English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

17 answers

you dont need to give him a name, he already has one

2007-08-12 02:44:34 · answer #1 · answered by IT'S ME AGAIN 6 · 0 3

The spiritual person or spirituality does not require such definition as one has given In my opinion,spirituality can not be learnd by the manner we want to learn. Spirituality is a gift of Almighty and religions can be termed as one little part of Spirituality. The Spirituality consider all the persons means good & bad all are equal. I suggest to rename or name a God should be replaced by if we worship a God instead of Give God a name by given a name to show respect with Almighty. You can call or name the God by any name there is no restriction on such work by Almighty Lord Krishna in Gita. Moreover what ever your internal views from your soul towards Almighty that is more important than to show artificial worship. I thank you very much for asking an interesting question.

2007-08-15 11:19:45 · answer #2 · answered by misraop2004 5 · 1 0

A name does not limit; a name merely helps us define. It is a label used to explain and express our identification of something. Even Jesus said "I am known by many names," so He was not worried about what anyone called Him. He was secure enough in Himself that it did not matter if anyone called Him Jesus, Jehovah, Krishna, Allah, Adonai, Diana, Buddha, All That Is, "Me At My Highest State Of Being," or anything else. And He still does not mind what we call Him.

Our understanding of spirituality is limited only by our unwillingness or WILLINGNESS to think and feel and change and grow. Be limitless. It is our true nature.

2007-08-12 09:54:51 · answer #3 · answered by Shihan 5 · 4 0

Spirituality Knows the Oneness, religion seeks to Name Him/Her/Them. Religion is incorporated into Spirituality. Spirituality Is the Body, religion is only a part of of the Body..

A great question!!

All is One

Namaste

Peace and Love

2007-08-12 09:50:37 · answer #4 · answered by digilook 2 · 4 0

What you recognize is the fact that only that which is or was created has a name. From whom did "God" receive his name from, since truly a name is only assigned by one that comes before you? Rather what people see in biblical scriptures and etc, these names define, or are esoteric values to the very figurative image that it is necessary in understanding within yourself. Those who apply scriptures outwardly and assign a name to God like they know him, are merely created a God in the place of "God," all such actions are them creating gods out of their own conceit, constructs if you will.

I will say this, if God has a name then it is in knowing the WHOLE, in knowing God as God; Divinity knowing divinity, this relationship is God's name. You can't now God until you know thy self. God embraces all things while nothing embraces God, the Whole abides within God, and is God, at least an aspect thereof.

To be I AM that I AM, is saying that their nature simply is, it is being; has been, will be. Yeshua said before Abraham was, I AM, he was referring to his nature which is of the nature of God, in the sense that it is of God's DNA/substance although in the image - holographic, an embodiment, a whole unto itself.

2007-08-12 11:41:51 · answer #5 · answered by Automaton 5 · 1 0

Great question, lots of great answers. :-)))

From my perspective I think that thinking that 'All that Is' can be described by just one name could be limiting. Islam says that Allah has a 'thousand names', but this is just a way of saying 'lots'.

There are six billion of us manifested here now on this planet, and an infinite number who are not, thus as we are, in my understanding, All One, then the 'One' has an infinite number of names.

I suspect that this is why we are all 'here', or 'there' ..... or wherever...... :-)))

{{{{{{{{{{{{Cosmic Names}}}}}}}}}}}}}

2007-08-12 10:11:54 · answer #6 · answered by cosmicvoyager 5 · 2 0

I think you are making a good point.

The great "I AM' is a phrase that backs up your question. More detail on this... the last few chapters of an online book.. especially ch 22

2007-08-12 09:47:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

In all honesty, yes. It is a symptom of what we call linguistic relativity, in which our language containing certain words affects our ability to understand the word in terms of the words we are aware of.

2007-08-12 09:48:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

This is the only way of our understanding, as we can't perceive totality, but by joining the info got in bits and pieces.

2007-08-12 09:48:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

God already has a name. He said never to say it in vain. So I won't tell you what it is. "God" is used to keep other safe; unless God is consider saying "god" in vain as just as bad, since most think it is his name?

2007-08-12 09:54:53 · answer #10 · answered by geessewereabove 7 · 0 1

He has a name that was lost and no one knows it, I'll just call him father as Jesus did.

2007-08-12 09:46:24 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers