My problem with this, and the reason I personally messaged him about it, is that even unbelievers often evidence better charity than this, comporting themselves with goodwill even in heated disagreements. But they act only out of an intangible sense of sporting or intellectual solidarity. To employ the classic how-much-more argument, shouldn’t we Christians be legendarily quick to forgive? I think the excuse often given, and the misconception I want to address, is that we don’t have to forgive someone unless, or until, they’re truly repentant.

To begin with, forgiveness is different than reconciliation, meaning that you don’t have to wait for them to ask before you forgive them. Some might place the distinction between being prepared to forgive, and actually forgiving (once the other party has sincerely asked forgiveness), but I submit that these are different ways of getting at the same thing. Being prepared to forgive someone really just means you’ve forgiven them, otherwise you’re still holding something against them, whereas you should love them enough to pursue reconciliation.

In the above scenario, I told my friend that it didn’t seem very Christ-like to withhold forgiveness, to which he responded that God doesn’t forgive us unless we truly repent. My best answer was that we’re not God, which I think is a valid point. But more than that, I think God deals with us in a more forgiving way, though repenting of our sins is essential to being in fellowship with God, and conviction is how God brings us back because we are His atoned-for children. But if I were to die suddenly with unrepented sins, I don’t think I’d be cast into utter darkness or serving time in purgatory. And, on a more basic level, “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).  Simply put, if God didn’t forgive us before we deserved it, we’d be screwed.

I was recently inspired to consider this topic again by a sermon on handling conflict, the telos of which was that we are told to forgive as we’ve been forgiven, or else God will do to us as the unforgiving servant of Matthew 18. The man in the parable was forgiven an impossible debt; we likewise, who have been forgiven much, are called to forgive much in return. And this fits nicely with a Thanksgiving theme, since I technically still have half an hour of “Turkey Day.” We’ve been forgiven everything, so we have no excuse for ungratefulness. We’ve been forgiven everything, so why not let’s forgive everyone, everywhere, everything?

That last line and the following excerpt, which I’ll end with, are from the lyrics to “bullet to Binary (pt. two)” by mewithoutYou:

We all well know
We’re gonna reap what we sow
But grace, we all know
Can take the place of all we owe
So why not, let’s forgive everyone, everywhere, everything
All the time, everyone, everywhere, everything

All the time, everyone, everywhere, everything…

https://www.abrokenmold.net/2010/11/so-why-not-lets-forgive-everyone/feed/ 4 https://www.abrokenmold.net/2010/09/the-www-myth/ Wed, 15 Sep 2010 02:28:53 +0000 https://www.abrokenmold.net/?p=709 WWW is a relic of the past. Once, it was useful. Now, it’s largely redundant¹.

For most sites, you can just leave out the www and it will redirect to www.example.com or just example.com. Twitter, for example, redirects to no www.

Some sites will just accept either (which is a bad idea, actually). A number of really dumb sites will not work without www. Shameful.

And there’s no need to tack on www in front of a subdomain. www.badthing.blogspot.com. www.uncoolbeans.deviantart.com². Those are bad. The www there adds extra length, looks ugly and is quite certainly unneeded.

Thanks for reading. Tell your friends.

This is the third (second here) in a series of tech posts directed at laymen, non-geeks, etc. Basically a lot of my friends and family.

Tony Hall / CC NC-SA

With the name fresh in your ears, you may now be scoffing at what you think to be one of the new internet fads of the last years. Twitter tends to get a rap as just another social network, maybe even without much of a point.

However, Twitter is probably a bit different than what you’ve used before. Here are a few reasons, then, not to give Twitter not only a chance, but a try.

Simplicity

Twitter is explicitly simple. 140 characters, plain links, no extra crap. It doesn’t try to be everything, but does a few things very well.  New features have grown from organic usage; for example, retweets and @name replies. But that’s user inspired. No Farmville then, no people sending you virtual hearts, cows, or ice cream cones, nothing. You follow someone or you don’t. Tweet, retweet, direct message. No more, no less.

Speed and ubiquity

Twitter is fast. Facebook and FriendFeed may have auto-updating feeds, but Twitter smashes them. The hundreds of apps, as well as just the web interface, get you new tweets very quickly (and it’s going to get faster). One person can post a message and hundreds or thousands of people will read it within seconds. On their mobile phones, web browsers, and iPads. Twitter is platform neutral—meaning it’s everywhere.

Content

Certainly there are ways to make Twitter useless, like converting it into an unceremonious link dump to a blog or news site. But otherwise, it can be gold, because it has to be concise.

Connections are also much more free-form than previous platforms. Follow who you want. Unfollow people if they get noisy. Turn it off if you want for solitude.

And the other side is real time. Whether it’s knowing if Wikipedia is down or getting a restaurant recommendation, real time information flows through the public stream very quickly.

~

It may take a little time to get used to, but once I think the reward is great if it clicks for you. Try out some different ways to interface with Twitter, see what you like. You may be pleasantly surprised. If not, we¹ bear you no ill will.

This is the second (first here) in a series of tech posts directed at laymen, non-geeks, etc. Basically a lot of my friends and family. Subscribe and enjoy.

It could really refer to one of three things:

Mobile broadband – broadband service delivered over a cellular network

Service from a WISP (wireless internet service provider) – the ISP delivers internet usually via some line of sight wireless technology. Somewhat more common in rural, elsewise underserved areas.

A wireless router providing an internet connection to devices – probably all types of broadband can be used via a wireless router. (Well, except gigabit service. There’s no wireless router with enough bandwidth for that.) The router allows devices (laptops, desktops, an iPod Touch, etc.) to connection wirelessly to the LAN and also provides internet if the router is connected. Wireless routers also usually have several wired Ethernet ports.

Some confusion may be had getting service from a WISP and running a wireless router. You have wireless (from the WISP) and wireless (a router running). But remember, you can also run a wireless router with other types of service: DSL, cable, FTTH, etc. In fact, you don’t even need an internet connection to run a wireless router. Once again, it forms a LAN (Local Area Network: a network of local devices, local being ones connected to this router) and provides an internet connection to these devices if there is one.

There are also wired (only) routers that perform much the same function, but may only be connected to with an Ethernet cable. Wireless is probably more common, at least in homes, because of it’s convenience (wiring a house is often much more difficult).

So that’s pretty much what wireless means.

This is the first in a planned series of tech posts directed at laymen, non-geeks, etc. Basically a lot of my friends and family. Subscribe and enjoy.

Illustration built with images from OpenClipArt.