Absolute Truth

Modesty

Well-Known Member
Messages
370
Reaction score
542
Points
88
I've been pondering the concept of absolute truth in regards to religion recently and I'm curious about other people's understanding of this. Namely, whether you believe it exists or not or if its something your religious tradition teaches. For example, my past religious affiliation was traditional Catholicism, and the absolute, infallible truth of the Catholic Church was massively important.

I'm actively looking for another religious tradition to follow and I admit I find it hard to understand religions that don't seem to have a concept of absolute truth, such as neo-paganism. To me, something is either true or false. For example, there is a God or there isn't, etc. etc.

And if its true, it should be universally true (I've never understand the 'it's the right religion for me, but not for others' idea). This might just be the way my brain is trained to think because of Catholicism though. I'm interested in hearing other opinions and thoughts on this topic!
 
A number of folks here will speak to infallible and a solute truth from a catholic perspective that may differ from yours.

There either is a G!d or there isn't. Yes the flippant in me would agree...that might just be an absolute truth.
 
A number of folks here will speak to infallible and a solute truth from a catholic perspective that may differ from yours.

There either is a G!d or there isn't. Yes the flippant in me would agree...that might just be an absolute truth.

I'm no longer a believer in Catholicism but when I was I would've said there's only one Catholic perspective, that of the magisterium and the Church's official dogmas. I don't think that way anymore, but I think that's one thing that makes Catholicism interesting and difficult. There's a variation of thought in Catholicism, but if you want to be faithful to the Church you have to be careful that you don't vary TOO much. There's a huge emphasis on being orthodox. I think that's why I find the idea of absolute truth so interesting honestly, in traditional Catholicism there's very much a definite 'right' answer and a 'wrong' one to almost all theological issues.
 
I'm no longer a believer in Catholicism but when I was I would've said there's only one Catholic perspective, that of the magisterium and the Church's official dogmas. I don't think that way anymore, but I think that's one thing that makes Catholicism interesting and difficult. There's a variation of thought in Catholicism, but if you want to be faithful to the Church you have to be careful that you don't vary TOO much. There's a huge emphasis on being orthodox. I think that's why I find the idea of absolute truth so interesting honestly, in traditional Catholicism there's very much a definite 'right' answer and a 'wrong' one to almost all theological issues.
Mmm .. Islam is similar in that respect..
However, I've always been rebellious .. probably one of the reasons I became a Muslim in the first place. ;)

I don't like being "steamrollered" .. faith is between a person and G-d.
Welcome back, by the way :)
 
I don't like being "steamrollered" .. faith is between a person and G-d.
Exactly how I see it, faith is between a person and G!d.

@Modesty, to me absolute truth is reality. It simply IS.

I think religions try to understand and explain what IS, Vajra said it best around here when speaking of menus and meals, fingers pointing and the moon. Religion is a way to try to get us to understand certain moral truths, the Truth being we all do better when we find a way to get along together.
 
I am starting to doubt the truth of absolutes. Maybe it can still hold for physical elements visible and present in the now. But not so much for abstract concepts born in our mind and then shared with others. The absolute truth of mental concepts lies within the mind which is closed between humans and in sharing it through language, its absolute nature may be lost.

There either is a G!d or there isn't. Yes the flippant in me would agree...that might just be an absolute truth.

For example, while the above truth may seem absolute, does it have any meaning without knowing what the word 'God' means? It seems to have different relative meanings amongst many people...
 
Last edited:
I believe truth recedes forever, from even the highest of the angels, towards the infinite, unreachable and unknowable ONE
 
Last edited:
I've been pondering the concept of absolute truth in regards to religion recently and I'm curious about other people's understanding of this
I see truth is relative for us in the Human condition, it is shaped by our Nature and Nurture. I do not see we have the capacity to know the Absolute.

Regards Tony
 
I believe truth recedes forever, for even the highest of the angels, towards the infinite, unreachable and unknowable ONE
I'll sign on that! I am currently still stuck on deciding the meaning of The One even after experiencing a short time as The One. Sometimes, I wonder if meaning itself is a illusion. We all assign meanings to anything we consciously experience. Essentially what the thing is but also, implicitly, what the thing is NOT. Useful in a world of duality I guess but leads to further divisions when disagreements around definitions pop up.

I was a bit surprised by definition of 'define' itself. It could almost be 'to limit completely'!
https://www.etymonline.com/word/define#etymonline_v_914
 
Last edited:
@Modesty , the official Bible of the Christian Church was written well after the death of Jesus. The gospels that are now in the Bible were chosen by men, both Jewish and Christian. That's why the Jewish books are a key part of the Bible itself and they also chose which gospels did not get into the Bible. The gospel of Thomas is well known by many but rejected by the Church. There was even gospels of others.....including Judas and Mary. They are available for reading if you search online.

Even the Bible contradicts itself if you try to see the Old Testament and New Testament as knowledge of the same God. I try not to get too caught up the broken Bible. In fact, I don't think the OT has any link with Jesus. My personal belief is that Jesus did exist, and spoke a message of unconditional love as a path to God. I also believe he experienced the Oneness and it was that event which made him want to teach others of a different god from the Jewish Yahweh of the time.

There were many others claiming to be messiahs at the time also. They also gained many followers and were executed by the Romans. But the message of a loving god may have been different enough from one of a punishing god, that when this loving man was killed, his message did not die with him. His words were passed on, at first, as word of mouth, but additions and subtractions would have occurred with time until it was defined as the Bible we have today.

I don't have to believe Jesus was the son of God, performed miracles or rose from the dead to accept much of his message of living with love. Unconditional love of all that is may be the reality we return to when we die. That is simply an opinion of mine. The truth can only be known after I die and if I still exist then. I'm not going to force that to happen while still alive and depressed, because many of the concepts can be applied to find reasons of living a little longer in this horrible reality of life.

You dont have to accept any part of the NT even to live a decent and contented life. But many parts of it can be a good guide when doubts arise in the life we live. I find it easier to focus less on who spoke the truth and more on finding what truths work as I live.
 
I've been pondering the concept of absolute truth in regards to religion recently and I'm curious about other people's understanding of this. Namely, whether you believe it exists or not or if its something your religious tradition teaches.
I rather think the well-known and ancient religious Traditions – Hinduism, Buddhism, the Abrahamics, etc., speak of the Absolute in the sense that the source and origin is Itself Truth-as-such – or rather It is the ultimate and ontological Reality and as such the source of Truth without error or falsehood (what is Real cannot be unreal).

The sense of an 'absolute', like that of 'objective' has been eroded over time, and is largely replaced in the modern mind today by the assertion of the 'relative' – that everything is relative and nothing is absolute – and the 'subjective', because we are fallible creatures, we cannot know objectively, or only objectively in a contingent and relative manner.

Thus there is no objective truth, only individual narrative.

So any tradition that holds to 'It' – God, Brahman, and so forth, regards it as Absolute, Real and True, even if our knowledge of 'It' is relative.

Christianity – what you say of Catholic belief is common to the Orthodox Patriarchates – believes that the Word of God is absolute in the sense that it is indisputably true, and not contingent or conditional. Likewise that what Scripture and Traditions proclaims as "teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." (Dei Verbum, III, 11, 2).

For example, my past religious affiliation was traditional Catholicism, and the absolute, infallible truth of the Catholic Church was massively important.
Of course, it is it's raison d'etre.

I'm actively looking for another religious tradition to follow and I admit I find it hard to understand religions that don't seem to have a concept of absolute truth, such as neo-paganism.
Probably modern western traditions are too imbued with philosophical relativism which has largely been the rule in anglo-american thought for the last few centuries.

To me, something is either true or false. For example, there is a God or there isn't, etc. etc. And if its true, it should be universally true (I've never understand the 'it's the right religion for me, but not for others' idea).
That latter phrase 'right for me' assumes that Revelation speaks to some people, but not all. I do not hold that view, rather I regard Revelation as speaking to the human condition as such. again, the idea that I am 'different' is the product of subjective relativism.

This might just be the way my brain is trained to think because of Catholicism though. I'm interested in hearing other opinions and thoughts on this topic!
Well whether one accepts the idea of the absolute as something tangible and credible, or merely as a philosophical category, is the key to the whole debate.

Traditional Christian Orthodoxy would say the word of God is Absolute and Infallible, and that the Church has been entrusted with its transmission – but of course the counter to that is simply 'Is it, though?" and the response to that, in the end, is a matter of personal faith.

But I would say, from my studies, the Great religions, if I may call them, that, all rest on a sense of the Absolute.
 
... the official Bible of the Christian Church was written well after the death of Jesus.
But by that argument out goes the sacra doctrina of the Daoist, the Hindu, the Jew – and yet generations of saints and sages have found spiritual insight, luminosity and wisdom – indeed a sense of the sacred – permeates the words.

The gospels that are now in the Bible were chosen by men ...
All sacra doctrina were written by men. And if the NT Canon had included every gospel, then scholars would rubbish it for a total lack of critical insight.

Suffice to say there are sound reasons for why books were chosen and others rejected. There are others texts, the writing of Clement of Rome, for example, which have a far stronger argument for inclusion in the Canon – and they are authentically and indisputably Christian – but they were rejected.

Even the Bible contradicts itself if you try to see the Old Testament and New Testament as knowledge of the same God.
Ah, a common claim, but one no-one has been able to make stick. You're not the first. Marcion of Sinope (85-160AD) thought the same.

My personal belief is that Jesus did exist, and spoke a message of unconditional love as a path to God.
If you don't trust the Bible, how can you know anything about Jesus?
 
I'll sign on that! I am currently still stuck on deciding the meaning of The One even after experiencing a short time as The One. Sometimes, I wonder if meaning itself is a illusion. We all assign meanings to anything we consciously experience. Essentially what the thing is but also, implicitly, what the thing is NOT. Useful in a world of duality I guess but leads to further divisions when disagreements around definitions pop up.

I was a bit surprised by definition of 'define' itself. It could almost be 'to limit completely'!
https://www.etymonline.com/word/define#etymonline_v_914
IMO the touch of God goes a long way. It echoes down through every part of us, with life changing effects that continue to reverberate for years, from that single touch, transforming and healing. It may be repeated, or more than once -- I don't think most of us are equipped to handle more than a touch, from time to time. But that once experienced, becomes the most important experience of our lives?

Something like that?
 
Last edited:
IMO the touch of God goes a long way. It echoes down through every part of us, with life changing effects that continue to reverberate for years, from that single touch, transforming and healing. It may be repeated, or more than once -- I don't think most of us are equipped to handle more than a touch, from time to time. But that once experienced, becomes the most important experience of our lives?

Something like that?

Yes, I had multiple spiritual experiences that i count as meaningful personal but Oneness was the most important experience of my life. It was critical in changing my perspective of the psychosis I suffer from and even changed perhaps it's nature. Despite mental illness, I got really lucky in many other ways like having a supportive family and no responsibilities. I am satisfied with what I have and don't really need more. My ego strokes inner fears re if that will last, am i doing enough etc but i am willing to wait for the actual event to deal with rather than imagining potential ones that may not actually happen.
 
I am starting to doubt the truth of absolutes. Maybe it can still hold for physical elements visible and present in the now. But not so much for abstract concepts born in our mind and then shared with others. The absolute truth of mental concepts lies within the mind which is closed between humans and in sharing it through language, its absolute nature may be lost.



For example, while the above truth may seem absolute, does it have any meaning without knowing what the word 'God' means? It seems to have different relative meanings amongst many people...
The "truth" is a greased piglet, with everybody running around trying to catch it.

There are elements of reality - absolute Truth - that are not visible to the naked eye, elements that are not (and are!) intuitive, aspects that remain beyond our comprehension.

The primary religious texts were written before we understood the earth revolves around the sun; and that the universe does not revolve around the earth - which is what every one of our senses screams is "truth" to us. None of the religious texts purports to be "science," and I am wary of those who claim the texts do. Science is another religion, and properly applied is more thoughtful about matters - but science does not teach moral truths. If anything science is amoral, or morally neutral, "we'll sort out the consequences later."

Since not all of reality can be measured, science too is unable to provide Truth, and can only expand on little truths.
 
I'll sign on that! I am currently still stuck on deciding the meaning of The One even after experiencing a short time as The One. Sometimes, I wonder if meaning itself is a illusion. We all assign meanings to anything we consciously experience. Essentially what the thing is but also, implicitly, what the thing is NOT. Useful in a world of duality I guess but leads to further divisions when disagreements around definitions pop up.

I was a bit surprised by definition of 'define' itself. It could almost be 'to limit completely'!
https://www.etymonline.com/word/define#etymonline_v_914
Language is limiting - there are limits to what language can convey. Language doesn't do a very good job of conveying experience.
 
Language is limiting - there are limits to what language can convey. Language doesn't do a very good job of conveying experience.

But once I have had the experience, however fleeting, I immediately understand what the language is trying to convey?
 
But once I have had the experience, however fleeting, I immediately understand what the language is trying to convey?
That is the hope. That is the essence of "teaching" and "learning."

However...your mileage may vary.

My favorite lesson from the movie Good Will Hunting: "What does it smell like inside the Sistine Chapel?" Language cannot convey that experience in any meaningful way, it can only hint in the general direction.
 
Back
Top