Saturday, June 30, 2012

New Phone - Nokia 701

I upgraded my cell phone yesterday and it is fun to have a new toy. I went from a Nokia E63 to Nokia 701.
This is how it went:
My phone is due for an upgrade. I feel obliged to get a new one as I continue to pay the same on contract whether I get a new one or not.
I'd really like to play with Android.
Research all the Samsung Galaxies.

My daughter upgrades to Galaxy Y Pro. She puts in the sim and the phone wants her Gmail account, or please open a Gmail account. My dislike of being owned by a software company kicks in. Maybe I don't want an Android phone.
I like Nokia. I find the phones intuitive and practical and while I want to play, I also really need something that works right first time every time.
So research Nokia phones.

Decide on the 701. All my contacts and calendar entries (and other things that don't matter to me so much) transferred via Bluetooth without a hassle and it's all happening.
I'm still getting used to the touch screen keyboard, but so far so good.
(I don't know if I am now owned by more than one software company . . . but anyway!)

5 comments:

N.A. Meless said...

Dear Madam,

Your blog is almost one month out of date. In vain do I wait for your posts. I have sad feelings of neglect. Maybe you are talking all the time on your 701?

Yours sincerely,
N.A. Meless

Jenny Hillebrand said...

Ha ha! I am . . . refocusing . . . reinventing . . . not sure what. I'll probably be back soon!

Glenn Hopp said...

I was doing searches and came upon your blog, especially an entry from 2008 when you took Jesus's comment that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" and asked if those words could also mean "the law was made for man." You said it could, and I agree that that is the underlying truth Jesus tries to make to the religious leaders who fault him for healing the paralytic on the Sabbath.

Right now in the US, the whole matter has been made fresh by the comment recently by the owner of fast-food chicken restaurant that he supports "the biblical view of marriage," which led former US presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to suggest that others who similarly support "the biblical view of marriage" should dine at those fast-food places last Wednesday as a show of support. To me, the whole thing seemed harsh toward gays, some of whom probably hold jobs at those food outlets, yet had to endure last Wednesday being flooded with customers knowing that most of them strongly disapproved of them and their way of living. It seemed uncharitable.

This phrase "the biblical view" is often a modern equivalent of what the religious leaders in the day of Jesus called "the law." The owner of the chicken restaurants said that people today are re-defining "the biblical view" of marriage to mean same-sex unions rather than what it has meant traditionally. He's right. He also said that we can't reinvent God's teaching without incurring his wrath. That's where the words of Jesus seem to apply. The restaurant owner's logic seems to align with that of the religious leaders of Jesus's day: "By healing on the Sabbath, you are redefining the commandment about keeping the Sabbath holy. The law comes first. Man was made for the law." But Jesus says that the Sabbath (and by extension, the law) was made for man: don't blindly adhere to the law and perpetuate suffering for others.

We have throughout Christian history re-defined "the biblical view" or the law regarding many things: warfare (we no longer collect the foreskins of defeated soldiers as David did to give to Saul; we don't preserve the virgins of the defeated side as a prize for the triumphant soldiers, as Numbers 29-30 discusses), slavery (we no longer feel that "slaves, obey your masters" is the highest wisdom on that subject, though for 1800+ years that was a biblical view that we had a hard time letting go of). Now, the biblical view of marriage, for better or worse, is being re-defined. A lot of the debate on this topic seems to come down to the terms that Jesus used in talking to the religious leaders: whether a Christian feels that man was made for "the biblical view" or whether "the biblical view" was made for man. When do we bend ourselves to fit the biblical view, and when do we bend the biblical view to fit our world and ourselves? People who insist that you NEVER bend the biblical view are not right if we think of the examples above, especially the slavery example. But everyone can probably think of biblical views that we bend too easily, too.

This whole matter exposes how selfish we all are so often about finding ways to put across our individual points on issues. We argue cleverly about what the biblical view should or shouldn't be on this or that and sometimes it just amounts to each of us picking very carefully what "biblical view" we choose to follow and what to ignore. The biblical view about money and ownership (or at least the Jesus view), for example, has never really been embraced very fully--at least since the Renaissance. The idea that we need to dispossess ourselves, that we cannot serve two masters, that we should beware Mammon seems to be one that all of us outside the convent or monastery can bend and redefine with no trouble at all. --Glenn Hopp

Steve Hayes said...

You are paying too much attention to your new cell phone and not enough to your blog, which is feeling sad and neglected!

Macrina Walker said...

Ditto, ditto... admittedly I have no room to complain, but it still helps to know that other people are blogging. Please don't disappear!