In effect I'd say that it is an attitude more
concerned with the spirit and less with the
letter of the law (so, for instance, I don't
think turning on the light is an issue, and
putting money on the table for someone to
take isn't actually adhering to the
prohibition on commerce).
That's something that generally rubs me the wrong way about a lot of things with orthodox jewish practices (especially the ultra orthodox) - there is so much effort trying to find loopholes in the rules, instead of adhering to their spirit instead.
Yes. A whole collection of hardware has been developed to weasel out of the religious restrictions. There are "shabbos elevators", which not only stop on every floor (no button pushing), but bypass regenerative braking and dump the energy into a big resistor so as not to "do work". There's the "kosher light switch."[1] This looks like a regular light switch, and performs the same function. But it works by sensing the position of the switch with an optical interrupter at random intervals. So there's a random delay between throwing the switch and having it operate. This is apparently theologically acceptable, because there is not a direct cause and effect relationship.
For the kids, there are non-electrical devices made to look like hand-held video games.[2]
To be fair, if the law itself is what is important you can see the logic in doing this. It is a way of thinking that is not my own but it has a certain internal consistency.
This is a common misconception, but the prohibition against using electronics on Shabbat has nothing to do with fire; it has to do with completing a circuit since "completing a construction" is one of the 39 specifically banned activities
My oven, which is just a plain old GE oven, has a feature in which you set the temperature and cook time, and it will randomly turn on, cook for the prescribed time, and then turn off.
There was one of those at a hotel I stayed at by the Dead Sea, but in general their elevator situation was different than the ones I've seen in the US and Europe: I encountered multiple elevators in Israel where you selected a floor at a central panel outside the elevator, then the elevator itself would arrive and take you to the floor, rather than having the buttons on the inside. I wasn't able to figure out (nor can I find online) whether that design was related to not doing something on the sabbath.
This is called "destination dispatch" and, far as I know, has nothing to do with Judaism. The elevators in the buildings for IBM Watson in NYC and Munich both use destination dispatch. I should also note that it doesn't have anything to do with Watson either, they just came to mind.
I mean, I can't lie -- it sometimes seems appealing compared to the constant, gnawing sense that you might not be doing things good enough that comes with Christianity.
> constant, gnawing sense that you might not be doing things good enough
While that is a very common feeling, Christianity at it's core, is supposed to be an admission of inadequacy. "As a human, there is nothing I can ever do that will be good enough."
The freedom of Christianity is that Jesus has done the "good things" on your behalf so that your standing before God is not dependent on your own good works.
The corollary to this is that you want to do good because of your love for Jesus.
>The freedom of Christianity is that Jesus has done the "good things" on your behalf so that your standing before God is not dependent on your own good works.
I can understand and agree with the moral and humanist teachings of Christianity, but the premise of "salvation through faith" always seemed fishy to me, pun only slightly intended.
No matter how much good a person does, or how much they try to lead a moral life, they're destined for an eternity of suffering because of humanity's innately sinful nature, because nothing imperfect can stand before God.
However, if they "believe in Jesus", then no matter how much they sin afterwards, they're good for Heaven, scot free?
If a secular system of law and order operated under these conditions it would be considered barbaric and corrupt.
I upvoted you, because while I don't come to the same conclusions I think it's an honest point and logical chain of thought, and a truthful representation of Christianity.
I think many people on HN would agree that the point of prison is not revenge, but a mixture of punishment and rehabilitation that will hopefully deter the crimes of others and prevent future crimes by the convicted. We can't see into people's hearts and minds, so we must have standardized penalties. If we could really see into people's hearts and minds, and were sure we couldn't be deceived, we wouldn't let them out of prison until they were no longer the wicked person who would commit crimes, and we wouldn't keep them in prison once they had really changed.
In that case, the person who committed the crime is gone, and a law abiding, contributing citizen is there instead. We can't change the past, we can only change the future. This person is better in society than in prison. I think if we had the ability to successfully enact this system we would do it and it would be better than what we have now.
So the idea is God can really see into people's hearts, and doesn't want to just punish evil. He wants to redeem it, make what was evil good instead. So the story of Jesus is the story of how God made it possible for evil people to actually become really good, and once they have done so they can be in God's presence. And while they are still living on Earth, they will do good not because they are trying hard to follow the rules, but because they just want to.
Hard to know how to respond succinctly here. With respect to our sin deserving eternal judgment consider the majesty of the person being sinned against. For example if I stab my friend in the back to get ahead in business I might face litigation worst case. However if I attempt to overthrow the government I'll be charged with treason and might even face execution depending on where I live. Both scenarios are forms of disloyalty but society understands that the severity of the punishment should be according to the "majesty" of the person wronged.
With regards your second last paragraph, I'd recommend reading Romans, particularly chapter 8. You are right that those who believe in Jesus get off "scot free" but this is only because atonement is substitutionary. A Christian's sin is imputed to Jesus while Jesus' righteousness is imputed to him/her.
It's not sufficient to simply believe in Jesus...as in a mental assent that he actually exists. The demons believe in God and shudder (James 2:19).
There must also be an entrusting of one's self to him, a yoking, whereby you give up "rule" over yourself and submit to his rule instead. To believe in Jesus but refuse to submit to him is rebellion. That's the state of demons and why demons are not saved even though they believe.
It is, unfortunately, the same state that many humans are in.
In addition to a trusting belief an attitude and acts of repentance must be present. Repentance is turning away from sin to God. This is a continual war for the genuinely saved because their sin nature is still present. They desire to serve God faithfully, but their nature has not yet been fully redeemed, so there is a constant battle going on to live to the Spirit and not the sinful nature (aka the flesh, see Galatians 5:16ff).
This is why most Christians really are hypocrites, with some being worse than others. They know the right way to live but do not do so perfectly themselves. Even the apostle Paul struggled with this:
"For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me" (Romans 7:15-20).
However, if they "believe in Jesus", then no matter
how much they sin afterwards, they're good for Heaven,
scot free?
Yes. But I think you have an implied context that is wrong. The genuinely faithful are grieved over their sin. They look forward to the day when their sinful natures will be removed so that they are no longer even tempted to sin. Those who say they believe in Jesus but live open lives of rebellion to him and show no sense of remorse or repentance do not fit the biblical definition of someone who is saved and likely aren't. In 1 Cor. 5, Paul instructs the church to remove such people from it's midst which is where excommunication and church discipline come in today.
Also, as another commenter noted, it's not "scot free." Jesus suffered the punishment for all those who would come to believe. That is, God put their sin on Jesus and is now satisfied with the payment Jesus made. This idea is known as propitiatory atonement if you want to read more about the logic/justification behind it.
The thing about Christianity is that you can always be forgiven. It's understood that people are imperfect sinners and while there are ideals and moral codes, we will fall short of them.
Sure, but there is all the stuff about how not everyone who worships Jesus will join him in heaven and there is the parable of the sheep and the goats.
One of the parts you are thinking of is Matthew 7:13-23 [1]. The interesting thing about that is that people who are trying to do the things that Christians do are the ones that are not accepted. So yes, you literally cannot do things good enough, those guys performing miracles weren't good enough.
The only way to do things good enough is to, for lack of a better term, seek after Jesus. And then he works in your life, and that's the only way to "do the will of the Father". There are specific verses for all that, but to keep it short (and encouraging), just look up a few verses to Matthew 7:7-8 [2] "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find"
One of my favorite things about Christianity is that even in this time with all of our knowledge and access to everything it is so widely misunderstood, in almost all of its principles people have almost the opposite conclusion from what was intended. It's fun to explain it, if I can assume I understood it correctly ;)
But the whole point is that it depends on your approach. Jesus was very clearly in opposition to the religious elites of his day by choosing to walk, teach, and even perform physical healings on the Sabbath. The summation of the rationale for this is pretty clear: it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.
He didn't call it legalism, he called it everything from hypocrisy (heaping up burdens on people) to simply evil (neglecting elderly parent for the sake of ritual).
I think all I'm saying is that there's a middle ground where you go screen/internet free, and avoid things like housework, shopping, planning, and meal preparation in favour of spending time with family, but don't sweat things like non-religious reading, turning lights on and off, and walking to the park.
Well, some of the Protestants do still observe the Sabbath (generally anything with 7th Day in the title). Those that observer the Lord's Day are not quite as strict about it.
