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

[Truthseeker]

I assume that Rosa Parks did break a city law when she refused to move back in the bus.

Someone, I forgot who, warned that Romans 13 is one of the most mistranslated and misinterpreted chapters in the Bible. For one thing, the two Greek words in Romans 13:1 that is usually translated "to high authorities," or something like that, should be translated "to higher authorities" (note the suffix "-er"). That is a general term, including much more than just civil authorities. An example would be, the principal of a school is a higher authority than the school's teachers, which also themselves are higher authorities to their classes.

I agree that where there is a clear conflict with God's commandments, they should be obeyed even though that would violate any civil law or order.

What God's commandment would Rosa violate if she did move back in the bus instead of keeping her seat? I'm still trying to figure out an answer.

[Adrift]

I don't have a problem with anything in your quotes (in fact they pretty much line up exactly with my own beliefs), but I don't see anything about "consciously parodying and subverting imperial ideology" in them.

Check the link I provided where he goes into the book and discusses the subversive elements.

[seanD]

I assume that Rosa Parks did break a city law when she refused to move back in the bus.

Someone, I forgot who, warned that Romans 13 is one of the most mistranslated and misinterpreted chapters in the Bible. For one thing, the two Greek words in Romans 13:1 that is usually translated "to high authorities," or something like that, should be translated "to higher authorities" (note the suffix "-er"). That is a general term, including much more than just civil authorities. An example would be, the principal of a school is a higher authority than the school's teachers, which also themselves are higher authorities to their classes.

I agree that where there is a clear conflict with God's commandments, they should be obeyed even though that would violate any civil law or order.

What God's commandment would Rosa violate if she did move back in the bus instead of keeping her seat? I'm still trying to figure out an answer.

Yep, seems like a non sequitur in this case. Racism is not directly relevant to any bible principle that I know of.

[robrecht]

According to the Bible, we are all created in the image and likeness of God and Christ died for us. Every human being shares in this ultimate human dignity, which is vitiated and degraded by racism.

[Darth Executor]

Check the link I provided where he goes into the book and discusses the subversive elements.

I read (and in many parts skimmed, the man is long-winded and all over the place) it and don't see how anything he writes contradicts the traditional reading as offered in this thread. Wrigth's primary point, that Romans 13 is contrary to the Imperial Cult is completely irrelevant (and I would argue, obvious), as Wright agrees that it still requires us to obey earthly authorities. I don't think anybody here thought Romans 13 requires us to worship Caesar as god or anything. The whole piece just strikes me as superfluous.

[Darth Executor]

According to the Bible, we are all created in the image and likeness of God and Christ died for us. Every human being shares in this ultimate human dignity, which is vitiated and degraded by racism.

At the risk of derailing my own thread, what is the scriptural definition of what a human is?

[robrecht]

At the risk of derailing my own thread, what is the scriptural definition of what a human is?

Someone created in the image and likeness of God.

[Darth Executor]

Someone created in the image and likeness of God.

That's not really a definition. Certainly not a very useful one as far as this subject is concerned.

[seanD]

According to the Bible, we are all created in the image and likeness of God and Christ died for us. Every human being shares in this ultimate human dignity, which is vitiated and degraded by racism.

Sounds admirable, but it's too subjective. Bowing down to idols is a direct violation of God's command for example. We're talking a seating arrangement here. The bible doesn't seem to have any great issue with slavery, so a seating arrangement hardly seems like a direct violation of God's command outside of our own subjective views about the subject. Is that enough to violate Romans 13?

[robrecht]

That's not really a definition. Certainly not a very useful one as far as this subject is concerned.

If you've got a better biblical definition, let's hear it.

[Darth Executor]

If you've got a better biblical definition, let's hear it.

I don't. But you're the one who made an argument that requires it, not me.

We also have an abortion debate raging, in part, due to the fact that the bible never settles the question in an exhaustive manner.

[robrecht]

Sounds admirable, but it's too subjective. Bowing down to idols is a direct violation of God's command for example. We're talking a seating arrangement here. The bible doesn't seem to have any great issue with slavery, so a seating arrangement hardly seems like a direct violation of God's command outside of our own subjective views about the subject. Is that enough to violate Romans 13?

Do you seriously believe Paul intended to endorse racism in Romans 13? As for slavery, times have changed. Do you believe Paul,if he were around today, would like to bring back slavery to America?

[robrecht]

I don't. But you're the one who made an argument that requires it, not me.

We also have an abortion debate raging, in part, due to the fact that the bible never settles the question in an exhaustive manner.

But you are not in favor of abortion, and neither am I. The fact that some disagree about abortion does not justify racism in your mind, does it?

[Darth Executor]

But you are not in favor of abortion, and neither am I. The fact that some disagree about abortion does not justify racism in your mind, does it?

The word racism has no meaning to me since it's used in a thousand ways by a thousand people with a thousand agendas, so I can't really answer the question. But the issue of who is human and in what capacity has popped up in the past.

[Darth Executor]

Do you seriously believe Paul intended to endorse racism in Romans 13?

He could (and probably did, the Romans were quite discriminating, even if their racial categorization was different from ours) tell people to obey racist laws without endorsing racism.