There is such a
thing as absolute truth, but such truth must recognize itself as absolute only within a particular context.
In fact all the scary hypothetical scenarios seem to be
taken as absolute truths by The Greens Party here in Australia and many environmental activists groups around the world and the silence from the climate science community correcting this misinterpretation is deafening.
without implying the answer, so the very structure of reason, its very meaning and drive toward ultimate truth, implies the existence of
God as Absolute Truth, as the very Ground of reason.
I can actually understand why churches wouldn't want those around speaking against their doctrine - which they
hold as the absolute truth of God.
is that most people quote stats
as absolute truths without taking context or concerns about sample size and significance of the underlying data.
If that weren't enough, at least 25 % of the US population sees the
Bible as absolute truth and another 25 % or so takes the message as given to be the basis of their lives, thus these folks will oppose anyone who tries to tell them otherwise.
That is, there is such a thing
as the absolute truth on all questions and those truths are knowable, but everybody else is wrong about them and that's the truth.
Believe it or not, I'm more at peace riding the fence on what I used to
believe as absolute truth, because my time and energy is no longer devoted to defending my ABSOLUTE beliefs!
On the contrary, people who do not accept one
religion as absolute truth are always forced to think and process new information and figure out ways to apply this information to life ad help figure out the answers to life's mystery's.
There is almost no interesting intellectual thoughts, just name calling and subjective whining
posing as absolute truths from both sides.
I am curious with the imprecision of words and some words with more than one meaning such as «lie» coupled with the difficulty in translating ancient texts are you SURE that «lie» means to lay with or to «lie» such as using
possibility as absolute truth?
I speak of the ideas to be discussed as proposals rather than truths because in my view ideas that emerge out of a dialogue with other faiths and ideologies appropriately function,
not as absolute truths to which all thinking Christians have an obligation to assent, but rather as experimental suggestions — lures for thought and feeling — that are fittingly evaluated by different Christian communities relative to needs and contexts.
Dear Christian fundamentalists, i employ you to please stop citing the
bible as absolute truth, you look silly to the rest of the world.
However, scientific truth which keeps on changing can obviously not be taken either by faith (that's not what science is) nor
as an absolute truth, since it is subject to change.
In my view, your thinking is based on certain assumptions, but you don't realise that they are assumptions, you seem to regard
them as absolute truth.
The problem is that many don't see that there is such a thing as natural law,
as absolute truth - some things are always bad, like murder, and some things are always good, like snuggling and holding babies.
You may be able to totally trust a piece of equipment at temperatures over -10 C, but have to throw out all data for temperatures below -60 C. Just handing out the raw data to anyone will result in some fool taking
it as absolute truth.
Regardless, and without any check on him at all, it's all presented with the veneer of dark and evil forces at work, and
as absolute truth and «support» for all his implied and / or expressly stated allegations.