I don't see the history behind how a rule came about is relevant. I still answering that Civil Law gives rights to private property owners and scripture says we are to obey those in authority (unless those in authority transgress God's law)
It's not a civil law.
This would be disobeying a higher law of God's IMO though I can't think of it off the top of my head.
Let me know when you do because until then there's no relevant "higher law."
I grant these are distasteful rules.
How is taste relevant.
I see the point you are making. You're emphasizing a "grey area".
Nope. I am quite decided on the matter and am decided because scripture has several sections that apply (few of which I have found anyone here citing. Consider, for example, the matter of "offense"? Who is the offended party in the case of the parking space? The woman accusing me of sinning? Definitely not. She's offended but it's not because I took
her parking space. The pastor who's space I used? Again, definitely not. She doesn't even know I was there. God? Again, definitely not. The parking designation is the offense to God. How can there be an offense of no one has been offended? I divine jurisprudence only the offended could serve as plaintiff. The priests, judges, citizens could not go around arbitrarily deciding who gets accused. God uttered his laws because He wanted sin made known. God uttered laws because He was the offended party relevant to sin and, as I have already mentioned, it was
behavior or
conduct that was measured, not the heart. Only God can measure the heart (beliefs, thoughts, motives, etc.) accurately and one of the reasons behavior was the locus was so that people did not assume for themselves the place of God. Aside from the earlier referenced 1 John 3:4, sin is measured in ways other than the Law. One is anything not done in faith. Another is any lack of righteousness. I'm not aware that anyone bothered to provide a working definition of sin by which this op's inquiry might be addressed and answered.
How can there be a grey area if there's no offense?
How can there be a grey area if the "rule" is the offense to God and there is no other aggrieved party?
Well, looking from a different vantage point. The "women" sawing you stealing the possession of another and decided to intervene showing love to the oppressed. Thou shalt not steal. You have broken God's law. (Aside: we are majoring on a minor here for entertainment purposes ... giggle)
At worst I borrowed it and the woman acted in ignorance over a rule that is an offense to God.
I don't think so. We are to show preferential treatment to those that possess 'things'. Someone possess' that parking spot and should be given preferential treatment.
No one possesses the parking space. The space is reserved for clergy, and the sign does not specify what clergy or when. If this were a legal proceeding the ambiguity would work in my favor, not my accusers.
Agreed ... you're stressing my mental capacities. giggle Hey, I'm playing devil's advocate to some degree on a unimportant, though maybe interesting minor incident. This is just my opinion.
I understand. Let's keep it simple for the moment.
Since the woman does not own the space (and neither does the pastor), does James 2 trump Romans 13 or not? Should
preferential treatment be shown when it comes to the "
seating" of cars or not? Would Paul condone and uphold
sectarian rules?
Hey, I'm playing devil's advocate to some degree...
(angel's advocate
) Me too. You're doing a wonderful job.
Since the woman does not own the space (and neither does the pastor), does James 2 trump Romans 13 or not? Should
preferential treatment be shown when it comes to the "
seating" of cars or not? Would Paul condone and uphold
sectarian rules? How can Romans 13 apply when the sign is contrary to God's law? How can Romans 13 apply when the sign's ambiguity work in my favor?