Log in

No account? Create an account
11 November 2004 @ 03:30 am
How was I to know?  

I hadn't realized that the apparently common belief that Laws are for Other People has scriptural justification in the Christian Bible:

I agree that the Law is excellent—provided it is legitimately used, with the understanding that law is not intended for upright men but for the lawless and disorderly, the godless and irreligious, the irreverent and profane, men who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, immoral people, men sexually perverted, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, or whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, as set forth in the glorious good news of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted (I Timothy 1:8-11).

Or is there some key fact I'm missing here?

Current Mood: surprisedsurprised
Current Music: The Grateful Dead Movie Soundtrack
Stephen Leighsleigh on November 11th, 2004 05:29 am (UTC)
I'd make the assumption that what Timothy is saying is that upright men (as opposed, one would think, to men who walked on all fours -- is that really the best word the translator could have used?) don't need Law because their moral values guide them well enough Law isn't needed, whereas those nasty Other People need to have rules saying "You can't do this or you will be punished..."

Of course, the alternative interpretation is that Upright Men can do whatever the hell they please and are above Law because of their Uprighteousness.

Of course, I can't think of anyone about whom I think that second interpretation might apple.
Fred A Levy Haskell: eyes of the Fredcritterfredcritter on November 12th, 2004 08:54 am (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much like that on all counts. (See today's post.) I think I'll have more to say about this stuff in other posts in the near future.

And we won't speak of the other condition that might be indicated by the phrase "an upright man"…