" Sri Ramana's God is not a personal God, he is the formless being which sustains the universe. He is not the creator of the universe, the universe is merely a manifestation of his inherent power; he is inseparable from it, but he is not affected by its appearance or its disappearance. "
I think, such a definition of God is more rational. (no myth, no fairy tale)
What do you think?
http://www.realization.org/page/topics/ramana.htm
2006-10-09 01:20:48 · 2 answers · asked by skeptic 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Jesus was God in flesh. He said if we knew Him, we'd know the Father. My Jesus is personal, and so is the Father.
2006-10-09 01:27:11 · answer #1 · answered by RB 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't think so. You trying to create credibility for some hack's teachings. Jesus and God are one and the same. A creator who is fully involved with and in His creation?
2006-10-09 08:50:46 · answer #2 · answered by P P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋