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

[seanD]

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?

I was trying to point out the conflict with the passage. That indeed is the conflict. My view is that the problem isn't what Parks did, the problem is the passage itself. Attempting to try and solve this conflict by being subjective is a cop-out IMO, in addition to other problems it would raise. If the state declares that the church refusing to wed gay couples is unconstitutional for example, is the church in violation of Romans 13 for refusing to comply? One could just as easily use the same subjectivity you're using to argue yes.

[Darth Executor]

No. It (Romans 13:) explicitly refers to governmental authority. The racial segregation laws were an abuse of power. Rose understanding this, it would have been a sin for her not to have done as she did.

So was being ordered to carry a soldier's pack for a mile. Yet Jesus didn't say "don't do it", He said to carry it for two.

[Soyeong]

No. It (Romans 13:) explicitly refers to governmental authority. The racial segregation laws were an abuse of power. Rose understanding this, it would have been a sin for her not to have done as she did.

For reasons given in post 79, I there there are a number of reasons why the descriptions do not match Nero and are a much better fit of the synagogue authorities.

[Darth Executor]

It is important to recognize differing attitudes toward governmental and other forms of authority in the Bible. Think also of the prophetic critique of governments for injustice.

There were no differing attitudes towards governmental and other forms of authority in the bible. I think it's been quite consistent on that front. I don't want to get into a shouting match over Revelation because it tends to attract the Eschatology nuts and in this particular instance the text does not explain who gave the dragon authority (as per Andius, it was probably God, but we don't have a concrete answer, so it's not useful).

[Darth Executor]

Sorry, I missed this post:

The synagogues collected taxes for the Romans, but there was also a two-drachma annual Temple tax that was paid by Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. It is recorded that Jesus paid this tax in Matthew 17.

Jesus never set foot in Rome. Remember, Romans was written to Roman Christians, not Jews or Christians in Israel. Also, there was no schism between Jesus and Jews at the time so it's not relevant.

This tax did not sit well with Gentiles who were not allowed access to the Temple, but Paul was calling them to honor it.

There is nothing to honor as Jews can't tax non-Jews in Rome. That's absurd.

Both Josephus and Tacitus also made reference to this practice:

Whatever their origin, these rites are maintained by their antiquity; the other customs of the Jews are base and abominable and own their persistence to their depravity; for the worst rascals among other peoples. renouncing their ancestral religions, always kept sending tribute and contributing to Jerusalem, thereby increasing the wealth of the Jews; again, the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other people they only feel hate and enmity. They sit apart at meals and they sleep apart, and although as a race, they are prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; yet among themselves nothing is unlawful. They adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other peoples by this difference. Those who are converted to their way follow the same practice, and the earliest lesson they receive is to despise the gods, to disown their country, and to regard their parents, children, and brothers as of little account. – Tacitus 5.5.8

That doesn't say anything about synagogues requiring Christians in Rome to pay them taxes. It says Jews keep sending contributions to Jerusalem, but Christians are not Jews, nor were they on friendly terms.

Yes, the Romans took a hands-off approach to the Jews governing their own people, except for when it came to capital punishment. They could handle court cases and discipline people by having them whipped. Jesus also recognized their authority to make rulings on the Torah in Matthew 23:2.

Again, Jesus was never in Rome. You are projecting Romans on all of Christendom when it was specifically directed at Christians in Rome who did not have to deal with Jewish authorities as Rome wasn't a Jewish city.

1 Corinthians 6:1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people?

I think this is very clearly in favor having the case handled by the synagogue leaders in preference to going before the civil government.

Umm, the Lord's people aren't Jews, he's referring to Christians.

"If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?"

He is telling Christians to try their own affairs, not to go and have Jews try their affairs for them.

And I think they are a much better candidate for being “ordained by God” than Nero was. The Jewish rules were not a “terror to good works” but Rome certainly was.

The Jewish rulers most certainly were a terror to good works. You just said it yourself that they had Paul whipped. Nevermind that they instigated Jesus's execution. Meanwhile the Romans were not hostile to Christians at the time and their role in Christ's execution was one of convenience and apathy rather than outright hostility to him like it was for the Jewish leaders. Nero himself didn't start persecuting Christians until well after Romans was written, so Paul had no reason to hold anything against him.

A “minister of God” again does not apply to the Romans. The early believers recognized the secular government as empowered by Satan, not God:

Luke 4:5-7 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, 6 and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.”

When did Satan become "early believers"? Just because the Prince of Lies says something doesn't mean it's true. Especially when he directly contradicts Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:8 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

That just says the leaders are ignorant, not that they're empowered by Satan.

[Darth Executor]

For reasons given in post 79, I there there are a number of reasons why the descriptions do not match Nero and are a much better fit of the synagogue authorities.

They are a terrible fit of the synagogue authorities, who were hostile to Christ and Christians, unlike Nero, who was apathetic at worst until well after Romans was written. Mind you, I don't know if he's referring to Nero specifically (I doubt it) rather than just the Roman government in general, Nero took the throne around the time Romans was written.

[robrecht]

I was trying to point out the conflict with the passage. That indeed is the conflict. My view is that the problem isn't what Parks did, the problem is the passage itself. Attempting to try and solve this conflict by being subjective is a cop-out IMO, in addition to other problems it would raise. If the state declares that the church refusing to wed gay couples is unconstitutional for example, is the church in violation of Romans 13 for refusing to comply? One could just as easily use the same subjectivity you're using to argue yes.

My view was shared by a large portion of the church at the time so I would not call it subjective. I also don't think the biblical 'definition' of humanity as made in the image and likeness of God is subjective. It is, of course, open to interpretation, but that will always be the case. Popes, bishops, priests, nuns, ministers, and rabbis were all active in the civil rights. Leadership and collective interpretation offer an important counterbalance to individualistic subjectivity.

[Darth Executor]

My view was shared by a large portion of the church at the time so I would not call it subjective. I also don't think the biblical 'definition' of humanity as made in the image and likeness of God is subjective. It is, of course, open to interpretation, but that will always be the case.

Well, the problem is that we can't take measurement instruments to God and see in what ways we are in His image, or compare His image to everybody who claims he/she was made in it.

Popes, bishops, priests, nuns, ministers, and rabbis were all active in the civil rights.

They were also active in slavery.

[robrecht]

Well, the problem is that we can't take measurement instruments to God and see in what ways we are in His image, or compare His image to everybody who claims he/she was made in it.

They were also active in slavery.

Everyone is made in the image and likeness of God. You don't get to pick and choose. It's not based on your choice or decision or discernment or ideology, but on God's creation.

As for slavery, how many times do I have to tell you that times change.

[Darth Executor]

Everyone is made in the image and likeness of God. You don't get to pick and choose. It's not based on your choice or decision or discernment or ideology, but on God's creation.

Everyone being who? Are chimps made in the image and likeness of God? Homo Erectus? Neanderthals? What differentiates a human from a non-human? God created lots of things that aren't human.

[robrecht]

Everyone being who? Are chimps made in the image and likeness of God? Homo Erectus? Neanderthals? What differentiates a human from a non-human? God created lots of things that aren't human.

Genesis 1, sixth day, Adam, ie, humankind. Neanderthals were not around when Genesis was written so they do not seem to have been included. The rest of the creatures were made prior to the sixth day so they were obviously not included as part of humankind.

[Pentecost]

I am going to start a thread about what makes a person a person, since that is apparently a contested issue and I am intrigued.

[Darth Executor]

Genesis 1, sixth day, Adam, ie, humankind. Neanderthals were not around when Genesis was written so they do not seem to have been included. The rest of the creatures were made prior to the sixth day so they were obviously not included as part of humankind.

I'd imagine Adam wasn't around when Genesis was written either. And we don't know whether Adam was Sapiens or not. Are you a YEC? That might make this a futile conversation.

[Adrift]

John 4:24: God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.

Job 32:8 But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand.

Job 33:4 The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

1 Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that if God is spirit, and man is a spirit/body being (some say spirit, body and soul being) then that element of us that is the image or likeness of God, is the spirit part of our being.

[robrecht]

I'd imagine Adam wasn't around when Genesis was written either. And we don't know whether Adam was Sapiens or not. Are you a YEC? That might make this a futile conversation.

No, of course not. 'Adam' in Genesis 1 is humanity, not an individual, but a collective term, male and female. Intended was humanity of the time. I doubt that Neanderthals were included, but I suppose something like that could be read into the innocence of Genesis 2. Doubtful in my opinion, 'though, since I have not seen any other evidence of the biblical authors' knowledge of more primitive forms of humanity.