

4. Sikhism

5. Islam

6. Buddhism

7. Shinto

8. Hindu

9. jainism

Part 2 to follow

If I misunderstood beliefs it's because they weren't explained on that website. It was just my interpretation of what was given. I didn't know there was philosophical Taoists and religious Taoists and I wouldn't have guessed there was division beween them or difference. So what, I guess, you are saying is that what I wrote was religious Taoism not Philosophical Taoism but I didn't realize that. I also did not realize that Lao Tzu focused on tao or chi more than the Jade Emperor. I think you are saying that the Jade Emperor isn't Tao. You are also saying that Taoists don't believe in a first cause.

I believe the universe always existed too. I believe, {my way of looking at it} is that spirit matter {very refined} always existed and that spirit intelligence always existed. The difference {and i'm saying this because we are in Comparative Religeon now} is that
I believe there was of that spirit intelligence a supreme intelligence that organized and created with the always existing matter and made this planet and the nature on it and humans.

I don't know what Tao is but if it created itself, I wonder if there was a time, it wasn't,
and then created itself. IF it wasn't, then there wouldn't be anything with which to create.
Therefore, in that sense, it would have to already exist., already be.

What is Chi? what is Tao then?
I guess Tao is "Oneness" with what always existed so Taoists believe this is {using my own words now} a melding of spirit {our sirit} with what always existed and thus creating a peace. Where there isn't the opposite of good and bad or as I see it the oppostion of good.

The story "Peach Bloosom Spring"
I didn't have the Chinese philosophical interpretation of the story. The website "Religious tolerance . Org" did not provide it. I just wrote how I relate to it.

I wouldn't know where to find some Chuang Tzu and Wudang documents that I would have convenient access to read. If they are somewhere on the internet, I wouldn't know where but if I were to find such documents I would have to be able to print {affordably}those out to read because I have sensitivity to glare on the screen. I also would need some time to read it. If I had the time I would because I'm interested in understanding Chinese philosophy.

"Yin Yan, my understanding of it" to follow

Yin, Yan, my understanding from you is that it is neither bad or good. It is a gray area.
When I thought of opposites, I thought of bad verses good because this is a religious forum and so I was thinking of religious opposites that are in opposition to each other. In that sense negative attracts negative, a better word is "causes". An example, a mean person {bad action} causes harm {injury} upon another. That injury causes the person to not be able to work. That cause the person to not be able to pay bills, that may cause loss of home, and other provisions. If the person has a family to support then it causes bad for them. The children may have to move to another place, a place that the provider is able to afford and they have to lose the friends they made in the neighborhood or at school {yes they could make more friends but} maybe the new neighborhood isn't safe and the kids are mean, maybe the house that is affordable isn't in good condition, the furnace isn't working and they are cold. This can continue to spiral downward on and on and on, etc, etc, etc...

On the other hand good can produce good. In the case of "It's a Wonderfull Life" a kind act of a kind person saves a life that is drowning and that life that was saved, that person, somday saves another life, maybe by finding a cure for something.

However in other facets of life, there are opposites that attract such as male, female {need I say more} I completely understand that attraction of opposites.

Physics depends upon some opposites like sailing for example. In order for the sailboat to sail it needs to catch the wins, have the wind in it's sails. In order for it to move forward, wind has to come from the opposite direction. This opposite is compatible and usefull.

I did not intentionally, take philosophy out of context to make it the same. I thought there were similarities. As you thought there were some with the Holy Spirit and your Fire God. I was grateful that you were respectful of my view of the Holy spirit and just compared on the "Comparitive Religeon" Forum, your perspective of the Holy spirit from your view. It was educational and I have said so in this Post regarding the Holy Spirit.
I was planning to say that you are an example of how others should be when they want to comment on a post that if not entirely their view, their religeon..

I want to add that I have been inviting Taoists to join this website. I have been searching for Taoists on sites with message boards to invire them here to mingle with us.

Part 3 "response to "anders" and "munchkin"" to follow

"anders"
I wanted to capitalize your name for respect but you choose lower case

My understanding of good and evil is that some may need to experience bad in order to realize it is better to choose good. If they choose bad they eventually experience a negative effect {that's the bad causes bad thing}. If they choose good, they increase their chances of producing good, improving their lives. I say "increases their chances" because bad bad on earth opposes good so there is {I call it } spiritual warfare. Mostly it is with others who oppose us but sometimes it is within, in our conscience.

My doctrinal belief is that there is a righteous kingdom beyond this earth in which bad can not be tolerated. The bad repels the good and the good repels the bad. They do not nor can not coexist harmoniously. Since good is a stronger force, the force for good it compels bad to depart. Only goodness, righteousness exists in God's kingdom. I did say, this is my doctrinal belief and feel it appropriate to say it in Comparitive Religeon, the appropriate place rather than in Individual Religeon.

An example of a doctrine that I believe is true

"the kingdom of God is not filthy and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God. Wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy." 1 Nephi 15:34 {Another Testement of Jesus Christ}

This doctrine is saying that, bad and good do not exist together in the spirit world because they repel each other.

However in other facets of life, there are opposites that attract such as male and female. I understand that balance and harmony completely and laws of physics.
I definetely see how an opposite such as male and female need each other.

However there are opposites such as sickness and health. Sickness opposes health such that sickness and health could not coexist. For example, cancer may coexist for a time but may spread and cause health to deteriate to the degree that there is more sickness thann health. That is not balance but sickness does not regard balance, it has a will of it's own. It may cause death. Then there is no health, no life.

"Munchkin"

You commented on opposites too.

There are opposites as I've mentioned here, that are compatible such as those in nature.
Short and long, high and low do set measures to each other.

I'm just saying that my doctrinal belief is that some are not compatible and only would say this in Comparitive Religeon to show the respect that I would want myself.

Some example of opposites that I do not think are compatible are those already mentioned, sickness and health being one of those. I think this is understood by Taoists because they are those who have studied herbs, their health properties, and contributed so much to alternative medicine and I am so very grateful to them for that.

Also, hate and love do not coexist. Love and hate doe not coexist in a home
environment. Therefore it is understandable why God does not want hate in His eternal kingdom.

When bad happens to good people, they suffer and sometimes cause others to suffer as they pass the pain on. When bad happend to bad people, sometimes it compels them to be good, if nothing else than to avoid punishment.

Regarding bad existing or ugliness in order that good or beauty exist. In other words one by being the opposite causes the other.

When I was a child I lived where there was beauty around my home, the beauty of nature. When one of my parents died, the other made the unwise choice of moving and I and the other sibling was forced to leave. We were moved to an ugly place. The neighborhood reminded me of a scene I saw in a preview of a movie. It reminded me of gotham city. I hated it. Obviously by comparison, that place would make the other gorgeous. However, the other place was already beautiful to me as a child, before I had seen any ugliness. I was fond of the place as young as three.

I didn't need to see the ugliness of the other place to appreciate the beauty that was where I was before. I don't have to experience love to love love. I have always loved lovel love, even as a child. although, I agree with this that some people do.
They have to experience the bad to know the good. Some people have to learn the hard way.

I would not or at least, not intend, to bring up differences in any religeon other than if it were somehow relevant. For example, and I think this is the only time I have done it.
In the Sikh religeon they have a form of baptism. The similarity is that Christians have a form of baptism. However there is a difference in that form. I descided to mention baptism because although the form is different, there is a baptism. In Buddhism, there is a way to Enlightenment and in Chritianity there is a way to enlightenment but there is a f=difference in the way. I wanted to mention Enlightenment to Buddhists althought there is a difference in the way it is obtained becauase, at least, we both seek enlightment. There is a common goal.

More to come Munchkin

Thank for your statement
"Oneness with Tao {with what always existed} can be found through other religeons, Krishnas, Muslims and Christians"

You also mentioned realizing true self {inner self}, worthiness, being one with others. Perhapps you would like the website I found "Global Oneness". I shared it with Maize.

My expression of this oneness is "one heart and one mind". Thinking and feeling the same, having the same desire or understanding. The words I used for that were Utopia and Zion. These words are not familiar to Tao, I realize that but they are words I am familiar with to describe oneness. We have different words to express oneness. Zion {my word} is having one heart and one mind with others, a unity in a comminity. That would be an example of "being one with others". I realize that is not the oneness that Master Vigil spoke of after a person passes on.

There may be other types of unity but that is what came to my mind. That is what I relate to.

Pardus

I think most people are a mixture of goos and bad. I'd rather say strengths and weaknesses. They live some principles but not others. They choose their ethics. This makes them kind of gray.

Chris P

What was said about Taoist' belief was taken from the "Religious Tolerance . org" website on which there is a link to this website. I printed and read what was there. I wasn't looking for more information since I just wanted an over view. I thought the website was accurate because it was unbiased.

This regards my post "Enlightenment" in buddhism

Engyo
I got a sense of you when I read your comment. I sense somehow that your spirit is calm, there is a gentleness about you.
Quoting you, "To awaken that which is beyond". That sounds like getting inspiration {just guessing}. I'm curious to know what your experience was when you had it.

So {if I understand you}, mindfulness is remembering or keeping in mind and being aware. If it is the opposite of apathy as you say then being aware is also to care. Investigation as you say is a part of it so investigation makes you aware.

Chris P

I believe too that the heart and mind is the core of the being, {the spirit }.
A part of what you said sounds like following your heart or intuition and I agree with that too. I get it!

I also see that what is imagined with our imagination should be distinguised from what is inspiried, truth revealed.

Ymir GF

So {i'm guessing} that meditation is like {putting it into my own words}, investigating yourself to find what is at the core, the essence of yourself or your being. I think of it as finding what you value which is to me what I call "the cause of all causes". It's what cause you to react the way you do, to do what you do. it's at the root of your inclinations or tendencies, your desires, passions, it motivates you, drives you. It's at the heart of your goals or quest. It is the priority of priorities. It is the mission statement for your life. {I'm not saying this as in missionary work}. What I am saying is that it is the goal that sub goals serve.

I agree that it is absolutely necessary to clear the mind, to make the mind receptive to what is beyond human thought, to be revealed {using my understanding of Engyo's statements}. When this happens you would see what hadn't been seen before ot know what hadn't been known before.

When I mentioned contemplation, pondering, meditation in that sense, I was thinking of Sidhartha {renamed Buddha} who contemplated as his personal history says, human suffering. When Sidhartha/Buddha received, what he believed to be how to relieve it,
he touched the earth and said "I am enlightened".

The scriptures that I added to the post was just to share the way meditating in prayer, {a way to connect to the beyond} with God {God being beyond and having all wisdom} or {enlightenment} is a way to receive enlightenment. Same goal but different method.
Instead of tuning in to the self to know self {which is good}or beyond self to what is beyond, it is tuning into God who is beyond, beyond the limitations of human thought, who is all knowing. Receiving from Him what is beyond, what is eternal truth or truth that always existed. That we are trying to find. Receiving through His Holy Spirit that reveals it to our minds. That is my doctrinal belief that I was sharing because of that same goal, that being, to be enlightened.

This regards my post "Eternal Mind,Karma, the Cause and Effect Relationship"

Snoonsh

You're right.

Putting it into my words,
Bad must be repaid, compensated and good rewarded for there to be balance.

My doctrinal belief in the "preexistence {that is what I call the life before}, is that some learned more wisdom than others or became more good {developed more rightiousness} as they learned what is good in the preexistence, so they have more advantage in this life.
Mozart is an example of a child prodigy that already knew how to play. All he needed was a piano.

A difference between the preexistence and reincarnation is a life before instead of lives before. Althought the preexistence since time did not have a beginning is an infibite amount of years. The other difference is that the spirit existed before {in the preexistence as a spirit not having a physical body yet.

So whay you may be saying is that the present life is the effect of the past and the present is the cause of events in the future.

This scripture, although a part of my doctrinal beliefs, relates to the karma being in either this life or the next. If you reward yourself here or are rewarded than you got your reward that you wanted but if the reward you seek is in His kingdom in the next life, with Him or He is the giver of it, then you either receive it here if it is here or if it is in His kingdom then there in His kingdom. you receive it then.

"Take heed that ye do not your alms {offerings to poor} before men, to be seen of them, otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee {announce it}, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward."
Matthew 6:1-2 {in bible}

Thank you for your respect towards me in Buddhism. Although there were differences in doctrines that were brought up, nobody used any offensive words or showed disrespect towards me. Your respect is appreciated and thanked here publically. Your respect on that post should be brought to light and rewarded with a thankyou. As an example to others. That is Karma in action and that is pretty much what it is all about for me.
Thank you

This regards my post
"One of the Steps on the 8 fold Path, Summa Kammanta, Right Conduct" in Buddhism.

Engyo

Excuse me, "complete or whole is the appropriate word to use when discussing the 8 fold path.

I agree that anything that causes distortion or diminished {my words, ability to think} thought, is harmfull to the mind. You propbably have heard the saying "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" The mind is most valuable and should be protected.

Ezratal

I agree that drugs to be avoided are those that are mind diluting or intoxicating substances and not drugs for medical purposes.

My source of the material about Buddhism was " Religious Tolerance . Org "
I thought it was an unbiased website {due to title} and would have accurate information. I think it is amazing, what the person or persons has done with that site, collecting all that information and doing it to help bring about religious tolerance. They should be commended. However, if there are any errors in the doctrines that are given that would have to be brought to their attention, respectfully. Just the fact they want religious tolerance is commendable.

There is a link there to this site so they are guiding those of various religeon to this website and here they can be further guided in the individual religeons themselves as to interpretation of doctrines. There corrections can be made.

I found that site before I discovered this website. I already had acquired the information.

dhammasaavaka
thank you for sharing on my post.