There's a crucial difference between my approach and fundamentalism: I'm using established historical-critical methods to understand what Jesus actually said and did in his first-century context. This isn't about picking what aligns with my values - it's about using scholarly tools to distinguish between the historical Jesus and later theological developments.

For instance, scholars can identify our earliest sources (Mark, Q) and trace how ideas evolved in later writings. We can examine which sayings match Jesus's Jewish context versus later Greco-Roman theological concepts. This isn't arbitrary selection - it's careful historical analysis.

Fundamentalists, by contrast, ignore historical context and development, treating the Bible as a unified document that fell from heaven. They read later Christian theology back into Jesus's Jewish context, creating significant misunderstandings about what terms like "messiah" meant to Jesus's original audience.

So while we both interpret the Bible, I'm using rigorous historical methods to understand Jesus in his context, while fundamentalists impose their modern theology onto ancient texts. That's a fundamental methodological difference.