755
Cedarville professor, author on Christian sexual ethics, arrested on eight sex felonies (roysreport.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
97 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A former Cedarville University finance professor whose writings promote a Christian ethic of marriage and sexuality was arrested Tuesday on eight sex-related felony charges involving one or more minors.

The indictment, filed March 27 in Ohio’s Greene County Common Pleas Court, charges John Kent Tarwater with two counts of rape, three counts of sexual battery and three counts of gross sexual imposition.

He was booked into Greene County jail in southwest Ohio, where he remained in custody as of Wednesday morning. No defense counsel was listed in public court records, and no hearing or trial dates were disclosed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (28 children)

My humble opinion:

Many Christians (and people of other kinds of faith) truly want to be good humans. I know many christians. And although for many reasons I personally don't take their faith for me, I do recognize their honest intentions and beautiful hearts.

Then... then we have these scumbags... these abominations that not only abuse (in the general sense), but also target and scar for life the most vulnerable members of our society. These excuses of human beings are a complete waste of air and must be castrated and let to rot in prison.

Edit: Add strike-though. Great points in the comments. I must say I wrote too fast in the heat of the moment. I understand how castration may come from a desire of revenge rather than seeking to eliminate a threat to society. Thanks for the discussion!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Castration is not an acceptable punishment. Imprisonment is. Some might argue execution is, I disagree, in theory.

    If for no other reason, you cannot trust the right people will be convicted to do such a punishment. Get a hold of yourself man.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    That is actually a great point. My comment started from the basis that "we got the right person, and they did what they are accused of"

    But you are 100% right. That's a huuuuge assumption.

    What is your viewpoint if that assumption was (for whatever cosmic reason) correct?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Execution. Never castration.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Some could argue that execution is more drastic. Why the first and not the latter?

    I am guessing is a matter of cruelty?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I would argue that castration is cruel and unusual punishment and, torture, and as such I am completely against it, if you have that much of a problem with the person you should kill them, but I am against the death penalty because we can't trust the courts to get the right person. But that is in theory, in the real world outside the courts... but the kicker is regular people cannot be trusted to accurately ascribe a blame either. But there are no Perfect Solutions I suppose. But killing someone is better than making them a shadow of themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (16 children)

    Their holy book is filled with rape, murder, genocide, incest, and ritualized cannibalism in the name of their god. It ends with them going to heaven while everyone else gets burned for eternity. There probably are decent people who get involved, but their decency does not stem from their religion. It’s a psychological coping mechanism that has become a good old boys club that holds itself as morally unaccountable to anyone but god for their actions. In the real world, people expect others to either not be an asshole, or if they are, actually atone by paying the consequences and change their ways, not just whisper some words to the sky and announce “all good, I’m forgiven”. You can insert a lot of other religions in here- do wrong, be sheltered from consequences by your cult, or if even they can’t protect you, double down on refusing to take accountability because you don’t think you answer to other humans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (13 children)

    ritualized cannibalism

    wow, that's new for me, would you mind to elaborate?

    The rest, good points. You touched several reasons why I don't endorse their faith myself.

    Thanks for the comment

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    The ritualized cannibalism bit is transubstantiation, the belief that the blood(wine) and body(bread) of Jesus turn into his real blood and body during consecration in catholic mass.

    But you could make a dig into it overall just beacuase the bread and wine are symbolic ritual cannibalism, very culty sounding when you look at it from another angle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

    As you said though, that's a Catholic tradition, not Christianity as a whole, and it isn't directly supported by the Bible. Its their unique interpretation of the act of communion. The actual text seems pretty metaphorical IMO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    Communion is not really just a catholic tradition, and it is not a wild interpretation to make when a dude says these 2 things sybolically represent my flesh and blood, calling the whole ritual symbolic cannibalism is not a stretch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    I didn't say communion was only a catholic tradition. I said transubstantiation (the thing that you were talking about that I replied to) is only a catholic tradition. Calling transubstantiation cannibalism is one thing, but calling communion cannibalism when it is entirely symbolic is absolutely a stretch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Well considering nearly, if not all modern offshoots of Christianity are rooted in Catholocism, I don't really see why you they need to be separated so. The communions practiced in protestant offshoots are kind of bound to their origins no?

    And once again, symbolically eating the flesh and blood of your deity can be referred to as symbolic ritual cannibalism, whether or not you believe that it is literally turning into the blood and flesh of your deity in your stomach.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Considering that religious offshoots typically occur because of disagreement in teachings and interpretation, no, they're not bound to their origins at all.

    symbolic ritual cannibalism

    Lmao, you're grasping at straws mate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    You are right and wrong.

    Martin Luther had a problem with the idea of transubstantiation, but also rejected memorialism (the idea that you were taking the bread and wine to memorialize Christ's sacrifice). Martin argued that the literal body and blood of Christ were "in, with, and under" the sacraments. His reforms denied the magical transformation of transubstantiation, but vehemently defended the literal presence of Christs blood and flesh in the sacraments.

    In other words, symbolic ritual cannibalism. Maybe some modern protestant offshoots disagree, but this is definitely not contained to catholocism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Sacrifice is a common theme in a lot of religions. The victim is offered to the diety, killed, and then consumed; the followers get whatever they were after, which could be atonement, a blessing, grace, etc. In Christianity theology, the man-god Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice, ending the need to attain atonement with animal sacrifice. His instructions were to ritualistically eat bread (his body) and drink wine (his blood) as the atonement ritual. Different sects have differing opinions on where this is purely symbolic (most Protestants) or if through transubstantiation it literally becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus (Catholics). At the end of the day, you’re either symbolically or literally eating Jesus. By the doctrine though, it’s not pure cannibalism since Jesus is a god incarnate, but that’s what theologically makes it a step up over other forms of sacrifice; eat god, become like god.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

    Meh... "eat god, become like god" makes no sense.

    The whole point of Christianity (at least in this dimension) is that Jesus' sacrifice is the ultimate mercyful gift fro God to undeserving humans. Participating in the communion is never a power trip to become like god, but a reminder that "you are still standing solely by his grace".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    2 Peter 1:4 - “Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature,having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”

    John 17:21-23 - “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

    Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, circa 318–325 CE - “He became man so that we might become god.”

    The concept is called theosis and is developed largely from those two verses and was further contemplated by early Catholics. Whether you become one with the godhead, like unto the godhead, or, such as in Mormonism, can literally become a god-being (though not the God) yourself varies by sect. Most agree that the communion does infer some sort of divine combining of one’s self with the god power. You can also see this concept in the idea of “invite Jesus into your heart”, or the gift of the Holy Spirit. Somehow some part of god is dwelling in you and you are a part of god.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Interesting.

    I only know the Protestant flavor of Christianity, and never, in many years, I got that kind of interpretation. It was more like "hey human, you are so doomed. Here you go: salvation. Now, in your unpayable gratitude, go and spread the word of what I'm doing, and do good stuff. Remember, without this gift, you were nothing, so, behave."

    Kind of like tiktokers that give stuff to homeless, trying to become viral... but a bit more ominous...

    Sure, glory is promised, but you gotta die first.

    Also, this "god entering our heart" seen more like "having the unmeasurable honor of being noticed by this god, and (mind being blown) he cares about me". So the expected answer is eternal gratitude and a "debt of love".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, the debate over the nature of how exactly sacrament works and what the purpose is not a singular belief in Christianity and like the Trinity is one of the things that has been debated within councils and philosophy endlessly. The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are the main two that hold it physically becomes the body and blood of Jesus. The big Protestant churches run the gamut of “body and blood is present but it’s still bread and wine” to “present in spirit” to “this is bread and wine; the act is symbolic”. That’s also why some can substitute grape juice or water and the act is still valid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Mutilation (including castration) is never okay. Prisons exist for criminals—committing a crime against humanity in retaliation instead is not okay. Also, you can't un-mutilate someone (in most cases), and the law makes mistakes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Yes, somebody else also pointed out that we cannot trust the legal system to sentence the correct person (either due to corruption or legitimate mistakes).

    Under the perspective of the "not undoable punishment". Is the death penalty also, never acceptable, or is there some nuance, in your opinion?

    Thanks for the discussion :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    In my personal opiniom, the death penalty is not as bad as mutilation. Having said that, I think there is no moral way to kill a person who does not wish to die. I oppose the death penalty for a lot of reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The problem is how many people in religious groups will refuse to condemn actions of the religion's organizations and leaders but keep their "membership". If you are provided evidence that a group you are a part of is committing heinous shit like systemic child rape but you will neither leave nor vocally condemn it then you are fully compliant in those crimes. If you go further, as most religious people do, and white wash the absolute fuck out of the reality of the crimes of your group and try to spread that bullshit then you are just as guilty as the actual rapists, just as guilty as the "cleaner squads" from the Vatican that help relocate rapist priests.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •