Warning: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, function 'callJqueryScriptAndStyle' not found or invalid function name in /home/holesinthefoam/holesinthefoam.us/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 286

Comments

  1. They did… Deuteronomy 22:25. I’m as anti-religion as anyone, but people need to get their facts straight. Also, as a man, I resent the implication that men don’t find rape to be deplorable.

  2. Um…. Matt, maybe you should start by getting your facts straight before trying to lecture others? That verse, which is part of a book in the bible that to say is supremely self-contradicting is quite the understatement, basically says that men can’t rape women who are bethrothed aka engaged to be married. All other women/girls are pretty much fair game. But hey, engaged girls are protected. that makes me feel much better. ๐Ÿ˜›

  3. Oh btw, there are may places in the world that STILL consider rape to be a wrist-slapper, if that. Hmm… think that might be because some if not most “men” in those places may still consider rape to be less than deplorable? Hmmmm…. ๐Ÿ˜›

  4. I’m not saying that the bible is any sort of wonderful moral guide book, quite the opposite. But to say that the bible never says to stone rapists is patently false. Fight religion every way you can, but don’t make stuff up. It only weakens your arguments.

  5. “I’m not saying that the bible is any sort of wonderful moral guide book, quite the opposite.”

    Wow… what a relief. ๐Ÿ˜›

    “But to say that the bible never says to stone rapists is patently false.”

    Actually, no, it’s not. ๐Ÿ˜› We already established why. The verse you tout only covers women who are slated to be married. Nevermind that she ends up not getting married (due to being damaged goods thanks to the rape), and ends up living the rest of her life a marked woman, a spinster. No, nevermind all that. ๐Ÿ˜›

    Another point worth mentioning. The whole point of the verse you base your whiny argument on is to keep a betrothed woman who gets raped from being treated as an adultress. Otherwise, she would be stoned or executed. In the case of adultery, both parties should be stoned according to the old school laws. But usually only the woman ends up getting it because she was deemed a “temptress”. Funny how that worked out. ๐Ÿ˜›

    Fight religion every way you can, but don’t make stuff up. It only weakens your arguments.

  6. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death.

    Obviously this says to stone the rapist. So your claim is wrong. That’s all I’m arguing here. Yes, stoning adulterers is wrong. Yes, forcing a woman to marry her rapist is wrong. We’re on the same page here. The bible, and most of religion, is evil. My only point here is that the claim made about the bible never saying to stone rapists is demonstrably untrue, and we should stick to true claims. Otherwise, we’re no better than the people we’re debating

    Also, I feel it bears repeating that the implication of the statement in the picture is that all men don’t think rape is a big deal. Again, as a man, I find this pretty offensive. It paints all men as evil, and I think that is just plain wrong.

  7. No offense, but there is no mention of stoning rapists in Deuteronomy. There is a verse regarding a man raping a betrothed women being the one to die, but there is no more mention of the method of execution (stoning being made a big deal in the cases where they considered it applicable because it was a public, painful, and humiliating form of execution reserved for women and heretics) and this is less a punishment for rape, and more a punishment for stealing the property of another man, hence why the ‘property’ isn’t also punished.

  8. I can’t believe I’m having this conversation…

    The standard method of execution in biblical times was by stoning (described multiple times in Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 1 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and so on). The only other methods of execution mentioned in the old testament are burning and hanging. Hanging is never mentioned as a method of execution in Deuteronomy, only stoning. Further the verses leading up to 22:25 state: “23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to deathโ€”the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another manโ€™s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death.” This being the case, as with a reading of the rest of Deuteronomy, it can be safely assumed that any execution would be by stoning. Assuming that the method of execution would be different for a singular crime when no reference is made to other methods is baseless.

  9. “25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. ”

    That is only one version of several. That verse, along with many other OT verses, have been translated and mistranslated to the point of ridiculousness. In any case, the version you chose to cite still supports my argument, not yours. ๐Ÿ˜›

    “Obviously this says to stone the rapist.”

    No, it says to put the rapist to die. And that’s only because he raped a woman who was slated to be owned ( I mean… married… ) by another man. So hence, he committed a certain form of theft. Yet, the verse doesn’t specify stoning. In ANY version.

    “So your claim is wrong.”

    No, it’s not. ๐Ÿ™‚

    “That’s all I’m arguing here.”

    But… you lost the argument. ๐Ÿ˜›

    “Yes, stoning adulterers is wrong. Yes, forcing a woman to marry her rapist is wrong.”

    You sure about that? ๐Ÿ˜›

    “We’re on the same page here. The bible, and most of religion, is evil. My only point here is that the claim made about the bible never saying to stone rapists is demonstrably untrue, and we should stick to true claims.”

    Again, you haven’t made any point. Why is that so hard for you to accept Matt?

    To wit: Your verse from Deuteronomy doesn’t specify stoning. As Crissi points out on this thread, stoning is reserved for special occasions as far as the bible is concerned.

    “Otherwise, we’re no better than the people we’re debating”

    Yawwwnnnn…. ๐Ÿ˜›

    “Also, I feel it bears repeating that the implication of the statement in the picture is that all men don’t think rape is a big deal.”

    I feel it bears repeating, yet again, that in many parts of the world, MANY parts of the world, men still don’t think rape is a big deal. Do you ever read the news Matt? Perhaps you ought to look into how rape is viewed in places such as India, Bangladesh, and many places in Africa. Consider that your homework assignment. ๐Ÿ˜›

    “Again, as a man, I find this pretty offensive. It paints all men as evil, and I think that is just plain wrong.”

    No it doesn’t. It doesn’t do that at all. Maybe you should read it again? And if you’re still having problems comprehending what it says, may I recommend remedial reading classes? ๐Ÿ˜›

  10. Holes In the Foam; I think what ๐Ÿ˜› Mr. Spetter is attempting ๐Ÿ˜› to convey is that the ๐Ÿ˜› bible does state to ๐Ÿ˜› kill men who rape ๐Ÿ˜› via stoning or other means ๐Ÿ˜› and that is all :P. You both seem to be ๐Ÿ˜› arguing the ๐Ÿ˜› same moot point here. ๐Ÿ˜›

  11. I would think I know full well what I am arguing better than you. It seems that one of us (me) is content to argue my point with actual evidence, while as the other (you) prefers plugging your ears and spewing ad hominem attacks coupled with obnoxious emoticons. I was hoping you would raise yourself up to my level; I shan’t be lowering myself to yours.

  12. I apologise, ๐Ÿ™‚ I may have mis-red :S Mr. Spetters original statement, ๐Ÿ˜› “They did (say kill men who rape)… Deuteronomy 22:25.” ๐Ÿ˜€ Or maybe I mis-red your original rebuttal to ๐Ÿ™ Mr. Spetter, “basically says that men can’t rape women”. ๐Ÿ˜›

  13. Matt, actually no. your verse merely protects a woman who is pledged to marry. The verynext paragraph tells what happens to an Un-pleldged woman – she has to MARRY her rapist: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deut.22:28,29. Sorry, but the bible was written by men, and it was not kind or even decent to women…

  14. Name a single religion that treated women fairly. They are all guilty of sexism. BUT that doesn’t mean that men today are all rapists, which what the original posted picture is (secretly) implying and what I believe is Mr. Spetters beef.

  15. ” I can’t believe I’m having this conversation…”

    Oh don’t worry, I say that all the time. Especially when I’m dealing with obtuse dolts. ๐Ÿ™‚

    “The standard method of execution in biblical times was by stoning (described multiple times in Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 1 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and so on). The only other methods of execution mentioned in the old testament are burning and hanging. Hanging is never mentioned as a method of execution in Deuteronomy, only stoning.”

    So… you agree that there at least another two. ๐Ÿ™‚ And yet, in the very verse you referred to in your initial argument. No mention of stoning. Hmmmm….

    ” Further the verses leading up to 22:25 state: “23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death”

    Oh… so now you’re citing a different verse, and probably a different translation version too? And yet… my argument that it only applies to betrothed women still holds. Ooops…

    “โ€”the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another manโ€™s wife.”

    Oh, interesting that you include 24, which basically states my case for me. That if the woman didn’t cry out for help (voluntarily or involuntarily), then that means she wanted it, and was therefore an adulteress. Death time…

    “You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death.” ”

    And in the country, apparently there’s a loophole that the woman lives but the man dies. I do wonder how often this policy was actually implemented. Not that it matters, since again, this only applies to women who are considered property of another man. This has nothing to do with protecting women. It has everything to do with protecting PROPERTY.

    “This being the case, as with a reading of the rest of Deuteronomy, it can be safely assumed that any execution would be by stoning.”

    Well, at least one out of three times, and depending on what translated version is being relied upon. ๐Ÿ™‚

    “Assuming that the method of execution would be different for a singular crime when no reference is made to other methods is baseless.”

    Well, considering now that you are desperately reaching for definitive semantics, since it’s been well-established that this clause does not prohibit women in general from being raped, let’s just say your arguments is well out of gas. Good? ๐Ÿ™‚

  16. “I apologise, I may have mis-red :S ”

    You may have misspelled as well. ๐Ÿ™‚

    “Mr. Spetters original statement, “They did (say kill men who rape)… Deuteronomy 22:25.” Or maybe I mis-red your original rebuttal to Mr. Spetter, “basically says that men can’t rape women”.

    Well, you “mis-red” more than once Tim. Too bad my overly cheeky annotations went over your head, but then again, so did the rest of what I said. Imagine that.

    No ๐Ÿ˜› needed.

  17. “Name a single religion that treated women fairly.”

    Uh… Wicca? ๐Ÿ˜›

    “They are all guilty of sexism.”

    You sure about that? Never mind that we’re only talking about christianity (and since the OT is the point, judaism too) right now.

    “BUT that doesn’t mean that men today are all rapists, which what the original posted picture is (secretly) implying and what I believe is Mr. Spetters beef.”

    Again, that’s NOT what the meme is saying Tim. The real point is that back in the days when the bible was written, rape was indeed not a huge deal as long as who you were raping wasn’t owned by another man. Do you not get that yet? And as I have already said to your fellow obtuse one, there are still MANY parts of the world where rape is really not considered much of a big deal. In many places, including in some parts of Latin America, it’s still virtually impossible to prosecute. In certain parts of the Arab world, and India, most rapes don’t even get reported because it usually results in massive shame and turmoil for the victim and almost nothing happens to the rapists.

    So please, before you go on another tirade about taking offense to any nonexistent implications as they pertain to you and your locale, understand that in many parts of the world, those very same implications are DRAMATICALLY more valid.

  18. “I would think I know full well what I am arguing better than you.”

    Of course you would, Matt. We expect nothing less from someone as obtuse as you. ๐Ÿ™‚

    “It seems that one of us (me) is content to argue my point with actual evidence, while as the other (you) prefers plugging your ears and spewing ad hominem attacks coupled with obnoxious emoticons.”

    ‘Actual evidence’, the evidence you have presented in this thread only proves you wrong. Furthermore, it underscores the fact that you don’t even know why a man who rapes a betrothed virgin is even being executed. Even though two other women have chimed in with essentially the same arguments I made. You don’t even get that the actual reason is theft, not rape. Proven by your own evidence.

    Hello??? You still don’t get that? ๐Ÿ˜›

    Let’s not even get into your misuse of “ad hominem”. Especially since most people out here who use it don’t even use it properly or within definition. ๐Ÿ™‚

    “I was hoping you would raise yourself up to my level; I shan’t be lowering myself to yours.”

    Well, don’t you think awfully highly of yourself Matt? I suppose I would *ahem* ‘raise myself’ to your level if you were indeed on some kind of level worth rising to. But since you’re not, and your real intention was to come on this thread and act like a fact police when it wasn’t even warranted, let’s just say, nah. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Don’t think for a moment that I don’t appreciate the effort to keep us on our toes. People do that all the time around here, and I have taken stuff down that was clearly incorrect or false. MANY times. But in this case, it’s not. And we’ve explained why. If you feel you must still kick dead horses and as your buddy Tim put it, “split hairs” to somehow make an apparently desperately-needed point for yourself, then feel free. But understand that you’ll continue getting called on obtuse-ness and playing semantics.

    Good? ๐Ÿ™‚

  19. I feel like you’re trying to debate things with me that really aren’t debatable. I agree with almost everything you’re saying. So for the sake of brevity, I’m going to only try and clarify my two original contentions, rather than address every thing you’ve said that we agree on. If we can agree that biblical “morals” are the furthest thing from morality, and that most of the laws set out in the old testament are abhorrent, I hope we can clear up these couple little differences:

    First, the meme states that at no point in the bible is it commanded that rapists be stoned. Assuming that stoning is the standard method of execution in Deuteronomy (and there is nothing in there to suggest otherwise), then 22:25 makes it clear that rapists (in some circumstances) should be stoned. Yes, it does not say stoned directly, but the implication is there. I am aware of the restrictions on the circumstances. I am aware that rape is treated primarily as a property crime. I am aware that this only applies outside of the city. And I am aware that everything about these laws is completely repugnant. I am not trying to defend biblical morality. If I can concede that, will you at least concede that there are certain circumstances in which the bible dictates that rapists be put to death (presumably by stoning), thereby rendering the statement that it it never commanded that rapists be stoned is at least somewhat untrue?

    Secondly, my point about the meme implying that men do not take rape seriously. The meme says that god never commanded rapists to be stoned because the bible was written by men. Not bronze age men. Not barbaric men. Not evil men. Not ignorant, ancient men. Not savage men. Just men. The implication of that statement is simply that men don’t take rape seriously. I am aware there are parts of the world where rape is rampant. There are parts of the world where all manner of crime is rampant. I’m not trying to diminish that. All I’m saying is that the implication of the statement is that men don’t take rape seriously, and I find that implication problematic.

    That’s all I wanted to say. Like I said, I’m not trying to defend the scripture. The bible is chock full of evil tidbits just like the ones discussed. I’m just addressing a single inaccuracy, and a rather unpleasant implication. That’s it. Anything else is just reading much too far into my statements.

  20. “I feel like you’re trying to debate things with me that really aren’t debatable.”

    Oh really, I’M the one… ๐Ÿ˜›

    ” I agree with almost everything you’re saying. So for the sake of brevity, I’m going to only try and clarify my two original contentions, rather than address every thing you’ve said that we agree on. If we can agree that biblical “morals” are the furthest thing from morality, and that most of the laws set out in the old testament are abhorrent, I hope we can clear up these couple little differences:”

    Really? You’re going to try again? ๐Ÿ˜ฎ

    “First, the meme states that at no point in the bible is it commanded that rapists be stoned.

    Assuming that stoning is the standard method of execution in Deuteronomy (and there is nothing in there to suggest otherwise), then 22:25 makes it clear that rapists (in some circumstances) should be stoned.”

    No, not “some circumstances”, in ONE circumstance. If a man rapes a woman who is (assumed to be a virgin) betrothed to another man. In other words, slated to be OWNED by another man. Otherwise, it’s open season, rape away. So please don’t try to use the word “some”, when it’s really only “one”, and even then it’s not in the spirit of protecting women. It’s in the spirit of protecting a man’s property.

    “Yes, it does not say stoned directly, but the implication is there.”

    Sorry, not to split hairs or anything, but trying to play the implication card on a verse that has SEVERAL different translations, and none that really help your case expressly, is to put it mildly, a reach.

    “I am aware of the restrictions on the circumstances. I am aware that rape is treated primarily as a property crime.”

    Well HALLELUJAH! You finally admit that.

    “I am aware that this only applies outside of the city. And I am aware that everything about these laws is completely repugnant. I am not trying to defend biblical morality.”

    Then, why are you? ๐Ÿ˜›

    “If I can concede that, will you at least concede that there are certain circumstances in which the bible dictates that rapists be put to death (presumably by stoning), thereby rendering the statement that it it never commanded that rapists be stoned is at least somewhat untrue?”

    Well, to be blunt no, and for the very reason you cite in your concession.

    That the ONE TIME any kind of biblical-ized repercussions are written for the case of rape, it’s because it’s deemed essentially a PROPERTY crime. A betrothed woman is considered another man’s future property. There is an investment being made on that property by both the man’s family as well as the bride’s, in securing the transfer of that property. And that’s it.

    There is nothing even remotely covering the moral issue behind rape. Only in the fact that the bride’s assumed purity is devalued and essentially “stolen” from the man. So no, sorry, no concession. If there were ANYWHERE in the bible, but particularly the OT that just said plainly, in no uncertain terms something like….

    ‘And the lord spoketh: Hey guys, forcing yourself on a woman, whether she’s married, unmarried,betrothed or whatnot,, who clearly states that she doesn’t want to have sex with you, is BAD. And if you get caught doing it, you’re shall die painfully, preferably by stoning if I have any say in the matter. Period. Any questions?”

    But we both know there is nothing like that in the bible, so just go ahead and concede that too.

    “Secondly, my point about the meme implying that men do not take rape seriously. The meme says that god never commanded rapists to be stoned because the bible was written by men. Not bronze age men. Not barbaric men. Not evil men. Not ignorant, ancient men. Not savage men. Just men.”

    But… we already know that the bible was written pretty much during the bronze age, if not before. Why does that need to be specified in the meme? Isn’t it a given?

    “The implication of that statement is simply that men don’t take rape seriously.”

    Well, apparently at the time, it pretty much wasn’t a hot-button issue. So much so that rape was used as a negotiating tool MANY times in the bible. What did you miss those parts?

    “I am aware there are parts of the world where rape is rampant. There are parts of the world where all manner of crime is rampant.”

    So you’re saying that rape is only rampant where “all manner of crime” is rampant? ๐Ÿ˜›

    ” I’m not trying to diminish that. All I’m saying is that the implication of the statement is that men don’t take rape seriously, and I find that implication problematic. ”

    Good, you should. But it doesn’t make it untrue, still, even now, in MANY parts of the world.

    “That’s all I wanted to say. Like I said, I’m not trying to defend the scripture. The bible is chock full of evil tidbits just like the ones discussed. I’m just addressing a single inaccuracy, and a rather unpleasant implication. That’s it. Anything else is just reading much too far into my statements.”

    And I appreciate you at least conceding the point that you did. It’s only essentially what I and a couple of other people on this thread have been pressing all this time. It’s not really an inaccuracy, especially since agree with the context and the limited scope of those couple of verses. Furthermore, you readily included a line that basically says that a betrothed woman being raped who doesn’t scream her head off while being raped, to the point where someone hears her, is subject to the same punishment as the rapist. That part alone pretty much says it all right there, doesn’t it? ๐Ÿ™‚

    Thanks for the spirited discourse in any case.

  21. The point once again is that there is only one suggestion in the entire bible about lawfully killing a rapist, and not only does it not imply stoning, but the crime being punished for isn’t rape, it’s theft of a woman who is owned by another man. If that woman were not betrothed or engaged to another, there would be no crime, and no punishment issued. So this meme is technically accurate, in the sense that there are no bible passages in which God incurs people to stone rapists.

  22. Crissi, I know I’m going to get shit for “picking one of a thousand translations of the bible” and therefore not having a leg to stand on, so how about you pick the translation you want to debate and I’ll tell you why you’re wrong.

Google no longer supports Google Images API and this plugin can't work.

You can try to use other plugins with the same feature:
WP Picasa Box - http://codecanyon.net/item/wp-picasa-box/16099962
WP Pixabay Search And Insert - http://wpclever.net/downloads/wordpress-pixabay-search-and-insert