Is God's Truth 'relative'?

[jasJis]

I read an interesting question on another website recently. It is the question we Catholics are asked often as we profess to be the the One Religion of the Fullness of Truth.
[quote]"Which religion, if any, of the world's religions, current or historical, is the right one?"

The answer I read:
"I will tell YOU that every religion does contain parts of TRUTH. The religion that is most CORRECT for YOU is the religion that confirms and conforms to YOUR own belief system. If this religion has not yet been established, one man or woman can very well become his or her own religion." [excerpt from "HELLO IT'S ME: An Interview with God" by Patrick J. Cardero on the jfaproductions.com website][/quote]

Is it correct or truthful to say that religions do contain parts of TRUTH? Is that saying Catholicism can only be partially TRUE?

Given we are to have a personal relationship with God, that is unique to us, does that mean that the Belief System we are to follow is Correct only for us?

If the Belief System is dependent on our relationship, doesn't that preclude us from starting another religion because TRUTH is relevant to each person's relationship and thus, we would mislead others if we asked them to follow our path?

Is the incomprehensible sophistication of God so difficult to know and share that we simple humans cannot follow Him or lead others to Him?

Edited August 15, 2004 by jasJis

[RandomProddy]

The statement you quoted is only as correct if it conforms to your own belief system. (I.E. the statement about relative truth is itself relative).

Hence it's false

[Apotheoun]

Truth is objective, and thus it is something that the human person apprehends, but does not create. The truth that murder (i.e., the taking of an innocent human life) is always immoral, is not founded upon man's own subjective apprehension of the immorality of that act; instead, the objective immorality of that action imposes itself upon man's intellect and will, and he must accept it as a law that comes from outside himself, i.e., as a law that comes from the Creator. The subjective apprehension of the moral norm must conform to right reason.

[jasJis]

Truth is objective. Our comprehension of Objective Truth, perception of Objective Truth, and formed opinion of Objective Truth, is rarely objective.

[cmotherofpirl]

Feelings are subjective, and we have a nature prone to sin. It takes hard work to conform our subjective feelings to God's objective Truth.

[carrdero]

jasJis writes: Is it correct or truthful to say that religions do contain parts of TRUTH? Is that saying Catholicism can only be partially TRUE?

That is CORRECT. Though many organized religions contain many variances on some other organized religions theological beliefs there are some TRUTHS that are very exclusive to one religion that another religion would benefit to adopt or utilize or analyze.

jasJis writes: Given we are to have a personal relationship with God, that is unique to us, does that mean that the Belief System we are to follow is Correct only for us?

Though many people belong to a particular organized religion, it would be safe to assume that people encourage beliefs that do not have anything to do with that particular organized religion or that they believe some things in their religion but have trouble coming to terms with some of the doctrine or dogma. What GOD is explaining here is that everyone believes differently. They believe differently from other humans in general and they believe differently from fellow religious members. A personal relationship with GOD focuses on the individual (which we all are) and not the society/club/church/support group that you belong to.

jasJis writes: If the Belief System is dependent on our relationship, doesn't that preclude us from starting another religion because TRUTH is relevant to each person's relationship

The Belief System isn’t dependent on our relationship with GOD. In fact GOD encourages us to believe everything but ACCEPT NOTHING UNTIL YOU HAVE PROVEN THIS BELIEF TO BE A TRUTH OR AN UNTRUTH. Because many people believe something does not make it a TRUTH. Because something has been taught for centuries does not make it a TRUTH. Because you read something in a book does not make it a TRUTH. Because someone told you something does not make it a TRUTH it is up to you to PROVE or DISPROVE this TRUTH and incorporate it into your spirit.

jasJis writes: and thus, we would mislead others if we asked them to follow our path?

Why would you ask another person to follow your path? We are all on different paths. Why would I ask someone to follow Patrickism when everyone has or is their own religion? TRUTH is relevant for us (if this is what you desire) but to rely on other people to conclude our TRUTHs (which are all very different) is very uncommon and not as satisfying to coming to our TRUTH ourselves.

jasJis writes: Is the incomprehensible sophistication of God so difficult to know and share that we simple humans cannot follow Him or lead others to Him?

GOD is simple, it is humans that have made GOD difficult to understand.

jasJis writes: Truth is objective. Our comprehension of Objective Truth, perception of Objective Truth, and formed opinion of Objective Truth, is rarely objective.

TRUTH is anything that you desire to PROVE as a TRUTH. The TRUTHs that you pursue in life are not exactly the same TRUTHs that someone else would like to PROVE for themselves. And there can be more than one TRUTHS.

Ex. A blind man (who was born blind) and a man with sight are looking up at the sky. The guy with sight asks the blind man what color the sky is and the blind man says black and the man with sight says blue. In this instance both TRUTHs are CORRECT from their perspectives.


Apotheoun writes: Truth is objective, and thus it is something that the human person apprehends, but does not create. The truth that murder (i.e., the taking of an innocent human life) is always immoral, is not founded upon man's own subjective apprehension of the immorality of that act; instead, the objective immorality of that action imposes itself upon man's intellect and will, and he must accept it as a law that comes from outside himself, i.e., as a law that comes from the Creator. The subjective apprehension of the moral norm must conform to right reason.

This is how GOD understands death (read:murder)

1. REMEMBER, everyONE has to die; everyONE has to go out of this world in some way.
2. REMEMBER, there is no judgment in death, no right or wrong in death.
3. REMEMBER, the physical existence you are living now is not your home.

[God Conquers]

[quote]This is how GOD understands death (read:murder)

1. REMEMBER, everyONE has to die; everyONE has to go out of this world in some way.
2. REMEMBER, there is no judgment in death, no right or wrong in death.
3. REMEMBER, the physical existence you are living now is not your home.

[/quote]

This is ridiculous. You've just validated murder! Taking the life of an innocent person is OK because there is no judgement and we have eternal life? This is just plain crazy talk.

[willguy]

[quote]Is it correct or truthful to say that religions do contain parts of TRUTH? Is that saying Catholicism can only be partially TRUE?[/quote]

Your second question does not follow logically from the first. Let's examine...

[quote]Is it correct or truthful to say that religions do contain parts of TRUTH?[/quote] I would say that most religions do contain at least some truth. For example, they acknowledge that there is something more to life then just what we see. All religions that I know of condemn cold-blooded murder. They preach a morality that usually contains aspects that mirror Catholic morality.

[quote]Is that saying Catholicism can only be partially TRUE?[/quote] Not at all. Let's take an example. A teacher, after grading a test, says "Everybody got at least some questions right." Does that mean that no one got a 100%? Not at all. The same is true here. All (well, perhaps not all, but the vast majority) religions have at least some beliefs that are true. Some more, some less. And, as we profess, all of Catholicism's beliefs are true.

[quote]Given we are to have a personal relationship with God, that is unique to us, does that mean that the Belief System we are to follow is Correct only for us?[/quote]
I'm not so sure that our relationship with God is supposed to be unique to us. And, even if it is, that doesn't mean that our belief system is correct only to us. Another example (I like examples):

There's a girl named Mary. I'm friends with her. So is Joe, John, Anne, and Beth. We all have different relationships with Mary. However, there is still a set of things that are true about Mary and who she is. Likewise, I have a relationship with God. So do you, and whomever else we wish to bring into this example. Our relationships with God are personal, however, just because our relationships are personal does not change who God is and what His truths are.

[WillT]

To add my 2 cents, Truth can NOT be relative, because as soon as something becomes relative it stops being truth and becomes OPINION. If something is "right" for me but "wrong" for someone else, then that can only be an opinion, truth is truth, whether someone believes it or not. Something else to keep in mind, Paul calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of TRUTH", not the pillar and foundation of OPINION, as it would have to be if "denominations" can be right for me but not for someone else. Jesus also said we would be "led to all TRUTH", not to all OPINION, as it would have to be if every "denomination's" doctrines could be "right" for one group, but "wrong" for another. Jesus also tells us "I am the way, the TRUTH and the light", not the way, the OPINION and the light, as it would have to be if every "denomination" taught the "true message" of Christ and that "true message" was only true to those belonging to that particular denomination, but could be "wrong" for those of another!

Using simple logic will often times bring astounding results.
For anyone to be a Christian and think that truth is relative is completely contridictory, yet needed to sustain Protestant denominations.

If Protestants admitted truth was objective they could never explain themselves in the light of history (not that they do it all that well anyway) or Scipture. This "relative truth", however, undermines and dilutes the message of the gospel. If truth were really relative, why would Jesus need to command us to "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit."? Sounds like he wants everyone in the world to be Christian to me! How is that even remotely relative? If a Protestant is trying to evangelize a Muslim (for the sake of argument), he undoubtedly tells him Jesus is the only way, but holds that within Christianity truth is "relative" the Muslim can pose an impossible to answer, yet valid, question. "If your version of Christianity can differ greatly (and in central, important matters) from another's version, but they are both equally true, then why can't Islam and Christianity have the same relationship,vastly different but equally true?" By making truth "relative" a can of worms is opened that leads to relativity in all things ie. murderers should be allowed to murder because "it's right for them" even though "wrong" for me? Give me a break. Jesus turned over tables in the Temple, sounds to me like he didn't care if canging money in the Temple was "right for them" or not. Pretty obvious that He was saying IT IS WRONG! Objectively, without wondering if it was "right for them"

It's really fairly simple, "One Lord, one faith" seems to come to mind, dosen't sound very relative to me, but then again that's why God gave us a Church to define ABSOLUTELY AND OBJECTIVELY what is right and wrong for ALL PEOPLE ON EARTH, Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, or otherwise.

Sorry that was so long, but this is a central issue of division amoung Christians. The idea of a "relative truth" is easily disproved, whether anyone believes it or not.

******PS. The all caps are for emphasis only, please do not interpret them as shouting!********

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='WillT' date='Aug 17 2004, 06:28 AM'] The idea of a "relative truth" is easily disproved, whether anyone believes it or not. [/quote]
It's easy: a statement is bound by it's own logic. The statement

"truth is relative."

is only true if truth is relative. Therefore by that logic that statement cannot be absolutely true.



I love logic, it makes believing in God so much easier

Edited August 17, 2004 by RandomProddy

[carrdero]

Willguy writes:I would say that most religions do contain at least some truth. For example, they acknowledge that there is something more to life then just what we see. All religions that I know of condemn cold-blooded murder. They preach a morality that usually contains aspects that mirror Catholic morality.

United States Law condemns murder as well but it doesn’t stop it from happening. I have discussed this with another Phatmass and this member put it properly in perspective when he wrote that “People will do what they want to do” all my life I have seen this happen.

Willguy writes: All (well, perhaps not all, but the vast majority) religions have at least some beliefs that are true. Some more, some less. And, as we profess, all of Catholicism's beliefs are true.

This may be the problem that I am having. It is not that I have any problem with organized religion it may be that I have a problem with organized religions professing they have the TRUTH.

Willguy writes: There's a girl named Mary. I'm friends with her. So is Joe, John, Anne, and Beth. We all have different relationships with Mary. However, there is still a set of things that are true about Mary and who she is. Likewise, I have a relationship with God. So do you, and whomever else we wish to bring into this example. Our relationships with God are personal, however, just because our relationships are personal does not change who God is and what His truths are.

This may be another problem that I am having. It is not that I have any problem with people having a relationship with GOD as much as I wonder where they came to K(NOW) who GOD is.

WillT writes: To add my 2 cents, Truth can NOT be relative, because as soon as something becomes relative it stops being truth and becomes OPINION. If something is "right" for me but "wrong" for someone else, then that can only be an opinion, truth is truth, whether someone believes it or not.

Actually there are two types of TRUTHs. Universal TRUTHs and Personal TRUTHs. To deny personal TRUTHs is like denying your existence as an individual and we all K(NOW) that you exist because you made this post.

WillT writes: Something else to keep in mind, Paul calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of TRUTH", not the pillar and foundation of OPINION, as it would have to be if "denominations" can be right for me but not for someone else.

Oh I don’t know about that. In my town there is a Catholic Church entitled THE CHURCH OF ASSUMPTION.

WillT writes: This "relative truth", however, undermines and dilutes the message of the gospel.

And this is a bad thing, right?

GODConquers: This is ridiculous. You've just validated murder! Taking the life of an innocent person is OK because there is no judgement and we have eternal life? This is just plain crazy talk.

Actually it was validated for me way before I even got to earth. I will recite the first one again

1. REMEMBER, everyONE has to die; everyONE has to go out of this world in some way.

Now if you do not have any problem understanding or agreeing to that first statement the question remains “INSTEAD OF A PERSON BEING MURDERED, HOW AND WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE THEM TO LEAVE THIS PHYSICAL EXISTENCE?”

[Theoketos]

[quote]Actually there are two types of TRUTHs. Universal TRUTHs and Personal TRUTHs. To deny personal TRUTHs is like denying your existence as an individual and we all K(NOW) that you exist because you made this post. [/quote]

Here you are correct in a sense...

What I mean is that for me eating an entire side of beef would be wrong, because I would be eating in excess, but for a wrestler named Milo, who regularly eats that much it would not be wrong for him to consume that much, because he needs that much.

It would still be wrong for him to eat in excess, but excess is relative to each person.

However, unlike the limits of people's stomachs, religions are all about universal truths. And one is not as good as another, for each contains less or more truths.

Now Jesus refers to the Church as a pillar, (not a column of pillars) of truth. Jesus is the way [b]the truth[/b] and the life.

The Catholic Church has always been unwavering in her commitment to proclaim the truth, even unto death, even death on a cross.

Because she is the fulfillment and fullness of truth she is the best and the only church for every one. It is through her that the Grace of Jesus flows and it is only through her are people saved.


As excess is always bad, the Church is always good, (even though some of her members are bad acting).

[carrdero]

Theoketos writes: Now Jesus refers to the Church as a pillar, (not a column of pillars) of truth. Jesus is the way the truth and the life.

The Catholic Church has always been unwavering in her commitment to proclaim the truth, even unto death, even death on a cross.

But how can the Catholic Church (or any organized religion) PROVE these TRUTHs from a book that was written way before this generation was even around? How can you proove the events of the Bible if you were not there? Wouldn't they become beliefs or at best faiths? Wouldn't it be more realistic to say that the Church is proclaiming beliefs or faiths rather than TRUTHs?

[God Conquers]

You can infer truth from the facts which we know.

The Bible is the most accurate historical document from that period. There is more corroborating evidence for Christ than there is for Julius Ceasar.

It is not difficult to put two-and-two together to make Catholic.

[willguy]

[quote]Willguy writes:I would say that most religions do contain at least some truth. For example, they acknowledge that there is something more to life then just what we see. All religions that I know of condemn cold-blooded murder. They preach a morality that usually contains aspects that mirror Catholic morality.

United States Law condemns murder as well but it doesn’t stop it from happening. I have discussed this with another Phatmass and this member put it properly in perspective [/quote]
ummm... what does what you said have anything to do with what I said? I was talking about elements of truth, you're talking people doing what they know is wrong.