Absolute or partial truth.

We always see that everyone defends positions that are often not defensible, there are people who defend positions are not governed neither because they are earthly nor spiritual laws or of any kind, they are simply points of view, that when you see the arguments it seems that it is not a absolute truth because they do not follow defensible patterns.
I consider defensible patterns, like any argument or point of view on which a position can be defended by securing itself in an earthly or spiritual law, whether it be a constitution, state, municipal law, a criminal procedural code or even the bible. The other law that can demonstrate an absolute truth but which brings a lot of controversy is a spiritual law, and because of the diversity of religions we could say that absolute truth totally defensible is not reached either.

Now the laws, be it of a country, state, municipality or even a world law, all these go to a rate of change, because all have to adapt to the evolution of the man in the economic, spiritual, technological development and even to the world population growth, because the laws are governed under a complete pattern of change from my point of view this condition removes that happens to make that element to be used and to defend that absolute truth.

Even for you friends who read this article, everything exposed here are arguments proper to philosophies and thoughts, and if anyone could contradict it would be his truth against mine, who could be right? I? or the people who oppose my opinion? because we would all be right or no one would have it, because under this that I express, reason or absolute truth is of the one who believes that it has or are simply partial truths.

Like all my articles, where I express topics of deep debate, here I leave this for you to comment, enter the world of reading, philosophy and deep reflections.

Source
Greetings, friends of the steemit community.