From: lungtt@gus19.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:40:31 GMT

In article <11651@hogg.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...
[correction:  *almost* to death.  She is still alive the next morning.]
>>>(2) Her husband carves her up into twelve pieces and mails them around.
>What a sick idea.--[I agree.]
>>>(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.  
yep.
>Oh well,
>they were guided by the law of Yahweh (or weren't they?),
I don't think so.

>>>(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.
I sense that you are being fecetious [I think this is my word of the day] here.
This is not Yahweh's plan.  This is his chosen people's plan minus Him.

>> (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.
hmmmm...I think there existed a certain law of hospitality in that time period.
This parallels a certain Greek myth if I recall too.  I remember the gods did
some horrible things to the inhospitable people in the Greek myth.  Do you 
recall what I'm thinking of.  I don't.

>>>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.
>But it is still not much of a moral guide.
Do you suggest an alternative 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.
It's the twin of a lot of things if I can only recall the Greek myth.
There's a few ancient Chinese fables that go along the same lines too.

>Or was that done under the law of the wild too?
>(4) happens in order to restore the integrity of the chosen nation.
Are you sure about this.  I did not think so.  I think the point was
kind-of an entire absence of God in the picture.

>Seriously, how do you tell which law is which?
by context?  Let me get back to you after I reread this myself...

>Why was he absent?
I would guess that the book was written to make a specific points.  That's why
books are written right?  Again let me get back to this after some rereading...

For example, I understand that each of the minor prophets [the books like
Hosea, Habakkuk, Malachi, etc.] *can* be treated [if they weren't meant to be]
almost case-studies of different maladies in spirituality.  So by this train
of thought, I think maybe Judges is a "case-study" of a different kind to make
a different point.  These authors do seem to spend a disproportionate time
concentrating on Yahweh's wrath than his ultimate goal of restoration don't 
they?

Before I get back, maybe you can fill-in.  You seem to know what you're 
talking about.

>For that matter, I, too, would have preferred him to do something on
>several occasions throughout the story.  Here are a few suggestions:...
But this would make for a completely different story.  The same point
could not possibly be made with a different story.

Terence

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism