₦airaland Forum

Ok, Viaro. Nice to receive more of your insults. I will not return the favour - and i am certain that you cannot accuse me of using such words as ("fh.u.c.k off" - "idiot" - "fool" etc) on you - despite your ceaseless use of such language on me. It is beyond me that without insulting you in such terms you are at ease to consistently use such language with me. Very well. At least you are out of the closet - nice to know the real Viaro. I suppose i can live with it now that it is clear.

Back to business -

Abeg be clear for me: before i make another of my tragic presumptions -

 1. You have stated previously, and affirmed again within your last post  - that Elijah went into the spiritual heavens.

 2. You have stated that he went there with his physical body.

Can you just affirm the foregoing to me as your position, so i do not misunderstand you before i go further.

Thanks.

Redefining how reincarnation works to suit your position is an insult to all of us, and is intellectually dishonest.

Boy oh boy! And what is the redefinition?

Stating that a person must depart the world before it can be said that he "returns" is dishonest?

And what difference does the means of departure make? Death. Ascension. KLM. Luftansa. Voodoo.

Boy oh boy!

^^^ So it makes sense to you, Krayols, that Elijah is still PHYSICALLY ALIVE somewhere on this earth?

Na wa oh.

JeSoul:
Oga all this went out the window when one of them threatened Seun with Fatwah 2yrs ago I think. One cannot blame him for trying to protect himself and his own.

Darling! ! ! A happy new year to you!

Well let me also say that it might be that Seun thinks that having the separat section for Islam is also a way of showing up just how intolerant the Islamists are. He has played a practical joke on them all this while! ! !

Wow, I never had such a rain of vulgar insults as Viaro serves up to me. I thought Tudor was bad. . . but men . . .

HERE WE GO -  - -

viaro:
Here again are those questions: These are not too challenging, are they? And why have you been VIOLATING your own definition of reincarnation by force-reading very laughable non-starters on the continuing discourse?

I am tired of trying to help you see that a departure from the world is what is key. Reincarnation connotes a return to the world and to return, of course one must first depart.

What is the standard means of departing the world?

Death.

Thus it is not a misnomer to describe death as preceding reincarnation. However where it is asserted that a person did not “die” in the conventional fashion but “ascended” into heaven, I really do not know what degree of education, intelligence or exposure it requires to see that such a person has still left this realm and it is therefore not incongruous to speak of a return in terms of the idea of reincarnation.

FRANKLY this is such toddler’s logic that I am at odds that persons of obvious education such as yourself and Mavenbox are not able to grasp it. It has made me apprehensive that the Viaro I was previously certain was a man of reason, may not present much future interest for me in terms of quality dialectics.

]Now your ceaselessly harping on this no-brainer is quite strange to me in light of this statement from you to me in another thread –

The one thing I may observe here (and agree with you on) is that there just is no sense in maintaining that Elijah could not have gone into 'heaven' and rather argue for 'SKY'. No, no and thrice holy NO! The word in 2 Kings 2:11 is simply 'HEAVEN' (shâmayim  /  shâmeh - שׁמה  /  שׁמים), and not 'SKY' (shachaq - שׁחק).

NOW THIS POSITIVELY KILLS YOU OFF VIARO – FOR YOU HAVE HERE ASSERTED THAT ELIJAH WENT TO HEAVEN – AND NOT TO THE SKY.

WHAT ELSE COULD BE A DEPARTURE FROM THIS WORLD, IF NOT THE FACT OF A MAN HAVING GONE TO THE SPIRITUAL HEAVEN – WHICH YOU SPECIFICALLY STATED IS NOT THE SKY! ! !

Anybody can see clearly that you are the one running around in meaningless circles here – you declare that Elijah went to the spiritual heaven! And yet you insist that that is not a sufficient departure from this world on which to base the concept of a return – which is what reincarnation is!

Gosh, I am laughing so hard. Am I even having this discussion? Incredible.

Now let us note a few implications of this.

1. It is clear from both basic logic, commonsense and also scripture that physical bodies cannot enter a spiritual realm. The bible affirms this when it states that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God – 1 Cor 15:50

2. Thus when you assert that Elijah entered heaven – you accept that he had left his physical body – unless you are willing to go the extra absurd mile and declare that physical bodies enter into the spiritual heavens – which absurdity I will not put beyond you and your Christian clan.

3. Given the acceptance that he had left his physical body – it becomes apparent that no rational person could have a quarrel based on the statement that he returns to this world by fresh birth – which is what reincarnation is.

4. Now tell me Viaro – You say he went to the spiritual heavens. If he were to return – as Jesus said he would – how would it be? BING! He pops out of the sky? Jesus, I cannot believe I am bothering with this.

shut the fu[color=Black]ck up[/color], okay?

No need for the expletives son, just address the above if you can. And while you are at it you might also want to reflect on what sort of Christian is happty to bandy these vulgarities in response to simple arguments from a dumb-head like Deep Sight. I do recall you admonishing Davidylan and Tudor regarding this!

I will verily show up the extents of absurdity that you guys are prepared to entertain to defend your dogma.

Quote from Mavenbox -  -  -

Deep Sight seems to be running round in non-concentric circles, but viaro seems to know the equations of the circles, so outlining the circles is no big deal

In view of the foregoing, do you still think so?

Its obvious your reasoning is coloured by the burden of the need and reflex to defend your dogma. Let’s see. . .

Madam, please do not make wrong insinuations. I was decent enough to state clearly why i used the word hell in the OP.

Here it is again -

Now in all of this she used the word Hades. But i should point out that the word translated as "hell" in the bible are the Hebrew and Greek "Hades" and "Sheol." - which simply mean the grave, or the place if the dead.

Having a separate Child-board for Islam and none for Christianity on a public forum in a bi-polar religious country such as ours is nothing short of discrimination on religious grounds which is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and breaches the African Charter on Human and People's rights.

Bro, this is about reincarnation and nothing else. That was why I took it from the other thread and brought it here so that the tendency to derail a topic would be contained and minimised. I don't see how you have made a good and sustainable argument for reincarnation before trying to drag in unrelated illations into this one. That is not an intelligent approach to discussions, and I wonder if you've lost your grip on every single argument for your reincarnation so that now you're only acting out this diversionary tactics.

Evading a difficult question?

It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCOURSE.

You ran a circus yesterday, making a farcical display of a supposed distinction between "death" and "transition" in terms of reincarnation.

You based your claims of the ground that Elijah never died.

Don't you think that foundation deserves to be questioned?

How can you assert that Elijah never died and yet maintain that ALL mankingd are doomed to die on account of Adamic sin?

How could Elijah be exempted from this? Or he is not part of Mankind anymore? Oh, i forgot - he is a rat, not a man. So Adamic sin does not apply to him. Thus he lives forever without Death.

O, and one more thing - If he did not die - then clearly the assertion that Christ's sacrifice is necessary to redeem mankind from death IS FALSE.

Wow, what dogma.

Farcical.

Quote from Mavenbox -

Christian Hocus Pocus? Deep Sight, do we have a problem here? What do YOU understand about the hebrew and greek words translated as hell? If you want to go down this path, open a new thread and let us deal with it ASAP.

Mavenbox asked me to open this thread.

She believes in hell.

I am particularly interested in this subject because the self same Mavenbox had asserted the following in a recent thread:

 1. That paradise is in Hell

 2. That the tree of life spoken about in the Bible is in Hell

 3. That paradise will be moved from Hell to Heaven at the end of time

 4. That the garden of Eden was in Hell.

Fantastic claims. Bizzarre if you ask me.

Now in all of this she used the word Hades. But i should point out that the word translated as "hell" in the bible are the Hebrew and Greek "Hades" and "Sheol." - which simply mean the grave, or the place if the dead.

In the light of Maven's claims regarding hell, let us ask her to make some sense of this great hell-place - where paradise is - and which is yet asserted to be a place of torture and suffering.

References -

I asked her -

Please educate my ignorance and delineate for me the distinctions between “paradise” and “heaven.”

And she responded with the following:

The word hades occurs ten times in the New Testament, and always refers to the unseen realm of the dead—the receptacle of disembodied spirits where all people who die await for the Lord’s return and judgment. One part of hades, where Jesus and the thief went, is known as paradise

If Goshen was in a plagued Egypt, why can't the temporary paradise be in Hades as the Bible says?

When Christ died, he went to paradise. But the Bible clearly tells us that he went to Hell (Hades), the state of departed spirits. The next verse confirms that indeed he went to Hades.

Act 2:27  For You will not abandon my soul, leaving it helpless in Hades (the state of departed spirits), nor let Your Holy One know decay or see destruction [of the body after death].

WHICH PROVES THAT THE PARADISE HE WENT TO, WAS IN HADES.

The "paradise" place was relocated to heaven, it was no longer a place in "hell"

The tree of life will definitely be relocated along with the entire paradise project.

Don't you just luuuuuuuv these christians. To what extent will they not go?

Oya, Marvelous Maven - over to you.

^^^ Interesting, but you will agree with me that i am entitled to view this as bizzarre spin and nothing more.

viaro:
Your legal background is not yet mature - that's what we call half-baked 'charge-and-bail' diploma!

Haba na?

DeepSight, is your God alive? Yes? Please produce it/he.

Intangible Divine being.

Nope, Elijah was seen centuries LATER at the TRANSFIGURATION in Matthew 17.

I cant stop giggling at this one. This dude really thinks the tranfiguration was a physical appearance. So Elijah had been living somwhere on Earth for centuries hiding out in a cave and just popped out to say hi to Jeezy Christ at the transfiguration. Wow! Comic relief dont get any better than this!

Where you get the 'seven years' from is below you and beyond me - by what legal or philosophical science did you come to that conclusion?

The legal prsumption of death is a secular legal presumption that kicks in when a person has not been seen for seven years. I dont know what you're weaving boy, but this is sounding rather unhinged right now.

Nope, it cannot be hard. You tell us where it is that his spirit left his body, and we shall gather all his constituents for you.

Many people simply have not thought through their belief systems. Otherwise i don't know how a Christian who believes that by adamic sin ALL of mankind bought into death and lost eternal life - will also believe that one man somewhere escaped the said adamic sin and was exempted from death - EVEN BEFORE CHRIST SUPPOSEDLY PAID THE RANSOM!

Ya gotta luuuuuuuuv these Christians!

What is wrong with you Mazaje, I have told you several times that i am the prophet of the Oneness of Infinity sent to Nairaland to redeem your souls. I am also his only begotten son, it is no surprise therefore that you persecute me, like you did in my former lifetime when i came as Jesus Christ. Why are you so stubborn? Why don't you want to bow down and worship me? ? ? Do you want to go to hell? ? ?

nuclearboy:
Don't spoon feed us, DeepSight, we are adults and won't accept "this food" from you. Poison ivy is not "food".

What we have said is that Elijah didn't die and ascended with his body - where to, I refuse to speculate on since I have no outright scriptural or otherwise backing for such answer. You are the only one I see on this thread who has stated (claimed) knowledge of where Elijah is so you ought answer the question. And from the message in your posts, it seems you believe Elijah was "transubtutated" into John's Mam, body and all.

As an aside, those OT women must have been very strong - imagine carrying a hairy elderly prophet inside you for 9 months; plus Elijah was very rude too. Probably cussed her each time she made him uncomfortable inside her.

Your problem with departure from the world is this - what happened to the body because, Sir, you do not depart from the world till you leave your body! And I do not give a rats nuts if Elijah lives in a rhombus cloud today - it is you that says he departed the world in the context of re-incarnation so tell me where his body is because he needs must drop one body before he can occupy another else he is divine!

Sir - my legal background gives me to know that he who asserts that a person is alive should simply produce that person.

As an aside, the legal presumption of death kicks in once a person is not seen for seven years.

Sinvce you assert that Elijah did not die, then please produce him. Haba, it cannot be too hard na?

unless, of course, you want to cry "error" yet again

Jesus. You didn't even get that that statement was made just to show you that there's no difference between the "error" and "transition." -

I said - - -

I hope you recognize that in reality i have not abandoned my earlier definition: given that death is a transition!

Cant help this nursery class then.

Reincarnation is predicated on a[b] departure[/b] from the world. However defined.

I cannot say more as i will be repeating myself.

I already explained why death is used in the definition. of reincarnation -

Now the standard means of departing this world is death; it is therefore not wrong when we define reincarnation in terms of “a previously dead person.” That remains a correct definition, because as far as we know, humans only depart the world via death.

This takes nothing away from the fact that a departure is what is at issue.

I cant say more. I feel like i'm spoonfeeding a nursery class.

Nuclear - maybe YOU should tell me where Elijah's body is since he  didn't "die."

Like i said before - perhaps he is still roaming the caves in the middle east?

Oh, no wonder centuries later, he was able to appear beside christ - he was alive and kicking here in the physical, eating and drinking all those years! Can you defend this? ? ? ? ?

Now onto pigs and men: if the point being made concerned excreta for example - the common ground stands. Just as surely as the common ground between death and ascension stands when reincarnation is at issue - to wit: they are both a departure from this realm.

I am getting tired.

Quote from Nuclearboy -

@DeepSight:

Please refrain from using me as attestation of reason in your posts. I'd be a poor certificate since I was arguing that you were moving the goal posts. I said 'ascension is a transition. Death also is a transition. BUT YOUR OWN DEFINITION (bandied between you and Viaro) of Re-incarnation is birth-[b]death-rebirth NOT transition-transition-transition. If death is a transition, then birth also is a transition and re-birth also is a transition! [/b]

Considered as above (in entirety), I was trying to say this is ridiculous - transition - transition - transition. Everything ends in life. We both know that! Where do "your" transitions end? in more transitions! But that is not even the question - it is where does it start? with "transitions" too! That, I see as meaningless since you earlier posited it starts with God but now decided it starts with transitions! Capische?

For clarity, I do not believe Death and Ascension mean the same for that would suppose I believe Jesus is dead. You think that?

I notice you've left out Abraham's exemption from re-incarnation and the fact that even the "ascended" Elijah showed up at the transfiguration! Would you say Elijah is Omnipresent since re-incarnation doesn't seek us to believe in multiple simultaneous instances? oh, I forgot - his importance had to be emphasized so he 'temporarily' became omnipresent, abi?

I am going to hope feverishly that this last attempt will sail through to you all; and enable you to recognise just how pedantic you are all being with this point.

What is a reincarnation? It is the act of coming back into the world as a new born baby.

It need hardly be said that in order to return, one must first depart.

Thus the departure (or transition) is what is key.

Now the standard means of departing this world is death; it is therefore not wrong when we define reincarnation in terms of “a previously dead person.” That remains a correct definition, because as far as we know, humans only depart the world via death.

But where it is claimed that a person did not die, but “ascended” to another realm – this causes no problems because it is clear that what is critical is the departure – without which we cannot speak of a return.

So I am exhausted that persons can make an issue between a “death” and a “departure.” (transition/ ascension. Etc) As I have said a zillion times already, in the context of the reincarnation discourse they are the same thing because to return, one must first depart. By death. By Luftansa. By voodoo. Whatever.

Viaro -

Alright, let's see who is making a mockery of logic.

Answer me these two questions only and the matter must rest -

 1. Is death a transition?

 2. Is ascension a transition?

Simple.

Viaro - I have not finished reading your last comeback, but i thought, haven seen where you are headed i could save us all some trouble.

Let us say that i abandon the previous definition of reincarnation and state that i made a mistake  - no man being above error.

And then redefine it as the scenario where a man who had previously transitted from this plane returns by birth as an infant.

Would that butter you up? Would that change any of the principal issues and arguments already made? ? ? ?

I hope you recognize that in reality i have not abandoned my earlier definition: given that death is a transition!

I hope you recognise how much you are playing around with words!

Round and round and round we go. . .Viaro on the round about again. You know what? I give up.

So no need for you to comeback to me on this son.

For the general reader i surmise as follows -

 1. Death is a transition

 2. Ascension is a transition.

Viaro accepts both of these statements to be true. And yet he tells me he cannot see how the effect of both is the same as i have always said in the context of the reincarnation discourse.

Both take a human spirit out of this world to another plane. Is it hard to see that transition to another plane be it by death, ascension, descension, progression, regression or viarosion is still transition to another plane - and thus clears this plane of that entity that is said to later return.

And yet he calls me st.upid.

Well!!!

^^^ Death is only a transition. That addresses the first part of your question.

The second part is beyond me to say: I can only suggest that the cardinal role of Elijah in Bible chronology and holistic theory needed to be emphasized

^^^ And the above just underlines how tiresome you are, Viaro: you know Death is a transition. So how come you are making an issue of the use of the word "transition?"

E tire me o.

Quote from Viaro -

Please don't play games with us here - what do you think you're messing up with?

You DeepSight gave your own definition of 'reincarnation' as
Quote
"a scenario where a previously dead person is born again as a baby"
. . so what is this nonsense about 'transition'? Are you now trying to backtrack on the core element of that definition ('previously DEAD') so you can play games with this quibbling on transition?

You tend to have the petty habit of quibbling on words Viaro. Death is a transition. You cannot deny that. So it is extremely bizzare to see you all over the place stating that bringing the word "transition" into the mix is an after-thought.

Its all the difference between six and half a dozen. No difference at all.

I am interested in a discourse with truth as the goal; and frankly in discussions on matters deep and spiritual it is no news that terms will be confused. Thus to have some one harp on verbal exactitude can never be of any use to a spiritual discussion - especially considering the vast limitations of words.

But all this aside  - the simple fact is that you cannot deny that death is a transition. Or will you?

On John's denial, Malbron already set you straight on that? Who should know the identity of each man best - Jesus (as almighty God) or mere men themselves?

You see what i meant by going around in circles? All the arguments have been tabled already: go read the previous posts for answers to your questions!

Quote from Viaro -

•since when has reincarnation excluded DEATH as a necessary element in its definition by reincarnationists?
•since Elijah did NOT experience DEATH, where does 'reincarnation' still remain 'reincarnation' in his case?
•since another core element of reincarnation as defined by reincarnationists is a 'past life', where in Scripture do we find: (a) the 'past life' of Elijah in Scripture? (b) the 'past life' of John the Baptist in Scripture?
•if you could find the 'past life' of Elijah, then indeed it would mean that Elijah lived as someone else before he became 'Elijah' - and you would have to identify such a person/persons - otherwise your 'endless circle' is as meaningless as meaninglessness itself!


•how is it that John the baptist categorically DENIED being Elijah in John 1:21 if at all we are talking about the very same person through reincarnation??

You see, DeepSight, you would just have to keep in mind the core elements that define reincarnation (such as death and 'past life') when you discuss this topic here - or else your 'reincarnation' is simply not 'reincarnation' when you ignore those core elements! Do you want to keep playing such a cheat while the thread lasts?

I believe i answered these concerns already.

I stated (and Nuclearboy did agree) that –

1. A death is a transition to another realm/ plane
2. An ascension is a transition to another realm/ plane

Thus in the context of the reincarnation discourse, they have the same effect.

I further explained this by saying –

(Plase note the bolded portion in red)

What do you suppose ascension means?

Do you suppose that Elijah did not ascend to another realm?

If he didn’t then he must have been hanging around in the mountains somewhere in the Middle East for the last 4, 500 years or so. Does that make sense to you?

Does it not make more sense to deduce that the scripture says he was taken up into the heavens – thus that he ascended? And if he ascended it can only be to another realm or plane – not this world – unless you believe that a 5, 000 year old Elijah is still hiding in the caves somewhere in the Middle-East today, no?

Now if he has ascended to another realm – tell me – how is that different from a man who dies and proceeds to another realm in spirit? And if he were to return to this world, how would he do so? Through birth as an infant. . . or . . .BING! He pops out of the sky. Examine yourself in all honesty and see which makes more sense to you.

I hope I am communicating.

So Viaro, I hope it is clear that this is not a basis for anything that you said.

nuclearboy:
But again you miss my point and again I sincerely believe it is deliberate i.e. you are "actually" not missing any part of it. What I say is that whist you make sense, you do so in a purely legalistic manner - conjecture! You are using your "lawyerly" skills to argue an obvious fallacy and advance it as "truth". if that were not so, why do you need to interpret the word?

Can I say it enough that I did not interpret anything?

I took the simple words at their face value.

All the interpretation has been done by you guys! You do not accept the words at their face value and thus you are arguing that they are symbolic! So you are the ones interpreting things - not a dumb clot like me!

Why not accept the simple direct "resurrection" message the Bible passes or just say you do not believe the Bible? Why say "yes, there's resurrection there but I also see re-incarnation behind it and to show this, I have to "interpret"

As stated above, I have interpreted nothing!

As an aside – what do YOU believe happens at death?

Somewhere inside me, a voice says you find this that you do funny and interesting, - an "intellectual" game of chess, coming from behind (with only the minimal standing) to win.

Trust me this is not the case. I seek only truth. I play no games. Don’t expect games from a person who spent his entire childhood using his pocket money to buy newspapers, bibles and bible literature.

Well, you did get Viaro to leave (never saw that before) and MavenBox too has gone silent.

I did not get them to leave. I stated that I would not respond to their last posts as I saw no further point. They can only interpret this as victory in the debate, and thus must have gone off to celebrate. Mazaje the (Mauric Iwu) umpire also affirmed their victory. So what then? For me I would love to dedicate the rest of this thread to discussing reincarnation itself as a concept and what happens at death.

Finally, ascension is a transition. Death also is a transition.

I am happy you accept this. Thus we needn’t quibble on words – would you be happier if I stated that a transition from this world precedes a transition into it – to qualify as reincarnation?

I fear that you're taking this too far, DeepSight and that especially when everything you base your words on may be interpreted in any number of ways. This repeated "very plain words of Jesus" has become quite tiresome and is beneath you (at least in the sight of such as me who have shown respect for your reasoning). It is not based on anything more than a decision to interpret issues to suit yourself.

The same may be said for you and your colleagues: especially in light of the fact that the plain words stand on my side of the debate – only advanced intellectuals like yourself, Viaro and Mavenbox are able to conjure it to mean something else.

I repeat: Christ DID say those words. None of you can deny that he did – your only argument rests in stating that the words were symbolic only – which you have to PROVE.

It is thus strange to me that you are telling me that MY interpretation is “not based on anything more than a decision to interpret issues to suit yourself.”

Do you not think the same apples more aptly to those of you who are reading symbols into the text, whereas, idiot that I am, I have chosen to accept the plain words only? Now who is interpreting issues to suit themselves? In fact, I am not even interpreting anything – given that I am resting on the plain words – you lot are the ones doing a lot of interpretation!

That was why I thought it better to state the obvious contradictions in the re-incarnation theory according to the Bible rather than leaving it open to "twisting". And you come back by postulating that "ascension and death mean the same thing"

I was hoping further explanation of this would not be necessary. Note that I said they mean the same thing IN THE CONTEXT of this debate. Why?

What do you suppose ascension means?

Do you suppose that Elijah did not ascend to another realm?

If he didn’t then he must have been hanging around in the mountains somewhere in the Middle East for the last 4, 500 years or so. Does that make sense to you?

Does it not make more sense to deduce that the scripture says he was taken up into the heavens – thus that he ascended? And if he ascended it can only be to another realm or plane – not this world – unless you believe that a 5, 000 year old Elijah is still hiding in the caves somewhere in the Middle-East today, no?

Now if he has ascended to another realm – tell me – how is that different from a man who dies and proceeds to another realm in spirit? And if he were to return to this world, how would he do so? Through birth as an infant. . . or . . .BING! He pops out of the sky. Examine yourself in all honesty and see which makes more sense to you.

I hope I am communicating.

None of the scriptures quoted can really stand up to very serious and laboured scrutiny.

Well my fear is that "very serious and laboured scrutiny" is actually a euphenism for some persons to deliberately seek to evade the very plain text and the very direct words of Christ himself -

Whereas the gospel adjures man to receive with the simplicity of a child.

Thanks Nuclear. I will try to be as clear and concise as I can. I hope its helpful.

nuclearboy:
Abi

Where does it (plane of existence) start and where does it end?

It begins with God and continues through perhaps endless cycles. Only God can determine if or when it may end.

BTW, the human race has been consistently growing in size. Are you then also positing that we all have been doing "anko" and developing at the same time into this world? note that this would mean ultimately that at least one world (your start plane/position/transitory initiator) would ultimately end up empty! Then what? Infinity collapses?

God being self-expressive by nature does not cease to create. The continuous outward radiation of God is what forms as creation and souls. For this reason even as we speak, every second zillions of new souls are emerging from God and seeping into zillions of worlds and planes. It is continuous. Thus there is nothing like “emptiness” anywhere. Please try to absorb this and expand your view.

DeepSight, do you have to go to this extent to self-justify! Next we'll hear the angelic host is the next step along the way to " "! You'll have to help fill in the blank space as I wonder what the final step in this your journey through "transitions" would be.

I hope the foregoing was useful. I do not try to self-justify. I communicate my perceptions of reality and Truth as I apprehend them: and apprehending reality (Truth) has occupied the better part of my musings for a decade now. I do pray it’s not time wasted.

LOL Mazaje you have been hounding me on every thread on Oneness of Infinity just the way i hound some people on trinity. I guess its nemesis!

Well simply put, let me just say this - God is not mathematics, but self-existent mathematics is a mirror of the sublime mind of God.

In the same way the definite oneness of all inseparable infinity is a mirror of the eternal and omnipresent nature of God.

^^^ I doubt you have got my question.

1. Is there anything that exists without a purpose or function in the universe?

2. If there isn't (which i believe is the case as nature abhors a vaccum) then what is the function of human happiness - or human sorrow?

Well, a possible explanation is that we are still evolving and may, in the future, develop faculties that will help us to understand or experience other possibilities/realms/phenomena, whateva u wanna call it.

This is not an explanation but an assumption commencing from th epoint of already existing beings such as ourselves.

I'm not sure I understand the question about tangible beings pursuing love and happiness. . . what exactly do u mean?

I said BEINGS pursuing INTANGIBLE ENDS such as love and happiness.

Hint: What does a man's happiness contribute to the universe? If it contributes nothing, could the universe really spawn such a thing? If it does contribute something - then what is that thing? Will the answer tell us anything about the purpose of the universe itself?