"Laws" - clear statements of Biblical morality. Usually involve specific actions. EX - Don't kill. Don't commit adultery. Don't throw your stapler in the air. (OK, I made that last one up)

"Principles" - statements of truth that must be applied to specific situations. Usually involve attitudes and the way in which something is done. EX - do all to the glory of God. Abstain from all appearance of evil. Obey your conscience.

Now, back to my statement. The Bible is much more oriented around principles than laws. Certainly there are some clear, direct commands (see examples above, except for the stapler), but most of the Bible is written as principles. We have stories with examples to follow. We have descriptions of 2000-4000 year old lifestyles. We have letters written to churches in other countries. These truths are just as absolute as God's laws, but they must be studied, understood, and applied to our lives today. For example, David took a sling and plunked Goliath. What do I take from that story? There is no "command" there for me to find tall people and whack their heads off. Yet I learn from David about trusting God, being prepared, and taking a stand. I then apply those PRINCIPLES to my current situation.

So why are there more principles? God designed it this way so the Scriptures remain relevant no matter the time or setting. Imagine if everything in the Bible were given in terms of laws. God would have to make a clear command on every situation that has ever or would ever come up. That would be impractical and inefficient. Picture Paul writing to the church at Corinth, telling them they should not participate in "Rock and Roll." They would be terribly confused, wondering why pushing boulders down hills was sinful. That verse/command would be meaningless and irrelevant for 1900 years after it was penned. Imagine instead, that God had Paul write that we should "flee youthful lusts." That would let the early Christians know to beware of the Greek games and theatre, and would also warn me today about sensual/sexual music. Much better, eh?

The question then, when I'm either constructing or defending my standards, is to evaluate where they are coming from: laws or principles. I won't kill the co-worker that ticks me off because God has a LAW forbidding it. Ask me why I don't murder, and I'll defend it by pointing to that law from God. On the other hand, I have more fingers. No wait. That's not what I meant. On the other hand, when you ask me why I don't smoke, I can't point to a "law" that says "thou shalt not roll up leaves, light them on fire, and stick them in your mouth." For one, God shouldn't have to issue a command like that, because it's just silly. Yet I do have a BIBLE reason for not smoking. There is a PRINCIPLE in Scripture that says that as a believer, my body belongs to God, and is the very temple of His Holy Spirit. I interpret that to mean that I should respect and take care of my body. I realize that smoking is dangerous and harmful, so my application is that I don't smoke. The principle of taking care of my body is a biblical absolute. The application of not smoking is a personal standard, that I hopefully should be able to explain when asked/challenged.

Do you see the difference between the two? When answering a challenge, I'm going to be extremely confident defending my behavior on the basis of God's laws. Humility suggests that I be more careful defending my application of God's principles. I might have missed the correct interpretation of a principle, applied it in a way that only applies to me, etc. One of our problems in Christianity is that we have tried too often to substitute our standards (applications of principle) for laws, and people end up asking, "Where's the chapter and verse?" and we don't have an answer, because there isn't one.