Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    The point remains that civil disobedience is not necessarily sinful.
    That point was never the issue.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      That point was never the issue.
      It's what the title of the thread is about
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        It's what the title of the thread is about
        Nope, the title asks about a specific instance in which there are no conflicting commandments. I never asked about whether civil disobedience in general is always sinful since I think that's a no-brainer: of course it isn't. God comes before government.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          Rosa Parks, otoh, just broke the law outright.
          OK, specifically, what was the law that Rosa Parks broke outright?

          It's been a while since I've looked at this, but I seem to recall that the first 10 rows of the bus were designated whites only. Rosa, and three other blacks, were seated in the row immediately behind this "whites only" section.
          When more white people got on the bus, Joseph Blake, the driver apparently (and arbitrarily) decided to expand this "whites only" section, instructing Rosa to move further back to allow more whites to sit "up front".

          IIRC, the actual police charge was "refusing to obey orders of bus driver."

          Is there any dispute as to these being the actual facts of the case?
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #35
            Doesn't Paul say somewhere to always obey the orders of all bus drivers everywhere?
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #36
              The traditional teaching on this has been that the authority of something lesser cannot contradict the authority of something greater. So in the case of old testament saints refusing an authority who told them to bow to an idol, it was because they were obedient to God's direct command not to worship foreign idols. God's authority trumps civil authorities here.

              Darth Ex does have a point about whether or not some small sin was committed by Rosa Park in her disobedience. I don't think anyone disagrees that the rule about seating arrangements for blacks was unjust. However neither was it clearly in contradiction with anything in the Bible.

              I'll reading up to see what the Catholic Church has taught about this, I'll report back if I find anything.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                OK, specifically, what was the law that Rosa Parks broke outright?

                It's been a while since I've looked at this, but I seem to recall that the first 10 rows of the bus were designated whites only. Rosa, and three other blacks, were seated in the row immediately behind this "whites only" section.
                When more white people got on the bus, Joseph Blake, the driver apparently (and arbitrarily) decided to expand this "whites only" section, instructing Rosa to move further back to allow more whites to sit "up front".

                IIRC, the actual police charge was "refusing to obey orders of bus driver."

                Is there any dispute as to these being the actual facts of the case?
                Actually yeah, that's a good point, I thought for a moment this was a law, but now that you mention it it might only have been the preference back then.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  Doesn't Paul say somewhere to always obey the orders of all bus drivers everywhere?
                  Actually, I believe that's in the Book of Transportations.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    Actually yeah, that's a good point, I thought for a moment this was a law, but now that you mention it it might only have been the preference back then.
                    I think it actually was a law - albeit a racist one - that had markings on the bus where whites could sit, and initially, Rosa Parks was properly seated. It was the order of the bus driver arbitrarily expanding that section that was "violated".

                    Again, long time since I studied this, but that's what I remember. Apparently, however, the complaint was written up to show her in violation of sitting in the "white section" of the bus, contrary to and in violation of chapter 6 section 11 of the codified ordinances of the city of Montgomery.

                    police-report-l.jpg
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      OK, specifically, what was the law that Rosa Parks broke outright?

                      It's been a while since I've looked at this, but I seem to recall that the first 10 rows of the bus were designated whites only. Rosa, and three other blacks, were seated in the row immediately behind this "whites only" section.
                      When more white people got on the bus, Joseph Blake, the driver apparently (and arbitrarily) decided to expand this "whites only" section, instructing Rosa to move further back to allow more whites to sit "up front".

                      IIRC, the actual police charge was "refusing to obey orders of bus driver."

                      Is there any dispute as to these being the actual facts of the case?


                      As an aside, I first looked this up on wikipedia, but not only do they fail to provide any useful sources on the matter but it also seems like they made the bold stuff up:

                      In 1900, Montgomery had passed a city ordinance to segregate bus passengers by race. Conductors were empowered to assign seats to achieve that goal. According to the law, no passenger would be required to move or give up his seat and stand if the bus was crowded and no other seats were available. Over time and by custom, however, Montgomery bus drivers adopted the practice of requiring black riders to move when there were no white-only seats left.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        OK, I misremembered. It was the first ten SEATS, not the first ten rows, that were reserved for whites only. [emphasis mine]

                        Source: National Archives

                        On the city buses of Montgomery, Alabama, the front 10 seats were permanently reserved for white passengers. The diagram shows that Mrs. Parks was seated in the first row behind those 10 seats. When the bus became crowded, the bus driver instructed Mrs. Parks and the other three passengers seated in that row, all African Americans, to vacate their seats for the white passengers boarding. Eventually, three of the passengers moved, while Mrs. Parks remained seated, arguing that she was not in a seat reserved for whites. Joseph Blake, the driver, believed he had the discretion to move the line separating black and white passengers. The law was actually somewhat murky on that point, but when Mrs. Parks defied his order, he called the police. Officers Day and Mixon came and promptly arrested her.

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post


                          As an aside, I first looked this up on wikipedia, but not only do they fail to provide any useful sources on the matter but it also seems like they made the bold stuff up:
                          Interesting - section 11 assigns the "powers of a police officer" to the bus driver (with regards to implementing this law), which COULD be construed as giving him authority to arbitrarily move the dividing line. It was poorly written, however, because it adds "if there is such a seat vacant".
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            I think it actually was a law - albeit a racist one - ...
                            I think this is the key point here.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Interesting - section 11 assigns the "powers of a police officer" to the bus driver (with regards to implementing this law), which COULD be construed as giving him authority to arbitrarily move the dividing line.
                              Section 10 already gives him the power to make seating arrangements as he sees fit as long as the races are kept separate. The dividing line wasn't a law, it was just a convention, probably to make processing faster. There's a reason why neither wikipedia nor the National Archives quote the actual law when claiming there was some ambiguity as to whether the bus driver had the power to tell people to change seats.
                              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                                Section 10 already gives him the power to make seating arrangements as he sees fit as long as the races are kept separate.
                                Agreed.

                                The dividing line wasn't a law, it was just a convention, probably to make processing faster.
                                Or easier for the driver to implement, so he wouldn't have to keep getting up to point out where an imaginary line was.

                                There's a reason why neither wikipedia nor the National Archives quote the actual law when claiming there was some ambiguity as to whether the bus driver had the power to tell people to change seats.
                                OK, sorry for that derail.... just wanted to know that we had the actual facts in the case, and even with the facts that we do we have, the case could be construed as "murky". Having seen the ordinance, however, it would be reasonable to assume the driver did, indeed, have the power (of a police officer, yet!) to assign seating, as long as it was "equal". (And I don't think that would imply "equal in number", but "equal in quality or function")
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X