Liberal Christianity vs Fundamentalism

[B-A-C]

Liberal Christianity has very little to do with Liberal politics. Wikipedia actually has a decent article. (one of the few they have)

Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Somewhat less accurate is their article on Fundamentalism

Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But basically it comes down to...

liberal theology, is a movement that interprets and reforms Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge, science and ethics. It emphasizes the importance of reason and experience over doctrinal authority. Liberal Christians view their theology as an alternative to both atheistic rationalism and theologies based on traditional interpretations of external authority (such as the Bible or sacred tradition).

In other words these people don't take the Bible literally, they add personal experience and (often secular based) reasoning to their interpretation of the Bible.
This is basically the exact opposite of Fundamentalist Christianity

Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity, is a movement emphasizing biblical literalism In its modern form, it began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist Theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which they considered the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

I disagree with their line-line on fundamentalism here, as I have a few books over 300 years old that about Fundamentalism. But in any case, I've noticed we have several of both extremes here on TalkJesus.
We have a few that tend to be "half and half". They have liberal views on some subjects, but literal fundamentalist views of other subjects. I have also found that the majority of these people don't know the difference,
and even the ones that do, aren't aware they are often in both camps.

I also disagree with Wikipedias statement about "emphasizing biblical literalism in its modern form". Most fundametalists would include ancient manuscripts as part of their understanding.

So the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether you think the Bible is literal, inerrant and stands alone.
Or... do you think your interpretation, experiences and philosophical views should change how we view the Bible?

 

[B-A-C]

I think one easy way to tell where people stand, is how much commentary they put in a response.

Fundamentalists tend to post mostly scripture, they try to get scripture to speak for itself as much as possible.
One or two lines of commentary are usually sufficient.

Liberal theologians on the other hand, also post scripture, but tend to base their reasoning on commentary.
For example the will post scripture and then have 20 lines of commentary about why they view a certain scripture a particular way.
They will also often include videos, commentaries, web articles, and even hymns to support their view.

Now there is always some crossover, but I've noticed you do tend to see some patterns as a rule.

 

[MrBear]

I think one easy way to tell where people stand, is how much commentary they put in a response.

Fundamentalists tend to post mostly scripture, they try to get scripture to speak for itself as much as possible.
One or two lines of commentary are usually sufficient.

Liberal theologians on the other hand, also post scripture, but tend to base their reasoning on commentary.
For example the will post scripture and then have 20 lines of commentary about why they view a certain scripture a particular way.
They will also often include videos, commentaries, web articles, and even hymns to support their view.

Now there is always some crossover, but I've noticed you do tend to see some patterns as a rule.

Agreed
Liberal theologians read the Bible with a pair of scissors ✂ cutting out any miracles or christ
Fundamentals tend to stick to scripture and follow and take gods word seriously (as it should be)

I’m reminded of David Pawsons joke about the liberal preacher was preaching on exodus
That’s the problem with the liberal theology they want to take God out of the Bible and they cut all the miracles out but what is the Bible without miracles it’s just another book sitting on the shelf
but the whole reason that we have all these denominations is because everybody wants to put their own spin on what the Bible says instead of just sticking to God’s word and trust it for what it says

 

[Brad Huber]

Strangely enough, first century christianity had neither. They had the OT, a few of the letters to the churchs from the leaders of the church, first hand teachings (oral) from those sent out to evangalize and the Holy Spirit. Now we dont have eyewitness's to Jesus life and resurection nowdays that are sent from the one church out to teach and preach. Yet we still have the others. How do you see those 2 factions lining up against what we do have?

 

[MrBear]

Strangely enough, first century christianity had neither. They had the OT, a few of the letters to the churchs from the leaders of the church, first hand teachings (oral) from those sent out to evangalize and the Holy Spirit. Now we dont have eyewitness's to Jesus life and resurection nowdays that are sent from the one church out to teach and preach. Yet we still have the others. How do you see those 2 factions lining up against what we do have?

Well we have to go on blind faith that what we have written down before us is his law
We run into problems because for man made reasons a lot of translations were altered from masseretic and Septuagint I listened to a good debate between a rabbi and a Christian I believe might be helpful

I love to hear from all directions it is my belief that the Jews the Pharisees did start omitting and altering the Bible as we know it to hide that Jesus was the messiah but I love to learn more about how our own religion evolved as well
Shalom

 

[MrBear]

We must remember they had a lot of books already sure there was no New Testament
But
Remember Ezra was told to rewrite 94 books so they did have plenty of scripture back then before like you said the murder of jesus
After that it is just like you say word of mouth until the Jews start to kill the disciples and they realize they need to start writing these down so we have to have faith that the catholics and rabbis didn’t muddy the water too bad
I think we are working with sound text and that the word of god survived I still read the books they took out like jubilees and Enoch and Tobit because they pass the dueteronomy test like discussed in the debate but liberals take liberties and other denominations also with gods word
I don’t agree with that I think we shouldn’t twist the word to fit a narrative myself
Shalom