When I got sued by a rogue recruitment agency I had lots of silly advice like this. Getting sued is a nasty, horrible experience that will be worse if you follow the advice of friends who don't have a clue. Always always get a good lawyer.
PS Going bankrupt is almost never a good idea. Hiding assets offshore isn't either.
A bit late to post really but... the point is that when many copies exist some of which are less than 100 years after the described events, it is unlikely the text has been altered. What we have now as the gospels is virtually the same as what was there in 125 AD (and probably earlier).
In comparison the earliest copies of Josephus are 1000 years later than when he lived, and there aren't too many of them.
The conclusion is that we can be fairly certain the gospels have been reliably transcribed. And two of them were written by witnesses to the events described.
If your world-view automatically rejects the possibility of miracles I suppose you might consider the contents to be fantasy filled. But in the case of a closed mind no historical evidence will ever make a difference anyway.
Your point about origin myths seems fairly unlikely when you consider that some of the early Christians around this time actually had known the apostle John who was a direct witness to the described events.
Well, first you have the gospels. Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus, so they are first hand records of Jesus.
You have the remainder of the New Testament, which is primarily about Jesus, including the writings of the apostles Peter & Paul. Peter was a disciple of Jesus.
There are thousands of copies of portions (5,700 at least) of the New Testament going back to as early as AD 125, perhaps earlier. Are you just dismissing these because they were friends and disciples of Jesus? Do you treat other historical writings in the same way (friends wrote the history therefore not evidence the figure even existed?).
Then there is Pliny the Younger's letter, Tacitus' Annals, Josephus, and Celsus. Mind you I don't expect you to accept these non-Christian sources because for example there are only 3 Tacitus manuscripts, and only 133 for Josephus, orders of magnitude less than the gospels.
Given that there seems to be general agreement that there is a minimal set of genes required for living replicating organisms, how did we get to this point (the minimal set) in our evolution?
Let me add, I'm undecided about this particular site. Teacher feedback is obviously a useful thing, and as a former teacher, I would have welcomed constructive criticism. Unfortunately a lot of the stuff on this site doesn't seem to be that. Many many teachers will be devastated and upset about some of the nasty stuff written about them.
Teaching is a tough job, and teachers need encouragement, not ruthless slandering. The profession has a high enough drop out rate as it is. I think the site would be far better off if it used a rating system and allowed only moderated comments. Remember that we all need or once needed our teachers.
It depends. I'm in favour of preventing my children from seeing certain websites and images that are harmful to them. I'm in favour of preventing adults viewing material that either encourages them to commit crimes against children or harms children in making the material. I'm in favour of preventing people accessing material online that would easily allow them to build hugely powerful weapons. I don't want the names published of people who are against the current Zimbawe government if it means they will be persecuted. And so on. Some things are better left unpublished.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that few people want no censorship at all. It is a very slippery slope if children or even adults can view absolutely anything they want to.
I can't help but laugh my head off every Yule tide, when I hear some christian preacher stand up on his hind legs and begs the world to "return to the true and original values of christmas". Most of them probably don't realize that they're advertising for the pagan church!
Most of them probably do. So Christianity took a pagan winter festival and adapted it for its own use. So what? This probably helped converted pagans have something to celebrate at the time of their old winter festival - a good tactic I think.
I cited the articles to show that creationists have considered these issues, as the parent post apparently thought their "modest proposal" was a new thought. The article "Oil in less than a century" doesn't claim to be evidence, just a citation of how someone found some oil apparently made from leather. It even says "if indeed it was oil derived from the leather...".
And you claim "leather is not expected to turn into oil." It is organic matter is it not? Oil is made of organic matter. So why shouldn't it, given the right circumstances?
You may not agree with creationists, but they are hardly ignorant of questions like this. Here's a couple of links which indicate they have at least explored these issues:
since software costs practically nothing to copy, the primary way to make a profit at software is in support.
We write FTP client libraries for people who need to embed this kind of functionality in their software.
Our libraries are easy to use, and a very small percentage of users need support. We simply couldn't survive if we didn't sell our software - in most cases technical support isn't needed by our customers. And we want to keep it that way - we don't want an incentive to write stuff that requires people to pay for support. Why shouldn't we make a profit simply by selling our software?
It may cost nothing to copy our software, but it cost a large amount to write it, and it is costing a lot to continue to fix bugs and add new features. And of course new products must get written somehow - no-one is going to pay for support for a product not yet written.
There's only one way to do that - increase the number of candidates for each job. And how are you going to do that without paying people more?
In many parts of Australia, teachers get paid well compared to many other professions. And surprise, surprise, you can't just walk into a teaching job very easily.
Mutually incompatible philosophies. Science demands proof, religion demands belief. You can be one or the other but not both.
There are many, many scientists who are Christians, both historical and living. Until naturalistic philosophy invaded science relatively recently, the majority of scientists were Christians.
In fact belief in a God who created an orderly universe is what led many early scientists to believe that scientific laws were orderly, and could be tested repeatedly by experiment.
Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, do you classify string theorists as scientists or believers in religion? There's certainly no proof for their view of the universe.
You should probably explain this to Ted Haggard, Oral Robberts, Jimmy Swaggert, etc - since they're fond of using the old testament as an excuse for one wacko stance or another (hate gays, hate working women, hate other religions, hate witches, etc, etc, etc).
I'm not too familiar with them, not being an American. However since the Bible condemns homosexuality (for example) in the Old Testament, it isn't unreasonable to be cautious about endorsing it. Since the New Testament is also clear about sexual immorality, it is entirely consistent to refuse to endorse homosexuality.
Refusing to endorse homosexual behaviour doesn't imply that one hates homosexuals though - although unfortunately this attitude does seem to come across with some Christians. Christians are supposed to love, not hate.
Note also that this inability to get the story straight is another reason to be very skeptical of an "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god": why would it create such an imperfect message - so prone to misinterpretation and so useful as an excuse to kill one another?
Sadly I don't think it would matter what was written. If people want to hurt or kill one another, they'll justify it any way they like.
The OT isn't to be ignored. The God of Judaism is the God of Christianity. The Old Testament is the history of God's chosen people, Israel, and how he promised them a Messiah.
The NT explains how that Messiah was Jesus Christ (which Jews don't agree with of course - they are still waiting). The OT is the historical backdrop to the NT, and hence is crucial to understanding the NT.
But that doesn't mean Christians are obliged to obey Mosaic Law. The NT clearly points out that for Christians, we are under a different (and new) covenant (agreement).
It's always amusing to read stuff from people who've picked a few verses from the Old Testament and ask why Christians aren't doing what they say.
Christians aren't Jews. It's the *Old* Testament. Christians aren't subject to Old Testament law. Try reading Galatians or Hebrews.
For example "The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under supervision of the law" (Galatians 3:24-25).
For Christians, the Mosaic Law no longer applies. It is meaningless to ask why Christians aren't following Leviticus. They aren't required to.
The more interesting question is why Jews aren't following the Old Testament, not Christians.
You're kind of busy, with your back to the street in a very public place at night. You've probably had a drink and not as aware as you might be normally. Chances are someone will steal your wallet and you won't be able to do much immediately. Unless you fancy running down the street dribbling with your fly open.
That sounds absolutely dreadful. Thanks for making me more aware of what living with chronic pain is like. I've not given it much thought my whole life, but today I'm grateful that I don't have chronic pain like you've described.
That is not the case in the EU. There you will be expected to slave off to the end of your notice period (or at least part of it).
.
Not necessarily true. In the City of London in investment banking people are generally escorted off the premises immediately if they are made redundant. I've seen it numerous times. Well, not seen it. Just asked "where is x today?", and found out they were gone. Oh, so *that's* why they didn't turn up for lunch!
Yes, a blurb on the project that the successful applicant would be working on would make it instantly more attractive. A listing of skills alone doesn't really make it look like a compelling job. But I'm sure you guys are doing some very interesting work there - so tell us about it a bit more in the ad.
Slashdot Mirror
When I got sued by a rogue recruitment agency I had lots of silly advice like this. Getting sued is a nasty, horrible experience that will be worse if you follow the advice of friends who don't have a clue. Always always get a good lawyer.
PS Going bankrupt is almost never a good idea. Hiding assets offshore isn't either.
A bit late to post really but ... the point is that when many copies exist some of which are less than 100 years after the described events, it is unlikely the text has been altered. What we have now as the gospels is virtually the same as what was there in 125 AD (and probably earlier).
In comparison the earliest copies of Josephus are 1000 years later than when he lived, and there aren't too many of them.
The conclusion is that we can be fairly certain the gospels have been reliably transcribed. And two of them were written by witnesses to the events described.
If your world-view automatically rejects the possibility of miracles I suppose you might consider the contents to be fantasy filled. But in the case of a closed mind no historical evidence will ever make a difference anyway.
Your point about origin myths seems fairly unlikely when you consider that some of the early Christians around this time actually had known the apostle John who was a direct witness to the described events.
Well, first you have the gospels. Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus, so they are first hand records of Jesus.
You have the remainder of the New Testament, which is primarily about Jesus, including the writings of the apostles Peter & Paul. Peter was a disciple of Jesus.
There are thousands of copies of portions (5,700 at least) of the New Testament going back to as early as AD 125, perhaps earlier. Are you just dismissing these because they were friends and disciples of Jesus? Do you treat other historical writings in the same way (friends wrote the history therefore not evidence the figure even existed?).
Then there is Pliny the Younger's letter, Tacitus' Annals, Josephus, and Celsus. Mind you I don't expect you to accept these non-Christian sources because for example there are only 3 Tacitus manuscripts, and only 133 for Josephus, orders of magnitude less than the gospels.
Historically, aircraft that looked or worked like birds have been spectacularly unsuccessful. .
You mean aircraft that have wings (sort of like birds do)?
And the wikipedia Teleological Argument article links to Argument from poor design, which gives examples of poor design.
One of which is "Portions of DNA -- termed "junk" DNA -- that do not appear to serve any purpose."
Given that there seems to be general agreement that there is a minimal set of genes required for living replicating organisms, how did we get to this point (the minimal set) in our evolution?
Let me add, I'm undecided about this particular site. Teacher feedback is obviously a useful thing, and as a former teacher, I would have welcomed constructive criticism. Unfortunately a lot of the stuff on this site doesn't seem to be that. Many many teachers will be devastated and upset about some of the nasty stuff written about them.
Teaching is a tough job, and teachers need encouragement, not ruthless slandering. The profession has a high enough drop out rate as it is. I think the site would be far better off if it used a rating system and allowed only moderated comments. Remember that we all need or once needed our teachers.
Are Aussies really that OK with censorship?
.It depends. I'm in favour of preventing my children from seeing certain websites and images that are harmful to them. I'm in favour of preventing adults viewing material that either encourages them to commit crimes against children or harms children in making the material. I'm in favour of preventing people accessing material online that would easily allow them to build hugely powerful weapons. I don't want the names published of people who are against the current Zimbawe government if it means they will be persecuted. And so on. Some things are better left unpublished.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that few people want no censorship at all. It is a very slippery slope if children or even adults can view absolutely anything they want to.
I can't help but laugh my head off every Yule tide, when I hear some christian preacher stand up on his hind legs and begs the world to "return to the true and original values of christmas". Most of them probably don't realize that they're advertising for the pagan church!
Most of them probably do. So Christianity took a pagan winter festival and adapted it for its own use. So what? This probably helped converted pagans have something to celebrate at the time of their old winter festival - a good tactic I think.
I cited the articles to show that creationists have considered these issues, as the parent post apparently thought their "modest proposal" was a new thought. The article "Oil in less than a century" doesn't claim to be evidence, just a citation of how someone found some oil apparently made from leather. It even says "if indeed it was oil derived from the leather...".
And you claim "leather is not expected to turn into oil." It is organic matter is it not? Oil is made of organic matter. So why shouldn't it, given the right circumstances?
You may not agree with creationists, but they are hardly ignorant of questions like this. Here's a couple of links which indicate they have at least explored these issues:
Forked seams sabotage swamp theory
Oil in less than a century?
Too much coal for a young earth?
And what an ill considered rant against religion *The God Delusion* is.
Dawkins should stick to writing about what he knows, because reading this makes it clear to me that he is somewhat out of his depth.
And his claim that sexual abuse often isn't as bad as bringing up a child in your religion is just being deliberately provocative.
since software costs practically nothing to copy, the primary way to make a profit at software is in support.
We write FTP client libraries for people who need to embed this kind of functionality in their software.
Our libraries are easy to use, and a very small percentage of users need support. We simply couldn't survive if we didn't sell our software - in most cases technical support isn't needed by our customers. And we want to keep it that way - we don't want an incentive to write stuff that requires people to pay for support. Why shouldn't we make a profit simply by selling our software?
It may cost nothing to copy our software, but it cost a large amount to write it, and it is costing a lot to continue to fix bugs and add new features. And of course new products must get written somehow - no-one is going to pay for support for a product not yet written.
make math teacher a job that it's hard to get.
There's only one way to do that - increase the number of candidates for each job. And how are you going to do that without paying people more?
In many parts of Australia, teachers get paid well compared to many other professions. And surprise, surprise, you can't just walk into a teaching job very easily.
Now come on guys, that just not true - only 200 hundred years ago you were ALL criminals....
I'll have you know that's certainly not the case. Some of us were prison officers! Duh!
Mutually incompatible philosophies. Science demands proof, religion demands belief. You can be one or the other but not both.
There are many, many scientists who are Christians, both historical and living. Until naturalistic philosophy invaded science relatively recently, the majority of scientists were Christians.
In fact belief in a God who created an orderly universe is what led many early scientists to believe that scientific laws were orderly, and could be tested repeatedly by experiment.
Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, do you classify string theorists as scientists or believers in religion? There's certainly no proof for their view of the universe.
You should probably explain this to Ted Haggard, Oral Robberts, Jimmy Swaggert, etc - since they're fond of using the old testament as an excuse for one wacko stance or another (hate gays, hate working women, hate other religions, hate witches, etc, etc, etc).
I'm not too familiar with them, not being an American. However since the Bible condemns homosexuality (for example) in the Old Testament, it isn't unreasonable to be cautious about endorsing it. Since the New Testament is also clear about sexual immorality, it is entirely consistent to refuse to endorse homosexuality.
Refusing to endorse homosexual behaviour doesn't imply that one hates homosexuals though - although unfortunately this attitude does seem to come across with some Christians. Christians are supposed to love, not hate.
Note also that this inability to get the story straight is another reason to be very skeptical of an "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god": why would it create such an imperfect message - so prone to misinterpretation and so useful as an excuse to kill one another?
Sadly I don't think it would matter what was written. If people want to hurt or kill one another, they'll justify it any way they like.The OT isn't to be ignored. The God of Judaism is the God of Christianity. The Old Testament is the history of God's chosen people, Israel, and how he promised them a Messiah.
The NT explains how that Messiah was Jesus Christ (which Jews don't agree with of course - they are still waiting). The OT is the historical backdrop to the NT, and hence is crucial to understanding the NT.
But that doesn't mean Christians are obliged to obey Mosaic Law. The NT clearly points out that for Christians, we are under a different (and new) covenant (agreement).
It's always amusing to read stuff from people who've picked a few verses from the Old Testament and ask why Christians aren't doing what they say.
Christians aren't Jews. It's the *Old* Testament. Christians aren't subject to Old Testament law. Try reading Galatians or Hebrews.
For example "The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under supervision of the law" (Galatians 3:24-25).
For Christians, the Mosaic Law no longer applies. It is meaningless to ask why Christians aren't following Leviticus. They aren't required to.
The more interesting question is why Jews aren't following the Old Testament, not Christians.
You're kind of busy, with your back to the street in a very public place at night. You've probably had a drink and not as aware as you might be normally. Chances are someone will steal your wallet and you won't be able to do much immediately. Unless you fancy running down the street dribbling with your fly open.
This really is a male dominated industry then isn't it?
That sounds absolutely dreadful. Thanks for making me more aware of what living with chronic pain is like. I've not given it much thought my whole life, but today I'm grateful that I don't have chronic pain like you've described.
That is not the case in the EU. There you will be expected to slave off to the end of your notice period (or at least part of it).
.Not necessarily true. In the City of London in investment banking people are generally escorted off the premises immediately if they are made redundant. I've seen it numerous times. Well, not seen it. Just asked "where is x today?", and found out they were gone. Oh, so *that's* why they didn't turn up for lunch!
Yes, a blurb on the project that the successful applicant would be working on would make it instantly more attractive. A listing of skills alone doesn't really make it look like a compelling job. But I'm sure you guys are doing some very interesting work there - so tell us about it a bit more in the ad.
we're willing to pay well
Your ad doesn't give any indication of this. Maybe you should provide a salary range, or at least say "Excellent renumeration" or something like that.