On liberalism

For the purpose of this post I'll assume liberalism for the modern Protestant Christian is:

a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

Source

It's interesting the definition of liberalism assumes "intellectual liberty."  What sort of intellectual liberty should Christians be willing to accept?  Should it be liberation from certain basic tenants of Christianity?  A lot of liberals tend to say they follow Jesus.  Okay, and where are they getting their information about Jesus from?  I mean, surely there some ramifications in breaking away from Tradition and Scripture; indeed, even liberals need to have some sort of foundational beginning.  I guess, I want to know where the starting point for the liberal begins.  Can they even have fundamental premises to adhere to?

Fundamentalism

One of the favorite recipes of the post-modern era is to invent or change the meaning of words. Take for example the word “fundamentalism,” which is viewed to have derogatory attachments. In reality fundamentalism should mean one who adheres to a fundamental source. In fact, fundamental means:

1 a: serving as an original or generating source : PRIMARY (a discovery fundamental to modern computers) b: serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : BASIC2 a: of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts : RADICAL (fundamental change); also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application (fundamental science) b: adhering to fundamentalism3: of, relating to, or produced by the lowest component of a complex vibration4: of central importance : PRINCIPAL (fundamental purpose)5: belonging to one's innate or ingrained characteristics : DEEP-ROOTED (her fundamental good humor)[1]

In other words, it is sort of like a foundation that supports or gives basis to the intended idea and so forth. A house for example, needs to have a stable foundation in order to be efficient and to accomplish the whole premise of “building a house.” To have a house buckle and have weak foundations is counter productive to the concept of having a house in the first place. A house is used for shelter and protection from nature for example. It would be useless to live in a house that will not live up to the intended purpose (to provide shelter or protection). It is imperative that the house’s foundations be of solid structure, otherwise the foundation is of no ultimate use to the house. Just the same, one who clings to fundamental basis is taking logical steps in the realm of rationality.

I am not asserting that there are no bad ideas, rather positing derogatory terms to one who uses a fundamental basis as support for their ideas is in fact absurd. Logically, one should have a “basic foundation,” which is the term or word “fundamental” to support the intended idea. Where am I going with this? It is time to reclaim the word fundamentalism and perhaps use the word hyper-fundamentalism for those who pervert truth.

_______________________
[1] Fundamental