With regard to Sabbath and law, there is requirement and there is purpose. A stop sign's requirement is to stop (which should be obvious), but its purpose is about the goal behind the stopping. If a stop sign is at a traffic intersection its purpose may be about safety, if at a police check, its purpose may be about security, if hanging on the outside of a teen's bedroom door its purpose may have a rebellious side. The requirement, however, remains the same which is to stop, we may argue the requirement but that does not address the purpose. Requirement and purpose are not the same things so let's all acknowledge this and move on.
this should be fairly simple to understand, yet from my experience and observation, we can't seem to speak of purpose without feeding a requirement agenda (or anti-requirement). is it even possible? I'm not suggesting divorcing requirement or challenging it but rather having a conversation inside a purpose-driven vacuum without defining it through requirement or motivation which I know may be a challenge for some.
Yes, I added motivation too which is also not purpose so let's not confuse the two. This might be confusing because you may state your purpose to obey/not obey but this is more motivation and not what I'm speaking of, I'm speaking about the purpose of the law itself not how you're motivated to keep/not keep it. the requirement of a stop sign is to stop, your motivation may be obedience, this may be laudable but it is not the question so don't turn it into the question. I am asking about purpose so let's be critically minded when engaging, and keep your requirement/motivation-driven posts to their respective threads but this is not the place for it.
What law? any law (including Sabbath or NT law) so long as you're addressing purpose, not requirement. feel free to call out and challenge each other when the thread makes the inevitable turn into a requirement focus. And even in your own threads, be clear and intentional with purpose so there is no confusion over your focus. If you don't accept that purpose can't be discussed without addressing requirement then this is not the thread for you nor is it the place to protest this. Please show your respect to myself and others by following these explict requests.
this should be fairly simple to understand, yet from my experience and observation, we can't seem to speak of purpose without feeding a requirement agenda (or anti-requirement). is it even possible? I'm not suggesting divorcing requirement or challenging it but rather having a conversation inside a purpose-driven vacuum without defining it through requirement or motivation which I know may be a challenge for some.
Yes, I added motivation too which is also not purpose so let's not confuse the two. This might be confusing because you may state your purpose to obey/not obey but this is more motivation and not what I'm speaking of, I'm speaking about the purpose of the law itself not how you're motivated to keep/not keep it. the requirement of a stop sign is to stop, your motivation may be obedience, this may be laudable but it is not the question so don't turn it into the question. I am asking about purpose so let's be critically minded when engaging, and keep your requirement/motivation-driven posts to their respective threads but this is not the place for it.
What law? any law (including Sabbath or NT law) so long as you're addressing purpose, not requirement. feel free to call out and challenge each other when the thread makes the inevitable turn into a requirement focus. And even in your own threads, be clear and intentional with purpose so there is no confusion over your focus. If you don't accept that purpose can't be discussed without addressing requirement then this is not the thread for you nor is it the place to protest this. Please show your respect to myself and others by following these explict requests.
