Unprotected sex, and the schools give kids condoms.
Oh no, they might have to start passing out black markers to stop unprotected passwords.
Be one way to get school supplies.
Actually, I don't think it is truly possible for a person to be non-biased - some people just are better are approaching topics open-mindedly then others.
It is funny how many of us who claim to be something (Christian, scientist, atheist, agnostic, whatever) tend to forget the basics tenets of our focus and thus make rather poor arguments. This is not meant as an attack on anyone, BTW, just something to remember when you are trying to prove a point. From a Christian standpoint, we are supposed to care for others, strive to do good, live as examples to everyone, admit we screw up (sin), and believe in God and Christ. From a science perspective, we are suppose to try for understanding based on logic. Why then do the two sides conflict? Technically, until our hyphothesis, theorys, faith, and et all are PROVEN LAW or PROVEN FALSE, they are just as plausible as any other belief scientific or religious. Instead of attacking someone for or for not thinking, try thinking instead. DreadSpoon, thank you for you thoughts on this subject!
Well, now for what I actually wanted to talk about: It is true that you can find differences in different translations of the Bible. In fact, they number in the hundreds within the first few books between the just two of the more popular current translations. A good share of this is due to the nature of translation - Hebrew to English is not a 1 to 1 relationship. In fact, there are some Hebrew words that have no direct correlation in English, and even words for which the actual definition must be approximated by context, as the word has been lost even to the Jewish. The current standing philosophy of the Bible being the Word of God requires a couple steps of faith (funny enough). One is that, regarless of translation or cultue reading it, given time to study with fellow 'Christians' and under the guidance of God, you will find the truth. In fact, this means that you need to not just take the words out of the book on faith, that you must actually study and OWN the material for it to matter. Sounds like logic and scientific method still apply - just the opening premises have changed.
As for the argument to matter, the foundations of the argument must be assumed to be true. Kind of like arguing modern (common? basic?)physics without accepting Newton's laws - a Law that has been agreed upon. If you are unwilling to accept that God may exist (or does exist, for the point of discussion of Christianity), then the rest of the argument has little to stand on. However, if you accept it as a possibility (as you can not currently disprove it), the argument holds significant meaning.
I'm not worried about what you believe. However, if I am to accept any other viewpoints and even be a 'Christian', then I must keep an open mind and be willing to listen to you. I would ask the same in return from any other person who wishes to discuss the matter.
As for the comment of worshipping the book as absolute truth probably being a form of idolatry - I wholeheartedly agree. Even the book states that if you put anything else before God you've made it an idol!
I've tried to read the comments in this thread, however...
Mostly, hiring appears to really coming down to image. It is the age-old tendency for first impressions to count - therefore your image is the first thing that affects you in any hiring position.
I do not consider myself good looking - I'm a fairly typical overweight geek. I sit behind a desk doing my job most of the time. However, when it came to applying for my last job, I had to look towards my image. This meant what I wear, how often I bathe, my RESUME.
What do Certs do for you? The employer gets to see your resume first. Any cert you have means that you have jumped through a few extra hoops to dress up your resume. You've taken the time, you've spent the money. You've made a decent first impression.
If the hiring manager is worth his/her income, you will then get tested on those certs and degrees you have. If you don't get tested, then those certs & degrees are ALL YOU HAVE. Once again, image counts more than it should in society.
College was explained to me (and I believe this) as a means to show you are capable or working through a task, learning new things, following a process, jumping through hoops, and finishing the task. That is why degrees matter to employers. Note that even though we go to college to get particular training (which may even be needed), the degree shows this much about you. Wouldn't any cert say the same thing?
I've seen the CYOA (cover your own ass) rule - this applys. I've seen the 'You should test their knowledge' - this applys. I've seen the 'HR Filter' - this applys, especially as you geniuses who write HR software do logarithmic checks for statistically significant criteria.
Are you willing to put up a good front for an employere? Are you willing to jump through a few hoops and finish a task? Is it worth your time to learn something new so that you can pass a test and get a piece of paper on the wall?
Certs are only as useful as the image they project to the hiring manager. Hopefully the hiring manager will take more than just a snapshot, but as a person without certs in the IT field who kept getting turned down because I didn't have them (experience was NEVER mentioned).... well, I think they are a valuable piece of your image to a hiring manager.
Slashdot Mirror
Unprotected sex, and the schools give kids condoms. Oh no, they might have to start passing out black markers to stop unprotected passwords. Be one way to get school supplies.
Note - I am a Christain...
Actually, I don't think it is truly possible for a person to be non-biased - some people just are better are approaching topics open-mindedly then others.
It is funny how many of us who claim to be something (Christian, scientist, atheist, agnostic, whatever) tend to forget the basics tenets of our focus and thus make rather poor arguments. This is not meant as an attack on anyone, BTW, just something to remember when you are trying to prove a point. From a Christian standpoint, we are supposed to care for others, strive to do good, live as examples to everyone, admit we screw up (sin), and believe in God and Christ. From a science perspective, we are suppose to try for understanding based on logic. Why then do the two sides conflict? Technically, until our hyphothesis, theorys, faith, and et all are PROVEN LAW or PROVEN FALSE, they are just as plausible as any other belief scientific or religious. Instead of attacking someone for or for not thinking, try thinking instead. DreadSpoon, thank you for you thoughts on this subject!
Well, now for what I actually wanted to talk about:
It is true that you can find differences in different translations of the Bible. In fact, they number in the hundreds within the first few books between the just two of the more popular current translations. A good share of this is due to the nature of translation - Hebrew to English is not a 1 to 1 relationship. In fact, there are some Hebrew words that have no direct correlation in English, and even words for which the actual definition must be approximated by context, as the word has been lost even to the Jewish.
The current standing philosophy of the Bible being the Word of God requires a couple steps of faith (funny enough). One is that, regarless of translation or cultue reading it, given time to study with fellow 'Christians' and under the guidance of God, you will find the truth. In fact, this means that you need to not just take the words out of the book on faith, that you must actually study and OWN the material for it to matter. Sounds like logic and scientific method still apply - just the opening premises have changed.
As for the argument to matter, the foundations of the argument must be assumed to be true. Kind of like arguing modern (common? basic?)physics without accepting Newton's laws - a Law that has been agreed upon. If you are unwilling to accept that God may exist (or does exist, for the point of discussion of Christianity), then the rest of the argument has little to stand on. However, if you accept it as a possibility (as you can not currently disprove it), the argument holds significant meaning.
I'm not worried about what you believe. However, if I am to accept any other viewpoints and even be a 'Christian', then I must keep an open mind and be willing to listen to you. I would ask the same in return from any other person who wishes to discuss the matter.
As for the comment of worshipping the book as absolute truth probably being a form of idolatry - I wholeheartedly agree. Even the book states that if you put anything else before God you've made it an idol!
I've tried to read the comments in this thread, however... Mostly, hiring appears to really coming down to image. It is the age-old tendency for first impressions to count - therefore your image is the first thing that affects you in any hiring position. I do not consider myself good looking - I'm a fairly typical overweight geek. I sit behind a desk doing my job most of the time. However, when it came to applying for my last job, I had to look towards my image. This meant what I wear, how often I bathe, my RESUME. What do Certs do for you? The employer gets to see your resume first. Any cert you have means that you have jumped through a few extra hoops to dress up your resume. You've taken the time, you've spent the money. You've made a decent first impression. If the hiring manager is worth his/her income, you will then get tested on those certs and degrees you have. If you don't get tested, then those certs & degrees are ALL YOU HAVE. Once again, image counts more than it should in society. College was explained to me (and I believe this) as a means to show you are capable or working through a task, learning new things, following a process, jumping through hoops, and finishing the task. That is why degrees matter to employers. Note that even though we go to college to get particular training (which may even be needed), the degree shows this much about you. Wouldn't any cert say the same thing? I've seen the CYOA (cover your own ass) rule - this applys. I've seen the 'You should test their knowledge' - this applys. I've seen the 'HR Filter' - this applys, especially as you geniuses who write HR software do logarithmic checks for statistically significant criteria. Are you willing to put up a good front for an employere? Are you willing to jump through a few hoops and finish a task? Is it worth your time to learn something new so that you can pass a test and get a piece of paper on the wall? Certs are only as useful as the image they project to the hiring manager. Hopefully the hiring manager will take more than just a snapshot, but as a person without certs in the IT field who kept getting turned down because I didn't have them (experience was NEVER mentioned).... well, I think they are a valuable piece of your image to a hiring manager.