Onlookers may find it interesting, especially the underlying concept/assertion on "her truth," vs. that of others. That is, SB denies that truth says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not; reducing it instead to something very much more like perception and/or opinion.
But since we already have very good and common English words for such concepts and phenomena, why then -- apart from rhetorical impact -- do so many now wish to turn truth into a synonym for opinion or perception?
Thereby hangeth a rather long tail on the rise and dominance of radical relativism in Western Culture, and where it leads.
My own comment on this point and several closely related issues is:
2] [SB:] i confess that i do embrace the concept that the faith that each individual has is their own truthSo, we can see where the challenge of relativism leads. END
It would be more correct usage -- but would then be a mere triviality -- to speak thusly: i confess that i do embrace the concept that the faith that each individual has is their own [OPINION].
In short, there is already a very good English word for what is of merit in what you are trying to say.
Let us therefore reserve the word truth for what Aristotle said in aptly defining it, 2,300+ years ago: that which says of what is, that it is; and, of what is not, that it is not. Jesus adds the appropriate virtue -- truthfulness: Let your yes be yes, and your no, no. Whatever is more than this comes of evil.
To deny that truth in this sense exists, is to try to affirm an instance of such a claimed truth, i.e it is self-refuting. Far better is to acknowledge what Josiah Royce highlighted: error exists.
Let us follow up the chain of logical consequences:
--> This is undeniably true as to try to deny it exemplifies it.
--> So, well-warranted truth exists.
--> Therefore, truth exists and is [at least in part] knowable, even by finite, fallible, fallen creatures who are too often ill-willed.
And, while we may be in error in part -- we see through a glass darkly -- that does not excuse us from the duty of truthfulness in thought and word; and even deeds as one can lie by what one does as well as what one says [a second NT cite].
[HW: tell me the NT texts that the above three cites come from, and where and when we first find them in the MSS of the NT and/or the Fathers.]
3] i know enough to not believe that there is only one truth, and the beginning of wisdom is in knowing that you don't really know
It would be far more accurate for you to say that, in the first instance: i know enough to not believe that there is only one [OPINION]
In the second part,the possibility of error haunts our attempts to seek or know or state truth, true, but the point of so stating is to make a claim to know a certain truth. Namely, that we start from error and relative ignorance, so should be humble and willing to learn and correct our mistakes.
This last is very compatible with the existence of truth and with the point that adequate warrant exists that certain opinions have a right to be termed: knowledge -- well-warranted, credibly true belief. [Cf here my first linked in the set of references above.]
4] why do we always have to best each other? why can't we just embrace our own truths and allow others to explore and embrace their own without making it a contest, but a means by which we become a better people?
So, why then are you trying to "correct" me in my "intolerant" and [by implication, "wrong"] opinions?
In short, the answer to the problem of error and multiplicity of opinions leading to acrimonious debate and polarisation is not to indulge in circles of group-think, but to enter into serious dialogue based on comparative difficulties.