However, I am not going to use the term 'relativity' in the strict mathematical Einsteinian sense here, I wish to discuss the term in the more conversational way, which describes the act of comparing one thing to another.
My observation is that the relativity of everyday personal experiences places a great burden on the otherwise potential smooth operation of society. I mean, if everyone saw and heard everything equally, considered new information in the same rational way, and reached the same conclusions, wouldn't things run much more smoothly and the right decisions be made so much more quickly and consistently than it does at present?
But of course, our society does not run that way. We each have our own opinions and interpretations, and this diversity brings a range of ideas into a situation where we need to solve problems. I think these multi-dimensional interactions with the world around us, brought by many of us getting together and expressing our thoughts, creates a wonderful resilience in our modern society.
When people bring alternative pathways to the solution to a problem, it can mean that the resolution is more likely to work in a wider variety of situations than were ever envisaged when the original problem was posed. This diversity of opinion can even lead to 'brainstorming' where newer and even better ideas can be discussed. The higher quality of the eventual solution allow it to meet new challenges, as this process of checking one's suggestion relative to another's has allowed for built-in reserves.
What about when two differences of opinion cannot be resolved? What happens when diversity of thought creates more dissonance than harmony? It is my observation that this happens when each party thinks that they are absolutely right, with respect to a value system that they also think is absolutely accurate.
Sometimes these disagreements cannot be resolved and the two parties must agree to disagree. Conversely, at other times there is an opportunity for each side to consider the other's perspective, and at least agree that from different viewpoints. The best available course of action can vary upon the circumstances.
Each situation is unique. Sometimes, if there is no overall agreement – or perhaps if there are several good ideas – it may be possible to implement more than one solution. If this works, it can give flexibility to the eventual implementation of the solution (or solutions), and can allow dynamic changes to the future planning if things don't go as well as expected.
I have been talking about the value of looking at various solutions to problems; with one idea tested in a relative way against another idea. We can probably, as humans, never get to an 'absolutely' correct answer to Earthly problems, but by embracing each others' viewpoints and looking at an issue from multiple perspectives, we can perhaps get as close as we can to the 'best solution on the day'.
Christian history also has illustrations of where some theologians advocated 'absolute' correct interpretations and others promoted a more 'relativistic' approach of allowing individuals to come to some of their own conclusions led by the Holy Spirit.
In the fourth century, West (Rome) and East (Constantinople) split in their theology, with political spheres of influence and theological differences. The theological issue centred around the interpretation of the nature of Christ. In other words, this was open to the two relative differences, and the two arms of the Church agreed to disagree (Rome and Orthodox).
The Eastern Church's emphasis was on Christ's divinity where His divine nature minimised His suffering on the Cross; whereas the West, his humanity was central in that the Cross was the where a suffering Messiah died.
In the sixteenth century, there was another split in the West that was called the Reformation. This centred not only around theological differences, but also concerned the corrupt practices of church hierarchy with an undercurrent of national politics. The German Princes supported Martin Luther so as to be politically and financially free of the French.
The differences in the perceived nature of Salvation was central to this debate. Rome claimed that Salvation came through the Church (Absolute Church Tradition and Scripture) and some saw such an 'absolutist' position lending itself to corrupt practices where the road to Salvation might be oiled a little (bought and sold).
However, Martin Luther came to the conclusion from a careful reading of the Scriptures that Salvation to mankind was based on God's Grace to each individual person, rather than a corporate approach (The Roman Church). Salvation therefore had a significant element of freedom and personal conscience associated with it. He therefore preached an approach, where different people could bring their individual experiences into the theological discussion as led by the Holy Spirit.
These differences between Rome and Protestantism remain today.
Yet, despite these differences, the essence of the Gospel message is Heavenly and not bound by the inadequacies of humans on Earth. The absolutely correct message is that the One God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) sent His Son to offer Salvation to all mankind.