RC Sproul Jr, 2016 MERGED

[jojo]

9 hours ago, Schmoopy said:

What is Lisa's past? Does anyone know?

You mean besides you?

[hoipolloi]

10 hours ago, Schmoopy said:

What is Lisa's past? Does anyone know?

This commenter stated that Lisa had several, prior marriages before marrying RC2 last fall. Itʻs the same commenter who supplied screenshots of the initial court records. Some of RC-Lisa Sproul's public FB data seem to support her assertions.

 

1 hour ago, Howl said:

Question to @Schmoopy: Why is Lisa Sproul and our discussion of her important to you?  

Yes, please tell us why itʻs so important to you to defend Lisa Sproul and by extension RC2.

You obviously don't give a shit about victims of drunken drivers or RC2's past abuses of church congregations under his pastorships, so what is it to you that we're discussing them here?

[Quinquagenarian]

11 hours ago, Schmoopy said:

Go back and reread the posts. It says what the police report states- the sheriff contacted her at 8:30pm and she was not aware. Facts are essential in conclusions. 

If you really believe that then maybe we should talk about her culpability in some sort of abuse and neglect case against her with respect to her stepchildren. If she knew Spanky was drunk it was abusive to send the boys with him. If she didn't then she should have and should not have let the boys be with him much less travel with him --which is neglect.  

[Schmoopy]

12 hours ago, DomWackTroll said:

Yeah, I can decide for myself whether it "does something for me" or not, but thanks. 

Has it occurred to you that joining a forum that is critical of right-wing/anti-feminist religious movements and immediately, aggressively, and repeatedly defending a felonious proponent of patriarchy might raise a few red flags for members who have been here for years....

 

Like you, I am deciding for myself - but my decisions are made based on the facts I'm able to find. 

Snark is snark- I am looking for the merit of truth.

 

[Schmoopy]

2 hours ago, Quinquagenarian said:

If you really believe that then maybe we should talk about her culpability in some sort of abuse and neglect case against her with respect to her stepchildren. If she knew Spanky was drunk it was abusive to send the boys with him. If she didn't then she should have and should not have let the boys be with him much less travel with him --which is neglect.  

If she didn't know, she didn't know. What's are you failing to understand? That means he must not have been drinking before she wasn't with him and didn't know he had. 

It's important when looking for facts to distinguish snark from truth. Comments are based on both here so source siting is important.

[DomWackTroll]

10 hours ago, jojo said:

You mean besides you?

[Schmoopy]

9 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

This commenter stated that Lisa had several, prior marriages before marrying RC2 last fall. Itʻs the same commenter who supplied screenshots of the initial court records. Some of RC-Lisa Sproul's public FB data seem to support her assertions.

 

Yes, please tell us why itʻs so important to you to defend Lisa Sproul and by extension RC2.

You obviously don't give a shit about victims of drunken drivers or RC2's past abuses of church congregations under his pastorships, so what is it to you that we're discussing them here?

Assumption A) You obviously don't give a $&@! about drunken drivers or RC2s past abuses - what is it to you that we're discussing them here? 

 

Answer:  Assumptions are neglegant. Why does it bother you that someone can be looking for truth and not just go off of someone's opinion?  The thing about a lie is there is always a hint of truth. I don't want to believe a lie for truth- I want to know the truth. Many sites have pieces of the truth- I don't think I need to give you a defense because your offended I don't but into your opinions. Their subjective.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

16 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

If she didn't know, she didn't know. What's are you failing to understand? That means he must not have been drinking before she wasn't with him and didn't know he had. 

It's important when looking for facts to distinguish snark from truth. Comments are based on both here so source siting is important.

What YOU are failing to understand is ADDICTION. An alcoholic left on his own will drink as sure as that the sun will rise tomorrow. Since she says she's so expert on the matter we are convinced she should have known better than leaving him driving around unsupervised with the children.

Can you tell me your opinion: if her husband's addiction is out of control can a woman put the children's safety first amd walk away with them UNTIL he has his acts back together?

[Schmoopy]

Assuming there is an addiction- no. According to all the info I have found- the mans been clean since his arrest.  What need is there for her to walk away? Your assuming the kids have had nothing but a drunken father- what I read on his kids posts is they have the best dad in the world. Kids who would be hurt by a drunken father wouldn't say that.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

No sane person goes around driving with two children on board while drunk. Combine that with his well known and documented history with alcohol and you have an addiction. So yes there was an addicted man who, as is clearly documented, posed a danger to the life of his children while his unaware wife was busy sweeping the dirt under the carpet. All this is proved.

As for how is the situation now we have your word and his wife's, a person who enabled him before.

My question wasn't necessary related to Sproulgate. In general, if a nameless husband's addiction is out of control can a woman put the children's safety first and walk away with them until he has his acts back together?

[Schmoopy]

10 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

Schmoopy asked if we knew anything about Mrs. Lisa. There was somebody posting snarky things about her and her previous marriages, some weeks ago -- anybody else remember that? Did the contributor fade away or flounce or other? I've been having too much fun [sic] IRL to have been able to pay much attention. 

Do want to ask, since Schmoooy mentioned Mrs. Lisa "taking on" her new husband's 7 children, how many are actually at home, under their roof? (The roof being something Mrs. Lisa gained in her 3rd divorce, IIRC, according to the poster I asked about earlier.)

Darcy is married, Delaney is engaged to a Phillips boy ... I'm thinking the three who are older than the youngest sons are young adults? Just a detail, and not to say that kids in adolescence or young adulthood are necessarily easy to step-parent, especially in a case like this where the biological parent is in heaven and not on earth to help carry the load.  

Just wondering about the ages.

Mamajunebug- you are one my favorite commentors on here. You seem to redirect some positives, posting questions and comments most have not thought of. It's through many of your comments I started searching for answers. 

From all FB posts they have had it looks like four of his kids are under her roof. Homeschooling is something she did w her own kids, by the albums on the page she had a room that was ready when they arrived. I'm sure since they had no mom, and siblings filling in, the kids were finally having consistent education.  The ages look mid teen to elementary ages. A video was posted of her taking Molly to get her drivers permit.

i also checked out her past-- found little. Her work and vocation.

I did see she was a college queen 1995-1996 from pictures on the FB of her being crowned.

[Schmoopy]

10 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

No sane person goes around driving with two children on board while drunk. Combine that with his well known and documented history with alcohol and you have an addiction. So yes there was an addicted man who, as is clearly documented, posed a danger to the life of his children while his unaware wife was busy sweeping the dirt under the carpet. All this is proved.

As for how is the situation now we have your word and his wife's, a person who enabled him before.

My question wasn't necessary related to Sproulgate. In general, if a nameless husband's addiction is out of control can a woman put the children's safety first and walk away with them until he has his acts back together?

Assumption - what I think I know is true. 

If the court says the man is clean and he is on probation then why aren't they saying "you're addiction is so bad you have to be in drug court?"  Instead, he's clean and whether or not we know for a fact what happened that night, we are just guessing. Frustrating? 

Your question isn't substantiated by my answer. 

[Schmoopy]

44 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

What YOU are failing to understand is ADDICTION. An alcoholic left on his own will drink as sure as that the sun will rise tomorrow. Since she says she's so expert on the matter we are convinced she should have known better than leaving him driving around unsupervised with the children.

Can you tell me your opinion: if her husband's addiction is out of control can a woman put the children's safety first amd walk away with them UNTIL he has his acts back together?

I'm not failing to understand addiction- I'm failing to understand how you equate that the police report made by the sheriff said she did not know he was drunk or driving with the kids, and claim she did? Are you the sheriff? Nope! 

You cannot enable someone if they get picked up by the sheriff, go to jail and end up in IN for probation and you stay clean. 

Addiction admits their an addict. He did. He's clean. He's in therapy- that's what addicts who admit do.  If you are so savvy on Addiction, then you know the interventions that are implemented to the one seeking to deal with them and move forward. 

What your convinced of is how you think your right. Read the police reports. Your he said/she said would not hold up in a court of law- but the sheriffs report would.  So... since this man is doing what he's asked by the courts and meeting their criteria no ones enabling in my view. - that why we aren't seeing more legal issues posted in the Christian Post etc.

[Howl]

@Schmoopy, Lisa Sproul has a facebook account with RC.  Head over to facebook to "RC-Lisa Sproul" and private message Lisa and RC with your questions.  I'm sure they will answer any questions you have and you'll have the truth you seek. 

And I have this to say: Your ignorance about the nature of alcohol addiction is profound.  Addiction and the processes that fuel it do not go away with sobriety.  In terms of sobriety,  6 or 7 months are just the beginning -- baby steps.  And those of us who grew up with a profoundly alcoholic parent (like me), know that a smiling face on a child doesn't come close to telling the whole story.  There are so, so many stories that start, "My family looked wonderful and successful on the outside..."

If you want evidence, people who grew up with an alcoholic parent and those who work with addicts on a professional basis have provided quite a bit of information and insight on addicts and addiction processes, and why there are red flags surrounding RC.  RC has a very long and extremely public history of drinking to excess that has been well documented by those who know RC personally and through RC's own comments. 

If you want confirmation that RC is a new man, sober as a judge and emotionally and spiritually healthy, the perfect dad, and Lisa and RC have a great marriage, knock yourself out; search the internet and come to your own conclusions.  Many FJers have done their research, have professional insights about addiction and have come to a different and much more skeptical conclusion about both RC and Lisa. 

If you want the truth, then search for the truth.  Just don't try to do it at the same time you are defending someone.  It's not the same. 

 

[Schmoopy]

2 minutes ago, Howl said:

@Schmoopy, Lisa Sproul has a facebook account with RC.  Head over to facebook to "RC-Lisa Sproul" and private message Lisa and RC with your questions.  I'm sure they will answer any questions you have and you'll have the truth you seek. 

And I have this to say: Your ignorance about the nature of alcohol addiction is profound.  Addiction and the processes that fuel it do not go away with sobriety.  In terms of sobriety,  6 or 7 months are just the beginning -- baby steps.  And those of us who grew up with a profoundly alcoholic parent (like me), know that a smiling face on a child doesn't come close to telling the whole story.  There are so, so many stories that start, "My family looked wonderful and successful on the outside..."

If you want evidence, people who grew up with an alcoholic parent and those who work with addicts on a professional basis have provided quite a bit of information and insight on addicts and addiction processes, and why there are red flags surrounding RC.  RC has a very long and extremely public history of drinking to excess that has been well documented by those who know RC personally and through RC's own comments. 

If you want confirmation that RC is a new man, sober as a judge and emotionally and spiritually healthy, the perfect dad, and Lisa and RC have a great marriage, knock yourself out; search the internet and come to your own conclusions.  Many FJers have done their research, have professional insights about addiction and have come to a different and much more skeptical conclusion about both RC and Lisa. 

If you want the truth, then search for the truth.  Just don't try to do it at the same time you are defending someone.  It's not the same. 

 

Your ignorance is profound. Why? Because it removes your ability to throw stones w a cause. 

You have hardly any truth in here- you have plenty of lies projected by people who created hate sites against men they couldn't manipulate and those same men threw their families away and one lives in his mothers basement and doesn't pay taxes. Now- that's truth !

[Howl]

5 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

You have hardly any truth in here- you have plenty of lies projected by people who created hate sites against men they couldn't manipulate and those same men threw their families away and one lives in his mothers basement and doesn't pay taxes. Now- that's truth !

THANK YOU!  You didn't address any of my points, of course, but now we know this was never really about Lisa and RC.  Plus, I'm starting to wonder if you are posting drunk, because you aren't quite coherent.  Whatever the reason, you've outed yourself and now it's time to flounce, dearie.  

[laPapessaGiovanna]

25 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

I'm not failing to understand addiction- I'm failing to understand how you equate that the police report made by the sheriff said she did not know he was drunk or driving with the kids, and claim she did? Are you the sheriff? Nope! 

Oh I am sure that she told the sheriff she knew nothing, I never contested that, that's exactly what enabling relatives do all the time, they never know, they never notice, they mever see, they never hear, they never even smell alcohol.

25 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

 You cannot enable someone if they get picked up by the sheriff, go to jail and end up in IN for probation and you stay clean. 

Oh yes you can! Maybe you should look up the meaning of "enabling". If she knew that he has an alcohol problem and let him drive around unsupervised with the kids then she was enabling him.

25 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

Addiction admits their an addict. He did. He's clean. He's in therapy- that's what addicts who admit do.  If you are so savvy on Addiction, then you know the interventions that are implemented to the one seeking to deal with them and move forward. 

Yes I am and I don't trust an alcoholic that stopped drinking 6 months ago. It takes 1 year of sobriety AFTER the end of therapy because the addiction is considered overcome (and the person is still considered more vulnerable to new addictions as long as he lives), so since he is still in therapy the year hasn't even started yet.

37 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

Your question isn't substantiated by my answer. 

What does this mean?

ETA you never really answered my question: can a hypotetical woman temporarily separate from an hypotetical addict husband who puts the children's lives at risk?

[nickelodeon]

I get the Schmoop's desire to be very skeptical toward claims made about RC2, since (as the early pages of this thread show) he has a lot of grudgewank with people who are fucking lunatics, including kinists and people who think the earth is actually flat, and so rumors (especially ones that circulate through reformed blogs and press) might need to be taken with a grain of salt.

That said, the Schmoop's evasiveness when asked why they're so invested in defending RC2's new wife is weird.

And that said, before the Ashley Madison leak, RC2 spent every day ranting on social media about how ~*~the sodomites~*~ are endangering the sanctity of the family, so when the man is accused of being a danger to his own family, all I can say is: ha! suffer!

[Howl]

2 minutes ago, nickelodeon said:

grudgewank

Awesome new Word of the Week!  In fact, awesome post in general.  

[Schmoopy]

14 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Oh I am sure that she told the sheriff she knew nothing, I never contested that, that's exactly what enabling relatives do all the time, they never know, they never notice, they mever see, they never hear, they never even smell alcohol.

Oh yes you can! Maybe you should look up the meaning of "enabling". If she knew that he has an alcohol problem and let him drive around unsupervised with the kids then she was enabling him.

Yes I am and I don't trust an alcoholic that stopped drinking 6 months ago. It takes 1 year of sobriety AFTER the end of therapy because the addiction is considered overcome (and the person is still considered more vulnerable to new addictions as long as he lives), so since he is still in therapy the year hasn't even started yet.

What does this mean?

ETA you never really answered my question: can a hypotetical woman temporarily separate from an hypotetical addict husband who puts the children's lives at risk?

FYI- A sheriff report is exactly what that means- not Lisa's report to the sheriff- there's nothing like that and you would know that if you looked. 

 

@Howl I don't feel the need to answer any of your questions- by choice. 

10 minutes ago, nickelodeon said:

I get the Schmoop's desire to be very skeptical toward claims made about RC2, since (as the early pages of this thread show) he has a lot of grudgewank with people who are fucking lunatics, including kinists and people who think the earth is actually flat, and so rumors (especially ones that circulate through reformed blogs and press) might need to be taken with a grain of salt.

That said, the Schmoop's evasiveness when asked why they're so invested in defending RC2's new wife is weird.

And that said, before the Ashley Madison leak, RC2 spent every day ranting on social media about how ~*~the sodomites~*~ are endangering the sanctity of the family, so when the man is accused of being a danger to his own family, all I can say is: ha! suffer!

I addressed that in my reply to Mamajunebug.

[Howl]

4 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

@Howl I don't feel the need to answer any of your questions- by choice. 

No surprise there.  It would involve forming a coherent response to salient points. 

[Schmoopy]

2 minutes ago, Howl said:

No surprise there.  It would involve forming a coherent response to salient points. 

True and your not coherent enough receive them when You abide  in denial.

[Marian the Librarian]

"In a stooper of denial" - new post count title!!

[SilverBeach]

Dammitol! I hate it when my daily allottment of downvotes gets consumed by one troll. There's been a lot of trolling lately, is there something in the water?

[Howl]

4 minutes ago, Schmoopy said:

True and your not coherent enough receive them when You abide  in denial.

Let me help: True, and you're not coherent enough to receive them when you abide in denial. 

And what am I denying?  I think this is what we've been trying to get to all along.