Science and Religion cannot overlap.

[ManMachine]

Hi MM

---

Well, not surprisingly, I take a bit of a different view :-)

I think the different views of God in the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures have been far from unremarked over the years. For example we notably have Marcion of Sinope in the 2nd century who struggled with this and argued that the Christian Church should disown the Hebrew scriptures as they did not portray the God of mercy known to the Christians through Jesus Christ, but instead portray a God of cold and brutal justice. 'Marcionism' was declared a heresy, but the discussion of how to view the two canons of scriptures have continued over the centuries. It has inspired much literature I would say as well, such as Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice where cold justice (demanded by Shylock) is set against a call for mercy (on behalf of Antonio). This gives rise to perhaps the most beautiful of all explorations of this topic, and so succinctly captured in Portia's monologue in defence of Antonio against the call of justice from Shylock.If I were in charge I would add Portia's speech as an appendix to the Bible :-)

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven,
Upon the place beneath.
It is twice blessed.
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
It is mightiest in the mightiest,
It becomes the throned monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
An attribute to awe and majesty.
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself.
And earthly power dost the become likest God's,
Where mercy seasons justice.
Therefore Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That in the course of justice we all must see salvation,
We all do pray for mercy
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy.
I have spoke thus much to mittgate the justice of thy plea,
Which if thou dost follow,
This strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentance gainst the merchant there.

"And earthly power dost the become likest God's, where mercy seasons justice". What a beautiful call, where mercy is seen as a layer on top of justice (without justice one cannot have mercy).

Or, another wonderful exploration of this same theme is in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables. This is not a classic story of good vs. evil, but a story of the conflict between two goods. We have Javer's desire for justice and order in society set against Valjean's mercy. Javer is the voice of the Hebrew scriptures, Valjean is the voice of the New Testament. But ultimately we need both.

And so in scripture we see, through the histories of people and races, those themes of justice and mercy explored repeatedly. But justice must come first, because mercy cannot be understood without justice. Even within the Hebrew scriptures we have that layering. We first have the law, and then we have the prophets calling for merciful application of that law. The prophet Hosea, for example says, on behalf of his God, "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.". And the psalmist recognises his own need for mercy, "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions".

Your second theme is one of different biblical interpretations. Yes, that certainly has occurred and does occur. The bible is not a systematic theology textbook; it is almost all narrative of people. I think it's not surprising then that we find developing and different interpretations. I'm one who is quite comfortable with that; that the exploration of the themes in scripture should be contextual to each of our times and places. John Henry Newman also made the point that doctrine develops and deepens over time. I'd say we also take wrong turns along the way; I'm not a great fan of ideas of infallible interpretations and pronouncements (nor was JHN particularly; his most famous quote is "I will toast the Pope, but to conscience first") . But in these different explorations I can see great value. I can see, for example, how the Methodists discovered a renewed and deepened understanding of the need to serve the poor (re-igniting a flame that Francis of Assissi had burned so brightly in his day, inspired by a simple but profound understanding of Jesus's teachings). I can see how St. Benedict saw the benefit of setting up peaceful communities. centred on prayer and work, in a world wracked by violence and warfare. I can see how Moltmann delved into the terrible realities of war and found a Jesus, 'the Crucified God', who suffered in communion with people. I can see how Calvin and Luther found a faith that was much simpler than the complexities and bargaining of the medieval Catholic Church. I can see how Aquinas wanted to explore how Christian teachings could relate to the wisdom of the Greek philosophers, not treating those that from other times and cultures with disdain, but recognising the wisdom that had already been found and expounded upon. And so on .... We can only find and explore the person of God from where we are, I believe.

But yes, we see as if through a glass darkly. Maybe the struggle to understand is part of the growth.

---

Hi,

Shakespeare was writing in a time when Jews were viewed suspiciously. It was forbidden, by the first Council of Nicaea, for a Christian to loan money and charge interest, however, it was permissible for Jews to charge interest on loans made to non-Jews. The practical upshot of this was Jews were perceived as money-lenders in Medieval Europe. It probably comes as no surprise the Medieval Jews were viewed in much the same way we view banks today, with a certain measure of mistrust. What Shakespeare captured was not just the perceived sanctimony of Christian doctrine juxtaposed with the less forgiving Jewish doctrine but also the opportunity to support an emerging sense of unity in the face of an obvious foe.

Portia's monologue is as much a political device as it is an expression of Christian forgiveness. Set against the backdrop of inter-faith strife, in the wake of the death of Catholic Queen Mary and the ascension of her Protestant sibling Queen Elizabeth who was determined to set aside the internal strife that was tearing her country in two. Following on from Elizabeth's Act of Unification in 1558 (MoV was written sometime around 1598/99), it was a reflection of the needs of the people, using the existing medieval 'bad guys' to drive home, through the most popular media of the day, a message of Christian unity.

I'm not saying it's not a beautifully written monologue, it is and I'm a huge admirer of Shakespeare's works, but I find it is another example of how external influences trade off the internal contradictions in Christian scripture (as identified by reformists) to create a new, hybrid interpretation that, in an increasingly liberal England, retroactively becomes part of accepted doctrine.

It is quite telling that the inquisition never reached the shores of England - considering it had been set up to specifically rid the Catholic church of reformist movements - meanwhile, the recently unified Christians in England were busy hunting witches to vent their collective spleen. It would be amusing to find a play of the time that expresses concern about witches plotting against a monarch... oh wait.

MM