Is Truth Relative?

Perception is relative. Truth is what remains despite our perceptions.

..
U wishing you laughter

I don't know whether truth is relative or not. I know perceptions are relative. What one perceives and how one interprets it is relative to one's point of view. But this just ads one more thing to the host of things I don't know. :-)

Quinn check out my photo's and jokes if you want to see my lighter side.

Thanks both for responding.

I believe truth is a constant, for it is invariable. Science and Christianity, as this article discusses Jesus Christ in connection with it, have truths which are not opinions and which are not relative. In Christianity, it takes faith and reason, along with divinely inspired tradition and Scripture to know when something is true and will never change. Of course, scientific truths are obtained in a vastly different manner.

If truth was relative, there wouldn't seem to be a point in striving to see a purpose in life. Every one would have his or her own idea of what is true and every one else would require that he or she show how and why what he or she believes is true. If we needed to discover for ourselves, for example, that Ptolemy's Earth-centered universe is incorrect and that Nicolaus Copernicus's view of a heliocentric is the correct model and which Galileo Galilei proved was the unchangeable truth, we wouldn't know anything. I'd not like to imagine what life would be like if every Christian required proof that Christ died and was resurrected a few days later.

Donald, do you believe that truth exists in any other religions?

Carla, do you believe all truth is equal?

As I said in my article, Satan told the truth to Eve. We will be like God, knowing good from evil. That was true.

Now was that relative truth or absolute truth?

That is the question when pursuing truth; what is ultimately the truth? It is not all necessarily a yes or no proposition.

I think religions, like philosophers and scientists are often after the truth. I don't think they all are looking into the right places or many have chosen to not pursue other possibilities because they are set on a belief that they have the truth or on the right path to the truth. Many of them are really in a blind alley that will lead them to a dead end.

I truly do think all truth begins with and ends with God; the God of the Old Testament and Christ; his son. Perhaps my truth is a blind alley?

If it is not the truth, then maybe I missed it; but I still will contend it is out there. Like Christopher Columbus, I might fall off the end of the earth or I might discover I was right and the earth truly is round. Before Columbus knew he had to believe, trust and have faith. There are no guarantees in the pursuit of truth. Just that you will not ultimate know it all.

We all need to leave room for faith that we are on the right path. All of us are not; because all the paths do no lead to the same place and many of them are contradictory. This is the problem with those that say truth is relative. Two things that are contradictory cannot both ulitmately be truth; no matter how good they look or sound.

I read an article about this on another website a while back, and it was saying that it is alright to "Not Know" but people feel like they have to know. Are those the people who see truth as relative, I wonder?

Good article Donald.

Well said, my friend. In order to establish value a standard must be in place. As humans we are ill-equipped to establish and validate that standard because our perception changes so frequently. That makes relativism useful at times but ultimately without value because there is no standard to measure it against other than the fickle perception of humanity.

Donald...you are correct, I think in that there is no such thing as relative truth...unless that truth is relative to what one accepts to be fact. I do not believe the Satan and Garden of Eden story for example...so for me...no truth was spoken...for you, the truth was spoken. Is that relative truth? No, only one of us is right. But the consequence of this example is that we will never know which is the truth...unlike your flat earth example.

You might argue that you will find our for certain one day....you may even argue that I will find out too! But until that happens, we will have dual truths. The only absolute truths are those which can be proved.

Michael; what you contend as dual truths are in the respect of the the truth we know or believe to be true are our truths; it really would be hard to dissuade one from a truth they have made a pet or been taught, studied, contemplated, accepted unless there is some epiphany or there was an irrefutable discovery.

The problem with an epiphany is that it is individual and so really affects only the person that had it and perhaps if they are really persuasive; those they are able to persuade. Mormonism is a good example of people following one who said they had an epiphany; in that they are all ultimately disciples of Joseph Smith. I have my own epiphany regarding my belief in Christ. Of course I would say I am a disciple of Christ; maybe Mormons would rather claim the same. I don't entirely know; I just think this is a reasonable example of the limitations of epiphanies.

Even an irrefutable discovery is subject to question. I am sure everyone did not get on board about the earth being a sphere as soon as Columbus sailed to the new world. We have a modern day example of space travel and landing on the moon. Many back then (perhaps some still do) think it was staged and we really did not make it to the moon.

And most discoveries are not irrefutable. There is still a lot of theory. In other words science is not exact.

So truth we would say is relative.

I like your point that my truth and your truth; if they are at odds means they both are not true. We may both be wrong because there may be a third truth? But we certainly cannot all be right if our truths contradict.

That is the problem with relative truth disciples. All truths are equal and correct in their theory. But we have established; that cannot be.

So we get back to the real truth and that is; we don't know all the truth. And we all are on a search for this.

I hope you find it. I think I have found it, but if I am wrong; I don't know what I have lost? Maybe a little more pleasure than I would have otherwise had if I had not put my faith in Christ?

Life and our decisions is full of choices; free will. And some of these choices are calculated risks (or faith; blind or calculated). But whatever our decisions and choices; there is truth that is immutable. We just all don't know it and may or may not ever know it?

I understand your points Donald...and I agree that there can be only one absolute truth. How can this be argued? Because you view your "truth(s)" to possibly be flawed or not true at all, you have exhibited a very rare quality of reason for one who believes (puts faith in) the word of Christ.

I too can offer that I may be wrong in my non-acceptance of a god or my belief that the Bible is nothing more than myth based loosely upon some verifiable historical fact...in short, my lack of faith.

We both weighed available information..and for you..emotion.. and came to different conclusions. One (or both) of us is wrong, but I did not say that "that my truth and your truth; if they are at odds means they both are not true"...nor did I mean to infer this.

I do take issue with your "Pascal's wager'...not for the pleasure you may have gained from believing rather than continuing to investigate...or the "what is the harm?" approach, but because you have allowed blind faith to supply you with this comfort (pleasure) rather than allowing the logic you so handily display, to be your most influential guide.

It is my opinion that blind faith of any type is harmful, overall, in the search for any and all truths. For you, this conflict of logic may be unique to your belief in a higher being, but for most, the acceptable avoidance of logic can spill over into each and every decision they make.

You have made interesting points and I hope we may exchange a plethora of thoughts and opinions in the future.

Michael; the blind faith is really the questions now?

What is blind faith? Is what you and many others consider the blind faith of those that may espouse a belief in God truly blind?

Or, for me is it a cop out to trust in God blindly because I do not understand? And is there a point that because I put my trust in God, that I quick seeking truth, knowledge, understanding?

There are some that might do that or seem to do that by some of the inane comments they make or the inane beliefs they espouse or really parrot. I can see why people of intellect might arrive at this conclusion when speaking to some Christians?

For me, my faith is well thought out, well arrived at. I said calculated risk; but it is really more than that. I do believe in the supernatural and other dimensions beyond what we know or experience. I don't think me as a Christian and others that have really thought it out and studied it are the only ones. I mean we have a show that many followed based on this premise called the X-Files. And Dean Koontz has a large following that also probably believe this. I think Einstein probably recognized these dimensions beyond the tangible better than most anyone.

There is that of course and my own experiences which really weigh heavily in a creator God and the story told throughout the Bible. And when I am inclined to doubt; I always come back to a place that Peter in the new testament comes back to regarding Christ; when Christ asked him if he would turn away from following Christ. Peter's reply was there was no where else that he knew to turn; only Christ had the truth, the words to eternal life, the thing he knew deep in his heart and deep in his lives searches and experience that really completed the puzzle for him; at least as completely as he could get on this planet; in this realm, in this dimension.

I don't know that it is fair to call this blind faith?

OK, OK...Donald...I retract the term "blind faith". You have not been blind as you have made your decisions about your beliefs....

But please understand that I consider you to be rather unique, and I mean this in a positive sense, as to a comparison to those who profess to be "believers". Most believers would never allow for the possibility that they are mistaken. This would be my definition of "blind faith".

Now on to the "supernatural"! Is it fair of me to define the "supernatural" as an occurrence or event or entity that we are not able to explain with our KNOWN laws of nature? If so, then I too believe in the supernatural...for most of what we now know about nature was once beyond our ability to explain. I would never randomly or flippantly dismiss as impossible, events that have no explanation. But here is the logical incongruity with regards to the supernatural...once we have an valid explanation for something we have previously described as "supernatural", then we no longer have a supernatural event. In other words, I would rather wonder and not know why, than to wonder and speculate... if that speculation would serve as the answer to my puzzle. I would rather not know than to simply "think" I know. Please don't jump to the conclusion that I must have to have inequitable proof...compelling evidence will do...as it does for most areas of science.

I allow for the possibility of other dimensions. The odds are that this is something we can one day verify. The existence of a supreme being can most likely never be verified. It does not mean that the existence of a supreme being is totally out of the realm of possibilities. I simply find the concept to be very unlikely. God is more likely to have been a creation of man rather than vise versa.

I understand that the weight of personal experience, your personal experience, has influenced your belief system. For me, my experiences have also been a factor and have influenced my belief system. I need evidence....more evidence than intuition.

I do not believe the Bible is the word of God, so I cannot accept it as evidence for his existence.

By the way..I loved the "X Files". It was one of my favorite shows!

Very interesting conversation Donald. I like your position. This is good stuff.

Michael; I don't remember the Koontz book, but it was a story of this one very evil man - that's not to say that people that don't believe or set out to disprove God are evil in this sense - that sets out to prove there is no God or to disprove God if you will. He sets out to do this by reaching the aliens that have come to earth; he thinks they and aliens have really guided earth and its beginnings. Anyway the culmination is when he confronts the alien's to confirm that there is no God; the question they asked him was, where do you think we came from?

As for evidence of God's existence; outside of God's word, I really do think creation cries out to an intelligent designer (God). To me the eye is enough of a mystery to make me believe that this could never have evolved but had to have someone design and create it.

A little aside, If I go for a walk in the woods and see a discarded chair or car or run down house; my conclusion is not that it somehow came to be there by magic, supernaturally or by evolution. I conclude someone designed it, built or manufactured it, used it and discarded it. Someone with intelligence. On a larger scale I have to make the same conclusions about the created life on earth, the earth, the planets and the galaxies.

Donald...you have enforced my argument against a belief in a supreme being. You have accepted the prospect of God's existence in lieu of being able to draw any conclusions other than we must be a result of His design, because you don't have any evidence that we were not of his design.

I am not out to prove that there is no god....only that the belief in a god is totally speculative.

"Christ said he is truth." Then, by your own argument, Donald, could one make the case of Christ thinking/saying he is the truth being the same as people who believed that the world is flat being truth?

There is nothing relative about it. There are facts that can be challenged and proven, even if it takes time and scientific inquiry to do it, and there are claims that cannot be proven (called "faith" by their proponents). This has nothing to do with relativeness.

"One of The Chive nearly lost his life to a ruptured and massively infected appendix; where's the intelligence in that design, exactly? '

Unfortunately, The Chive, that would probably come under the title of "God's Retribution For People Who Have Done Bad Shit" or some such thing like that. Don't you know when bad things happen, it's "the god's" way of punishing them for doing something wrong?

I'm with The Chive on this. When I smite, you know you're smitten. I don't mess around with the vestigial crap.

"Yeah, but if that were the case why wouldn't The God attack one of our less pointless organs, like the heart or our badly damaged livers, instead of nearly killing us with a vestigial organ for which we have absolutely no use when not consuming our body-weights in cellulose? "

Irony? Maybe The God does have a sense of humor after all.

I think the article title is a silly question. Truth is, by definition, absolute. As Sheryl pointed out there are facts and beliefs. Beliefs are assumptions and facts involve proof.

The concept of "relative truth" makes no sense whatsoever. On the other hand contradictory beliefs are at least as common as nitrogen in the air.

Religion is a matter of belief. Like the axioms and postulates in geometry religious beliefs are accepted as true without proof.

BTW, the only religious groups of any size that insist that their beliefs are objectively true and all other religions are false are certain sects of Islam and Christianity.

"Truth is, by definition, absolute."

Many of our friends on Gather disagree with this! But I agree that the concept of relative truth makes no sense. That was the point of my article.

Mutations and Evolution are not the same thing. Mutations can occur for a variety of reasons but by their nature take things away from the original product. For evolution to occur; you would have to have things added. My point of the eye is a good example; you have to add the working eye to the respiratory system, to the cardiac system and some how this has to evolve in some concert. These things all have to be added together in some way; mutations would take this the other direction.

"I am not out to prove that there is no god....only that the belief in a god is totally speculative. "

By speculative I gather that you mean it requires faith. That is a given?

But your beliefs also require faith; just not in a deity? Faith in yourself, faith in man, faith in science, faith in what you read, etc.

Faith by its nature requires us to believe in something we cannot prove. This gets back to where we started; which is truth is out there. How much of it will we learn, how much will we prove.

That part we don't learn or don't prove but believe to be true; that is where faith for all of us come in.

"can occur for a variety of reasons but by their nature take things away from the original product." Not true.

Truth...the actual nature of of things may likely be absoute, but it seems to me to be an unachievable task. So our positions of what the actual "Truth" is are relative (sorry for the awkward grammar of that). For example you said that the truth was the earth was not flat, but is a sphere. Actually the earth is more like a basketball that someone is sitting on...bulging at the middle, and flattened on the top and bottom: an elipsoid. That's a newer understanding of the earth that we couldn't know without advanced measurement techniques using things like lasers and satellites. We can never make a claim to "Truth," I believe. But only "truth" as we best understand it at the moment. For example, tomorrow, a new text could be uncovered in the middle east, irrefutable in origins and providence that declares "Hey, I'm gonna make up this thing called god to get people to do what I want." Or something could be uncovered in India that concretely demonstrates the validity and historical accuracy of the Hindu religion. The "Truth" of Jesus, would then be no more.

""can occur for a variety of reasons but by their nature take things away from the original product." Not true. "

John, would you like to elaborate and enlighten on this regarding mutations?

Or would you prefer to debate semantics (round, sphere, elipsoid - who cares, it is not flat).

"We can never make a claim to "Truth," I believe. "

If you want to argue semantics; of course we can. We make claims to truth all of the time. Everyone that is writing including you makes claims to the truth. You made one about the Earth being elipsoid.

I do agree that discoveries are made all of the time that make us have to rethink our truth; whatever we determine it to be (earth being flat or round or sphere or elipsoid; travel in space, etc.).

The fact probably is; as much as we know; it probably is a pin prick compared to what we do not know.

"For evolution to occur; you would have to have things added. "

This is not true, Donald. I would encourage you to study the real facts of evolutionary theory - not Darwinism or some explanation provided through the filter of an intelligent design advocate, or any advocate for that matter.

Carl Williams says he is the Truth.

So Sheryl; do you agree that evolution then requires mutation?

When you say evolution, what do you mean. I agree with micro evolution - animals; plants, etc adapting to their environments; the things Darwin discovered and actually could document.

I do not believe in evolution that ascribes to a theory that millions, or billions, or trillions or (how ever long you need now) years ago there was mass of whatever that somehow evolved into the disparate plants, animals, rocks, fish, water, etc. And while you are at it; these animals and plants had genomes that are so elaborate that each one is distinct from the next for not only each type of animal; but each individual animal. Each animal is as distinct and unique in its make-up as it's brother or sister.

For that to evolve without some intelligent design; that to me takes more faith than I have.

Then that is your belief, Donald. I can believe that just as you see evolution on a micro scale, the same occurred over millions of years on earth. Whether you call it mutation or use another term, it is the same process of adaptation that brought the most primitive forms of life to their present state. For me, this process does not require some "god" to intermediate in design.

I'm having a hard time squaring this comment:

"The problem ultimately for those that believe in that truth is relative is that you are prideful. You do not want to admit that there are some things you don't know and also some things you or mankind will never know. So in your pride, because you don't know you want to say; well, truth is relative."

with your belief in intelligent design.

Intelligent design is a cop out. It's basically saying "We don't know how it happened and we never will. So let's not try to find out".

I believe in evolution specifically because I don't know the answer. I don't know how we got here. I will bet that I will never completely know. And I am OK with that. I don't need someone to spoon feed me religion or intelligent design in order to pacify me and make me believe I am the center of the universe.

""We can never make a claim to "Truth," I believe. "

If you want to argue semantics; of course we can. We make claims to truth all of the time. Everyone that is writing including you makes claims to the truth. You made one about the Earth being elipsoid.


I do agree that discoveries are made all of the time that make us have to rethink our truth; whatever we determine it to be (earth being flat or round or sphere or elipsoid; travel in space, etc.). "

That's exactly what I'm saying. I make a claim to little t truth when I say the earth is elipsoid, but not big T Truth. And if that applies to everything, why not god? Again, my claim that god does not exist is not a big T Truth either. There is evidence that could enter my world that would convince of the existence of a god, even your version of god.

It's not semantics I'm arguing at all. It's versions of little t truth. Part of buying into that system of semi-relative little t truth is that you are always open to the possibility of being wrong. It's a characteristic I seldom see in folks that support either a system of absolute little t truths or claim to have access to an exclusive big T truth.


Example of a mutation that does not take away nor add: the one that caused sicke cell anemia.
Example of mutation that adds: the one that caused polydactaly.

"I am not out to prove that there is no god....only that the belief in a god is totally speculative. "

By speculative I gather that you mean it requires faith. That is a given?

Yes Donald, I do mean that belief in a god requires faith, but faith is belief without verifiable evidence....not proof...but evidence.

The use of the word faith can be very broad, but the difference of the "faith" you exhibit towards your belief and the "faith" I have in science is actually that the trust I have in science is based upon the past experiences I have learned about science, scientific discovery and scientific fact....these are expectations...not really "faith".

I have no particular "faith" in man in general...again, only certain expectations based upon prior experience. I only have "faith" in what I read if my past experiences tell me that what I have read is probably true, or if what I have read is verifiable. Again...religious "faith" has a different meaning...there is NO evidence.

Interestingly ...to me at least...you have said, "For that to evolve (each individual animal) without some intelligent design; that to me takes more faith than I have."
Would that statement be more accurate if you said "takes LESS faith than I have"?

I think this entire article is an argument in semantics.

If there was no evolution, there would be no such thing as antibiotic resistant bacteria or our useless appendix.

"intelligent design"

When I say intelligent design; I consider that intelligence to be the God of the Bible.

Others that say intelligent design may mean space aliens, God, or something else?

This is where I stand - whether that is a cop out or not; that is anyone's right to have that opinion.

I think for purposes of this debate for me it falls like so:

What I know + What I learn to be true + (my faith in God (or what I don't know)) = all truth, all knowledge.

My faith in God or what I don't know and probably will never know is probably 99% of the equation.

"Would that statement be more accurate if you said "takes LESS faith than I have"? "

No, I meant I would need more faith to believe much of what I have heard about evolution. I think Chive hit it with this "designless complexity or a complex designer -- require a massive leap of faith to square with observed reality. We both are living by faith until we learn more.

For me; God is not as massive leap of faith as that. But, truth be told, I was brought up in faith, in the church and learned (many of you probably would say indoctrinated; believe that if you will; I do know it happens, but most Christians I know are very intelligent and thoughtful). If I was brought up differently, I may be on the other side of the debate; I don't know?

I can understand why many would struggle with faith in God.

I would say that I disagree with the thought "but faith is belief without verifiable evidence....not proof...but evidence.

It's really even worse than this if you will - its about hope. If you like to humor me read the following from Hebrews Chapter 11:

1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

5By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

7By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

8By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

(Hebrews 11-28 cut out in interest of length - if you want to read it; check out Biblegateway.com)

29By faith the people passed through the Red Sea[d] as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.

30By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days.

31By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[e]

32And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37They were stoned[f]; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

39These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

These stories and others I have read from Christian missionaries, Christian friends, my family, and my experiences all speak of this future hope because in these stories I see where God worked.

I consider this and other things I have read in the Bible and experienced in my life evidence and proof.

How does one know someone loves them? Do you have proof and evidence that is tangible, quantifiable, measurable? I think this faith is similar, this belief in God is similar as to how you would determine whether or not one loves you, is there for you.

I don't really know that my wife loves me; not if I had to measure and prove it. I hope, I have faith she does by things she does and says and the fact she is there for me.

Donald....I too was brought up as a Christian! My family went to church every Sunday. I can't say when I began to doubt the whole business of a God, put my revulsion with the hypocritical acts of those associated with the church began early in my life. Not just my church and not all associated with the church, but a strikingly large percentage of church goers I observed were Sunday Christians.

It became clear to me that I had no need for a belief in a god, and that I felt more comfortable forming my beliefs by myself, and not at the instruction of clergymen, teachers, my peers or even my parents.

I don't struggle with my lack of faith in a god...in fact, I feel very comfortable with my views on this matter and I don't feel as if something is missing in my life...an often voiced concern of believers who profess that without their god and their faith, their life would be meaningless. I am not afraid of life and I am not afraid of death. I am enjoying my life, but I know that death is inevitable.

I have nothing left to add to this thread, and so I'll leave now. But as I have mentioned before, I have really enjoyed being a part of this conversation.

I hope to see you on another post.

Lord willing, I will see you later Michael.

Simply put, what else is truth except what God says is truth??

(The problem, however, lies in discerning what God actually said.......)

Truth is. All else is deception, whether to oneself or others.

On the creation vs. evolution argument (don't these things always come down to this?).. the belief in God is not based on scientific fact, it is based on faith.

The belief in evolution is also based on faith. Sure, we have evidence but it is spotty, incomplete and lacking. We fill in the gaps with the things that make sense, but are we right?

Oh, and Chive...the appendix has been shown to be vitally important in the digestion of things such as nuts and rocks....not that we eat rocks anymore, but didn't you when you were 3 yrs. old?

CA if we can eat rocks, you may have just solved the world food shortage. :)

C.A. I learned something new today re. the appendix. I always thought it was just good for adding information that an author did not include in the main body of a book :)

LOL, John!

Donald, yep, I learned about that after - in the span of 6 months - my daughter, son-in-law, and family friend all had to have them removed. The surgeons told us about it's functionality. It basically dissolves things that make it all the way through the system without being used up. Kinda cool, eh?

Yeah but a pain in the side when it goes bad. Thank you for checking in and commenting.

Thanks to everyone else also that commented.

"truth cannot be equal to faith"

Absolutely correct....Because, too often, faith has nothing to do with truth........

Donald ... I began reading your article and found that I probably disagree with you ... unless it is just a semantical misunderstanding ... but I am reminded of a thread not all that long ago that had many hundreds of comments (over 700 taking three published parts) on this very subject ... if any are truly interested in "truth", I would suggest they spend some tome there:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976861166&nav=Namespace

then:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976868765&nav=Namespace

then the last (part 3):

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976881791&nav=Namespace

Jerry, if Christ is not the center of your truth; we probably do disagree? My truth really does begin and end with my faith in Christ.

I am fine with learning more and understanding more; and if someone can unequivocably prove to me the Bible is not true; Christ did not live, die and was resurrected; that God is not; I am open to look and and consider it. How is that any different than those on the other hand saying they need unequivocable proof of all of this.

We all need to have faith to believe in much of what we believe. We need to have faith that our world view is true. And the fact is; all our world views cannot be true due to the contradictions. I will even grant you that my entire world view is not completely true; there are holes in it that need to be filled.

My confidence (faith) is that my belief in Christ will fill in those holes; that part I lack or do not understand.

When I have time; I may puruse articles you reference. Did you write them?

Donald Hensley: A good article. I agree with it in general. And I am not a "Christian" as such. As a Baha'i now, I believe in Christ far more than I ever did or could have when I was called by the exclusive name, "Christian." Christ was TRUTH personified but it takes more than Faith to understand this except for "pure acceptance," per se. That is, while Christ is TRUTH, that TRUTH is only known to us in a relative way, a way that hopefully will expand and refine as time and life-experience proceeds. One aspect of this relative perception of TRUTH is that it is in us an ever expanding and widening horizon. I suggest to you, with love and appreciation of your sincerity, that you do not limit yourself to seeing the TRUTH only (and exclusively) in what YOU UNDERSTAND by the term "Christ"; that rather, you see it as a "glimpse" of the Godhead (which was in Christ) and that "Christ-hood" is not (as Jesus Himself stated) a one time occurrence in the world of reality but a universal phenomenon that is, in fact, God's "finger" touching man and guiding him to an ever more Godlike station.

"that TRUTH is only known to us in a relative way"

Any "truth or TRUTH" we stand on is in a relative way. That is my point; whatever the "truth or TRUTH" is; we cannot change this. We can disagree, misinterpret, disbelieve, not know it; but the "truth or TRUTH" is not relative. Our knowledge and understanding are what is relative.

I think most of us in our heart are after the truth. And I encourage all to seek the truth. I am open to learn more truth; but at the end of the day there is a gap that we will never fill and a point where we are taking much of what we think to be true by faith. Faith in what or who is up to us.

In speaking of knowledge; I am curious enough about Baha'i that I hope to find time to check it out soon.

Donald Hensley, no, I did not write the article (there was only one, with 2 additional successive reprints to make the number of comments more manageable). Mary H. wrote the article, for all I remember you may have been a commenter. I myself did become very involved there.

As for our relationships to Christ Jesus, I also have one, but not that of the Nicene creed type Christian. Mine is more "Spiritual", thus more "Liberal" in that I value more the Mystical esoteric understandings which the institutions of religion often reject. I have my belief based upon actual personal experience, something that engenders more belief than mere faith, based upon the views, opinions, and "books" of others, a "direct" experience with God IMnsHO.


And from all of that, and years of subsequent reading to find the words to relate it all to others, I have determined that God would be the ONE (1), the Absolute Truth that only God could know in the entirety ... and that all else in creation, as the parts and aspects of our uni-verse, are but fractions of our God, as related to 1/x ... or in the case of differing dimensions, 1/x/y/z etc.

With that in mind, God being the One (1), all else is less than that (1) ... x being the closest, maybe as the Son Jesus, we then being the y's waiting to go to the (1) "through" "the Son Christ" ... taken a bit further, conjecturally, which I did not, and do not, intend, "maybe" a "hell" would then be located at the z dimension !?!?.

But the point being, that related to the (1), it being God and THE Absolute, all else is RELATIVE TO THAT. And while they (we) are at it, relative to each other, and relative to other dimensions when a "relationship" is made in our minds ...

Adam would be a relative truth, as would Eve, each being the same in the respect of being a human, but yet being of the opposite sex, each would be a truth, a relative truth, both to each other as well as to God. (from "their" perspectives) ... there thus are always AT LEAST two versions of truth, meaning they are relative, if for no other reason than two people cannot occupy the very same physical space at the very same moment in time ... they have a space/time relationship and thus a bonafide relativity to it and each other via it, as well as to God and/or any other dimension brought into the discussion.

IMnsHO.

Donald Hensley: I thought that I made myself clear in that I believe that we are in agreement. Your comment following my comment above seems to imply that we have a different view. Am I confused or mistaken? There is a TRUTH that is not relative but it is known only to God. We can approach that TRUTH through the auspices of a Manifestation of God, say, Jesus the Christ. But we can never reach it. We approach it like a mathematical asymptotic curve. For one thing, we are incapable (at least in this life with our limited, 15 billion neuron brain) of closing the gap, of understanding TRUTH, which is also PERFECTION. We can appreciate that there is such a thing, just as we can appreciate that there is a GOD. But we can never understand fully what either of these is. And that is the most wonderful part of it, I think, that we can never attain our goal (of reaching God). The wonderful part is, as I see it, we can look forward to an eternity of excitement and growing warmth of LOVE as we approach that GOAL. To "reach it" would, again as I see it, end the search that is the "drawing into" LOVE and result in utter disappointment of confusion.

Mr. Hawley, I do think we are mostly (relatively if you will) in agreement; my note using quote from your comment was more a clarification of my belief for others in this discussion that may have misunderstood what I was saying.

For those that disagree and believe in relative truth; refer my points in the original comment and defend relative truth logically?

My conclusion; Truth is not relative; what we know and understand is relative. The truth is out there. Will we find it?