Saturday, April 17, 2010

The Relativity Of "Absolute" Truth

It's funny how people interpret things in contradictory fashions. For instance, in this new age of greater tolerance, non-denominational churches typically gain members at the others' expense. The proponents of non-denominational churches then go on to claim that God is blessing churches that address the importance of being “relevant” to today's more tolerant and pluralistic society. 

What will the dwindling sects claim? That Jesus said the path of truth is very narrow and the general masses turning away from this “narrow path of truth” is incontrovertible evidence that theirs is the one and only “true” path.

Notice how each justifies whatever is in a very ad hoc manner. This is why I say “absolute” truth is simply a concoction of the ego. Alas, this nicely explains why there are so many opposing claims of “absolute” truth.

1 comment:

  1. Good perspective but you must not be too "absolute" about the use of absolute truth. The word is being used to offset the squishy loosey goosey oozey nature of "all things relative" that leads to permissiveness of every kind without any standards at all. In the 60s and 70s they called it Gestalt theory from which "I'm Okay, You're Okay" stemmed.

    There is a place for absolutes "in a context." But when everything becomes "absolute" everything becomes little more than a snapshot frozen in time that cannot move or be changed [i,e,, dogma without purpose]. This is just as unreal as a continually moving relative mass of being.