• Bad day for bloggers

    Today is, rarely, a bad day for bloggers. Today is the day that Google Reader is being switched off by those people at Google.

    What it means is that the primary way that some people read blogs is not going to be available to them. Clever-dick readers will already have switched to another server. (I’m using Feedly). The worry is that non-Clever-dick readers (I’m using technical terms here) will just not bother or not rememeber in time and end up reading less blog posts as a result. Loss of readers is a bad day for bloggers.

    Lots of people are cross with Google for turning off Google Reader. But it has been a service free at the point of delivery (funded by advertising and giving Google and insight into what one is interested in). I think that makes it harder to complain.

    Some people can’t cope with the bother of using a reader service to aggregate or collect all their blog entries. For them, the joy of email is still the best way of ensuring that they don’t miss a blog post.

    I’ve got a simple service that allows people to sign up to receive my blog posts by email and you can sign up here.

    Don’t be shy!

    And for goodness sake, sign up with Feedly or something similar too. Shake that magic Google dust from off your sandals. It is time to move on.

    If you want to be reminded of why it is a good thing to use a reader in the first place, read my description of why you should have signed up to Google reader in the first place.

    You can find it here: How to Read Blogs

    And for good measure, here’s what I said about Google Reader’s demise previously: Google Reader RIP

One response to “Eid, Pride and Abraham’s Sacrifice”

  1. Tim Avatar

    As one who grew up(?) in churches leaning toward the view “it’s a tough story for a tough world, how else would God be just?” in varying degrees, I agree the face-value-narrative understanding of the story is repellant.

    One thing stood out for the first time during Sunday’s reading: the plurality in Abraham’s line – “…and we will return to you”. I’ve been idly wondering about that since.
    It doesn’t make the story wholly acceptable as Abraham still ploughs on ever closer.
    But if one’s goal is to find a “by faith, Abraham” in there, better to say it’s the prior confidence that things will somehow work out well (which I thought was how Hebrews was trying to define it), than to locate the commendable quality in violence (which, by rabbiting on about resurrection, Hebrews does).

    In the absence of other clear & wholly mitigating contexts in which to place the story, certainly it’s simplest, easiest and probably best to file it under “that’s how they saw God back then” and move swiftly on.

    Oofft.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Rejected Ad

    Want to see the United Church of Christ advert that has been rejected by the major TV channels in the US?Take a look here: http://rejectionhurts.com/ejectorpewfull/ 

  • Politics of Pilgrimage

    On a comment on the post about Walsingham, below, Joan said:Isn’t it possible that all devotion will be politicized if it is mediated through truths laid down in a book.  The nature of such a text inevitably leads to argument for or against certain interpretations of the text.  Wouldn’t it be nice if life were…

  • Sermon – 26 March 2006

    What shall we make of the Old Testament story this morning. (Numbers 21.4-9)  What use is a story like this to us.  There were snakes poisoning people. What the people believed was this – that if they did things which were bad, then bad things would happen to them. It is a belief as old…

  • Blogging again

    Alright, alright. I’m back blogging again. It has just been a very busy week.Off today on mini-pilgrimage with a member of St Saviour’s. We are going to Walsingham. Well, we are going to Paisley really – Walsingham is coming to us. There is an afternoon of contemplation and meditation and general holiness in the Holy…