Liberal Christians base their interpretation of the Law of Moses by what Jesus said about the Law:
That doesn’t mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that the Ten Commandments are tossed out – they clearly fall within the scope of the Greatest Commandment. However, a good argument can be made that stoning homosexuals does not meet the test of “Love your neighbor as yourself” as Jesus commanded.
Where did I say this all should be rejected out of hand? Surely you have a reason to think the Good Samaritan story is useful besides it being in the Bible. We also can edit the Golden rule to say we should do unto others the way they want done to them, not the way we do. If you are a masochist, the other might not want what you want. if we consider this stuff secular advice (the way we would if it came from Socrates) we’d be no worse off.
Look, say I am using Rev. 5 of a program, and all I have is a Rev 1 manual with annotations from those who had used Revs 2 - 4. Is that better than getting an actual Rev 5 manual? The literalist says Rev 1 says it, I believe it, and has all sorts of problems. This example falls down a bit in that Rev. 1 is actually relevant, and it is not clear that any of the Bible accurately reflects what a non-existent God says.
Because unlike Leaves of Grass our society gives the Bible a special place, one it does not disturb. If we all started with the premise that it is just a book, and to be considered on the same plane as Plato or Homer, say, we wouldn’t need to give our kids special skepticism training. Clearly to many, if not most, saying that the Bible is not inspired (let alone perfect) is not respectful. So be it.
In any case my research career is built on not being respectful of “known” facts (unless there is reason to be) and I tried to teach my kids the same, and since my older daughter is doing research now also, I think I succeeded.
My career is built on being respectful of PEOPLE. I’m not asking anyone to respect the ‘facts,’ just introduce religion in a manner to atheist children that doesn’t discourage disrepect of religious people.
The passage by itself is pretty unconvincing. Looks to me like they’re giving Peter a special dispensation on this particular circumstance, when someone’s in physical danger from hunger, not a blanket reversal of dietary laws.
Not only in this passage is it revealed to Peter that dietary restrictions are to be lifted (“What God has made clean, let no one call unclean”), but in the very next passage Peter realizes that the deeper meaning is that no people are to be considered unclean. This is the point that Peter has the epiphany that the Gospel is for the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and he baptizes the Roman centurian and his family.
Who no longer had to worry about dietary laws. I’ve always considered this an excellent example of the marketing skills of the early Christians - if you are getting customer resistance, modify your product definition.
I could have quoted more but I didn’t want the Dope getting in trouble with God for copyright violations; and you could look it up.