If God exsists outside of time and space,… then God knows the truths we have yet to find. Maybe the road liberalist are on will evolve to christian beliefs.
Maybe the armegedon story is a warning preparring us for the second comming of Christ.
Elija came back once(john the baptist) and came back again. Jesus comes back. Maybe all religions see truth,… it just took God(Jesus) to filter out the misconceptions.
I personally can’t wait for the all loving God to storm out of the heavens, raining fire and brimstones on the heads of mankind and animals alike, slaughtering millions.
I can go about three different routes with this.
First off revelations never said God was going to kill everyone and boil the seas.
Secondly God said he would never foul the earth again for the sake of man.
Thirdly God would just be leaving satan and others to burn in their own hell.
Forthly God is not a deviant God
Fifthly Jesus said all of the phrophets teachings were baced on love.
Sixthly Jesus said he would go back for every one of his sheep. I don’t know what constitutes a sheep of God besides believing.
Seventhly Just try to be an optimest when the world follows the anti christ in this one world order that condems Christians. Hides the wailing wall when it becomes proof against his/her agenda. Kills phrophets of God. Brings people together by brainwashing by limiting perspective like liberalists want to do with schools. (can’t explain away God so hides from it)
I didn’t say billions, I said millions. Is the number of people being slaughtered relevant? God is choosing to kill people when he’s omnipotent…how kind.
Ah yes, an all-loving God who created a place to eternally torment his creation…that makes sense.
Truth is a religious notion to start with. It is hardly a position to base anything from. If you accept the notion of truth you should expect to be pushed around by those who know how to manipulate it. Truth is abstract and so cannot describe reality. It may be useful under certain conditions (such as religious ones) but cannot sustain positions of authority.
Truths cannot be identified outside of context and all context can be refined infinitely. This infinite variable effectively renders the notion impotent. ‘Ultimate truth’ as an expression appears to exist as propaganda to cover up the fact that truth is a flawed notion to begin with. If you make truth your God you should expect to be given a hard time by those who engage it.
A.
=D>
Don’t guess you’ve ever heard the saying, when someone tells you truth does not exist, they’re asking you not to believe them, so don’t.
Whether God is a concrete truth or not is too questionable. As far as much credible knowledge goes we know how things in the universe come about for the most part. It seems anymore there aren’t too many questions asking, “Why is the earth here? Why are we here?” We basically knows these answers, and they are amazing and beautiful. They should be embraced. Unlike old times, an average person can get by today believing there is no higher power. This is not to say there is no higher power, but that one is really not needed… it’s only needed if you believe already, and it discards all of those poor intelligent people who have been mislead all these years who will now to go hell in christianity at least. The worst part about being religious, at least Christian, is that you cannot escape it.
This is an archaic saying and no longer relevant. We do not need a recourse to truth to understand how it is possible to intervene in the world.
If you pursue any notion it will fail, including the notion ‘truth’. Truth implies 100% certainty and is therefore abstract ie. it is ideal. We can talk in terms of social and personal truth but we cannot claim to know ideal truth, other than as an abstraction. Abstractions may be useful in the world but they do not describe the world ie. ideal truths do not exist in the world.
I responded according to the manner in which the notion is presented (ideally). You are going to have to work a lot harder to dismiss my point. I am aware of the paradox and the problems of self-reference.
A.
Well, that would be quite interesting if scientific equipment could recieve signals and messages from God & whatnot, and make some sort of super cultural revolution for humanity, etc. - Sadly, it has not happened yet.
Ofcourse beings outside of time and space would be able to know a deeper truth about the universe, if they were beyond many parts of it. But not just “God” could be ‘up’ there. 
^
I call this Phills super-seven.
The super-seven shows how Jesus & God were about love and charity, they weren’t blood thirsty fruit-cakes. 
Straitup bruvu.
And thus we see the circular style of “there is no truth”.
For if someone says there is no truth, his saying such, is not true either.
So, if you pursue the notion that if you pursue any notion it will fail, that notion will fail, and you will find the truth.
So aren’t you persuing this notion as well? I’m not sure whether I understand what you’re trying to say, let alone believe what you are saying to be true since your speaking against certainty.
Yes and on an infinite scale. Nothing escapes failure. Including the notion ‘nothing escapes failure’. If you have the energy and inclination to show how it fails. Most notions aren’t challenged because they are useful to some degree. We do not need points of certainty to operate in the world. Points of relative certainty provide enough traction to intervene. They are nested and interconnected in such a way that they enable us to achieve particular goals.
This depends on what kind of truth you are referring to. Ideal truth, no. As I’ve been saying, you cannot know ideal truth ie. something that is 100% itself and nothing else. Personal truth and social truth, yes. Personal and social truths are context specific. Abstraction is a relatively simple context and so does not describe the world. The world is infinitely complex; abstraction cannot compete.
Yes, I am (as responded to above). To further my point you cannot believe me entirely anyway. You need to decide for yourself whether what I offer is of use to you. You’d be wasting your energy if you where to try to work out whether I was referring to ideal truth to make my point.
A.
Anything outside of space and time is abstract. Anything abstract cannot be a being in the sense that we are beings. Language gives us the impression that such a ‘beingness’ is possible. This conception of a God is presented by textual understandings of existence. Particularly monotheism. Such text-centred positions are an extension and intensification of our capacity for abstract thought. Abstract thought enables us to grasp something of how our realities are constructed. The rest often requires a God who appears something like us but more powerful.
A.
Are you certain that I really can’t be certain about what you’re saying? I know what you’re saying. That we cannot be certain, that statement in itself is positing a certainty. This seems to leave us confused, and while I think your point is believe things but dont be to sure, when the question is on the line you must be sure. That’s how decisions get made, through great certainty. Christians are certain that a God exists, not always through blind faith but only most of the time. I never wanted to believe blindly thus is why I got into theology and philosophy, however I later understood it does take blind faith when you reach the point of uncertainty. I think it’s why when I talk to older people about God they give me, “you just have to believe and trust God”
I see empirical evidence to be true, maybe idealistic truths are not certain but there is no need discussing their uncertainty because there is no ground for that. And I think you do understand that, most people in philosophy know not to pull the rugs out from underneath them, but some do, even the most famous of them.
Group Of Dudes outside of time and space see more to life then me so I submit to their will.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
“For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.â€
Yes, you cannot be certain that you cannot be certain that you cannot be certain (to infinity) of what I’m saying. But I can be certain enough to transfer meaning by expressing this. We do not require certainty or truth to transfer value. If you require certainty then you tend to get esoteric and religious in the institutional sense. The approach I’m pointing to offers a new kind of confidence which is enabled by a transcendent erosion of all certainty, including it’s own certainty. The strength of this lies in self-referential coherence. This is achieved by drawing on the deep and inescapable paradoxes inherent in language.
Paradox articulates the limitations of language in such a way that new possibilities beyond the prevailing language-based power structures can be accessed and articulated. Possibilities beyond the views of the prevailing world as embodied in the language used to perpetuate particular worlds (such as the Christian world).
Ironically, religions whose core texts are meant to enable the esoteric experience lock their worlds down in exoteric frameworks. Which explains why they don’t tend to cope very well with the more fluid, open and creative networks enabled by interactive communications technologies.
A.