Shoghi Effendi wrote, “The mission of the Founder of their Faith, they conceive it to be to proclaim that religious truth is not absolute but relative.”1
“Baha’u’llah inculcates the basic principle of the relativity of religious truth.”2
“As the Messengers of God redefine what is right and wrong, new codes of civil law and behavior are born, new institutions that express new morals come into existence, and a new culture evolves into a new world order.”3
Let us clearly understand that “truth” is “true.” Religious “truth” should be no different from secular “truth.” By “truth” we aught to understand the fact that it is absolute. “Absolute” means that something is what it is regardless of what we think about it. For instance, that the Earth is round is an absolute truth regardless of whether or not we like it, whether we agree with it, or whether we would prefer that it be another shape. What about the time in history when people thought that the Earth was flat-was the Earth flat? No. They sincerely believed it with all their minds but it was still not true. Some would say that it was “their truth” but truth has no ownership; truth is what it is regardless of who is espousing it or claiming it. It was not “their truth” because it was not true, at best we could say that it was something that they “believed” or something that they “thought” was true.
There is a saying that goes; “it’s not a lie if you believe it.” This may very well be true but it does not mean that something is true simply “because” you believe it to be so. Example, a few years ago someone asked me for money and I told them that I had none. Later that day I realized that I did have some money in my wallet that I had forgotten about. Did I lie? No, because as far as I knew I had no money. But was it the truth that I had no money? No, because I did have some. Therefore, it was not a lie because I believed it to be true but it did turn out to not be true; i.e., my perception was not the same as the facts of the matter.
The general argument that states that there is no absolute truth is perhaps the strongest argument for the fact that there indeed is absolute truth. By stating that there is no absolute truth, one is instantly admitting that there is. After all, in order to make the statement, one must believe that it is absolutely true. They are saying that it is absolutely true, that there is no absolute truth. Maybe there is only one absolute truth and that is, that there is no absolute truth. How could it be absolutely true that there is no absolute truth? Therefore, we see clear proof that there is absolute truth and we humans long for it. Moreover, if truth is not absolute it must be relative yet, if it is relative then even the statement “truth is relative” is a relative statement and therefore, not necessarily true.
In conclusion, all this has been said in order to ask “why should religious truth be any different”? Certainly one problem is that such a concept would envisage the idea that there is actual factual truth and then, in another realm, there is religious truth. While this is not really true it is a convenient mythology that people believe in because it makes them feel better, important or purposeful. It is always of utmost importance to ask “why”; why would the Baha’i believe this? It is not because it makes rational, intellectual or philosophic sense but rather, because of the effect it produces. If religious truth was not relative but absolute then the Baha’i would have no way to set up Baha’ism at the top of the religious food chain; affording themselves the ability to reinterpret all religious beliefs that have come before them.