[DanAndersen]

The article raises good points about the need for formal societal taboos against constant work. The ideal (often violated, though) in our modern society of the "40-hour week" as a reasonable amount is one of them. Having regular times for contemplation and separation from the bustle of the world is important.

The gig economy has dangers in it. There's a liberating aspect in that people "can choose their own hours," but then that means that they have to work more to keep up with someone else who is working a few extra hours to get ahead in their own lives. It seems like the world of labor has a tragedy of the commons aspect to it, where it's in everyone's immediate individual interest to work just a little bit longer, but the end result is that everyone has to work more for the same reward. A bit like the two-income trap: some benefits, some liberation, but there's also a cost.

I do wish, though, that the article fully grappled with the issue of the 'shabbos goy.' It praises the virtues of having everyone able to participate in a time of separation from work, but then there's this practice where the conveniences of life are still indulged in by having an outsider labor for you.

[emodendroket]

> I do wish, though, that the article fully grappled with the issue of the 'shabbos goy.' It praises the virtues of having everyone able to participate in a time of separation from work, but then there's this practice where the conveniences of life are still indulged in by having an outsider labor for you.

I'd say the traditional Christian concept of the sabbath is looser and doesn't really require this kind of thing.

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).

[ido]

    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.

[Animats]

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]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdbkvJznmwU [2] http://www.kosherimage.com/watergame.html

[emodendroket]

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.

[spiritcat]

Well ya the prohibition is about creating fire, why wouldn't you step on the elevator if it's just going to be going up and down anyway?

[Itaxpica]

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

[bigpicture]

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.

[13of40]

"shabbos elevators"

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.

[tomjakubowski]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_dispatch

[isostatic]

I've seen these elevators in uk, Brazil, US and I think Hong Kong (or maybe singapore)

Never in Israel though.

It's apparently more efficient.

[emodendroket]

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.

[allenofthehills]

> 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."

[danjc]

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.

[krapp]

>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.

[phyller]

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.

[danjc]

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.

[rsyring]

  "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.

[ams6110]

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.

[astura]

What's the incentive to even try to do the "right" thing if you can always be forgiven?

[emodendroket]

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.

[phyller]

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 ;)

[1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/mat/7/13/s_936013 [2] https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/mat/7/7/s_936013

[abraham_lincoln]

And yet, they are the only ones observing the Sabbath.

[mikepurvis]

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A9-...

[neaden]

Right. But Jesus wouldn't have wanted you to be driving for Uber on the Sabbath either.

[danjc]

He says the Sabbath was created for man not man for the Sabbath. His reaction was to the legalism of the day.

[mikepurvis]

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.

[RobertRoberts]

There are many people out there that are not Jews that follow God's laws, including resting on the seventh day.

[protomyth]

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.

[RobertRoberts]

I would argue that you can follow the letter of the law with the resting on the sabbath quite easily. There is almost no instructions on this topic. And to even clarify Jesus teachings on the sabbath, it's ok to even work on the sabbath under some circumstances (rescuing your ox). And this is the letter of the law.

The Orthodox Jewish teachings are extra biblical and but re often confused as biblical. Not to different from how the Pope creates extra rules for Catholics.

[natalyarostova]

>where it's in everyone's immediate individual interest to work just a little bit longer, but the end result is that everyone has to work more for the same reward

If everyone is working more, more value is being created in total. So it's not zero-sum. You might then say "Yes, sure, but is working more hours to buy more things really better than a culture where we work less and spend more time eating dinner with our families?", which I would agree with, but is more of a cultural comment than an economic comment.

[lukeschlather]

> If everyone is working more, more value is being created in total.

That's often false. It's very easy to create negative value, and it becomes easier the less you rest. It's also hard to measure when additional work starts creating negative value, so you can easily end up in a downward spiral of productivity as people compete for not just illusory but counterproductive gains.

[natalyarostova]

Hmm, I was going to disagree with you, but as I reflect on my time in Tokyo I have to admit you're right.

[s73v3r_]

"If everyone is working more, more value is being created in total."

That's not necessarily true, and more importantly, even if it is, most of that value is not going to the people doing the actual work.

[toomuchtodo]

Perhaps the social taboo needs to be against the continual enrichment of the ownership class with that additional value being created by everyone working more?

[sandworm101]

>> this practice where the conveniences of life are still indulged in by having an outsider labor for you.

Exactly. My sunday starts at 0300, when I relieve someone who worked the graveyard shift from saturday. I'll sit at a desk in a darkened room all day just in case a phone rings. I'll probably be on HN commenting on some article, but I have to be at that desk. Cops have to be at work too. All the nurses and care providers, airline pilots and air traffic people, all the hotel operators ... the only reason anyone can safely stay home on a sunday is because legions of other people do not. I'm fine with the concept of a day off, but we shouldn't attach religious meaning to something not available to everyone.

[rhapsodic]

> The article raises good points about the need for formal societal taboos against constant work. The ideal (often violated, though) in our modern society of the "40-hour week" as a reasonable amount is one of them. Having regular times for contemplation and separation from the bustle of the world is important.

It may be important for you, Dan, but it's not important for me. Please, don't try to impose any more "formal societal taboos" on me. I've really had a bellyful of them. It seems like everyday there's a new one.

There is nothing stopping you from choosing a path in life that allows you plenty of time for "contemplation and separation from the bustle of the world." So go ahead and choose your own path, and let me choose mine.

Fair enough?

[bambataa]

Cool, how can I afford to buy a house in an area of roughly my choice and not work horrible hours? Oh wait I can’t do both. And you’d probably say that’s my choice to forgo living in a nice house in a nice area.

But of course, if houses cost 50% less and everyone worked 50% less I could afford the same house and work half as much, leaving more time to do what I want.

Suddenly it seems like the decisions we make have an impact on other people. So how can you choose your path without impacting on my path, and vice versa?

[rhapsodic]

> Cool, how can I afford to buy a house in an area of roughly my choice and not work horrible hours? Oh wait I can’t do both. And you’d probably say that’s my choice to forgo living in a nice house in a nice area.

Uh, no, I would say that I really, truly, seriously, do not care what you choose to do with the 24 hours in each of the days of your life. So please, don't try to tell me what I should or should not do with mine. I'm sick and tired of busybodies and crybabies who pine for new "societal taboos" for the rest of us to observe.

The majority of people on HN are not like that, but a sizable portion are. And I'm more than happy to incur the inevitable downvotes to call them out on it.

[bambataa]

My point is that, whether you want it or not, the choices we each make have impacts of varying directness on what choices other people can make. Whether you choose to acknowledge them doesn’t change the effect they have.

[rhapsodic]

> My point is that, whether you want it or not, the choices we each make have impacts of varying directness on what choices other people can make. Whether you choose to acknowledge them doesn’t change the effect they have.

You also seem to imply that you're entitled to afford the kind of house you want in the area you want, and that should impose some obligation on me to modify my behavior so you won't have to work as hard or as long to get what you want out of life.

The person I originally responded actually used the phrase "formal societal taboo." This is the secular version of religious busybodies wagging their fingers at other people who aren't behaving in a manner that suits them.

[DowsingSpoon]

Without some sort of pressure to maintain a standard like 40 hrs/wk, employee work hours become a race to the bottom. This pressure could take the form of a formal collective bargaining agreement. It could also take the form of a strong social norm. In either case, it doesn’t work unless a lot of people buy into the idea.

It would be a lot easier if it were much, much easier to negotiate work-life balance while negotiating compensation. Unfortunately, I’ve never found this to be practical. Management has certain expectations set by company social norms. Any employee found violating those norms is punished in one way or another.