Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let’s bring back the Sabbath as an act against ‘total work’

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 285 posts

Re: Let’s bring back the Sabbath as an act against ‘total work’

#181

Post by yoz-y »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #18

Kind of have this in Germany, where many businesses are prohibited from being open on Sunday. For example, grocery stores can't be open unless they're at a central train station or airport. In practice, to me it just feels really annoying and limiting. Means I basically have to plan any larger shopping trips for Saturday, even if that doesn't work well for my schedule. I get that they want to make sure workers have e…

We have the same thing in France with some weird exception for Paris. I was really glad when I moved to paris and could finally found a shop open at a time when it suited actually employed people.

I strongly believe that people's work times should be as desynchronised as possible which would not only make it easier for everybody to handle administrative stuff without having to take off-time from work, but would also help reducing congestion.

Re: Let’s bring back the Sabbath as an act against ‘total work’

#182

Post by danschumann »

fiter wrote: post #180
danschumann wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words have definitions, but also words are like functions that run in the brain. `mentionSpagettiMonster() { feelSuperior(); if( opponent.unskilled ) winArgument(); }` Religion hasn't been killing people in order to spread, or stay spread ( except in certain mid-east countries), for hundreds of years, it would only take a short time after stopping the killing for the religion to die, and why would anyone care enough…

You can find something funny without feeling superior to it. Life is absurd!

To find something funny, you "get it". The getter is superior to the got. If someone got you, they are superior.

Ask any kid who gets laughed at if he feels good about it. Some kids run out of insults and only need to laugh to torment.

Life is not absurd - "wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate." Life is such an appropriate choice that most people choose to keep living every day. It's logical, at least the kind of logic that arises out of chaos- civilization out of nature. In chaos lies death. Like the chaos of war. We spend our days organizing nature to promote a more just and productive society, to make life easier. Life is not unreasonable, it provides you much time for reason. Death is unreasonable, in that it can't be bargained with. People need a reason to truly live, a purpose, IE life and reason are very similar. So life is basically the opposite of absurd.

Re: Let’s bring back the Sabbath as an act against ‘total work’

#183

Post by danschumann »

protomyth wrote: post #96
danschumann wrote: post #47

Plenty of religious things are not superstitious, but based on real psychological needs.. people who dismiss them as pure fantasies are missing the point. New Testament is full of such things helpful for psychological maintenance and emotional well-being, if you can get the metaphors. It's why the stories and practice of them have survived so long (because the practicioners survived more frequently and/or saw the val…

Some of the things in the Bible are also physical health items. Of course, modern technology and health practices have rendered much of the directives obsolete unless you get stuck in a really primitive part of the world.

There are few if any specific directions about health in the new testament.. unless you count "don't worry" as a health directive. The new testament is said to be "a better contract", not contradicting, but replacing the old testament.

Again, though, the stories should be taken with salt. They thought the earth was flat, but human brains were largely the same. If situations were occurring then, and they still occur today, you can learn a bit about the inner workings of the mind, society, and such.

Re: Let’s bring back the Sabbath as an act against ‘total work’

#184

Post by tzs »

jVinc wrote: post #122
danschumann wrote: post #47

Plenty of religious things are not superstitious, but based on real psychological needs.. people who dismiss them as pure fantasies are missing the point. New Testament is full of such things helpful for psychological maintenance and emotional well-being, if you can get the metaphors. It's why the stories and practice of them have survived so long (because the practicioners survived more frequently and/or saw the val…

Well of cause. People don't dismiss "religious things" like singing, gathering together or confiding in others. They dismiss the religious part of those things. And the assumption that wearing spaghetti strainers or turning off your phone on the weekends will somehow bring you closer to the giant spaghetti monster in the sky. > It's why the stories and practice of them have survived so long (because the practitioners…

Mathematically, it is actually rational for a religion to require wearing spaghetti strainers or turning off your phone on weekends. This was pointed out in an introductory game theory book I recently read.

There are benefits to being a member of a religious group, such as participating in the group's organized social events. People in groups will often favor others from the same groups, so for example if you are in the same church as the plumber you call to fix your broken toilet he might not try to run up the costs as much as he would if you were totally unfamiliar to him.

People who do not actually believe the religion might pretend in order to get those benefits. The book had a nice illustration showing a man eating a hamburger at a church picnic and his thought balloon said "I can pretend to love Jesus for a free burger!".

Religious rituals like wearing a ridiculous spaghetti strainer or not using a phone on weekends impose a cost on membership.

For the person who actually believes the religion and follows it they believe their reward for membership will be eternal life in heaven or avoidance of eternal damnation in hell or something big like that along with the earthly membership benefits like free burgers at church social events and only getting mildly ripped off when they need a toilet fixed. The benefits still greatly outweigh the cost of the silly, stupid, or annoying rituals.

For the non-believer who believes that membership benefits will only be a few more social events to attend with occasional free burgers and the milder toilet fixing rip off it not be worth wearing the stupid hat or foregoing using their phone.

Re: Let’s bring back the Sabbath as an act against ‘total work’

#185

Post by oldandtired »

ekianjo wrote: post #177
oldandtired wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is more than just the owner and consumer involved here. it also includes any staff that the owner employs. If you, as an owner, decide that you want to open 7 days a week, and you have staff that are happy to do 6 days and want/desire the 7th day off, what do you do in relation to those staff? Sack them? Employ others for that 7th day who are willing to work on that day and keep the others on for the other 6 da…

Ridiculous argument. There are laws governing how many employees can work a week and no employee can be made to work 7 days per week. The only solution for an employer is to arrange shifts between different employees and this is how it works in practice.

Yes, there are laws that govern this. My point is that the person I was responding to was implying that only he, as the owner, and the customer were affected by his choice to be open. The effects are much larger than just him and the customer. So it is not a ridiculous argument as such. What works in practice will vary quite considerably to your idealised view. I have worked for such owners and was glad to see the last of them.

Irrespective of any laws that are in place, there are still many owners who will threaten sackings if people do not obey the owner's whim and decisions as to the hours the employee is to work. If that means that the employees are expected to be there 7 days a week then there are many owners who will sack their staff for only wanting to work 5 or 6 days a week. There are many employees who do not feel that they have any control over this and simply comply because they feel powerless and locked in. But that is a side issue here.

Re: Let’s bring back the Sabbath as an act against ‘total work’

#186

Post by kweks »

trukterious wrote: post #136
throwaway715875 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Jewish but not religious anymore, and I know a lot of people that keep Shabbat that talk like this. Frankly, I don't buy it. If we have a problem with detaching from technology, then, stopping all usage of it only one day a week is maybe 90% as unhealthy. It would be like saying you have a healthy relationship with smoking because you don't smoke at all for one day a week, but after that you can chain smoke 24/6.…

>stopping all usage of it only one day a week is maybe 90% as unhealthy. No, a recovery period can make a bigger difference. By the same token the recent advice on alcohol is to avoid it at least 2 days out of 7.

Recent advice on alcohol is to avoid it completely: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Re: Let’s bring back the Sabbath as an act against ‘total work’

#187

Post by NovaX »

bdcravens wrote: post #112
gavman wrote: post #35

As an Orthodox Jew who observes the Sabbath every week, while sometimes finishing up work and preparations beforehand can be stressful at times, there's no feeling like turning off all phones/laptops/etc Friday evening and leaving it all behind. There's a supreme serenity that comes with the knowledge of "I can't do anything about it, so there's no point in worrying". As soon as Sabbath starts I'm totally focused on…

My wife is Messianic Jewish. I presume they are more liberal in their approach than most Jewish sects, but as they all seem to use their phones during Sabbath (even posting videos from services to Facebook)

Messianic Jewish are generally not considered Jewish by the community, as their beliefs violate basic tenets of the religion. There is a lot of evidence towards these sects being used to manipulate non-religious Jews into conversion to Christianity. They are still welcome, but considered Christians.

Re: Let’s bring back the Sabbath as an act against ‘total work’

#188

Post by Illniyar »

I'm an atheist living in Israel. There is nothing more annoying to daily life then the Sabbath.

If you embrace it, then you must accept that no one works on saturday. You can't go to the store. There are no kids entertainment. Restaurants. Theaters. There is no public transportation because drivers need their rest too.

Re: Let’s bring back the Sabbath as an act against ‘total work’

#189

Post by oldandtired »

billfruit wrote: post #174
oldandtired wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is more than just the owner and consumer involved here. it also includes any staff that the owner employs. If you, as an owner, decide that you want to open 7 days a week, and you have staff that are happy to do 6 days and want/desire the 7th day off, what do you do in relation to those staff? Sack them? Employ others for that 7th day who are willing to work on that day and keep the others on for the other 6 da…

I think most 7day employers like retailers having rotating staff rosters, so that the employees will be doing 4-5 day weeks only. In fact perhaps having a mandatory closed holiday may mean that many people wouldn't have the jobs they have now.

True in part but there are still a significant number of employers that do not do this and expect you to comply to their whims and directions.

In terms of a mandatory closed day, how does the historical information align with the current information in relation to unemployment or under-employment?

Re: Let’s bring back the Sabbath as an act against ‘total work’

#190

Post by rsyring »

krapp wrote: post #109
danjc wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lif…

  "believe in Jesus"
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.

Post reply on HN