What exactly is wrong with Liberal Christianity?

[Athetotheist]

In discussing Christian scripture with others, I sometimes encounter the assertion that "interpretation" is a legitimate factor in assessing the nature of said scripture.

According to Google, Liberal Christianity "interprets Christian teachings by prioritizing modern knowledge, science, and ethics over traditional doctrinal authority".

If even the more conservative apologist defends Christian scripture by allowing for interpretation of it, how much criticism is it fair to level at more liberal interpretations of Christianity?

[POI]

In discussing Christian scripture with others, I sometimes encounter the assertion that "interpretation" is a legitimate factor in assessing the nature of said scripture.

According to Google, Liberal Christianity "interprets Christian teachings by prioritizing modern knowledge, science, and ethics over traditional doctrinal authority".

If even the more conservative apologist defends Christian scripture by allowing for interpretation of it, how much criticism is it fair to level at more liberal interpretations of Christianity?

Christians do not universally agree on almost anything. Is the earth really 6-10K years old, or is it instead what "science" says, which forces the Christian's hand to 're-interpret' the text? Are many of the events listed in Genesis to be taken literally, or not -- (as 'science' looks to have debunked many of these Biblical claims)?

In my estimation, if such a god exists, and also inspired scripture, seems he did a piss-poor job in conveying/relaying his message(s) clearly to us humans -- who are expected to follow and believe in it. It is said that most scientists, or at least the majority, are atheists. Wouldn't god know that when science became a thing, and it's discoveries went against many of the assertions from his teachings to humans, then countless folks would turn away from him? And since I doubt this is what god really wants, why not provide better teaching to not have the vast majority of higher educated science folks no longer believe, due to too many perceived inconsistencies?

[Athetotheist]

To get things back on track here----
If even the more conservative apologist defends Christian scripture by allowing for interpretation of it, how much criticism is it fair to level at more liberal interpretations of Christianity?

[1213]

To get things back on track here----
If even the more conservative apologist defends Christian scripture by allowing for interpretation of it, how much criticism is it fair to level at more liberal interpretations of Christianity?

Good question. I think people should avoid own interpretation and let the Bible explain what it means.

Christians originally meant a disciple of Jesus. And person is a disciple of Jesus, when he remains in word of Jesus. Now sadly many Christians have replaced the word of Jesus by their own doctrines and it is sad. It is sad also, because then many think Christianity is the doctrines of men that easily fail, which can lead many astray.

…The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26
Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:31-32

[Consocius]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]

The interpretation means simply the understanding of the Scripture in various churches. For instance, the churches present their creeds, doctrinal position, that is, how they explain the Scripture, and then others follow it. The challenge here is not that there is such a thing as interpretation, but whether the interpretation, or the doctrine, or the understanding of the Word in a church is the true explanation of the letter and the spirit of the Word. More ofter than not men do not care much whether the doctrines of their churche are the true explanation of the Word, because they get used to following their doctrines by tradition, family association, friendly loyalties.

[historia]

I sometimes encounter the assertion that "interpretation" is a legitimate factor in assessing the nature of said scripture.

. . .

If even the more conservative apologist defends Christian scripture by allowing for interpretation of it

It's not clear what you mean by this. All texts require interpretation. The Bible is a text -- or, rather, a group of texts -- so it necessarily requires interpretation, too.

To that end, conservative Christian apologists aren't "allowing" for interpretation of Scripture. That is something they necessarily have to engage in.

According to Google, Liberal Christianity "interprets Christian teachings by prioritizing modern knowledge, science, and ethics over traditional doctrinal authority".

Right, when it comes to Liberal Christianity, the important difference lies is what are the sources of authority, rather than how one interprets one possible source of authority, the Bible.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #4]

Christians originally meant a disciple of Jesus. And person is a disciple of Jesus, when he remains in word of Jesus. Now sadly many Christians have replaced the word of Jesus by their own doctrines and it is sad. It is sad also, because then many think Christianity is the doctrines of men that easily fail, which can lead many astray.

But if a conservative Christian interprets a passage one way and a liberal Christian interprets the same passage a different way, who's coming up with their "own" doctrine?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Consocius in post #5]

The challenge here is not that there is such a thing as interpretation, but whether the interpretation, or the doctrine, or the understanding of the Word in a church is the true explanation of the letter and the spirit of the Word.

But who gets to say which understanding is "the true explanation" and which is "interpretation"? What criteria are to be used?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #6]

If even the more conservative apologist defends Christian scripture by allowing for interpretation of it

It's not clear what you mean by this. All texts require interpretation. The Bible is a text -- or, rather, a group of texts -- so it necessarily requires interpretation, too.

To that end, conservative Christian apologists aren't "allowing" for interpretation of Scripture. That is something they necessarily have to engage in.

What I mean is that if all texts have to be interpreted, what makes a liberal interpretation any less legitimate than a conservative one?

[1213]

But if a conservative Christian interprets a passage one way and a liberal Christian interprets the same passage a different way, who's coming up with their "own" doctrine?

I think they should not interpret at all, but let the Bible explain what it means.