Sir Issac Newton's Birthday - He was a Liberal Christian

[DavinMochrie]

4th of January - (Thank you Google!)

From Wikipedia:

Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says of Newton, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith — which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs."[6] Snobelen concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books), possibly an Arian and almost certainly an antitrinitarian[6]. In an age notable for its religious intolerance there are few public expressions of Newton's radical views, most notably his refusal to take holy orders and his refusal, on his death bed, to take the sacrament when it was offered to him.[6]

 

[b.hopeful]

Happy Birthday to the man that gave us Fig Newtons! yum!

Seriously though, I once read a book that said Newton's accomplishments were the "triumphs of the modern mind over ancient and medieval ignorance."

 

[Assyrian]

He may have been an Arian, but liberal? He was vindictive, arrogant bitter and venegeful. Ask Hooke. Probably a bit too heavily into the book of Revelation for modern liberals too. A scientific genius too of course.

 

[alfrodull]

He may have been an Arian, but liberal? He was vindictive, arrogant bitter and venegeful.

I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive. Also, the fact that he does not match up with the typical liberal mindset today doesn't mean he wasn't liberal for his time.

Anyway, calculus was always my worst subject, so I suppose I should have a miserable day.

 

[DavinMochrie]

I'm sure it would have fitted in well at WWMC...for a short time until he was banned permanently from CF for being anti-trinitarian.

 

[MalReynolds]

He was also likely a closet homosexual, yet hid his sexuality for his entire life, believing that it was patently unChristian to have a gay orientation. That doesn't seem particularly "liberal", just a thought.

 

[DavinMochrie]

LOL wut?

 

[Evenstar253]

He was also likely a closet homosexual, yet hid his sexuality for his entire life, believing that it was patently unChristian to have a gay orientation. That doesn't seem particularly "liberal", just a thought.

If he had been born into modern times, though, I wonder if his views might have been different.

 

[DeanM]

He was also likely a closet homosexual, yet hid his sexuality for his entire life, believing that it was patently unChristian to have a gay orientation. That doesn't seem particularly "liberal", just a thought.

Can you show a source showing anything about where he said that having a gay orientation was patently Unchristian?

As far as a source showing he was actually gay or not, I couldn't care less.

But I'll bet you couldn't show anything beyond speculation in that regard either.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Newton's views on a lot of things remain mostly a mystery. But happy birthday, Sir Isaac, wherever you are.

 

[MalReynolds]

Can you show a source showing anything about where he said that having a gay orientation was patently Unchristian?

As far as a source showing he was actually gay or not, I couldn't care less.

But I'll bet you couldn't show anything beyond speculation in that regard either.

I'll be fair and admit that his repressed homosexuality is, more or less, speculative. Not without some evidence, though: he never had a lover, and his relationship with Swiss mathematician Nicolas Fatio de Duillier was suspicious.

However, he did study the Bible and work with textual criticism on Christian holy works. Now I'm not saying he was patently anti-homosexual, but considering he was a 17th century Christian, I'd say it would be peculiar for him not to be.

My point was that hailing Isaac Newton as some hero of liberal Christianity, I think, is fairly unfounded, although this may be because liberal Christianity is about as cohesive a label as libertarian. Tell me, what specific views of Isaac Newton match up with beliefs you consider to be consistent with liberal Christianity?

 

[DavinMochrie]

Tell me, what specific views of Isaac Newton match up with beliefs you consider to be consistent with liberal Christianity?

Already have.

Please refer to the quote in the original post.

If you believe those 'beliefs' are consistent with Conservative/moderate Christianity then please let me know how.

Many of our Non-trinitarian friends will be overjoyed that they can now freely post about their beliefs.

Perhaps the real problem is with your concept/paradign/pre-conception with what liberalism/liberty/freedom of thought pertains to?

 

[spinningtutu]

hmmm...

seems to me as though we can't just say here is what all "liberal Christians" think... seriously, the word "liberal" is overused when it is applied to Christians who do not fit into the rigid molds... seems as though we need to expand our possible list of vocabularies...

*UnOrthodox - those who believe in things that are rejected by the mainstream... (for example, a full preterist may be deemed UnOrthodox even if s/he is otherwise a conservative Republican fundamentalist)
*Heretic - one who believes something that truly is against the Christian faith (for example, denying the humanity of Christ and insisting only on Christ's divinity IS very much a heresy, though its not really a 'liberal' belief)
*Liberal - one who holds some beliefs which are considered to be at odds with conservative beliefs, and, there is a spectrum here... for example, one could call Tony Campolo a liberal Christian based solely on his political views, one could call Bishop Spong a liberal Christian for very different reasons, etc.

So...

Some liberal Christians are also theologically conservative
Some theological conservatives are also heretics
Some liberals are both unorthodox and heretical
Some heretics are not liberal
Etc, etc

I believe it is important for one to be right with God and believe the right things in a relationship between you and God... but that is PERSONAL... I believe it is wrong to force a mold and say "THIS is the Christian religion or culture or society, etc" but we always live in times where one form of Christianity tries to dominate. And that is wrong. So mold busters do the right thing.

 

[MalReynolds]

hmmm...

seems to me as though we can't just say here is what all "liberal Christians" think... seriously, the word "liberal" is overused when it is applied to Christians who do not fit into the rigid molds... seems as though we need to expand our possible list of vocabularies...

*UnOrthodox - those who believe in things that are rejected by the mainstream... (for example, a full preterist may be deemed UnOrthodox even if s/he is otherwise a conservative Republican fundamentalist)
*Heretic - one who believes something that truly is against the Christian faith (for example, denying the humanity of Christ and insisting only on Christ's divinity IS very much a heresy, though its not really a 'liberal' belief)
*Liberal - one who holds some beliefs which are considered to be at odds with conservative beliefs, and, there is a spectrum here... for example, one could call Tony Campolo a liberal Christian based solely on his political views, one could call Bishop Spong a liberal Christian for very different reasons, etc.

So...

Some liberal Christians are also theologically conservative
Some theological conservatives are also heretics
Some liberals are both unorthodox and heretical
Some heretics are not liberal
Etc, etc

I believe it is important for one to be right with God and believe the right things in a relationship between you and God... but that is PERSONAL... I believe it is wrong to force a mold and say "THIS is the Christian religion or culture or society, etc" but we always live in times where one form of Christianity tries to dominate. And that is wrong. So mold busters do the right thing.

How can we construct an accurate label if mold-building is wrong? To a certain extent, we have to define labels like "Christian" using points that everyone can agree upon. I would accept the definition of Christian as those who believe the Bible is the "word of God" and Jesus is the "savior of humanity". Do you agree with this label?

If so, why do so many Christians go around picking and choosing what specific parts of the Bible they want to believe? I see very few Christians, liberal or conservative, stoning unruly children or bearing slaves, or even giving up all of their possessions to preach the word of the Lord.

 

[MalReynolds]

Already have.

Please refer to the quote in the original post.

If you believe those 'beliefs' are consistent with Conservative/moderate Christianity then please let me know how.

Many of our Non-trinitarian friends will be overjoyed that they can now freely post about their beliefs.

Perhaps the real problem is with your concept/paradign/pre-conception with what liberalism/liberty/freedom of thought pertains to?

I my previous point, I highlight my problem with the labeling of Christianity. However, I understand that everyone is different, so I'll ask you in particular: do you believe that Christians should be labeled as those who believe in the Bible as the true word of God and in Jesus as the savior of humanity? If so, explain why you think it is fair to ignore certain holy commands within the Bible, specifically ones pertaining to human sacrifice and slavery.

I feel that the main difference between liberal and conservative Christianity is the level of devotion to the Bible. Understand that I agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality; in fact, we probably agree on a lot of things. I'm saying that liberal Christians manage to have rational positions in many places yet also possess irrational beliefs in others.

 

[spinningtutu]

well, i should clarify - labels have some use, but we have to keep in mind that they are social constructs...

right now, in 2010, to be a "Liberal Christian" is a socially constructed thing that I'm not sure i fit into -- yet the reason I end up in WWMC is because I don't fit into other areas of CF very well. Some Christians are just unique and don't adhere to the main label system.

 

[MalReynolds]

well, i should clarify - labels have some use, but we have to keep in mind that they are social constructs...

right now, in 2010, to be a "Liberal Christian" is a socially constructed thing that I'm not sure i fit into -- yet the reason I end up in WWMC is because I don't fit into other areas of CF very well. Some Christians are just unique and don't adhere to the main label system.

I'm not asking why you are here, I'm asking what you think is a legitimate label for liberal Christian. If your definition of liberal Christian is as non-cohesive as "someone who doesn't believe the Bible is entirely the Word of God, yet still believes Jesus is the savior", then why exactly do you feel justified throwing Isaac Newton into that category?

 

[DavinMochrie]

I feel that the main difference between liberal and conservative Christianity is the level of devotion to the Bible

In terms of the people who post here, this is not an accurate assessment.

What you have described there is propaganda by Conservative/fundies.

Firsly, those people who claim to be devoted to the bible and obey everything, in most cases do not. This is why they look like such hypocrits.

Perhpas Liberal Christianity can be defined is: "A Differing opinion on how the bible should be interpreted".

It always amuses me when some (not necessarily you) Non-Christians/Athiest mock the bible, call it myth.... then turn around and use the standard of classifying a christian that is synonymous with the worst fundamentalism on earth.

This whole 'literal' bible discussion comes from the protestants... and a particular type too - American protestants. The rest of the world is less crazy, and can sometimes be more rational about this. Fair call?

A Christian can be called someone who follows the teachings of the Gospel Jesus. If someone adds theology to it, say like trinitarian stuff or nicean creed...then that's just extra ontop of the christian label.

Of course we could leave it up to the worse Criminal/bully type people to define Christianity as 'Their' type of Christianity... but then that's letting the Religious Right win.

By the way. It's no secret, my personal opinion is that political conservatives (whether Christian or Non (There really is no difference between a politically conservative athiest or politically conservative Christian)) are committing the worse evil on Earth.

 

[MalReynolds]

In terms of the people who post here, this is not an accurate assessment.

What you have described there is propaganda by Conservative/fundies.

Firsly, those people who claim to be devoted to the bible and obey everything, in most cases do not. This is why they look like such hypocrits.

Perhpas Liberal Christianity can be defined is: "A Differing opinion on how the bible should be interpreted".

It always amuses me when some (not necessarily you) Non-Christians/Athiest mock the bible, call it myth.... then turn around and use the standard of classifying a christian that is synonymous with the worst fundamentalism on earth.

This whole 'literal' bible discussion comes from the protestants... and a particular type too - American protestants. The rest of the world is less crazy, and can sometimes be more rational about this. Fair call?

A Christian can be called someone who follows the teachings of the Gospel Jesus. If someone adds theology to it, say like trinitarian stuff or nicean creed...then that's just extra ontop of the christian label.

Of course we could leave it up to the worse Criminal/bully type people to define Christianity as 'Their' type of Christianity... but then that's letting the Religious Right win.

By the way. It's no secret, my personal opinion is that political conservatives (whether Christian or Non (There really is no difference between a politically conservative athiest or politically conservative Christian)) are committing the worse evil on Earth.

Look, your Bible, which you clearly believe is, to some degree, the inspired word of God, commands Christian followers to stone unruly children, endorses slavery and human sacrifice, promotes eternal punishment for finite crimes (and eternal reward for finite deeds/beliefs), condemns homosexuals, rewards faith over actions, and encourages the abandonment of all possessions in the name of Jesus. These are all, in my compass, immoral. What I'm really asking is this: Why should I believe your liberal interpretation when the conservative Christian over there is telling me that it all should be taken literally?

 

[DeanM]

Look, your Bible, which you clearly believe is, to some degree, the inspired word of God, commands Christian followers to stone unruly children, endorses slavery and human sacrifice, promotes eternal punishment for finite crimes (and eternal reward for finite deeds/beliefs), condemns homosexuals, rewards faith over actions, and encourages the abandonment of all possessions in the name of Jesus. These are all, in my compass, immoral. What I'm really asking is this: Why should I believe your liberal interpretation when the conservative Christian over there is telling me that it all should be taken literally?

You should believe liberals for the exact reason you stated; because your moral compass shows how wrong the conservatives must be.

I'm afraid we might have gotten off to a poor start to our discussion, and I'll take the blame for that. I have a habit of acting adversarial when new posters come here and make unprovable statements based on probabilities.

Terry Pratchett once said that the funny thing about million-to-one shots is that they crop up nine times out of ten. In other words, I don't don't buy probablities as fact.

But that's my issue, and I should show you a little more respect than to call you out on it.

In fact, most of us liberals see wisdom in the bible. We do see a message from God. Different liberals might have varying ideas what that is, but we mostly agree that God loves us and doesn't want us condemning others.

So, for all the nutty kill-the-baby scriptures that are in the bible, you'll find a hard time finding a liberal who sees those scriptures as hard fact in the light of the over-riding truth of the loving God.

And if you see the two camps of Christianity (Liberal and Conservative) and your moral compass is telling you that one camp must be wrong, then maybe the other camp is speaking your language.

We tend to dismiss portions of the bible that disagree with our moral compasses, too.

I hope that all makes sense! It's late and I'm tired . . .

God bless~