Did Rosa Parks sin by refusing to go to the back of the bus?

[Darth Executor]

I think that whether God "sends" a Rosa Parks (or Ehud) is completely beside the point of what is moral. I'm not the one who interprets Romans 13 in such a way as to attribute everything that happens as though it were God who did it. Your view is sort of like how a Calvinist says that when a woman gets raped, it is the will of God, because everything is the will of God. I believe that this type of analysis makes God's "will" meaningless. You could just as easily say that all the rebellion against the government is equally God's will, and that Rosa Parks and Ehud are God's will, etc.

Ehud WAS God's will. It says so. Explicitly. And how'd we go from "God gives authority" to "God did everythign that happened". God never gave Rosa Parks any authority. She defied authority then got punished.

You are drawing more out of the passage than Paul intended.

You mean like you dragged in Revelation to claim you don't have to obey a police officer who has the legal right to assign seats on public property?

In any event, Paul specifically said that the government is God's minister, and that the government does not punish good. That is his premise. Yet you want to take what you consider to be his conclusion (obey whatever the government says at all times), and then extend that supposed conclusion even to situations where his premise clearly does not apply.

Finally, I reject your view of his conclusion. Paul does not say to obey the government as you would obey God. It simply says to be "subject," and to give the government what it rightly deserves. So Paul is saying that we should not rebel against government in general, but should obey it when it does right.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post138339

[Obsidian]

Yeah sounds very different.

Jesus was making a different argument from Paul. Jesus was saying that there should be limits to governmental authority.

Matthew 5:38-39
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth [a governmental principle]: but I say unto you . . . .

The principle of lex talionis was not to be extended to petty indignities. God can deal with those himself. In contrast, Paul was saying that government has its place.

Romans 13:7
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

In context, actually, Paul appears to be talking primarily about paying taxes that are rightly owed. Anyway, the arguments are not the same at all, except that they both at least touch upon the issue of government.

[robrecht]

It is incredible that you do not see the similarities. And some Christians did have legal rights in Rome. Paul himself was a Roman citizen. Let's not forget how Jesus died either: Jews petitioned Pilate to kill him. So it's simply not true that they had no recourse whatsoever. In Paul's case the situation was actually lighter than Rosa's because the Romans tolerated them at the time.

If a Roman soldier compelled a commoner into service, there was no realistic expectation that he could appeal to Pilate, and there was a very real threat of violence from Roman soldiers that one would not typically expect from a municipal bus driver. Jesus' death at the hands of the local government and Pilate does not hold out much hope for the rights of Jewish commoners. Paul does not speak to a specific situation, as did Jesus, so I did not go into detail. Realistically, we should not expect that many of the Christians in Rome were Roman citizens. It does not seem as if they had achieved much in the way of civil rights by the time of Nero or for the next couple of centuries. There was no real opportunity for creating a more just and equal society at this time through civil disobedience.

[robrecht]

It looks like my comparison had the desired effect since your annoyance has grown to such magnitude that it distorted the space-time continuum.

And yet you still persist in ignoring the fundamental differences.

[Darth Executor]

Jesus was making a different argument from Paul. Jesus was saying that there should be limits to governmental authority.

Jesus wasn't talking to government authorities, so no, that's not true.

Matthew 5:38-39
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth [a governmental principle]: but I say unto you . . . .

The principle of lex talionis was not to be extended to petty indignities. God can deal with those himself. In contrast, Paul was saying that government has its place.[/quote]

No, Jesus was not talking about limiting government authorities. He was talking to normal citizens, who wanted to misapply that principle by rebelling against the Roman government. Rather than get revenge for the injustices perpetrated against them, Jesus advises them to go out of their way to fulfill the demands so as to shame the oppressor.

Romans 13:7
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

In context, actually, Paul appears to be talking primarily about paying taxes that are rightly owed. Anyway, the arguments are not the same at all, except that they both at least touch upon the issue of government.

In both cases the argument is that one should not rebel against government. In Jesus's case, it would be suicidal. In Paul's, frivolous.

[Darth Executor]

And yet you still persist in ignoring the fundamental differences.

I don't ignore them, I just don't see them as fundamental.

[robrecht]

I don't ignore them, I just don't see them as fundamental.

Attempt to use deadly force vs nonviolence does not seem like a fundamental difference to you, seriously?

[Obsidian]

Rather than get revenge for the injustices perpetrated against them, Jesus advises them to go out of their way to fulfill the demands so as to shame the oppressor.

Jesus never once mentions rebelling, or not rebelling. I think you are greatly misinterpreting the passage. The part about turning the other cheek was not referring to Roman oppression, but personal conflict. The part about letting yourself be defrauded was not referring to Roman oppression, but personal litigation. Do you think the Roman soldiers were making a habit of suing people? The only part that even touches on Roman oppression was the part about being forced to walk a mile. All of these are minor afflictions, not major injustices to which the law of lex talionis should still apply. Any other interpretation would require that Jesus was abolishing the law of Moses, which he specifically said he was not trying to do.

The principle being advocated was toleration of minor affronts like being slapped, etc. It was not saying that if someone cut off your hand, you were precluded from demanding justice. It has nothing to do with rebellion, except insofar as the government might impose some minor affronts just as private citizens might.

[Darth Executor]

If a Roman soldier compelled a commoner into service, there was no realistic expectation that he could appeal to Pilate, and there was a very real threat of violence from Roman soldiers that one would not typically expect from a municipal bus driver.

The bus driver had police powers, and there was plenty of violence directed at blacks, so this simply isn't true. All this is besides the point though, as at no point in the NT is civil disobedience endorsed, whereas obedience to the state is.

Christians did disobey historically, but it was because the state required idolatry of them, not over something as trivial as seating arrangements.

There was no real opportunity for creating a more just and equal society at this time through civil disobedience.

How do you know that? It worked for India (well, it didn't, but they got rid of the British). That's before we even get into whether Civil Rights created a more just and equal society (I don't think it did, so by your own arguments Rosa Parks shouldn't have disobeyed anymore than the Jews should have).

[Darth Executor]

Jesus never once mentions rebelling

High context.

I think you are greatly misinterpreting the passage. The part about turning the other cheek was not referring to Roman oppression, but personal conflict.

Even if it were not to refer to Romans specifically, it's not true. There was a power disparity between the slapper and slappee.

The part about letting yourself be defrauded was not referring to Roman oppression, but personal litigation. Do you think the Roman soldiers were making a habit of suing people?

I dunno, were they? And it was not merely about personal litigation, but about someone using the legal system to rob you blind. Again, a power disparity.

All of these are minor afflictions, not major injustices to which the law of lex talionis should still apply.

Getting sued out of everything you own is a "minor affliction"?

Any other interpretation would require that Jesus was abolishing the law of Moses, which he specifically said he was not trying to do.

Jesus's reference to "eye for an eye" has nothing to do with the law of Moses. It was being misapplied. There was nothing to abolish, other than Jewish lust for revenge.

The principle being advocated was toleration of minor affronts like being slapped, etc

I'm glad you agree that Rosa Parks should have tolarated a minor affront like having to change seats.

[robrecht]

The bus driver had police powers, and there was plenty of violence directed at blacks, so this simply isn't true. All this is besides the point though, as at no point in the NT is civil disobedience endorsed, whereas obedience to the state is.

Christians did disobey historically, but it was because the state required idolatry of them, not over something as trivial as seating arrangements.

How do you know that? It worked for India (well, it didn't, but they got rid of the British). That's before we even get into whether Civil Rights created a more just and equal society (I don't think it did, so by your own arguments Rosa Parks shouldn't have disobeyed anymore than the Jews should have).

Rosa Parks was not in danger of being shot by the bus driver. Civil rights are not trivial, at least not for those to whom they are denied. We can only make intelligent and reasonable inferences from history. I trust most historians would agree with me here. You're adding additional absurdities here. Of course civil rights and liberties contribute toward a more just and equal society.

[Darth Executor]

Rosa Parks was not in danger of being shot by the bus driver.

A Roman soldier would have probably found someone else to get to carry his stuff too. Or he could attack you. So could the bus driver.

Civil rights are not trivial, at least not for those to whom they are denied. We can only make intelligent and reasonable inferences from history. I trust most historians would agree with me here.

Compared to idolatry they are trivial. And in this particular instance, yeah, it's trivial even by civil rights standards.

You're adding additional absurdities here. Of course civil rights and liberties contribute toward a more just and equal society.

Not necessarily, but that's well beyond the scope of this thread.

[Obsidian]

I'm glad you agree that Rosa Parks should have tolarated a minor affront like having to change seats.

If it were just a matter of Rosa Parks, I think she should have tolerated it. But she was standing up for people everywhere.

Getting sued out of everything you own is a "minor affliction"?

He doesn't say everything you own. That's you reading your bizarre views into the text. The other two indignities, being slapped and having to walk a mile, are minor. Your interpretation does not fit the context.

[robrecht]

A Roman soldier would have probably found someone else to get to carry his stuff too. Or he could attack you. So could the bus driver.

Compare the number of nonviolent people killed by bus drivers with the number of Jews killed by Romans and try to make a convincing historical argument.

Compared to idolatry they are trivial.

Religious liberty is a civil right.

And in this particular instance, yeah, it's trivial even by civil rights standards.

Yes, it would have been worse if the bus driver had threatened Rosa Parks with death for not worshiping the Roman deities. I certainly agree with you there.

Not necessarily, but that's well beyond the scope of this thread.

It is an important part of this argument.

[Darth Executor]

If it were just a matter of Rosa Parks, I think she should have tolerated it. But she was standing up for people everywhere.

No she wasn't. #alllivesmatter

He doesn't say everything you own. That's you reading your bizarre views into the text. The other two indignities, being slapped and having to walk a mile, are minor. Your interpretation does not fit the context.

I spent most of this thread messing with you, which you didn't notice because you don't actually read my posts, but I'm thinking of just ignoring you from now on, because you can't even be bothered to read the OP, or the link provided.

The second example is even more clearly associated with the lex talionis, as it involves one person suing another. But why would anybody sue you and take your tunic? Surely if somebody is suing you for recompense, they want money (or perhaps a replacement for something you broke). The reference to taking a person to court for their tunic is drawn from the Torah, in Exodus 22:25-27.

If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him. If ever you take your neighbour’s cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down, for that is his only covering, and it is his cloak for his body; in what else shall he sleep? And if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.

Here, a poor person has borrowed money and given their cloak as collateral. Why their cloak? Because they have no other possessions. Even when they give their cloak as collateral, the lender must return it to them at night – after all, it’s all they have, and they need it to keep warm. Here, the cloak is held as more of a token gesture than anything else. It’s not worth a lot, but merely signifies the existence of the debt. Here’s the rub: When a person defaults on a loan, the lender has the legal right to sue them for the collateral and keep it to defray their loss. But just imagine a lender in the above scenario who decided to sue this poor person for their cloak. Would they really be living out the intention of the Torah here? Clearly not. This would be a moral outrage, an inexcusable mistreatment of somebody with no means of their own.