I agree with George that Truth is True regardless of who (if anyone) believes it. I think the phrase "true for them," while fairly ubiquitous, is a little sloppy. I feel like Darren might better have said, "Basing a worldview on personal experience is fine so long as you don’t extend your worldview to other people, ’cause it might not be *part of their personal experience.*" I have a hard time with the idea of Truth being subjective and therefore not universally applicable. I can agree that Truth may not be KNOWN, or may be partially known or even (gasp!) incorrectly known, but if there isn't an objective Truth (whether or not we can actually BE objective about it), then the stuff we refer to as true or truth should be called something else. Like: personally experientially verifiable, or something like that.

As to Wesley's comment, I agree with that, too. There is a chance that I, as a Christian, am wrong about the truth, and there's a chance I'm right. But as the atheist Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) says, "If you really believe that there is eternal life and that someone might not get it . . . how much to you have to hate someone NOT to proseletyze?"

For Darren – I know that you’re pretty familiar with the command to preach the gospel to the world. So if someone believes they have the eternal truth why should it not be proclaimed to the world if it could even reach just one other person? For me it’s not about increasing church event attendance but about “spreading the love” – isn’t that what you’d want someone to do for you if you were on your deathbed instead of withholding the cure?