This guy is simply a First day Adventist. Good for him! He don’t buy that idiotic theology of today that does away with the 10 commandments. Sin is defined as “transgression of the law”....he knows what sin is. This guy is my new hero! A man with conviction! So rare these days. Protestants used to believe what this guy believes.
Today’s evangelicals are weak, shallow, will buy what their pastor teaches and all because the pastor hates the Sabbath. This guy must have read what John Wesley said about the 10 commandments......
Oh man this is so timely here! He makes you all look so weak and stupid frankly to believe the 10 commandments can be changed or are “jewish.”
It’s the Sabbath you hate. Football on Sunday, shopping on Sunday, Golf maybe.....you don’t even keep Sunday! Love this guy.
John Wesley on the Sabbath too:
This ‘handwriting of ordinances’ our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. (Colossians 2: 14.) But the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away.... The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. ...Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages.
—JOHN WESLEY, Sermons on Several Occasions, 2-Vol. Edition, Vol. I, pages 221, 222.
“The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law.”
God gave man his own will to decision. (Matthew 23) So by requiring people to work on the sabbath, depending on what day it is based upon different religions is man’s decision...both to require it and work it.
I guess my question is where was he when he was briefed prior to taking the job that he wouldn’t be required to work any day assigned even holidays? If he had a problem with that, he never should have accepted the job offer. Now he’s decided he doesn’t want to work on his sabbath so what has he been doing and why now? It isn’t the job of the employer to determine if he can’t work a given day for religious purposes if the original job wouldn’t allow it.
“Protestants used to believe what this guy believes.”
Depends on how far back you go with those beliefs. There was also a belief that a fair days wage for a a fair day’s work was part of the trust in both the employer and employee. So what prompted this sudden pulling back by the employee after he was aware he could be assigned to work on any day and he agreed to take the job under those terms?
But this is not over, yet. The case now returns to the lower courts.
The justices clarified law that made it illegal for employers to discriminate based on religion, requiring that they accommodate the religious beliefs of workers as long as the accommodation does not impose an “undue hardship on the employer’s business.” The court had previously defined the statutory term “undue hardship” by saying that employers should not have to bear more than what the court called a “de minimis,” or trifling, cost.
Having to reassign people to work extra hours which may cause overtime in the terms of big money when all the employees step forward, will exceed trifling cost as it could be thousands, will have to be addressed and decisions made. All the SCOTUS did was pass the buck.
wy69