the truth is what is true for you'

hmmm, Amos...the difficulty is, that 'principle', said in such a way, is poorly stated. It is, by its very nature, ambiguous and subject to gross misuse. It can easily fall victim to something like you note in "the kindgom of heaven" example.

We have here a statement, and implicitly also, a 'meta-statement' about the very definition of 'truth'. This happens over & over in some of these debates as one person takes a poetic, subjective idea of a concept and thinks they are expressing some sort of absolute. All "True for me" can be is an assertion that I like the locution being put forward. This can be useful, and if all it means is that "thinking this way is comforting for me and expresses my belief system..etc..", then we have, if not agreement, at least useful communication. But if a person gets the notion that merely holding a view somehow ennobles and establishes it as **true** in a more precise sense, then we have a problem!

I write..(yeah, maybe 'preach') over & over about equivocation and the very real problems it causes.....and I'm sorry, but not really 'getting' why it IS a problem doesn't excuse one from the ramifications of its use. It is beyond important to be clear about what is being claimed to be 'true' if we are to have a meaningful discussion about it. The same points hold even more strongly for uses of the word 'valid'...as in "my belief is just as valid as yours.

If we don't adopt some rules about all this and educate people in their use, we'll be forever just talking past one another.