Absolutes are Irrelevant

May 30, 2007

In response to the comment left on my post, here, and the post on Minds 2Mentes titled, “The Exclusiveness of Christ - Part 1.” I’ll be sure to read Krista’s next few blog posts, because the discussion does interest me even though I don’t find it useful to me personally. Religion, why and how people have such strong absolute beliefs (or faith), and the impact of religion does fascinate me; however I (and I’m sure many others) find the argument regarding absolute and relative truth to be irrelevant and impossible to support. For some people the discussion might appear to be necessary, however in no way do I accept any of the religions to be perfect (I think Gandhi said it much better than I ever could, so please read that quote from here) which therefore means that, to me, none of the religions portray an absolute truth, but instead, perhaps just an essence of truth. I’m not sure of what this absolute truth is or what happens after life, but I do not have a faith in any religion to portray it accurately where I can say it is inerrant – so the argument of absolutes is useless to me. This is the line of thinking which lead me to the idea of “spherical truth.”

Now, I don’t want to argue about your Zacharias quote, “Jesus Christ didn’t come into this world to make bad people good, he came into this world to make dead people live,” but please note I wasn’t referring to the intention of a religion but just the possible impact or consequence of it, which could be leading a good life and so on. Nonetheless, I just want to make it as clear as possible, why this argument about relative truth is quite irrelevant to me and others who share a similar line of thinking. To suggest another idea of truth, this is a little but great quote I found on the Tamilnation website within the immensity of the “From Matter to Life to Mind… an Unfolding Consciousness” section, which is a substantial compilation of unwavering wisdom:

“…I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised… The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth…No man from outside can make you free… No one holds the Key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity…” Jiddu Krishnamurthy

So, considering that my view on attaining an understanding of truth (my understanding is relatively undefined) is quite different to Krista’s and that I do not believe any religions are perfect, let me try and make it as clear as I can why the argument regarding absolute and relative truth is something I think is irrelevant, and something I do not care much about. In the Mind 2 Mentes post about relative and absolute truth, Krista had said and quoted this:

I was listening to a Josh McDowell message on the radio talking about the way this generation views truth. He told about how when he speaks to crowds of people about the subject, he picks somebody out to ask them a couple questions. He would hold up a Bible and the conversation would go something like:

“Do you believe this is the Word of God?”
“Yes”
“Do you believe it is inerrant?”
“Yes”
“Do you believe it’s completely reliable?”
“Yes”
“Why?”

And then there was usually silence. And if the person did have an answer, the conversation would continue like:

“Because I have faith and believe it to be true”
“So if the person across the aisle from you believes the Qur’an to be true, does that make it true to them, just because they believe in it?”
“Yes”

And this is where the debate begins. So, straight away, in my line of thinking, and apparently Gandhi’s as well, I would simply say “no” to the second question, “Do you believe it is inerrant?” and thus the line of questioning will stop, or it will change and perhaps I would be asked “why?” and I could once again quote Gandhi because he sums up my view extremely well, and so on. When I referred to meaning in the For the sake of Meaning? post, I was not referring to relative truth but rather, differing beliefs, motivation, because I feel that finding truth, whatever that may be, is the journey of the individual.

I really cringe when I hear things like:

“Living a good life will not save you. Jesus Christ alone provides salvation for the soul so that we can be with God forever.”

And i really to start think - how are certain people  so sure about such things? For Christians, or anyone, who believe that their way is the only right way, this discussion about absolute truth would be interesting and probably necessary to “properly” affirm their faith – a discussion which ends up referring to the bible, quote after quote of theology and quotes referring to passages in the bible. Nonetheless, it is useless to me, since I cannot say that the bible is inerrant or the only word of God. Therefore, I find the discussion tiring also because it is formed on a foundation of assumptions that a certain scripture is 100% correct.