Church demands the victim apologize to pastor's wife since the pastor did the rape.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... and adding to that, those church members who disagree with this forced apology can, and should, have the spine to speak out against it.

All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing, isn't that the quote for this moment?

I didn't say otherwise, just pointing out that "the Church" is a cogent body.

Oh, I know. I was piggy-backing your post, not taking issue with it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I didn't say otherwise, just pointing out that "the Church" is a cogent body.

Oh, I know. I was piggy-backing your post, not taking issue with it.

Fair 'nuff. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What I don't get is, the age of consent in Ohio is 16, they had sex on multiple occasions.

All of the sudden the girl is crying rape?

The pastor apparently plead guilty to 4 counts of sexual battery.

Coercion comes in many forms, Huggy. "You'll be quiet about this or we'll out you as a slut." "Who's going to believe a 16-year-old against a pastor?!"

Or it could be that she refused him sex four times and he still forced himself upon her, and she simply had to find the courage to tell someone. Just because you've had sex with someone previously doesn't mean they cannot turn you down.

A guilty plea is a sign of overwhelming evidence pointing to guilt.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If little miss can't be wrong did shake her little behind in front of someone then she should not be suprized when/if someone drives a truck through it.

Victim-blaming from Drich ... why am I not surprised?

"It's okay ... she was asking for it."

[RoadRunner79]

I read most of your responses, and it seems to me that most of you believe that all whom you would label a 'victim' is always innocent and pure of heart. That if anyone has ever had a crime committed against them then no matter their actions leading upto said crime so long as they themselves did not break the law, they are 100% free of any responsibility that lead upto the crime.

I don't buy it.

There is not enough EVIDENCE (A word most of you use for everything except when you choose to judge or persecuting Christians) for any one of use to judge what or why the church acted the way that they did.

Maybe most of you are too old to know what goes on in "texting" now a days, but If this 'victim' did indeed send naked pics to this guy.. To any decent person, she does own an apology. But, again this article does not give enough information for any Just person to levi a judgement one way or another.

All I am saying is in general we all need to be held to account for our actions. If I need to with draw a very large amount a money from my bank, I don't go into a high crime area to do so, and I certainly would not be walking out the bank counting the money out loud where everyone could see and hear. Nor would I flash the money to people who I think would have no problem trying to take it from me, and dare them to take it. If they do, yes they commit a crime, but at the same time I am not innocent nor should I not be held to account for daring people to rob me.

If little miss can't be wrong did shake her little behind in front of someone then she should not be suprized when/if someone drives a truck through it. It does not make what the preacher did right, but it doesn't make her right/innocent either. As such IF she did throw gas on a fire by sending naked pics then at the very least this person should apologize without having to be prompted.

Making everyone an innocent victim no matter what means it is ok to be a f-ing moron the rest of your life and it set morons up to be victims the rest of their lives. Which allows for the real problem people looking to manipulate others through their victim-hood. This maybe the world you want to live in but I am getting sick of it.

Drich,

This seems like a lot of conjecture.   I looked for other stories, and while I did find out a little more info than the reference in the OP, nothing was said that resembles the above (although there does seem to be some liberal narration in the OP reference as well).

None of the other reports, that I had read, mentioned anything about the context of the girl sending messages to this man or that she did at all
The church intervened, when they found out that he was sending her texts and the texts stopped for a while.   It is unclear if these texts the context of these texts before (other than mentioning marital problems and complaining about his wife), although the girl says that when he started texting again, that the tone went from being innocent and fun, to more serious. I would say that if there was any inappropriate suggestions at all in these texts (even if they could be viewed as "in fun"} before; the church should have at minimum removed him from the youth ministry, not just asked him to stop texting (could be more serious depending on what was said).

The Church after learning about the incident, reported the former youth pastor to the police, where he was arrested, and plead guilty.  The only thing that seems to be of controversy,  is the mother's claim during the trial, that church asked the girl to apologize to the wife before returning to the church.  The church maintains that this was a misunderstanding, and what was suggested; was that it would be best if the two (the girl and the wife) could make amends with each other.  Here is a quote by a pastor at the Church:

"It's not true. It was a willful misunderstanding of a conversation she had with our senior pastor. And it was not something that the church had ever put, there were no requirements for the family to return to the church. We had done everything we could to support them. The church at its own expense had arranged for counselling for all of the folks that are involved," said the assistant pastor to CP.
Close ad X

"The church was very proactive in going to the police before the mother even went to the police. We reported it to our congregation immediately and we tried to do everything that we could to be proactive and transparent," he continued.

Which in my opinion seems to be consistent with the rest of the story (although it can be difficult to determine what was actually said).  It doesn't appear that they are trying to say that the girl did anything wrong.

[Drich]

I read most of your responses, and it seems to me that most of you believe that all whom you would label a 'victim' is always innocent and pure of heart. That if anyone has ever had a crime committed against them then no matter their actions leading upto said crime so long as they themselves did not break the law, they are 100% free of any responsibility that lead upto the crime.

I don't buy it.

There is not enough EVIDENCE (A word most of you use for everything except when you choose to judge or persecuting Christians) for any one of use to judge what or why the church acted the way that they did.

Maybe most of you are too old to know what goes on in "texting" now a days, but If this 'victim' did indeed send naked pics to this guy.. To any decent person, she does own an apology. But, again this article does not give enough information for any Just person to levi a judgement one way or another.

All I am saying is in general we all need to be held to account for our actions. If I need to with draw a very large amount a money from my bank, I don't go into a high crime area to do so, and I certainly would not be walking out the bank counting the money out loud where everyone could see and hear. Nor would I flash the money to people who I think would have no problem trying to take it from me, and dare them to take it. If they do, yes they commit a crime, but at the same time I am not innocent nor should I not be held to account for daring people to rob me.

If little miss can't be wrong did shake her little behind in front of someone then she should not be suprized when/if someone drives a truck through it. It does not make what the preacher did right, but it doesn't make her right/innocent either. As such IF she did throw gas on a fire by sending naked pics then at the very least this person should apologize without having to be prompted.

Making everyone an innocent victim no matter what means it is ok to be a f-ing moron the rest of your life and it set morons up to be victims the rest of their lives. Which allows for the real problem people looking to manipulate others through their victim-hood. This maybe the world you want to live in but I am getting sick of it.

If she did something like send naked pics to the guy, the proper response is not go have sex with her. Two wrongs don't make a right, assuming she even did anything wrong in the first place. What we've been presented with is a guy doing something illegal, and being absolved of it by the church because he's supposedly a holy man.

If she did anything illegal, he should have gone to her parents, or the police. If what she did was legal, like wearing revealing clothing, or doing something that could be interpreted as flirting, then it's still the man's fault for giving in and breaking the law.

If that's all she did, then that just means she's a teenager. That her body is functioning in the way it should. We should not get angry when babies cry, and we should not get angry when teenagers explore their sexuality. These are normal behaviors. Not immoral.

I agree with everything you said except the last line.

I don't want to live in a world where it is normal for a 16 year old to try to seduce a married man by sending naked pictures (if again this is what happened) to Him and only holding the man accountable.

Again read the article they were texting for some time and it stopped for a while when the wife found out but picked back up after sometime...

The article does not mention pictures, but I can't imagine texting that leads to sex that does not include some 'previews.'

[Drich]

I read most of your responses, and it seems to me that most of you believe that all whom you would label a 'victim' is always innocent and pure of heart. That if anyone has ever had a crime committed against them then no matter their actions leading upto said crime so long as they themselves did not break the law, they are 100% free of any responsibility that lead upto the crime.

I don't buy it.

There is not enough EVIDENCE (A word most of you use for everything except when you choose to judge or persecuting Christians) for any one of use to judge what or why the church acted the way that they did.

Maybe most of you are too old to know what goes on in "texting" now a days, but If this 'victim' did indeed send naked pics to this guy.. To any decent person, she does own an apology. But, again this article does not give enough information for any Just person to levi a judgement one way or another.

All I am saying is in general we all need to be held to account for our actions. If I need to with draw a very large amount a money from my bank, I don't go into a high crime area to do so, and I certainly would not be walking out the bank counting the money out loud where everyone could see and hear. Nor would I flash the money to people who I think would have no problem trying to take it from me, and dare them to take it. If they do, yes they commit a crime, but at the same time I am not innocent nor should I not be held to account for daring people to rob me.

If little miss can't be wrong did shake her little behind in front of someone then she should not be suprized when/if someone drives a truck through it. It does not make what the preacher did right, but it doesn't make her right/innocent either. As such IF she did throw gas on a fire by sending naked pics then at the very least this person should apologize without having to be prompted.

Making everyone an innocent victim no matter what means it is ok to be a f-ing moron the rest of your life and it set morons up to be victims the rest of their lives. Which allows for the real problem people looking to manipulate others through their victim-hood. This maybe the world you want to live in but I am getting sick of it.

Drich,

This seems like a lot of conjecture.   I looked for other stories, and while I did find out a little more info than the reference in the OP, nothing was said that resembles the above (although there does seem to be some liberal narration in the OP reference as well).

None of the other reports, that I had read, mentioned anything about the context of the girl sending messages to this man or that she did at all
The church intervened, when they found out that he was sending her texts and the texts stopped for a while.   It is unclear if these texts the context of these texts before (other than mentioning marital problems and complaining about his wife), although the girl says that when he started texting again, that the tone went from being innocent and fun, to more serious. I would say that if there was any inappropriate suggestions at all in these texts (even if they could be viewed as "in fun"} before; the church should have at minimum removed him from the youth ministry, not just asked him to stop texting (could be more serious depending on what was said).

The Church after learning about the incident, reported the former youth pastor to the police, where he was arrested, and plead guilty.  The only thing that seems to be of controversy,  is the mother's claim during the trial, that church asked the girl to apologize to the wife before returning to the church.  The church maintains that this was a misunderstanding, and what was suggested; was that it would be best if the two (the girl and the wife) could make amends with each other.  Here is a quote by a pastor at the Church:

"It's not true. It was a willful misunderstanding of a conversation she had with our senior pastor. And it was not something that the church had ever put, there were no requirements for the family to return to the church. We had done everything we could to support them. The church at its own expense had arranged for counselling for all of the folks that are involved," said the assistant pastor to CP.
Close ad X

"The church was very proactive in going to the police before the mother even went to the police. We reported it to our congregation immediately and we tried to do everything that we could to be proactive and transparent," he continued.

Which in my opinion seems to be consistent with the rest of the story (although it can be difficult to determine what was actually said).  It doesn't appear that they are trying to say that the girl did anything wrong.

since you seem so good at fishing out content, maybe you can read my first post again and show me where I said The girl did infact send naked pictures of her self.

Because from what I remember I said something to the effect: maybe you guys are just too old to know this, but seldom is the case where texting leads to sex with out at least a few pictures involved.

A detail that liberal rag forgot to mention. Which to me again is the ONLY reason little miss can't be wrong owes the wife an apology.

[ukatheist]

You do get that the sex was not consensual, right? You are inserting an element of seduction here on the part of the girl where there is none.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

[GUBU]

You do get that the sex was not consensual, right? You are inserting an element of seduction here on the part of the girl where there is none.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

You see because dripshit "knows" the pastor is a holy man, he could never have done anythong wrong, therefore the young girl was a harlot succubus sent by satan to ruin him because he was doing god's work so well and therefore he was raped by her rwally.

Those of us in the reality based community think otherwise based on the facts of the case.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Drich,

This seems like a lot of conjecture.   I looked for other stories, and while I did find out a little more info than the reference in the OP, nothing was said that resembles the above (although there does seem to be some liberal narration in the OP reference as well).

None of the other reports, that I had read, mentioned anything about the context of the girl sending messages to this man or that she did at all
The church intervened, when they found out that he was sending her texts and the texts stopped for a while.   It is unclear if these texts the context of these texts before (other than mentioning marital problems and complaining about his wife), although the girl says that when he started texting again, that the tone went from being innocent and fun, to more serious. I would say that if there was any inappropriate suggestions at all in these texts (even if they could be viewed as "in fun"} before; the church should have at minimum removed him from the youth ministry, not just asked him to stop texting (could be more serious depending on what was said).

The Church after learning about the incident, reported the former youth pastor to the police, where he was arrested, and plead guilty.  The only thing that seems to be of controversy,  is the mother's claim during the trial, that church asked the girl to apologize to the wife before returning to the church.  The church maintains that this was a misunderstanding, and what was suggested; was that it would be best if the two (the girl and the wife) could make amends with each other.  Here is a quote by a pastor at the Church:

Which in my opinion seems to be consistent with the rest of the story (although it can be difficult to determine what was actually said).  It doesn't appear that they are trying to say that the girl did anything wrong.

---

since you seem so good at fishing out content, maybe you can read my first post again and show me where I said The girl did infact send naked pictures of her self.

Because from what I remember I said something to the effect: maybe you guys are just too old to know this, but seldom is the case where texting leads to sex with out at least a few pictures involved.

A detail that liberal rag forgot to mention. Which to me again is the ONLY reason little miss can't be wrong owes the wife an apology.

Drich,

All I said, is that this seems to be mostly conjecture (didn't mention anything about pics). I could be incorrect though, in which case I apologize, and would ask for your source. Or perhaps I am mistaken. to me it appears, that you are trying to make a case for this (which I believe to be Ill-conceived). If you are not, I apologize, and please clarify what you are trying to say (because I have no idea).