?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
12 November 2004 @ 10:04 am
The key fact I was missing  

I must have been fuzzy with tired last night when I made my previous post, How was I to know?, because it appears I palmed a card without even noticing I did so. That is to say, yes, Paul wasn't referring to the prevailing civil law of his time but to the Law = Torah and laws = mitzvot (the 613 commandments found in the Torah).

Still, I can't help but wonder if this teaching regarding one set of laws doesn't encourage a disrespect for all laws. Kind of, "Hey, I have faith—I don't need no stinkin' laws…." It would certainly explain the attitudes and behaviors of any number of people.

 
 
Current Mood: tiredtired
Current Music: Grateful Dead: Wake Of The Flood
 
 
Fred A Levy Haskell: eyes of the Fredcritterfredcritter on November 16th, 2004 02:31 am (UTC)
Re: contrariwise

Yup. Trust you. You're in a position to know after all.

A question, though. Does it depend on who did the teaching or who the student was? Or perhaps even some subtle combination of the two? 'cause, knowing you, I can't imagine that you were ever an "average" or "normal" student.

Carol Kennedycakmpls on November 16th, 2004 07:58 am (UTC)
Re: contrariwise
Definitely the teacher, but probably the student, too. There are both highly intellectual and anti-intellectual threads in Catholicism, as well as the variants in between.

Catholic schoolkids have a long tradition of making up convoluted situations to ask "Father" about when he comes to visit their classroom. "Father, if you're stranded on an island . . ." is the way many of them begin. From these scenarios I learned that while hard cases may make bad law, they can make good moral guides.