Only ONE "Truth"?

As mentioned in a previous article, modern thinking
HATES the "Exclusivity" of the Christian message:
That Jesus Christ is the one and only way for Mankind
to be reconciled to God. The popular mindset of
Postmodernism says, as Oprah Winfrey said to a Christian
guest of hers recently, "I'm fine with your faith statements
as long as you don't say YOUR faith is 'true' and MY faith
is 'false' "...

But notice the fundamental Presupposition that is at
the heart of this mindset (which, by the way, is something
I think most of modern society "feels" more than "thinks"):
There Can Be No "One Truth".

Not only is THIS, itself, a Truth Statement, but it denies
outright its opposite, that there just very well MAY be
"One Truth" which applies to all people everywhere.
A legitimate Quest for Truth must not begin by presupposing
its conclusions...

So it would seem that even the Postmodernist wants to talk
about "Truth" in absolute terms. OK, fine, so the next
question usually is, how then can any ONE individual arrive
at "Truth"? Volumes have been written by thousands of thinkers
over thousands of years on this philosophical subject, of course,
and a serious Quest for Truth takes most of us a lifetime;
but consider this:

MOST of what we assert to be "True" is based on three things:
Reason (is the statement Reasonable; does it "hold water"
Logically), Authority (does the person making the statement
have the Credentials and Credibility to do so), and
Eye Witness accounts (what did the person making the statement
SEE or HEAR or TOUCH). Using these rudimentary tools, we
follow the EVIDENCE (the sum total of the three) until we
reach a point of, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (as in court).

When we have arrived at "Truth", using these methods, most
of us continue to examine our Case, looking for holes,
building support for the weak spots, and being willing to modify
parts of the Case when better Evidence presents itself.
But having done so, we become far more comfortable using the word
"Truth" because we've actually DONE some "homework" on the issue...

So what is at the heart of Postmodernism's loosely-held
belief -- their "truth statement" -- that There Can Be No
"One Truth"? Well, in addition to the probability that
most modern "thinkers" have not actually gone to the trouble
of researching and solidifying their World View (the Media
are among the most vocal preachers of today's "Collective Relativity"),
I believe it has to do with three things:

1. They do not realize that the very ACT of believing
"X" to be TRUE must mean, then, that its exact opposite,
"Y", is FALSE. You simply can NOT believe that two
absolutely OPPOSED positions might BOTH be true; and...

2. ...they are uncomfortable with this, because it begins to
fly in the face of their basic "truth statement" (i.e.,
There Can Be No "One Truth"). Quite simply, they lack the
Courage to stand up and say to anyone else, "You are Wrong".
They call that kind of stance "Extremism", a charge which
carries a lot of weight in a post-9/11 world...

3. But I believe the REAL reason is this: Postmodernists know
in their hearts that a real BELIEF in a real God (who really
has put His moral law inside us and will hold us Accountable)
would mean that they must set aside their own agendas and
pursuits of pleasure and/or fulfillment and focus instead on
worshipping this God and obeying His Will.

In a word, they are UNWILLING to do this. The first sin in
the history of the Universe, committed by Lucifer, was PRIDE:
"Not Thy Will but MINE be Done..." And it is this "back that
breaks but never bends" which constitutes the basis of the
assertion that "There Can Be No 'One Truth' ", because One Truth
means Obligation, a bowing-down, a yielding of an assumed
"right" to determine "one's own truth".

Even Christians must "die" every single day to this natural desire
to assert one's own will over the Will of God. With the help and work
of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we Christians are all a "work in progress".
Who does the Postmodernist have to help him?

And is banking EVERYTHING on the weak assertions of Relative Truth
worth the RISK if, in the end, they're proved horribly WRONG??