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

[robrecht]

For many of the things I write, it's like you're not even trying to understand. ...

Keep in mind that he prides himself on his trolling ability. I have myself already wasted too much of my time on him.

[Darth Executor]

For many of the things I write, it's like you're not even trying to understand. What I mean is that God prefers to judge CLEAR CASES of evil, where one side is innocent or righteous and the other side is totally depraved.

Then say "clear cases" not "clear judgement", they're not the same thing. I can't read your mind.

I already quoted the verse. It specifically says that God will take responsibility for every laborer.

There are no Christians in Exodus.

[Darth Executor]

In ancient Rome, this was sometimes exactly the same thing.

In some situations, sure.

It sure helps.

This would be true in such a situation.

I think you would care if it was your liberty that was being curtailed or taken away.

You are still missing the point, which is that you are introducing a needless concept (religious liberty) into the equation. It's like saying Hitler shouldn't have forced Jews to shower. The showers weren't the issue. The problem with being forced to worship idols is that you are worshipping a false god, not that muh liberty is suppressed.

Some atheists or pagans embrace human rights, but human rights in and of themselves are not necessarily atheistic or pagan.

I'm not talking about embracing them, I'm talking about inventing them. They were invented as a way to implement morality while dealing with a polytheistic/atheistic world. IE: they're a way to run around God and implement the will of man as the highest morality.

I think it is entirely proper and good for Christians to recognize the human rights of others and to try and build a more just and equal world.

I disagree that Christians should build an "equal" world. People are not equal, and equality is not a Christian concept. Like the old saying goes, hell is egalitarian, heaven's a dictatorship.

Excuse me, but police powers is indeed the power of legal coercion.

Only in the sense that all valid contracts are backed by coercion of some sort.

The ancient world was rather different from the modern world, which should limit overly facile comparisons in reasonable people, but I would probably see this as an ancient Israelite perspective that may have interpreted God's will with some bias.

I agree that it was rather different, but I'm not sure how that would apply in this case. The OT Jews weren't Klan level tribalistic, but they were considerably more tribalistic than we are. God fueled this (in no small part due to the whole "chosen people" thing), so tribalism in and of itself doesn't appear to be bad.

Obviously, it is not a civil right for 8-year-olds. Such a ridiculous idea is not comparable to an adult woman having her liberty curtailed on account of her race, a population which routinely had its rights suppressed in a racist society.

Which rights do you mean in this particular case? Do you think someone has a right to a particular seat on someone else's bus?

[Darth Executor]

Keep in mind that he prides himself on his trolling ability. I have myself already wasted too much of my time on him.

I don't troll you (much).

[Obsidian]

I consider the sermon on the mount fairly irrelevant to this thread, so let's get back more to the actual topic. Don't you agree that the following passages portray a distinction between legitimate laws, which must be followed for conscience sake and to avoid wrath, versus illegitimate laws, which must be followed only to avoid wrath?



Why would Jesus say he was free, and that he was only acting to avoid offense, if he were in fact morally required to obey?

[Darth Executor]

I consider the sermon on the mount fairly irrelevant to this thread, so let's get back more to the actual topic. Don't you agree that the following passages portray a distinction between legitimate laws, which must be followed for conscience sake and to avoid wrath, versus illegitimate laws, which must be followed only to avoid wrath?

Romans 13 never mentions any laws other than the former, so it's unclear where the distinction should be made. And in some cases, it is unclear whether there is a fine line dividing them. In some cases even if the law is morally unjust, breaching it could be itself a matter of conscience, as it could have negative ramifications in other areas (I hold that this was true of the Civil Rights Act in general).

Matthew 17:25-27
And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them . . . .

Why would Jesus say he was free, and that he was only acting to avoid offense, if he were in fact morally required to obey?

It's not clear from those verses whether Jesus was legally required to pay the tax. He Himself says it was done to avoid offending them, so it seems like Matthew 17:25+ isn't relevant here.

[Obsidian]

Romans 13 never mentions any laws other than the former, so it's unclear where the distinction should be made.

Doesn't "[r]ender to all their dues" imply that the government is only due certain things, and not others? I think Paul does mention both.

It's not clear from those verses whether Jesus was legally required to pay the tax.

Umm, he specifically says he is "free" from the tax.

[Darth Executor]

Doesn't "[r]ender to all their dues" imply that the government is only due certain things, and not others? I think Paul does mention both.

We already know the government is only due certain things. They are not due worship as gods, for example. Let's stick to whether they are due the following of their regulations on their areas of authority (like public transportation).

Umm, he specifically says he is "free" from the tax.

*If that means He is not legally required to pay it why bring it up?




*I don't think Jesus was making a point about legality but an aside

[robrecht]

You are still missing the point, which is that you are introducing a needless concept (religious liberty) into the equation. It's like saying Hitler shouldn't have forced Jews to shower. The showers weren't the issue. The problem with being forced to worship idols is that you are worshipping a false god, not that muh liberty is suppressed.

I do not agree that it is a needless concept.

I'm not talking about embracing them, I'm talking about inventing them. They were invented as a way to implement morality while dealing with a polytheistic/atheistic world. IE: they're a way to run around God and implement the will of man as the highest morality.

I have a more positive view of human rights than you do. Probably because of my Catholic heritage and my appreciation for Christian humanist philosophers such as Jacques Maritain.

I disagree that Christians should build an "equal" world. People are not equal, and equality is not a Christian concept. Like the old saying goes, hell is egalitarian, heaven's a dictatorship.

I don't think it is possible to build an equal world. I probably said something about building a more equal world. For example, we as Christians should oppose systemic and individual racism wherever we can.

Only in the sense that all valid contracts are backed by coercion of some sort.

All the more reason to avoid unworthy contracts, eg, those that oppress the rights and liberties of others.

I agree that it was rather different, but I'm not sure how that would apply in this case. The OT Jews weren't Klan level tribalistic, but they were considerably more tribalistic than we are. God fueled this (in no small part due to the whole "chosen people" thing), so tribalism in and of itself doesn't appear to be bad.

I don't think tribalism is inherently bad, but it can be unjust when oppressing others. Israelite tribalism was, in general, very protective of the rights of sojourners.

Which rights do you mean in this particular case? Do you think someone has a right to a particular seat on someone else's bus?

The seat on the bus is in and of itself rather unimportant, practically symbolic, but in a just society the racial majority should not have the right to limit the rights and liberties of the racial minority. At this time in US history, the rights that were still being fought for included equal voting rights, the right to live wherever one wanted, to marry the person one loved, to attend better schools, public universities, etc. The same government that would prohibit African Americans from attending state universities would also flex its racist muscle by not even letting you sit where you wanted on a public bus.

[Obsidian]

Let's stick to whether they are due the following of their regulations on their areas of authority (like public transportation).

I don't agree that the government has the right to regulate public transportation, or to segregate races. That is the whole point.

If that means He is not legally required to pay it why bring it up?

If he were required to pay it, and did pay it, then why would he say anything at all? Why would the story even be there. It is obvious that "free" means he was not required to pay it. Everyone acknowledges that much. Your authoritarian bias is the only thing keeping you from seeing it.

[Cow Poke]

I don't agree that the government has the right to regulate public transportation....

I don't get this... public transportation IS government, or government regulated.

[Obsidian]

I don't believe that the government has the authority to spend our tax money on public transportation. And if the government does spend our tax money on public transportation, I don't believe that it has the authority to demean the black passengers.

[Cow Poke]

I don't believe that the government has the authority to spend our tax money on public transportation.

How bout police and fire protection?

And if the government does spend our tax money on public transportation, I don't believe that it has the authority to demean the black passengers.

I don't think anybody is going to argue that point.

[Adrift]

I have a more positive view of human rights than you do. Probably because of my Catholic heritage and my appreciation for Christian humanist philosophers such as Jacques Maritain.

I don't think it has anything to do with your Catholic heritage or appreciation for Christian humanist philosophers. I think most Protestants on this forum probably disagree with DE's views on liberty, and racism (or, at least, I hope they do).

[Darth Executor]

I have a more positive view of human rights than you do. Probably because of my Catholic heritage and my appreciation for Christian humanist philosophers such as Jacques Maritain.

Well, Catholics are just pagans with Jesus's name stamped on the "Jupiter wuz here" graffiti.

I don't think it is possible to build an equal world. I probably said something about building a more equal world. For example, we as Christians should oppose systemic and individual racism wherever we can.

I used to be of this opinion. However, in my experience, anti-racism has become synonymous with evil. And not trivial evil either, I've seen this ideology turn otherwise decent people into complete monsters as a result of picking up even a light amount of anti-racist activist fervor. And I'll admit I'm perplexed. With many questionable ideologies I can tell why people are horrible regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I can understand Hitler, I can understand Stalin, I can understand Genghis Khan. This, however, I still don't quite comprehend. Maybe it will be revealed to me in time.

All the more reason to avoid unworthy contracts, eg, those that oppress the rights and liberties of others.

Yes, which is why I endorsed the boycott.

I don't think tribalism is inherently bad, but it can be unjust when oppressing others. Israelite tribalism was, in general, very protective of the rights of sojourners.

Israel also didn't have the type of multi-ethnic large scale conflict the US did.

The seat on the bus is in and of itself rather unimportant, practically symbolic, but in a just society the racial majority should not have the right to limit the rights and liberties of the racial minority.

What if there are fundamental differences in the way the minds of the two races work? And one of them is far more prone both to committing violent crime and tolerating it? What should the racial group that doesn't want to put up with this do? Basically, what should two groups with fundamentally different and contradictory outlooks on life do?

At this time in US history, the rights that were still being fought for included equal voting rights,

Totalitarian here, don't care about votes. The franchise should have been further restricted, and eventually eliminated, not expanded.

the right to live wherever one wanted

What if one wants to live in an active volcano? Is the volcano violating his civil rights?

to marry the person one loved,

What is your stance on gay marriage?

to attend better schools, public universities, etc.

Why are white schools better than black schools? Are you saying black people cannot compete with white people in this area?

The same government that would prohibit African Americans from attending state universities would also flex its racist muscle by not even letting you sit where you wanted on a public bus.

What do you think of the benefits this policy had on preventing ethnic conflict?