From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God speaks
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:01:13 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov20.060230.20997@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus8.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>In article <11607@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>>I think the the "law of the wild" is worse.  For example, Judges Chp 19?
>>
>>... and Ch 20 and Ch 21?  Let's see.  There is a number of events there,
>>to wit:
>>
>>(1) A woman is raped to death by a crowd of men.  (That's odd to boot
>>  -- the men are first said to be homosexuals, and I'm told homosexual
>>  men don't care for women, but what do I know.)

In any case, those who raped her deserved to be punished, though I
would consider the death penalty to be too harsh for this case.

>>(2) Her husband carves her up into twelve pieces and mails them around.

What a sick idea.  I have a strong stomach, but I'm glad I wasn't there.

>>(3) The Israelites put the Benjamites to the sword, together with the
>>  cattle and everything that comes their way.

This makes it clear that many men who hadn't even come close to the
raped woman were killed, never mind the cattle and the rest.  Oh well,
they were guided by the law of Yahweh (or weren't they?), so they
couldn't help acting in a savage way.

>>(4) A group of men are instructed to ambush a group of women and rape
>>  as many of them as they can.

That's the way to restore the complete structure of Yahweh's chosen people,
whom, we should remember, he needs for a great purpose.

> (5) No one is out to welcome these weary travellers in the darkened 
>     town square.

Well, that's rather unfortunate.  But no crime is committed.

> (6) That's one SORRY host that takes them into his home.

Yes.  So?

> (7) Oh spare the male visitors.  Let the townspeople have the women.

Nothing new.  That's what Lot had proposed some time earlier.

>>So which of these is the law of the wild and which is the law of Yahweh?
>>They all look appalling to me.  So much for this book.
>Great stuff heh?  Maybe we should censor the Bible for its graphic
>violence.

Censor it, no.  Whoever wants to read it should be free to.  I imagine
its graphic violence would be too much for some to bear.  Not for me.
But it is still not much of a moral guide.

>I think all three chapters are the law of the wild.

How do you determine that?  The slaughter in (3) above is the twin of
the destruction of Amalek.  Or was that done under the law of the wild too?
(4) happens in order to restore the integrity of the chosen nation.
Why would the law of the wild call for such an enterprise?  Seriously,
how do you tell which law is which?

>I think that a point [or the lack thereof] in the story
>is the absence of Yahweh in any of it.

Why was he absent?  Was he busy, asleep, on a journey, what?  How is
it possible that suddenly all of his chosen people start living by the
law of the wild, and he doesn't take an active position -- and when he
appears again, he likes them just as much?

>To be honest, based on my gut reaction, I'd almost prefer Yahweh
>to drop in and smote them all; clean up the picture and start
>all over.  What's right with the story?

For that matter, I, too, would have preferred him to do something on
several occasions throughout the story.  Here are a few suggestions:

(a)  He could have provided a tent for the two visitors, so they
   wouldn't have to wonder where to spend the night.
(b)  He could have hushed down the sexual drive of the male
   population of the town for that one night.
(c)  He could have punished (on his own, not via a human hand) those
   and only those of the men that had raped the woman.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK