What Is The Difference Between Liberal, Conservative and Fundamentalist Christians?

[Wrangler]

This is funny Wrangler!
I didn't have a thesis.
I don't know that I ever have when starting a thread.
Usually, it's to learn something I feel I don't know enough about...
or to get different opinions.

A confession of poor communication and critical thinking skills. (Sorry if that seems harsh).

I hear these terms...I think I know what they mean...
but I'm not sure.

Consult your favorite lexicon. Defining terms is step 1. The Buddha said calling things by their proper name is the beginning of wisdom.

If you are not sure what these terms mean, then you have no basis to conclude that I (or anyone) is on the right path. See epistemology.

Yeah. If I had a thesis, I think this thread would not exist!

Wrong. Most threads have a thesis statement in the OP. I criticize those that don't as you now know. Such threads that lack a thesis reflect a stream of consciousness that is unguided; proto-thoughts.

If you truly don't know what words mean, it begs the question of why are you using those terms? It is intellectually irresponsible, if not intellectually lazy. If you are too lazy to learn what words mean to begin an OP, you are using this forum as a dictionary, picking the sense of meaning that appeals to you for one reason or another, or maybe no reason; perhaps it just "feels right." Groping in the dark is no way to go through life, son.

Asserting that there are types of churches that can be categorized by Word A, Word B, and Word C contradicts your claim that you also don't know what these words mean. Either:

1. Your premise is correct, churches can be categorized by these words; OR
2. You don't know what these words mean.

Which is it? You'd benefit greatly by studying epistemology a little bit. John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding is not a bad place to begin. Ayn Rand also. They brilliantly differentiate between matters of perception from matters of conception. Otherwise, you'll continue to wonder why you cannot figure out the sound of colors, etc.

Hope this helps.

 

[Wrangler]

Without defining terms @GodsGrace , communication is not possible. Using the same words but apply different meaning to them is Babel. From Definition of BABEL

Ba·bel ˈbā-bəl ˈba-

1: a city in Shinar where the building of a tower is held in Genesis to have been halted by the confusion of tongues

2 or babel
a: a confusion of sounds or voices
b: a scene of noise or confusion

There is such thing as a progressive Christian. Essentially, this is someone whose worldview is

"Conservative" seems to be the de facto position for Christians. The conservative believes

"Fundamentalist" is someone who

 

[Debp]

A confession of poor communication and critical thinking skills. (Sorry if that seems harsh).

Consult your favorite lexicon. Defining terms is step 1. The Buddha said calling things by their proper name is the beginning of wisdom.

If you are not sure what these terms mean, then you have no basis to conclude that I (or anyone) is on the right path. See epistemology.


Wrong. Most threads have a thesis statement in the OP. I criticize those that don't as you now know. Such threads that lack a thesis reflect a stream of consciousness that is unguided; proto-thoughts.

If you truly don't know what words mean, it begs the question of why are you using those terms? It is intellectually irresponsible, if not intellectually lazy. If you are too lazy to learn what words mean to begin an OP, you are using this forum as a dictionary, picking the sense of meaning that appeals to you for one reason or another, or maybe no reason; perhaps it just "feels right." Groping in the dark is no way to go through life, son.

Asserting that there are types of churches that can be categorized by Word A, Word B, and Word C contradicts your claim that you also don't know what these words mean. Either:

1. Your premise is correct, churches can be categorized by these words; OR
2. You don't know what these words mean.

Which is it? You'd benefit greatly by studying epistemology a little bit. John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding is not a bad place to begin. Ayn Rand also. They brilliantly differentiate between matters of perception from matters of conception. Otherwise, you'll continue to wonder why you cannot figure out the sound of colors, etc.

Hope this helps.

I think @GodsGrace just wanted to get some input from other members. I don't think that's wrong.

 

[BarneyFife]

Does that make you a liberal Christian?
I don't think so.

I'm not trying to put labels on persons.
Personally, I believe the earth is billions of years old. 4.5 to be exact.
But I also don't believe I'm a liberal Christian.

Maybe more will reply to get to a good answer....
maybe not.
We'll see.

It's kind of peculiar the way that scientists only take ten or twenty years to revise these estimates of how old the earth or the universe is by millions or billions of years.

It makes it hard for me to suspect that they don't know an armpit from a canyon.

I heard Richard Dawkins say something so stupid a few weeks ago that I can barely recall it. But I will. In fact, I need to track it down and write it down so I remember it.

It had something to do with the age of the earth being easier to nail down because it was so much closer to the present time than that of the age of the universe. I can't recall the actual ages but it was something like 15 million versus 4 billion or something like that. I had to re-listen to it 2 or 3 times to make sure this incredibly intelligent man was actually saying something so utterly idiotic.

Just sayin'.

:)

 

[GodsGrace]

It's kind of peculiar the way that scientists only take ten or twenty years to revise these estimates of how old the earth or the universe is by millions or billions of years.

It makes it hard for me to suspect that they don't know an armpit from a canyon.

I heard Richard Dawkins say something so stupid a few weeks ago that I can barely recall it. But I will. In fact, I need to track it down and write it down so I remember it.

It had something to do with the age of the earth being easier to nail down because it was so much closer to the present time than that of the age of the universe. I can't recall the actual ages but it was something like 15 million versus 4 billion or something like that. I had to re-listen to it 2 or 3 times to make sure this incredibly intelligent man was actually saying something so utterly idiotic.

Just sayin'.

:)

Richard Dawkins says many silly things.
Sam Harris is beginning to show his true colors too.

Let me just say this...and I don't intend to change the topic of this thread and make it into THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE.

I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
Which geneology would we possibly go by since two NT writers give 2 different geneologies.

And can we be sure that ALL the generations are written about in the OT or just the ones that were important to the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews....

Anyway, I think a person could believe what he wishes to in this regard...
it changes nothing. Genesis still happened and Jesus still happened.

What took place in between took about 5,000 years or so.

But Genesis only states IN THE BEGINNING.....
Then it goes on to state the rest.
Did it come immediately after?
I don't know. I doubt it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Without defining terms @GodsGrace , communication is not possible. Using the same words but apply different meaning to them is Babel. From Definition of BABEL

Ba·bel ˈbā-bəl ˈba-

1: a city in Shinar where the building of a tower is held in Genesis to have been halted by the confusion of tongues

2 or babel
a: a confusion of sounds or voices
b: a scene of noise or confusion

Thanks Wrangler....
the above is so nice and helpful.....

Sorry I can't live up to your high standards....

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Richard Dawkins says many silly things.
Sam Harris is beginning to show his true colors too.

Let me just say this...and I don't intend to change the topic of this thread and make it into THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE.

I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
Which geneology would we possibly go by since two NT writers give 2 different geneologies.

And can we be sure that ALL the generations are written about in the OT or just the ones that were important to the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews....

Anyway, I think a person could believe what he wishes to in this regard...
it changes nothing. Genesis still happened and Jesus still happened.

What took place in between took about 5,000 years or so.

But Genesis only states IN THE BEGINNING.....
Then it goes on to state the rest.
Did it come immediately after?
I don't know. I doubt it.

Many believe the earth is between 6000 and 10,000 years old. (YEC) and billions of years (OEC)

I guess it depends on how you interpret Genesis

 

[GodsGrace]

A confession of poor communication and critical thinking skills. (Sorry if that seems harsh).

Consult your favorite lexicon. Defining terms is step 1. The Buddha said calling things by their proper name is the beginning of wisdom.

If you are not sure what these terms mean, then you have no basis to conclude that I (or anyone) is on the right path. See epistemology.


Wrong. Most threads have a thesis statement in the OP. I criticize those that don't as you now know. Such threads that lack a thesis reflect a stream of consciousness that is unguided; proto-thoughts.

If you truly don't know what words mean, it begs the question of why are you using those terms? It is intellectually irresponsible, if not intellectually lazy. If you are too lazy to learn what words mean to begin an OP, you are using this forum as a dictionary, picking the sense of meaning that appeals to you for one reason or another, or maybe no reason; perhaps it just "feels right." Groping in the dark is no way to go through life, son.

Asserting that there are types of churches that can be categorized by Word A, Word B, and Word C contradicts your claim that you also don't know what these words mean. Either:

1. Your premise is correct, churches can be categorized by these words; OR
2. You don't know what these words mean.

Which is it? You'd benefit greatly by studying epistemology a little bit. John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding is not a bad place to begin. Ayn Rand also. They brilliantly differentiate between matters of perception from matters of conception. Otherwise, you'll continue to wonder why you cannot figure out the sound of colors, etc.

Hope this helps.

Wow. Wrangler....just saw the above.
Who said I was using the terms?
Who's speaking about churches?
Must I know what EVERY single word means?
I can't let my Christian brothers and sisters help me out a bit?
Am I here only for scholarly topics and nothing else?

And, no, your above post is not only unhelpful....which you are not obligated to be....
but rather very harsh on someone you don't even know....which you should not be.

You should read CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING again.
It didn't work well the first time around.

 

[Wrangler]

Who said I was using the terms?

See title of your own thread.

very harsh on someone you don't even know....which you should not be.

Jesus was very harsh with people calling them vipers and even Satan. I guess I am not providing the help or feedback you want. Make a blessed day!

 

[Wrangler]

I think @GodsGrace just wanted to get some input from other members. I don't think that's wrong.

I already explained what is clearly wrong. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the sound of color?

 

[St. SteVen]

Your question is invalid. Its invalid because it juxtaposes incongruent concepts, like the sound of orange.

Liberal and conservative tend to be political references. Fundamentalism tends to revolving around a literal interpretation of Scripture.

I agree with this for the most part.

However, there is such a thing as Liberal Theology. (Liberal Christianity)

Liberal Christianity, also known as liberal theology and historically as Christian Modernism,
is a movement that interprets Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge,
science and ethics. It emphasizes the importance of reason and experience over doctrinal authority.
Source: Wikipedia

Conservative Theology as well (Conservative Christianity)

Conservative Christianity, also known as conservative theology, theological conservatism,
traditional Christianity, or biblical orthodoxy is a grouping of overlapping and denominationally
diverse theological movements within Christianity that seeks to retain the orthodox
and long-standing traditions and beliefs of Christianity. Source: Wikipedia

And obviously, Fundamentalist Theology (Fundamentalist Christianity)

Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity,
is a religious 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. Source: Wikipedia

However, except for Fundamentalist Christianity, I don't think
these terms are commonly used to identify Christian groups.

[

 

[Debp]

I agree with this for the most part.

However, there is such a thing as Liberal Theology. (Liberal Christianity)

Liberal Christianity, also known as liberal theology and historically as Christian Modernism,
is a movement that interprets Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge,
science and ethics. It emphasizes the importance of reason and experience over doctrinal authority.
Source: Wikipedia

Conservative Theology as well (Conservative Christianity)

Conservative Christianity, also known as conservative theology, theological conservatism,
traditional Christianity, or biblical orthodoxy is a grouping of overlapping and denominationally
diverse theological movements within Christianity that seeks to retain the orthodox
and long-standing traditions and beliefs of Christianity. Source: Wikipedia

And obviously, Fundamentalist Theology (Fundamentalist Christianity)

Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity,
is a religious 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. Source: Wikipedia

However, except for Fundamentalist Christianity, I don't think
these terms are commonly used to identify Christian groups.

[

That explains it well.

 

[GodsGrace]

Many believe the earth is between 6000 and 10,000 years old. (YEC) and billions of years (OEC)

I guess it depends on how you interpret Genesis

Right OK.
I guess I'm an OEC.
God created everything but I don't think we can know when.
At the rate of the distancing of the stars...it looks like billions of years.
If you use geneology, it looks like a few thousand.

 

[GodsGrace]

See title of your own thread.

Jesus was very harsh with people calling them vipers and even Satan. I guess I am not providing the help or feedback you want. Make a blessed day!

You're not Jesus.

He didn't teach you to be harsh.
He taught you to love your neighbor --- which is everyone.

 

[GodsGrace]

I agree with this for the most part.

However, there is such a thing as Liberal Theology. (Liberal Christianity)

Liberal Christianity, also known as liberal theology and historically as Christian Modernism,
is a movement that interprets Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge,
science and ethics.

So what to do SS??
I had decided, with the help of some members, that a Christian cannot be liberal AND be Christian.

Your post above explains why,,,,I think.
You stated:
....interprets Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge,
science and ethics.

I think the ethics part of it is why most of us believe a person cannot be liberal....in today's definition....and still be Christian; because of ethics....which are relative instead of absolute.

IOW, if a Christian does not have absolute ethics/morals, as Jesus taught....how could he be defined as Christian?
Your thought?

It emphasizes the importance of reason and experience over doctrinal authority.
Source: Wikipedia

Conservative Theology as well (Conservative Christianity)

Conservative Christianity, also known as conservative theology, theological conservatism,
traditional Christianity, or biblical orthodoxy is a grouping of overlapping and denominationally
diverse theological movements within Christianity that seeks to retain the orthodox
and long-standing traditions and beliefs of Christianity. Source: Wikipedia

This was very helpful.
Thanks.

And obviously, Fundamentalist Theology (Fundamentalist Christianity)

Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity,
is a religious 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. Source: Wikipedia

However, except for Fundamentalist Christianity, I don't think
these terms are commonly used to identify Christian groups.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

So what to do SS??
I had decided, with the help of some members, that a Christian cannot be liberal AND be Christian.

Your post above explains why,,,,I think.
You stated:
....interprets Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge,
science and ethics.

I think the ethics part of it is why most of us believe a person cannot be liberal....in today's definition....and still be Christian; because of ethics....which are relative instead of absolute.

IOW, if a Christian does not have absolute ethics/morals, as Jesus taught....how could he be defined as Christian?
Your thought?

There was a time in my life when I was more concerned with identifying who I thought was in or out.
I had been raised Protestant Evangelical (Fundamentalist), so that was the criteria for judging.

I have moved away from both Evangelicalism and judging others by doctrine, or religious tradition.

I know some fine Christians that don't take the Genesis account as literal. I'm torn on the subject.
And I don't think a person that makes room for situation ethics can't be Christian too. Within reason.

Jesus wants us to judge correctly about these things. And not be stuck on religious dogma.

John 7:24 NIV
Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

[

 

[Wrangler]

You're not Jesus.

He didn't teach you to be harsh.
He taught you to love your neighbor --- which is everyone.

Yes, Jesus did teach us to be harsh as I already explained. Not sure why you rule out love and harsh. But there it is.

 

[St. SteVen]

Jesus wants us to judge correctly about these things. And not be stuck on religious dogma.

John 7:24 NIV
Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

Here's the context of the scripture above.
Jesus was being judged by the law of Moses, orthodox Judaism. (Jewish Fundamentalism)
Notice how he reasoned his ethics in this situation. (situation ethics) ???

John 7:21-24 NIV
Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all amazed.
22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses,
but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath.
23 Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses
may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?
24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

[

 

[GodsGrace]

There was a time in my life when I was more concerned with identifying who I thought was in or out.
I had been raised Protestant Evangelical (Fundamentalist), so that was the criteria for judging.

Here's my criteria for judging....
Only GOD can judge who is in or who is out.
Those that know me know that I NEVER would pass judgment on anyone's soul...that's not for us to do.

I do keep hearing these terms and thought I'd dig in a little.

I'm like the man w/o a country....non-denominational.
Catholic then Protestant (don't know which kind) then.....nothing.
I believe that all believers are in the Body of Christ.
Doctrine doesn't even bother me much except for 2 that I believe are dangerous, you might know them by now or
maybe not. No matter.

I have moved away from both Evangelicalism and judging others by doctrine, or religious tradition.

Agreed re your move.

I know some fine Christians that don't take the Genesis account as literal. I'm torn on the subject.

How about this: The Genesis account is true....but it's not literal.

And I don't think a person that makes room for situation ethics can't be Christian too. Within reason.

Within reason....OK. You can't go thru the whole thread,,,,but we got it down to abortion and the such.

Jesus wants us to judge correctly about these things. And not be stuck on religious dogma.

John 7:24 NIV
Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

[

I'm good at judging good vs evil.
Beyond that, I leave it to God.
Thanks for the input.

 

[GodsGrace]

Here's the context of the scripture above.
Jesus was being judged by the law of Moses, orthodox Judaism. (Jewish Fundamentalism)
Notice how he reasoned his ethics in this situation. (situation ethics) ???

John 7:21-24 NIV
Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all amazed.
22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses,
but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath.
23 Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses
may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?
24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

[

NO!
Ethics in a situation is NOT situational ethics.

The former uses a person's existing ethical beliefs in a situation.
The latter changes the ethical belief according to the situation.

John 7:21
A boy had to be circumcised on the 8th day because, somehow, The Hebrews knew it was the day when there would be the least bleeding.
Divine revelation.

So if the Sabbath could be broken in order to care for a small part of the body....
how much more should the ENTIRE BODY be healed and blessed?
Jesus was the best....the best.