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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Considering that religious offshoots typically occur because of disagreement in teachings and interpretation, no, they’re not bound to their origins at all.
Lmao, you’re grasping at straws mate.
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.