Is it sin to park in the clergy's parking space?

[Josheb]

I've gotten about 5 speeding tickets. What's your count? My dad has the family record of being caught going 92 in a 50 mph zone.

Amateurs.

I've had too many speeding tickets to count. My first car was a 1969 RS/SS Camaro (that year's Indy pace car). It passed almost everything but gas stations and Motorolas. Although they weren't due solely to speeding, I accumulated 23 points in three months. I was driving on a suspended license when I obtained four DUIs in six weeks. That was 45+ years ago. I've learned how to drive right since then . I can't recall the last time I got any ticket, speeding or otherwise. Blessedly, in my neck of the woods people generally drive faster and generally abide by the unwritten rule "no one obeys the speed limit." And, generally speaking, slower drivers move to the right and faster ones move to the left and don't cruise in the left lane. Generally. It's not unusual to find sections of the interstate in which everyone is driving nine mph over the speed limit alongside a state trooper. Nine, not ten. 80 in a 55 is not uncommon, either, but brake lights turn on at the observance of popo.

Good thing that lady was riding with me on the interstate .

 

[fastfredy0]

What obligation has anyone to follow such rules?

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)

What if it was the rule of that congregation to have unisex bathrooms in their effort to accommodate gender diversity?

This would be disobeying a higher law of God's IMO though I can't think of it off the top of my head.

That committee makes sure all Church teaching and the local congregation's policies and practices are consistent with global climate change and environmentalism. Who here would accept the appraisal "sinning," for stepping on the grass or taking issue with a male in the previously female bathroom?

I grant these are distasteful rules. I see the point you are making. You're emphasizing a "grey area".

Do you think that woman had my eternal disposition in mind when she told me I was sinning? Was she speaking from a Biblical mindset, or a mindset of institutional/denominational indoctrination (parking there is taboo)? Was she showing preferential treatment for one over another? There are several other texts in the Bible admonishing preferential treatment. James' discourse is couched in class, but the essence of his commentary is privilege shouldn't be shown, especially not in cases where one person is elevated in honor, stature, or status above another.

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)

(I do not know why anyone here thought it appropriate to speculate on me personally).

I hope I have not done that. (Aside: we are majoring on a minor here for entertainment purposes ... giggle)

Can I trump attempts to use Romans 13 with James 2 (and all the other verses about not showing preferential treatment)?

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.

This post is longer than I intended when I began writing it so let's, for now, stick with the prospect of James 2 preventing the use of Romans 13 on this occasion.

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.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: I've gotten about 5 speeding tickets. What's your count? My dad has the family record of being caught going 92 in a 50 mph zone.

Amateurs.

I've had too many speeding tickets to count.

LOL... maybe you're the amateur for being caught more often ... LOL

My first car was a 1969 RS/SS Camaro (that year's Indy pace car). It passed almost everything but gas stations and Motorolas.

I first car was a used '73 Camero (not the kool Z-28).

I accumulated 23 points in three months. I was driving on a suspended license when I obtained four DUIs in six weeks.

OK... well now I concede. Your lawlessness (said in 'fun' way) exceeded mine. I use to live in Canada and I did get 10ish points due to tickets at one time and you needed 15 for a drivers license cancellation. Four DUIs in 6 weeks ... WOW!!! (I've always been a teetotaler).

I can't recall the last time I got any ticket, speeding or otherwise.

My last one was 5ish years ago for speeding. Maybe in recent years I've become more "kool" in this regard than you (giggle)

Generally. It's not unusual to find sections of the interstate in which everyone is driving nine mph over the speed limit alongside a state trooper.

Wow! I slow down beside a cop. That brings to mind a ticket I got in Louisiana where I was only 6 to 8ish MPH over the limit. Grrrr
FYI ... I do like WAZE app that points out the location of cops and I still like to blink my headlights at vehicles approaching cop cars.

OK ... I concede ...you're driving record is more outrageous than mine

 

[Hazelelponi]

LOL... maybe you're the amateur for being caught more often ... LOL

I come from the land of pay double the fine and plead out to defective equipment, which is a non moving violation.

Therefore, I had a ,"safe driver" designation for insurance purposes when I was driving

They just ask you to pay double whatever the fine was going to be, so a 200 dollar ticket would double to 400 in orde to get the defective equipment plea.

You just had to sit and have a talk with the prosecutor.

This is not to glorify law breaking. I was in my unsaved state as a driver.

 

[makesends]

I come from the land of pay double the fine and plead out to defective equipment, which is a non moving violation.

Therefore, I had a ,"safe driver" designation for insurance purposes when I was driving

They just ask you to pay double whatever the fine was going to be, so a 200 dollar ticket would double to 400 in orde to get the defective equipment plea.

You just had to sit and have a talk with the prosecutor.

That's kinda like my experience as a contractor. You gotta be a lawyer to do electrical work.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That's kinda like my experience as a contractor. You gotta be a lawyer to do electrical work.

I used to have a TA that I modified for street racing. It was my dream car, threw about 10 grand into the motor etc modifications back in the day. It was a nice car, even had the T tops

But yeah, knowing the law is always handy, no matter who you are. There's so many laws surrounding everything that when something is your bread and butter, like contracting, it serves us well to know what the laws actually are.

 

[Josheb]

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?

 

[Josheb]

LOL... maybe you're the amateur for being caught more often ... LOL

Maybe. Shall I boast about the times I got away?

OK ... I concede ...you're driving record is more outrageous than mine

How about we rejoice in Christ, instead?

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's not a civil law.

Civil laws (local/state) allow private property owners to make rules about parking on their property that if broken, can result, legally, in a car being towed at the owners expense.

So while civil laws don't dictate that pastors must have a reserved parking space,, civil law gives full rights to property owners to determine who parks where and when on their property, to include the legal right to enforce those private property rules at will.

Someone else's property is not your property and people get to determine what happens on and to their property. When on your property you can park wherever you want for however long you prefer, when on other people's property you have to follow their rules or forgo visiting them.

The onus is on you to prove it's an actual sin for you to observe a private property owners stated wishes when parking in their parking lot - and you have not done so. They aren't commanding you to murder, just telling you that there's one spot in the lot they don't want you to park in.

 

[David Lamb]

I come from the land of pay double the fine and plead out to defective equipment, which is a non moving violation.

Therefore, I had a ,"safe driver" designation for insurance purposes when I was driving

They just ask you to pay double whatever the fine was going to be, so a 200 dollar ticket would double to 400 in orde to get the defective equipment plea.

You just had to sit and have a talk with the prosecutor.

This is not to glorify law breaking. I was in my unsaved state as a driver.

Have I understood you correctly? Did you really mean tat someone where you lived could break the law as far as speeding was concerned, but could be counted as not guilty by paying double the normal fine?

I'm glad you explained that you did this before you were saved.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Have I understood you correctly? Did you really mean tat someone where you lived could break the law as far as speeding was concerned, but could be counted as not guilty by paying double the normal fine?

I'm glad you explained that you did this before you were saved.

'and such were some of you" (1 Corinthians 6:11) while we can all recount a few exploits from our lawless days - life is much better with Christ in it, and a new focus on respectng civil laws in the first place is kinda cool I think.

It actually takes some thought occasionally when your not that used to considering the law for more than just how to get around following it.

Praise God that we were saved out of the muck and the mire:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.' (1 Corinthians 6:11)

 

[Josheb]

Civil laws (local/state) allow private property owners to make rules about parking on their property that if broken, can result, legally, in a car being towed at the owners expense.

So while civil laws don't dictate that pastors must have a reserved parking space,, civil law gives full rights to property owners to determine who parks where and when on their property, to include the legal right to enforce those private property rules at will.

Someone else's property is not your property and people get to determine what happens on and to their property. When on your property you can park wherever you want for however long you prefer, when on other people's property you have to follow their rules or forgo visiting them.

The onus is on you to prove it's an actual sin for you to observe a private property owners stated wishes when parking in their parking lot - and you have not done so. They aren't commanding you to murder, just telling you that there's one spot in the lot they don't want you to park in.

Every single word of that has all already been addressed.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Every single word of that has all already been addressed.

I disagree.

 

[fastfredy0]

Re: 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.

I'm not a lawyer so I asked ChatGPT which said:
Yes, private property rights are a fundamental part of civil law, governing the relationships and disputes between individuals and groups regarding their property. Civil law, which deals with private rights and obligations, provides the framework for establishing, transferring, and protecting ownership of property

Re: I grant these are distasteful rules.

How is taste relevant.

It's not relevant. I was trying to diplomatically lighten the mood.

How can there be a grey area if there's no offense?

A 'grey area' is IMO subjective. The evidence that some think it was a sin and others do not in indicative of a "grey area'. I grant that God never has a "grey area" (giggle).

No one possesses the parking space.

I disagree. It is private property and the sign which you say is ambiguous, indicates the wishes of the property owner.

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?

Again, my argument is that it is private property and the owner has decided to assign a spot of a particular person (or class of persons). I believe Civil Law would support my contention and I pointed out that ChatGPT agreed that Civil Law addresses property rights. The Bible says you are to obey those in authority so I would say you have sinned and deserve to be whipped with a wet spaghetti noodle 2 to 3 times.


Now to the important stuff ...
Re: LOL... maybe you're the amateur for being caught more often ... LOL

Maybe. Shall I boast about the times I got away?

Good point. Again, I think I am playing a losing battle with you concerning this subject .... I concede ... you're were (are?) more rowdy than I in regards to traffic violations.

How about we rejoice in Christ, instead?

Amen .... but if we do so on the way to church, I think I should drive.

 

[Arial]

Civil law, which deals with private rights and obligations, provides the framework for establishing, transferring, and protecting ownership of property

In that case, is designating a parking spot on private property a code established by the city, county, state, rather than civil law? IOW the infraction of someone parking in a designated parking spot who was not authorized to do so, be a code violation rather than a law violation.

Just adding worms to the spaghetti.

I say that the statement made by the woman, way back in the OP, that @Josheb was sinning when he parked there is legalism. Regardless of the fact that he disregarded the instructions of the sign.

One of the best descriptions of legalism that I have heard, even though it is not comprehensive, but puts it in a nice nutshell is: A legalist defines sin as the things they don't do. And those who do things that they themselves do not do, are sinning.

 

[Tambora]

It's 9:15 a.m. Saturday morning at the local United Methodist Church at a little beach resort town (although I suppose this could have happened at any denominational, liturgical place of worship), and a book sale is being held, taking the opportunity to exploit the increased Labor Day weekend traffic. The small parking lot is packed except for one space. That space has a sign stating, "Reserved for Clergy."

Would you park there?

Having parked there I get out of the car and an elderly woman stops and informs me I cannot park there because the sign says the space is reserved for the pastor. I ask, "Do you think the pastor will be coming to the book sale?" Stunned for a moment at the question, the woman responds she does not know but that is immaterial because the sign says the space is reserved solely for clergy. I respond by saying I am willing to take the chance the pastor will not be coming to the book sale in the fifteen minutes I'll be in there buying books. She then tells me I am sinning because I am deliberately disobeying the sign.

At which point my wife lovingly encourages me to ignore the woman (although she did not use the word "ignore").

I came and went, having purchased more than a dozen books, in and out in less than fifteen minutes. Never saw the pastor.


Was I sinning?

Nah.
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

 

[fastfredy0]

1 Cor. 6:2 Do you not know that the saints (God’s people) will [one day] judge the world? If the world is to be judged by you, are you not competent to try trivial (insignificant, petty) cases?

Apparently, considering the content of this thread, the answer is "NO" for us! giggle

 

[Josheb]

One of the best descriptions of legalism that I have heard, even though it is not comprehensive, but puts it in a nice nutshell is: A legalist defines sin as the things they don't do. And those who do things that they themselves do not do, are sinning.

One of my favorite definitions is "Adding to the word of God."

 

[Josheb]

I'm not a lawyer so I asked ChatGPT.....

Ask ChatGPT "Who do ambiguities favor in the law?"

Ambiguities in the law generally favor the party with less power, such as defendants in criminal cases and policyholders in contracts with insurance companies. This principle is codified in doctrines like the rule of lenity (favoring criminal defendants) and contra proferentem (interpreting ambiguous contract language against the drafter). The core idea is to balance power and protect the less powerful party from vague terms that were within the drafter's ability to clarify.​

​

All those posts appealing to Romans 13 and civil code get ditched because of the sign's ambiguity . I know. It's surprising.

 

[fastfredy0]

All those posts appealing to Romans 13 and civil code get ditched because of the sign's ambiguity . I know. It's surprising.

Good point.