G. Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy: The Systems of the Hellenistic Age, trans. John R. Catan (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985) 280.
For the Stoics, human laws[,] far from being mere conventions, are expressions of an eternal and indestructible law which comes from the eternal Logos. They suggest correct actions (katorthomata) to the sage because he feels their command as necessarily coincident with his interiorly felt deeds. This is made possible by his perfect interior disposition, that is, by the right logos within him which is in perfect harmony with the right logos outside of him. Hence we could say that the sage in his perfection has no need of laws or commands.
Two topics:
1. The quote above states that Stoics believed human laws were not mere human conventions, but were expressions of an "eternal and indestructible law" from the eternal logos. For the Stoics, the logos was the rationality that permeated the universe. They thought there was a logos (rationality) inside of us, and that righteousness is our rationality being in tune with that of the cosmos.
I agree that there is some objective moral standard out there. Killing innocent people is problematic, for example. And I agree that human laws often overlap with this objective moral standard, since even the Code of Hammurapi had laws against (say) theft. But laws can also express purely human conventions, which may change throughout history. The Code of Hammurapi is not exactly the most egalitarian document in the world, for it treats wealthy noblemen as more valuable than slaves. Laws may express an "eternal and indestructible law," along with "human conventions."
Why is this? Theists may argue that God has placed his moral laws on the human heart, but our sin contributes to our greed and mistreatment of one another. That would explain why laws are a mixture of good and bad. Evolutionists may contend that humans have learned certain ways for society to function effectively (e.g., not killing each other), yet they are still learning and growing. That would account for how their laws can be both humanitarian and unjust.
Could the Bible similarly be a mixture of good and bad: an expression of the eternal logos with some unjust things mixed in? That's an issue that separates conservative from liberal Christianity. Judaism too.
2. The above quote states that, for Stoics, the sage was perfectly in tune with the logos of the universe, such that he did not need laws to regulate his behavior. That reminds me of New Covenant theology, which states that Christians do not need the law of Moses, since the Holy Spirit inclines them to God's righteous standards. In his series on Galatians, David Antion stated that a Christian with God's Holy Spirit will not feel a desire to kill someone. And Augustine once exhorted Christians to "Love God, and do what you will." For Augustine, when we are in tune with God, then we can do what we want, since our desires will coincide with God's righteousness.
I can somewhat sympathize with New Covenant theology. Suppose I focused less on rules and focused more on God and his goodness. Would I be less inclined to sin? This may be what Byker Bob and a lot of evangelicals are getting at when they distinguish "religion" from a "relationship with God."
I think that Antion's statement is too idealistic, since I can picture even Christians resorting to murder. They have a bunch of other human flaws, like everyone else (e.g, jealousy, strife, just being plain a-holes). Why should I assume that they're totally incapable of murder under certain conditions?
One more thought, and this is somewhat related to my point in (1): Christians know that Jesus was perfectly in tune with God. Could that be one reason that he felt he was above certain Scriptural requirements? In Mark 2, Matthew 12, and Luke 6, he asserts that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. Maybe he thought he and his disciples didn't have to keep certain fine points of the law, since he was in tune with God's overall standards of righteousness (e.g., kindness, etc.).
On the other hand, I know there are people who would disagree with this interpretation (e.g., Steph). Plus, Galatians 4:4 states that Jesus was born "under the law," meaning he was under the Torah's authority.
For some reason, Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment enters my mind: he thought he was extraordinary and was thus above the laws that bound the common rabble (in his eyes). That's the mindset that led him to kill his landlady. But the Stoic sage, Jesus, and Christians are not like that, even if they need no laws. They need no laws because their lives are naturally in tune with the moral standard that underlies laws. (Or, in the case of Christians, they should be, but they're not always.)
But those are my ramblings for the day...