What do you believe?

[Lucifer Box]

1426 - Ah Yes, A Fine Vintage

But the Islamic year is 1426, which might explain a lot.

Some sundry events from the western 1426 for you:

- Aztecs at Tenochtitlan form the "Triple Alliance" with the neighbouring cities of Texcoco and Tlacopan. The emperor Itzcoatl reorganises the state to concentrate power in his hands.

- Hubert van Eyck dies.

- All Jews are expelled from Cologne.

- Sir Thomas Lewknor is made Sheriff of Surrey.

- Battle of St. James takes place near Avranches. An English army under John, Duke of Bedford defeats the French under Arthur de Richemont, forcing the Duke of Brittany to recognize English suzerainty. Hurrah!

- Christian of Oldenburg, later King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden is born.

- The Hansa and the counts of Holstein declare war upon King Erik of Norway.

- Vietnam provides a defeated Chinese army with boats and horses to carry home its soldiers

[Mindomoo]

Ok Rebecca simple question which would require a simple answer - Is truth absolute or not?

I'm not Rebecca, but I would say interpretation of truth is relative, as reality, to the individual.

My version of the truth and reality is what it is to me because I experience it as I live my life.

You experience a different version as you live your life.

Since there is only one reality and truth and my experience and interpretation of it is different to yours then why should my version invalidate yours and vice versa

[hyperD]

Ok Rebecca simple question which would require a simple answer - Is truth absolute or not?

What kind of pompous, arrogant question is that, you prat?

Rebecca gave a reasonable answer and explanation and you adopt the "more pious than thou" aggressive stance, which only helps to alienate you and your blinkered type from any sensible discussion.

You really are a class 1 tosser.

[Rebecca Loos]

Valid points by Mindomoo and HyperD.

I'd say any talk of 'absolute' is dangerous, especially in reasoning whether something is true or not.

A lot of theories are accepted as truth but I wouldn't say they are absolute. Example: gravitational theory is true enough, but I believe Einstein has shown that it is actually a workable simplified version of a greater theory - and as such works enough for simplified problems but does not apply to the whole universe. However it is a truth because it works well enough on Earth and in our Solar System.

Similarly I think that theories such as Darwin's theory of evolution are true enough to a degree but we will find in the future that they can be amended, added to and refined. So in that sense, it is not an absolute theory. And maybe never will, however much we refine it.

Absolute to me implies black and white and nothing else. That is reasoning in binary and I do not accept that it leads us anywhere.

Do you believe in the Bible absolutely, so everything in it is the exact truth and there is no possibility whatsoever that the truth can be different in places?

[sasguru]

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Bible (LuciferBox?) can immediately show that it contains at least 2 contradictory verses. Therefore it cannot be absolute truth.

So you need a rule of thumb to decide which verse must be true. Chico seems to believe the New rather than Old testament.

So if the New Testament contains at leat two contradictory verses than it can't be the absolute truth.

So now you need a new rule to decide which one to believe. And so on Ad infinitum....

[Lucifer Box]

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Bible (LuciferBox?) can immediately show that it contains at least 2 contradictory verses. Therefore it cannot be absolute truth.

So you need a rule of thumb to decide which verse must be true. Chico seems to believe the New rather than Old testament.

So if the New Testament contains at leat two contradictory verses than it can't be the absolute truth.

So now you need a new rule to decide which one to believe. And so on Ad infinitum....

That is the rule of abrogation which is also used by Muslim scholars when studying the Koran. In the most relevant cases today, the contrast between the peaceable Meccan sections versus the rather more bellicose Medinan sections is usually the example used. The ruling is that the most recent sections override older sections.

[sasguru]

Bloody Hell

Weh hey - I came up with the "Rule of Abrogation" all by myself

So what do the later parts of the Koran say? Bomb London's tube?

[Francko]

So now you need a new rule to decide which one to believe. And so on Ad infinitum....

Oh dear... you want to mix religion and logic?

[Lucifer Box]

Weh hey - I came up with the "Rule of Abrogation" all by myself

So what do the later parts of the Koran say? Bomb London's tube?

Well, guru by name, guru by nature.

That's a tricky question because the 114 sections of the Koran are not arranged in chronological order. However, much sequencing has been done based on tone and the historical events covered therein. Unlike the New Testament, it is considered likely that the very earliest sections do contain a few verbatim quotes from Mohammed (who, it is alleged, received the so-called Last Testament, or al-Qu'ran in Arabic, from the Archangel Gabriel).

Much of the preamble concerns itself with confirming the veracity of The Torah and The Old Testament and, in some cases, directly recounts them. The stories of Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Solomon, David and many other Old Testament characters are presented more or less as we know them today.

As regards The New Testament, the only main characters directly referenced are Jesus, Mary and John the Baptist. For Mohammed, of course, this was more recent history and less newsworthy as it were. The story of Jesus in The Koran is very interesting, as it is more or less the same as that found in one of the apocryphal Gospels excised at the Council of Nicea. Some people believe it is the most accurate account we have today of the life of Jesus as, unlike The New Testament, The Koran is relatively free of post-editatorial "corrections". Of course, as we all know, The Muslims revere Jesus as one of the most important Biblical prophets (unlike the Jews), arguably second only to Mohammed, but, like the Jews, they do not accept that he was The Messiah.

The tone itself varies depending on the events in Mohammed's life at the time. The sections generally deemed to be earlier ones are very peaceable in tone, whereas later ones dealing with the flight to Medina are more aggressive as the lad was having a bit of a rough time.

[EternalOptimist]

Blessed also are the microsoft ACCESS developers