Are all truths relative?

If, as a child, you were taught that hard work is necessary for you to be financially successful in the world, and you believed it, then your belief makes that truth true for you. And you'll certainly need to work hard in order to be financially successful.

On the other hand:

If, as a child you were taught that working smart rather than hard is the key to being financially successful, and you believed it, then your belief makes that truth true for you. And you certainly won't have to work hard, only smart in order to be financially successful.

In this way, it seems to me that all truths are true, it always depends on our belief as to which truth is true for us.

Are there any truths that are not subject to interpretation?

Some of the most helpful knowledge shaping my current belief system comes through both 'Abraham' and 'Bashar.' From Bashar's perspective or point of view, he provides the following as the only immutable principles:

1. "You Exist."
2. "The One is All, the All is One."
3. "What you put out is what you get back."
4. "Change is the only constant, except the first three Laws which never change."

Looking at these principles one at a time, here's how I see them:

"You Exist". Yes.

"The One is All, the All is One". Seeing that everything is consciousness and that, all that is, springs forth from consciousness, but still remains a part of consciousness; it makes perfect sense to me.

"What you put out is what you get back." Is just another way of explaining the law of attraction or seeing the Universe as a mirror that reflects our current beliefs back to us as our current reality, etcetera.

"Change is the only constant." Realizing that no two moments can ever be repeated in all of their complexity, helped me to understand the sacredness and power of the now moment and that change is inevitable.

"Except the first three Laws which never change." So it's a continual cycle of consciousness, eternally changing into something new, and adding to, all that is.

Never forget that words and labels are just like place holders or points of reference. Words are not truth in the same way that a menu is not a meal or a signpost is not the destination.

Considering that the likes of Abraham and Bashar are, allegedly (if you believe it), communicating with us from a much broader and wiser perspective, it makes sense to me that they'd have a firmer handle on the nature of reality than we can, from our current, limited, 3D time-space perspective.

Based on how they resonate with me, how I feel, my understanding and my current beliefs, I've decided and hence, now choose to fully believe these 4 principles.

Are these principles true or real per se? I don't think we can expect to get a definitive answer from outside sources. After all, why should we blindly believe any individual about anything. Perhaps the way to find out if what others are saying is true or not, is by inquiring within and receiving answers from our own source. In that way, we'll know the truth or falsness of, whatever.

Are all truths relative? I would have to say no.

My understanding of a relative truth is that a relative truth is just true for me but not necessarily for anyone else.

If relativism were true, then the world would be full of contradictory conditions. For if something is true for me but false for you, then opposite conditions exist. For if I say "The comb is in the drawer" and you say "the comb is not in the drawer"—and we both are right, then the comb must be and not be in the drawer at the same time and in the same sense. But that is impossible. Either it is or it isn't.

When someone states, "God exists, or source exists" and someone else claims, "God does not exist, or source does not exist" these two statements cannot both be true. If one is true, then the other is false. And since they exhaust the only possibilities, one of them must be true.

If truth is relative, then no one is ever wrong—even when they are. As long as something is true to me, then I’m right even when I’m wrong. The drawback is that I could never learn anything either, think about it, because learning is moving from a false belief to a true one—that is, from an absolutely false belief to an absolutely true one. The truth is that absolutes are inescapable.

We can be absolutely sure of some things, that there are no square circles. And that 3+2=5. Truth, is always exclusive, as in this case. This leads us to the next question.

Are there any truths that are not subject to interpretation? I would have answer yes to this question.

The truth can be absolute no matter what our grounds for believing it. For example, if it is true that Sidney, Australia, is on the Pacific Ocean, then it is absolutely true no matter what my evidence or lack of evidence may be. An absolute truth is absolutely true in itself, no matter what evidence there is. Evidence, or the lack thereof, does not change a fact. And truth is what corresponds to the facts. The truth doesn’t change just because we learn something more about it.

An example of a truth being subject to interpretation, like relative sizes such as shorter and taller. As such they cannot be absolute truths, since they change depending on the object to which they relate.

Is the Law of Attraction absolute? Absolutely!!

A law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. When a law is established it goes through repeated experimentation and observations.

In the case of the LOA, it works perfectly well IF all the requirements are met. As a simple example, when water is subjected to a temperature of 0 degrees Celsius or 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it freezes every time. Should the temperature reach ½ a degree above, it would not freeze. All conditions HAVE to be met.

Again if you heat water to 100 degrees Celsius or at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, it boils every time. Should the temperature reach ½ a degree below, it would not boil. All conditions HAVE to be met.

The Law of Attraction is no exception. If there is the least amount of resistance, the absolute least amount of doubt, you short circuit the desire you are after and make the law of none effect. All conditions HAVE to be met in order for it to operate.

Just as an electronic circuit ceases to function if 'one wire be cut'.

Can you invalidate the Law of Attraction by believing that it does not exist? I have never witnessed the unbelief of anything ever eradicating its existence.

No one, no matter how hard they disbelieve, can ever negate whatever they are disbelieving. It does not erase the fact of its existence.

If someone puts the law to the test and it does not work because of some thing he/she failed to do and then states it does not work, it's a hoax, (according to there experience), does that void the law or make it not true? I don't think so. it's like the man who heated water to 211½ degrees and proclaimed, taught, and wrote books that water does not boil when heated.

Is free will absolute?

I believe it is. One maybe swayed with all kinds of outside influences, but ultimately, you have the final say. This is one element that God will never infringe or interfere with.

It was first seen in the garden of Eden. God gave man free will. Satan was the outside influence. Man then made his choice. Satan didn't put the fruit in man's mouth and made him eat it. He just 'suggested' it. Man had the final say.

According to the bible, heaven or hell is a choice, you have the final say. That you believe this statement or not, it will not disannul its fact.