If I presented this idea to my friend, he would likely argue that I’m playing some sort of word-switching game. “That’s totally different!” he would say. “Global warming is reality, not just someone’s opinion.”
“So global warming is true, then?”
When my friend says “Global warming is true,” he defines true as real, and truth as reality. But when he says that the Bible is only true to me, not him, he is defining true (to) as an opinion (of). But that’s not what I mean when I say that the Bible is true. I don’t mean that it’s just my opinion; I mean that the Bible’s claims are reality. So, we’re using completely different definitions of the word truth when we’re talking about my beliefs (the Bible), but when we talk about his beliefs, we can agree that truth should be defined as reality. So, whether global warming can destroy the world or not is a question of reality, but whether or not the world will be one day judged by a Holy God who will not tolerate sin is only a matter of opinion.
I think there is a double standard going on, albeit an unintentional one. Should I point out to my friend that he is actually the one who is switching his definitions in his words, by carefully explaining to him what I’ve talked about in these essays? If I did so, would he understand, or would he reject it out of hand and continue to insist that I’m the one guilty of word-switching? I hope we can come to a common understanding, but I’m not optimistic. You see, if he were to realize that he’s playing word-switching games, he’d be only one step away from realizing that the whole idea of relative truth depends on faulty semantics – and if that happened, his whole way of viewing the world would have to change.
That is not an easy thing for anyone.