Thanks Donna for taking the time to do these videos!
Donna Bennum – Part III
About the Author: Kevin
Writer, imperfect Jesus-follower, cryptocurrency fan, marketer. Passionate about liberty, faith, family, marriage, foster care, and adoption. $BTC $DGB
It's commendable that you objected to Stanton, and had the courage to speak out, however, many go too far to the other side. Stanton is way too legalistic, granted, however, Benjamin Rush was a very wise Doctor and a Founder of America, and he didn't agree with drinking at all either, and he had nothing to do with Stanton. America already pays $700 billion a year for drug, tobacco, and alcohol issues, per the CDC, and we sure could use that $700 billion for other purposes. Rush's book is here, I apologize for not being able to find it without a cursed Google Book link. https://books.google.com/books?id=-6UoAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
As for tattoos, Stanton isn't the only place which says tattoos aren't for Christians. https://biblereasons.com/biblical-reasons-no-tattoos/
I had siblings who left Stanton and they went off into behaviors which the Bible does not advocate for. God calls for people to obey Him, no matter if we are oppressed, bullied, or tyrannized over. Mainstream Christianity is very broken, Stanton is right about that, but so is Stanton. Stanton errs on the side of law, Mainstream Christianity errs on the side of love. The Gospel is the law and love combining.
That said, your courage to step away and speak out is awesome!
Montesquieu-My main problem with Stanton's rule of no alcohol is the fact that they take the ability away from the Christian to MONITOR THEMSELVES. The saying they have used often, "You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater!"
I have Christian friends who don't/won't drink but that is their choice. Stanton oppresses by taking away the freedom of the individual. Bill even asked one of the evangelists about having a glass of wine with his wife (me). He was told he would just have to be careful it didn't become common knowledge. (Stanton and it's secrecy….). As I have shared with my husband, once you leave Stanton you have to be open to consider points of scripture differently than Stanton taught. I understand the world goes off the deep end in sin but does that mean start prohibitions on everything???
We agree that their totalitarian tactics leave a lot to be desired, however, on alcohol, personally, I'm convinced taking away that choice is a very good thing. Libertarians, and the majority of Christians and conservatives disagree with me on this, however, the cost of alcohol legalization and acceptance is far higher than prohibiting it. Even if we can use it responsibly, there are many around us who cannot. No one will ever say they got into alcohol problems because of my example, because I never used it. Stonewall Jackson was asked about why he never used alcohol, and he said, 'I tried it once, and I liked it too much':).
As it stands, Donna, there is a steep price for using Alcohol. When you look at the data, it's terrifying. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Alcohol%20Kills/alcohol.htm
Further, the totality of the scriptures outlaw alcohol. And, the alcohol that does appear harmless in the Bible did not have the alcoholic content that today's alcohol does. Most of it was used as a preservative, because they did not have Pasteurization, which allowed us to preserve our juice, etc. 300 years ago, there was no such thing as grape, apple, and orange juice that lasted longer than 3 days. Louis Pasteur was a great man.
Donna, the paid preacher (evangelist) who said what he said concerning drinking wine to your husband proves that they do not consider it a sin. They would never tell a member to go ahead and sin. Makes you wonder how many other teachings would be similar. Disagree with you Montesquieu though I do not drink alcohol I think Kevin’s article on the matter is pretty convincing. Drunkenness is the sin. The cult in that matter of drinking wine simply teach to go the extra mile and abstain completely. Just as television. Trust me members have televisions and as MM in Portland has had a device for his computer that literally makes it a tv. Though they teach against it. Easiest to teach go the extra mile and not have one.
Wow, Interesting, Craig. Would have never dreamed MM has a television. Incredible to think he's watching very worldly people on hellivision, who don't give a rip about the Church of Christ, while shunning those of us who are interested in Christianity, and live it every bit as good as he does.
It's great you don't drink alcohol. Kevin and I disagree on the point of banning alcohol and television in church. I wouldn't mind banning alcohol in America. Paying $200 billion a year for prohibition, as opposed to the 10,000 who die from drunk driving annually and the $740 billion a year we spend on alcohol, tobacco, and drugs (That was from 2010-2013, so it's probably closer to $1 trillion today) seems like an incredible deal. https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics
As for hellivision, the average American wastes 9 years watching that garbage, and it might be the worst communication medium in human history. It has created a nation of mindless drones who don't comprehend history and the Bible. 90% of the Christian church knows their hellivision better than their Bible. A total travesty. http://jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Hellivision/hellivision_and_movies.htm
The impact of television on the Christian church has been devastating. The Christian church is now full of easy-believism, which is all about 'muh Jesus loves me', and 'muh faith', and not about action and behavior at all. The church is a wreck since the television came on the scene in the 1920's. http://jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Hellivision/hellivision_and_movies.htm
Montesquieu, MM as far as I know does not have an actual TV, rather a device that would virtually turn his computer into one. Anyhow with the smart phones you can have tv right on it to if you wanted it. Firm believer tv as with the internet, books, magazines, etc. it’s not the devices it’s what you put on them. Do they consume your mind and time? All falls back to the individual and what they allow to enter into their minds.
Thanks for the vids Donna! Expose expose expose!
About Tattoos….
There has been a lot of feedback after my video where I mentioned having tattoos, so I would like to address this subject.
Most choose Leviticus 19:29 to try to prove Christians should not have tattoos.
Leviticus 19:28 reads: Ye shall not make any cuttings on your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.
From the context of the verses around this scripture this was instructions given to the Jews on how to not become as the heathen/idol worshippers in the lands around them. Other commands in adjacent scriptures were “ ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.”
Leviticus is Old Testament law- not New Testament. This law does not apply to Christians today (unless you abide by Stanton’s rule). Are we going to pick and choose which scriptures we will use to prove truth by?? Are we going to selectively use the Old Testament to prove a law for Christians even though we know we are not living by the Old Testament?
I used to be a terrible one to judge people for things like tattoos- that is how it was as a believer in Merie’s ‘church’. When God broke my chains that freed me from the man-made teachings of Merie’s cult- I got a tattoo! BECAUSE I COULD!
My very first tattoo said “His Grace Is Enough”, in beautiful script lettering. I also have a medical alert on my wrist due to my severe allergy to all NSAIDS.
My youngest child (18) asked me to get matching mother/daughter tattoos when she turned 18. I was rather flattered, so I did. I also have angel wings for our son, Nathan, who we had to remove from life support the day after he was born. ( He is the baby some of you remember from the May week in Chino at the Grange, where Bill & I were called murderers for removing his life support, even though his lack of organs could never have sustained his life.).
I also have cosmetically tattooed eyebrows, which I LOVE.
BTW- not one of these tattoos are sacrilegious. They are all is very good taste. None are vulgar, spew profanity or nudity or any such things.
I understand that tattoos are just NOT some people’s thing. I get that. We all have different tastes, likes, and dislikes. But if this blog is to educate people to the truth of the scriptures- let’s make sure not to twist them to our agenda.
I will say that since getting tattoos, they have actually broken down invisible walls between myself and some of the general public who may have thought that someone my age would judge them to be heathens because they have a ‘sleeve’. This broken down barrier has opened doors to form relationships I would have missed out on BEFORE tattoos. I have friends in my church who I partner with to host Bible based recovery classes. I can be very confident in saying that our recovery classes would not be as effective in reaching those who need it most if it were run by little old straight-laced women like me (minus the tats and experience).
Now show me SCRIPTURE in the New Testament that proves anything different. Not necessary inference.
Donna, well done!!
Thanks for sharing again Donna. In the end, we do look to scripture and there is nowhere that says drinking alcohol is a sin nor is getting a tattoo. We can't go by somone else's conscience on these things. If they bother you, don't do them. If they don't bother you, in moderation so you don't get drunk and cause yourself to sin. We can have scientific facts but in the end none of it matters if it's not a sin. We're out of Stanton now, let's not place rules where there aren't any.
M Long- I agree! If you like being bound by Stanton’s rules- go back to that prison. Don’t try to oppress those on here who seek liberty in Christ. I served too many years in bondage, and I could care less how many poles and statistics you can share. And “necessary inference” is used by Stanton to prove anything they desire it to prove. Christ gave us the perfect law of liberty. James 1:25- let’s leave it to do the perfect work.
Yes Donna you are SO right!!
Loved your video Donna!! You are so right!! This cult is so oppressed & is most definitely a prison!! Cheers to you!!
M Long so true. I’d read where Merie thought playing with balls was can’t remember the exact word but she was against it. Her opinion, her conscience which spread to members. I grew up playing organized athletics. Boxing, baseball, football, basketball and wrestling. The cult teaches it instills pride. It will steal your children’s hearts, mind and soul. Lack of discretion. Blah blah blah. The teacher in Portland ST children participate in organized athletics and they are all just fine. Hopefully all will remain nonmembers of the cult. The cult instills pride in its members by feeding the lie that they are the one and only true church. Which exalts them in their mind above everyone else. So my point from the beginning was Merie’s conscience and opinions were instilled in her disciples and that cycle continues.
Necessary inference rules out drinking alcohol and getting a tattoo. Some haven't quoted a scripture on this site ever, so it's pretty clear their feelings are doing their thinking for them.
'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. If you think it's oppressive to not have a television or to avoid adult beverage, you haven't really studied the harms of both. Never mind Stanton, there are plenty of people, christian, non-christian, liberal, and conservative, who strongly disagree with alcohol and television. There are a lot of people who leave Stanton, and if you happen to agree with Stanton on issues, like avoiding alcohol or television, they will say 'You are brainwashed by Stanton'. Ummm, not really.
And, while Stanton is wrong on a bit, and that's been elaborated on here by many, calling them a cult is playing right into the Marxist way of thinking. They call all churches cults, and by doing that, they fool naive people like Arizona, who think the Marxist Democrats are nice and kind people who help the poor.
Also, America's Founders weren't playing sports, and they did just fine. All 3 professional sports leagues, the MLB, NBA, and NFL are in Democrat hellhole cities. They are simply distractions. Playing sports amongst ourselves is fine, but playing it competitively is quite a waste of time. No one can name a professional athlete from just 200 years ago. Why? Because they don't matter. It's a worthless pursuit.
Calling Stanton a cult is jumping out of the fire and into the frying pan. If you think Stanton is bad, wait until the Democrats regain the presidency. You'll be begging for Stanton's oppression again.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/an_unheralded_prophet.html
And why is it that some are so forward about calling for their liberty to drink adult beverage and tattoo their bodies, but when we have a full blown liar in the midst, which Arizona has been busy doing for awhile, they have nothing to say? Just goes to show we have lots of selfish Christians, who could care less about what is right and wrong, but only care about having fun.
Seeing that we only have both of your words to go on, and no way of verifying what either of you are saying, its probably best to not pick sides in this feud.
AnonymousMarch 17, 2019 at 3:44 PM
Anyone who can read and critically think can understand Arizona is lying, and he uses the most vile, libertine speech as well.
9 of his lies are posted on the last post, multiple times. Unless you are lazy and hate to read and think, you can easily tell he's a liar.
No, Anon is right. I read both of your comments, and I just see both of you pointing fingers at each other calling the other one sinner and liar, with no real proof either side is lying.
You're also using faulty reasoning by suggesting that if we don't see things your way, we can't read or critically think. Maybe the case is that, you're just wrong.
Monte wrong?!?!! There is no such thing!!
Agree with both Anon comments.
Watch out if you post Anonymous you are automatically labeled a liberal democrat & nothing you say is correct!! An you will be labeled Arizona..whoever that is. Whatever happened to everyone is allowed to have their own opinions & thoughts? Instead you are judged by someone behind a keyboard who does not know you from the man on the moon.
AnonymousMarch 17, 2019 at 5:09 PM
Most likely a Stanton plant. Good job though. You hide very well.
Go read the lies he told, and explain why one lie he told is not actually true.
Just like Stanton you draw conclusions and throw the facts under the bus. You never change.
AnonymousMarch 18, 2019 at 9:17 AM
LOL, probably another Stanton plant. Read carefully, I've admitted I was wrong plenty of times.
If you read EVERYTHING before running your mouth, you'd understand and wouldn't ridicule ideas and things you are too lazy to make the effort to comprehend.
All we have to do is google your name to see the nut job you are..you fit right in with this cult!! Stick to selling insurance.. I'm sure you make a perfect sales guy!!
Wait..you're all about your 1st amendment of freedom of speech right?! So let us alljust keep running our mouths!!
AnonymousMarch 18, 2019 at 4:29 PM
Ah yes, because Google is a reliable source, said no wise person ever!! Matter of fact, every person who tells the truth is hated by Google and called crazy.
Haha, how can you not know this? LOL! Just Google Donald Trump and all the terrible CNN articles about him will pop up. Do you really think that's by accident? The people at Google think Americans are really stupid, and I'm inclined to think that maybe Google is right.
Even the left wing USNews says Google is dangerous. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated
Like the Stanton followers, you are naïve and easy to manipulate. Stanton isn't a cult, it just has some bad ideas. But some people on here think if you call it a cult enough times, you will destroy Stanton. That will never happen. Reason and logic alone will discredit them, but not many want to do the hard work that it takes to PROVE Stanton is wrong, without calling them a cult. Easier to just call them a cult.
Yes, about that First Amendment, you should actually research the men who wrote it. They didn't create the First Amendment for profane, corrupt liars like Mr. Arizona. They also didn't create it for foolish followers like you, who are duped by Google. They created it for a wise and virtuous people. When you are wise and virtuous, then the First Amendment will apply to you.
But, like many Americans, you are in love with talking, and you hate to read and listen.
https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/
Since pride causes contention, you often get into disagreements and you get angry and make it personal. Pride is charging into debates with no idea what you are talking about. Stanton's leaders do that frequently, and they clean up their messes with withdrawal and excommunication, so no one is ever right if they disagree with a Stanton teacher.
https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/
How brave you are. Another anonymous person, flinging insults on topics they clearly know nothing about. There are probably at least 300 comments on this site from people like you. And it rarely stops. It's a nonstop assault from either Stanton plants, or indoctrinated mindless drones from the left. Both are really no threat at all. To compensate, your type sez 'You're crazy', or you will lie, use vulgarity, or use leftist sites like Google for expert opinions.
When you can't prevail with reason, fight dirty, is the logic your side uses. Stanton does it too though.
This is 100% a cult.
You are literally the 1% who disagrees & is combative regarding every.single.sentace that is put on this blog. You play the victim man!! Every time you reply its literally the exact same statements. You need a life!
AnonymousMarch 18, 2019 at 7:06 PM
You can die fighting on that hill. More power to you.
Exaggeration and a Straw man logical fallacy. I'm not combative over every single sentence, but critical thinking requires thought, which it appears you are allergic too.
Just because you disagree with untrue statements is not a bad thing, though Plato did say , "No man is hated more than he who tells the truth". It's alright, you have plenty of company. It was people like you who inspired the Founders to give us the First Amendment. They knew people with strong opinions hate to be exposed.
Also, repetition is the mother of learning.
Do I need a life like most in America? If I sit in front of the television, watching it for 9 years, is that a life? If I use psychotropic drugs, like 80 million Americans, is that a life? If I watch pornography, as 70% of all online clicks are for, is that a life? If I get married and practice contraception, is that a life? If I get tattoos, party, and drink adult beverage, is that a life? If I play video games constantly, is that having a life? Is being brainwashed by the media, schools, television, Google, and Hollyweird having a life?
Can you please help me to get a life? I would really like to know how to get a life, please help me!!! Pretty puhleazze! I am so excited about you being able to show every one on here how to get a life. Can't wait to learn!
How ridiculous all this arguing between two or three people on this blog day after day. Personally I skip their comments getting down to read others as the three simply bore me and what are they accomplishing ? Hello! Nothing! While others make comments and their comments make sense .and
The videos are informative and so sad but true! I think Ryan needs to get away from the computer and get some sunshine and exercise and drink water. It will change yours attitude and meet people away from the church/cult. Oh yes, I am waiting for him to tear apart my comments. Not really. I have a life.
Concerned OutsiderMarch 19, 2019 at 11:10 AM
How about you become concerned about the truth?
If any say something false, correct them. If not, why are you bothered?
Do I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
We've had hundreds of frustrated outbursts from those who can't logically defend their beliefs at all, but simply emotionally explode at those who disagree with them factually. Well, facts don't care about your feelings, CO.
What led you to believe this site was a popularity contest?
If you skip our comments, then why did you read and respond to them right now? You obviously read them, and you chose to respond to them. If you don't like them, ignore them and don't respond. No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to have emotional explosions.
Are you from Stanton? I'm still waiting for a logical disagreement with any of my comments. I'm happy to hear it. All we have is death by a thousand cuts. Hundreds of anonymous accounts express to the website how much 'We don't like Ryan'. Ummm, is that supposed to intimidate me into being quiet? Hasn't worked in 7 years, how much longer do you suppose you'll try in vain?
I run a few miles a week and drink plenty of water. Thank you, Doctor, for your health diagnosis, and you did it without knowing a solitary fact about my habits. Impressive. Delusional, like most criticisms. reading and responding to criticism normally takes 30 minutes a day. For some reason a hive of Stanton and Marxist indoctrinated hornets hate what I have to say, and fiercely assault with ridicule, nonsense, Google propaganda, Stanton Gossip, and other invective.
If anyone has the truth, I'd expect them to be able to refute all attacks. The curse of the internet is you have no idea about who is on here anonymously. We could have rapists, child molesters, drug addicts, alcoholics, porn addicts, or other serious and debauched sinners, who have no intention of repenting, on here, and we'd never know. So, the reader can note those who criticize and condemn the most do so from the shadows.
Teddy Roosevelt talked about how worthless the critic is. The one who hasn't really done anything in life, has never known big failures, and who simply sits and criticizes and thinks this is what life is all about.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
This website is full of these timid souls. Too cowardly to get up in public to say anything, but bold to come on an internet website anonymously and fling stones.
No I am not Stanton and never would be. I am outside looking in because I have family in this cult. Some have gotten out thank goodness. I was even duped into thinking from outside it was good for them to have a church family even if several things were odd to me (like no holidays and not going to a funeral or wedding in another church) because there were positives I could see. Faithfulness,friends,manners,loving the Lord. Little did I know all these strange things were going on.
Craig I agree that pride is so elevated in Merie's church despite their constant teaching of it. They are so proud in their thinking that they are the one group of people going to heaven. It seems to make them feel they can get away with their injustices.
Necessary inference is something the Weiss cult overuses to bind one's conscience. I personally don't care for tattoos, but I'm not telling someone it's a sin where the Bible is silent on this. If any of us wants to play God, well, have at it. Or we can look at ourselves and see that maybe we have a bit of the cult still in us. Many of us posting here do.
When someone suggested a podcast, I thought, oh NO. While I like this blog and reading people's stories has helped me to not feel like I was the only person who went through this, one thing I don't want is for this site or anyone on it to be my guide in new learning of the Bible. I look to y'all for someone to lean on in this journey. I have looked to others outside the group for spiritual leadership and help. I feel like I literally came out in a spiritual negative by being in Merie's cult and I have to re-learn the Bible again. I just don't think anyone who allowed themselves to get in deep with the cult could ever help me learn the Bible significantly. I hope that makes sense without offending. And I hope you all are still searching with help from others who have a different perspective and a more positive spiritual experience.
Well said Craig and I am so proud of you and your journey since leaving the cult! Love from your Mother
Psalm 104:15
And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.
One may prudently enjoy the fruit of the vine as one of God's blessings, and not only is it not a sin, it is a celebration of our Lord's spirit and beauty!
Cherrypicking verses.
Besides the wine and alcohol of Jesus's day was used as a preservative mostly, and certainly didn't have the alcoholic content of today's alcohol.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Alcohol%20Kills/god_hates_beer.htm
“Whiskey and beer are all right in their place, but their place is in hell. The saloon hasn’t one leg to stand on.” Billy Sunday
Proverbs 20:1 – Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
Galatians 5:21 – Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Proverbs 23:29-35 – Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
No wise Christian leader in the past 2,000 years ever celebrated drinking wine or alcohol. But, apparently this site has a few lovers of adult beverage who will fight for 'muh libertea'.
Mr. Osteen, either you're displaying willful ignorance, or you're being deceitful by ignoring the fact that your beloved founders were lovers of the drink themselves.
"No wise Christian leader in the past 2,000 years ever celebrated drinking wine or alcohol. But, apparently this site has a few lovers of adult beverage who will fight for 'muh libertea'."
History disagrees with you.
George Washington, ever heard of him? His whisky distillery made 11,000 gallons per batch.
Sam Adams:
The precocious Adams was busted drinking rum during his senior year at Harvard. He was fined five schillings, but avoided being “degraded in class." Later he spent so much time swigging ale in radical public houses that his enemies nicknamed him “Sam the Publican” (he wore this as a badge of honor). Sam also threw epic parties, highlighted by a 1768 Stamp Act Riots commemorative bash that featured no less than 45 toasts to celebrate the planting of a Liberty Tree.
John Adams
Yes, Adams did start most of his mornings from his collegiate days onward with a gill of cider, but a gill is only about 3oz. A baby could do that! More impressive: even at 40 he partied six hours a night for seven straight weeks with the younger men of the Continental Congress. He also once attempted to use his diplomatic immunity bring in 500 bottles of French Bordeaux without paying taxes, failing, and then making Jefferson do it for him. Purchases like that fueled scenes like this one, described by Moreau de St. Méry, a French dignitary staying with the Adamses, who professed shock at their “barbaric” stamina:
[Dinner was] washed down with cider, weak or strong beer, then white wine…they keep drinking right through desert, toward the end of which any ladies…leave the table and withdraw by themselves, leaving the men free to drink as much as they please, because the bottles then go the round continuously, each man pouring for himself. Toasts are drunk, cigars are lighted, [and] diners run to the corners of the room hunting night tables and vases which will enable them to hold a greater amount of liquor.
Luther Martin
Of the Maryland lawyer who refused to sign the Declaration of Independence on the grounds that it insufficiently respected states rights, historian Lawrence Goldstone wrote: “No one, perhaps in the whole of American history, could drink with Luther Martin.” The “heaviest drinker of that period of heavy drinking men” would excuse his habit with quips like “In the heat of the summer, my health requires that I should drink in abundance to supply the amazing waste from perspiration.” The brilliant Martin was high-functioning enough to get away with it, though sometimes he had to get creative: once when representing a Quaker in court he committed to “not drink a drop," so instead poured 90-proof brandy over bread, ate it with a fork and knife, and then proceeded to win.
Thomas Jefferson
If Martin can’t be matched for enthusiasm, Jefferson can’t be matched for appreciation. As Emily Bosland writes in Thomas Jefferson: A Free Mind, Jefferson singlehandedly upped America’s wine game, serving as “official wine advisor” to Washington, Madison, and Monroe, and allocating 200 acres of Monticello to viticultural experimentation overseen by the Italian Phillipo Mazzei, who apparently really knew his ***t. As President, he was the first person to stock the White House with wine (and spent a third of his salary on it during his first year), and convinced the Secretary of Treasury to lower the duty on wine to boost its consumption and stifle sales of whiskey, which he saw as a scourge of drunkenness, as opposed to wine’s “innocent gratification." Post presidency, he stayed very innocent — between 1822 and 1824, receipts indicate that he consumed 1,200 bottles. He is currently starring on Cougar Town.
AnonymousMarch 19, 2019 at 7:27 AM
A deceitful liar. Pretty common. In a nation that has lost it's moral compass, one of the Founders said, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
"No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government."
Thomas Jefferson
This is why, whenever I and others get up in public with some common sense virtue, the Google Warriors attack.
You simply copy and pasted off of Google. How about you go get some books on the Founders. Go read a biography of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson for the first time in your life. Then, report back.
To corrupt types like you, Google is a lifeline. You can appear to be wise and right, when in reality you are foolish and corrupt.
And this is why your type hates me, because me and others like me know you are frauds and reject your nonsense. This you don't like. Doing what's right isn't important to you. Power and Pleasure alone are what's important.
Benjamin Rush, another Founder, wrote an entire book on why alcohol should be banned. But, you are selectively cherrypicking Google sources to justify your tippling.
Please let the rest of us know what bogus website you copied and pasted from?
Your comment ought to be deleted for profanity. Any time anyone uses profanity, they are normally dead wrong.
I'm just going to identify the fallacies you commit in your blithering rants. Your unchecked narcissism wont let you have a normal conversation.
Genetic Fallacy is your first blunder.
Here is the description from GOOGLE. lol
Genetic fallacy
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) the genetic fallacy results from attacking the source or origin of information, rather than the information itself.
The next fallacy Appeal to Authority.
You do this in almost every post, where you spout nonsense and expect everyone to adhere to it because 'muh founders' did it, so it must be right.
~The Appeal to Authority Fallacy is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an authority.
Nobody hates you, don't flatter yourself. We know your ideas, and thinking are fringe in America that virtually no church agrees with. That's why no one takes you seriously in the COC.
Outside of your sensationalized emotions, there is little to be gained.
Narcissism? You mean criticizing other people anonymously? Is that the narcissism you are talking about?
Never heard of a genetic fallacy before. However, you got it wrong, as you completely don't understand the environment in the day of the Founders, and so you blunder into thinking I'm saying they are right just because they began America. That's not the argument at all. It's a lot more involved, so stop being lazy, go to the library, and start reading, before running that big mouth of yours. Have to continually shoot down impudent types like you, and you hate it, and go on Jihad against me. However, with historical know nothings like you, you will argue all day over semantics, because you are bullheaded and frankly, an ignoramus. If you don't like being exposed, don't attack ideas you little comprehend. You will be put in your place, though you are a coward and remain anonymous.
Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth.
Try staying off Google, and try getting a history library. You will hate me less and love the truth more.
The appeal to authority does not apply when its easily discerned that the families and churches of early America were in far better shape than today. But your Google gospel has you deluded and completely blinded. What will it tell you when you run back to it now? It will never agree with me, or anything I say. You are down the algorithm Rabbit Hole of Google. Hopefully you come out.
Anyone who understands the virtue and wisdom of the Founders, compared to leaders today, know the Founders were far advanced. The point of Marxism is to make sure that you have no reference to compare truth with. Since the vast majority of Americans were never educated on their history by schools and the media, now I become the bad guy for relying on the principles that made our nation great?
Who is we? You don't understand the history of the Church of Christ, or America, and if you did, you'd agree with me. So we are back in school, and we have the class bully, who hates to learn, trying to intimidate the kid who exposed them as an intellectual fraud.
Hey, go pick on someone else. You don't intimidate me.
You just used the appeal to popular logical fallacy. As if you have many who agree with you. And if you do? Popularity doesn't determine truth.
The First Amendment was so that all ideas can be heard, and the truth could prevail. Go learn that and it's history.
AnonymousMarch 19, 2019 at 4:50 PM
By the way, you sound like you are from Stanton, what church are you from? A well written post.
It's unlikely that anyone not in Stanton would ever say 'That's why the COC doesn't take you seriously'.
Also, like Stanton you pay no attention to details and just write off everything as a rant. GP, TC, and KS do this constantly. Fact free discourse. Silence dissent.
To the reader who is not from Stanton, who can reason, and who doesn't love alcohol and tattoos more than the truth. Notice how when anonymous is accused of being with Stanton, they don't respond, they don't deny, and they simply go back into hiding for their next attack.
They try to limit their words, and unload nuclear bombs whenever possible. Like guerillas, they hate to be identified, are too cowardly to face scrutiny, and are too effeminate to debate honestly. Everyone on here from Stanton knows who I am. Virtually no one knows who my anonymous attackers are. Most are likely from Stanton, but they are really good at attacking from the shadows.
You have quite a bit of experience doing that in Stanton, don't you? That's why when I spoke up publicly against you, Stanton, your teachers were helpless and had to withdraw. You weren't used to someone calling you out in public, and couldn't handle it. Funny how Stanton's teachers have no problem dishing it out, but are lily livered when it comes to taking it.
Excellent points Anon 4:50! I agree that a normal conversation with RM is beyond impossible due to the fallacies committed in his rants. The fallacies you list are spot on when describing his line of defense/attack. I almost said 'line of reasoning'; my bad.
How does anyone know you aren't with Stanton, AOC? You are about as bright as the other AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
There are no fallacies in my comments that have been revealed by a reasonable thinker, but until you start reading history, that won't be apparent to you. Maybe read twice as much as you talk.
Lots of fact free dismissals of my facts.
You are imitating Stanton. They do it all the time.
It appears Stanton is on this site, sowing discord and walking disorderly.
Two topics they love to withdraw from hapless members for, but which they specialize in.
What church are you from AOC? It doesn't appear anyone on here knows who you are?
In armies at war, when you don't give a password, they shoot you. Why? Because you are likely a spy, trying to sabotage the mission. In like sense, if you don't identify yourself on here, as most of the Stanton and Marxist cowards are fond of doing, no one should take them seriously.
I'm going to change the fallacy from appeal to authority, to "muh founders" from now on.
"muh founders"
"Anyone who understands the virtue and wisdom of the Founders, compared to leaders today, know the Founders were far advanced"
This is nothing more than opinion, so its disregarded.
"The appeal to authority does not apply when its easily discerned that the families and churches of early America were in far better shape than today."
More fallacies because its possible to know history and not agree with you.
" You don't understand the history of the Church of Christ, or America, and if you did, you'd agree with me"
Says the king of 'muh founders' quote mine
"You just used the appeal to popular logical fallacy. As if you have many who agree with you. And if you do? Popularity doesn't determine truth."
Genetic fallacy
"You are down the algorithm Rabbit Hole of Google. Hopefully you come out."
everything past the comma is your opinion.
" The First Amendment was so that all ideas can be heard, and the truth could prevail."
You don't have facts, you have opinion, nothing more.
"Lots of fact free dismissals of my facts."
Your narcissism is making me consider bringing you up for withdrawal here on the blog as well, where we'll ignore (mark and avoid) your pestilential, petty and proud behavior and antics. I highly doubt anyone here will object, and you wont be able to claim they're being terrified into silence.
Lucky for you since you're the dramatic victim, you'll get to have another reason to pretend everyone is attacking you, and you can keep playing your favorite character the drama queen.
The empirical approach. By your reasoning, history didn't happen. Pretty naïve and gullible, but it seems like it works for you. If you refuse to learn about it, it didn't happen. This is your reasoning.
Prolly another Stanton member, masquerading. Another anonymous, ahistorical type. If I had $1 for all the comments from your type on here, I'd be rich. What church are you from?
Haha, Alleging logical fallacies when you don't know history isn't too bright. Keep at it. You have to actually have studied history and be able to talk about it intelligently to tell someone else they are engaging in logical fallacies.
Since you seem to be so well learned on this nations history, can you help those of us who aren't as informed as you to discern who 10 of the 204 Founders were?
Also, can you let us know just 10 Civil War Generals from history?
I'm pretty sure you will impudently respond that it's not important. So, in your book, any learning that goes above what you have studied, is not important. Got it. How humble of you!
Mr. Osteen
You're right. Your little comic books about your human idols you refer to as the founders aren't important to me. I also don't care what you feel I need to read. The only book I read is my Gods holy Bible. You don't read your bible enough and it shows.
I only brought up fallacies in response to you squawking about "that's a fallacy, that's a fallacy, that's a fallacy" anytime someone said something you didn't agree with.
Its very telling that you play victim when ever your own tactics are employed against you.
I must confess, last night a brother shared about pride and I had to practice a large amount of self restraint to not bring you up as the perfect example to what he was saying. He described you perfectly.
It just shows that sin will make its host have compulsory symptoms of the infliction.
AnonymousMarch 21, 2019 at 7:30 AM
Are you from Stanton, you certainly speak like it. Half truths, don't read anything but the Bible, and full of angry denunciations.
You've been corrected already that there is zero correlation between Osteen and myself, but it seems to bring you spiteful pleasure to repeat clear deceitful allegations. Kevin does not find it needful to correct the spiteful, malicious, lying snakes like you, but there are others who tattle about me responding to your type with the indignation your nonsense requires.
Long ago, we took your type, stuck you in a corner of a classroom, and put a dunce cap on your head. Then we all laughed at your stupidity, which made you want to learn and mend your ways. Well, half of America is functionally illiterate today, so you fit in nicely, and are part of the majority. If most people laughed at you, they'd be hypocrites. So, you are emboldened.
You ridicule men far wiser than anyone in Stanton today, the Founders of America, and call them my idols. Ummm, may I please apologize to you for the crime of actually reading about them and critically thinking to compare them to people of today? Will that make you stop bullying me for learning something you hated to learn?
https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/
It's astonishing to me that when you tell many Americans that learning about the 204 Founders of their nation, who gave them the liberty and freedom they enjoy, as the Founders revered God far more than Stanton or America does today, and knew far more history to boot, you get angry responses. Give people the key to salvation from their political and religious problems, and they spit on you. A common problem throughout history.
'If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man.' Twain was right.
You even largely parrot my style to attack me with. Interesting and amusing. You misused the fallacies, as you don't understand the time period being discussed.
If you believe in the Bible so much, why not follow it?
It says not to answer a matter before you understand it. Proverbs 18:13 “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”
You certainly have been violating that with nearly every comment.
Further, it says not to bear false witness, and you compare me fallaciously with Mr. Osteen, repeatedly, even after being corrected.
You don't even follow the one book you say is important to you, then say other books don't matter. Let's be honest, you don't obey God, you think you are God. I've committed blasphemy by disagreeing with your God, you. So, you are trying to punish me for my blasphemy. Let's be honest, shall we?
Pride is speaking on topics you don't know about, and you've been doing that often on here. So, maybe some self-introspection is in order? Dismissing 2,000 years of human history as if they don't matter is pretty proud. Seems to bother you not at all.
'Last night a brother shared about pride'? Really, would that be in a Stanton Bible class? Which church are you from?
Kevin, you see how Stanton continuously attacks me on your blog? The tactics of calling someone else proud when you don't understand what they are saying and disagree with it, isn't wise at all. A wise person researches before they disagree with an idea.
And you end with a Stanton flourish.
Turn up your nose, call the other person a sinner, and dismiss everything they say.
Can anyone else on this site help this Stanton member realize where their errors lie?
Oh, I'm sorry, forgive me. I wasn't aware I was speaking to the 260 year old French judge Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu. The person you call yourself.
"Further, it says not to bear false witness, and you compare me fallaciously with Mr. Osteen, repeatedly, even after being corrected."
Thank you for the clarification your Honor. Ill be mindful in the future to address you as your honor since you're the real Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, and I don't want to bear false witness.
Wow, imagine the delusion going on in your head to insist people call you someone you're not. Generally society locks these people up for their safety and the people around them.
AnonymousMarch 21, 2019 at 11:12 AM
You won't share what church in Stanton you are from, Monsieur? Why ever not?
As for me, a pseudonym is necessary for the same reason Silence DoGood was used over 200 years ago. Everyone who attends Stanton, or has attended Stanton knows who I am, and that's how I like it. Those who have no business with Stanton, do not.
Explaining the Stanton situation to the liberal left Marxists is stupid. They could care less about what is right and wrong, they will use any disagreement to destroy and terrorize the Christian community.
Like Stanton, you gloss over your glaring and public errors, and proceed to ridicule those who expose you. A habit you've learned from your leaders.
He wrote a book, called the 'Spirit of the Laws', it was studied by the Founders you ridicule.
Now, you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. No one knows who you are, everyone knows who I am that should know. It's easy to throw stones from the shadows. How about speaking up in public, in a hostile environment, under your real name, for the first time in your life. You can look up my real name on a great search engine, SwissCows.com, and I'm not asking you to do anything I haven't done already. But, in your book, if you disagree with a lot of people in public, that's 'pride'. Total nonsense.
LOL, then you pull out another Stanton canard. Someone is crazy if they disagree with Stanton. It never ends. The left and Stanton constantly do this. Stanton has been wrongly diagnosing people as crazy for 40 years. What's crazy is they can't understand their bogus judgements are why they can't grow at all. What's crazy is travelling 3,000 miles to discuss breaking unleavened bread once or twice. What's crazy is travelling 3,000 miles to discuss if you can bring a Happy Meal in the building on a Saturday. What's crazy is withdrawing for a defiled marriage bed. What's crazy is you can't even intelligently discuss why I was withdrawn from, yet you agree with it.
Do you still want to discuss crazy?
Anon from Stanton – I'm happy to have you as a participant in this blog. I do think Montesquieu's suggestion that you do so openly rather than from the shadows is a reasonable one. Why not? What do you have to lose?
My motto from day one on this blog has been that truth doesn't need to be afraid of a lie. I've put my thoughts out there for everyone to pick apart and criticize openly. Why not do the same?
You really are insane. First you get offended that I'm not referring to you as your sobriquet.
Then when confronted with the absurdity of that, your response is to justify and defend why its fine for you to do it.
Even if I told you what congregation I'm from, it wouldn't benefit you at all. The reason I won't tell you is because "As for me, a pseudonym is necessary for the same reason Silence DoGood was used over 200 years ago."
You cant seriously think your reason is good enough for you, but arbitrarily say why I cant use the same reasoning. There's a name for that behavior as well, and it almost rhymes with democrat.
Still flogging that dead horse about May week topics?
"confine yourself to the present" ~Marcus Aurelius
If you don't like what topics are discussed at the May meetings, do the hard work, make your self right, become a preacher, attend the meetings, make a case for what you feel should be discussed. Instead you rather sit here whining about 'Muh founders' 'Muh history'. I like how you think you came up with some slang word from 2008, it shows how out of touch with current events you are. I only use it to show how juvenile and vacuous it is.
Thank you, Kevin. It’s probably because Stanton has practically no one who can get up in a hostile environment and tell the truth. When women run the church, courage and derring do are lacking.
Straw man, logical fallacy, anonymous. Nowhere was I offended at you not calling me by my pseudonym. I specifically said calling me Osteen when there’s no reasonable comparison between us is what I object to. Besides, only preachers in your church, who don’t even travel, and aren’t evangelists are paid like Osteen. I’ve never taken a cent for telling the truth. So you posit your logical fallacy, then say I’m insane, when I said nothing close to what you allege. Bigtime straw man argument.
You won’t tell us what church you are from? Why not, most of us have revealed where we are from? If you have the truth, what have you got to hide, as Kevin said above?
Silence DoGood, as many know, was used by Ben Franklin, to avoid getting fired from his job for telling the truth. We have already shown how you don’t tell the truth always, and you respond to matters you do not understand, which, according to the Bible, is not the mark of a wise man.
As mentioned above, everyone mostly knows who I am on here. None of us know who you are.
To understand the present, we must learn the past. ‘There is nothing new under the sun’. Solomon
You advise me to make myself right? Certainly. Can you tell me what I was withdrawn from for and explain how it was scriptural? If you don’t know the circumstances, I’d be happy to explain them to you.
While you’ve heard all kinds of propaganda about me, you’ve never heard what happened from
Me, have you? There is no appeals process in Stanton. God certainly did not say to judge a matter without hearing all the evidence.
Anon from Stanton – Let me just say that calling Montesquieu insane doesn't help your case any more than him calling you a liberal Marxist progressive. 🙂 Lol
Tell me the benefit of exposing who anyone is? Do their ideas become less or more true? Is it so you can dismiss or revere them because of their position in the church? Ideas operate independent of their originator.
I don't even know if I'm talking to the same person, Kevin. It started out with a person defending alcohol, and copying and pasting quotes containing profanity. No one from Stanton would do that, that's for sure.
I know I didn't call the person from Stanton a liberal Marxist progressive. Just saying….
Not sure I called the other person that either, for the sake of verity.
Stanton has a knack for dismissing those who disagree with them, marginalizing them, dehumanizing them, and demeaning them. I never do that. I will be severe, but the end result is a better person. Chastisement makes chaste. Of course, I'd like, Kevin, to have your assessment of Solomon's advice to apply a 'rod for the back of a fool'. When someone insists on being impudent and unreasonable, making a lesson out of them publicly is a very good strategy. They chose their behavior, and they can reap what they sow. Do you see God showing mercy to defiant and impudent types in the Bible? I certainly don't. David didn't kill Shimei for his cursing him to his face, and his impudence, but even David commanded his son Solomon to deal with him, and Shimei was eventually killed. Not advocating violence in response to verbal vituperation. Further, Kevin, why does it bother anyone if I quote a relevant passage from history that fits into a topic? If they don't like it, don't read it or respond? This totalitarian mindset of 'I need to get rid of what I don't like' is dangerous and completely dictatorial. It's arbitrary, irrational, and completely subjective. That is not how judgement is to be administered.
In Stanton, you are often a hellbound lunatic if you disagree with their leading teachers, on anything. If an organization does that to it's own, and rarely are they the defiant types of Jude, is anyone surprised why it's so hard to recruit new members?
The members from Stanton who come on here are merely repeating what their teachers have told them. If the teachers told them I'm withdrawn from and deserve to be on the funny farm, the members come on here and parrot that. If it weren't for books, the Bible, God, and knowing history, I'd have caved to Stanton's psychological terrorism long ago.
Stanton's attacks and those from the left are very similar. They throw out a lot of accusations, hope it all sticks, brand you an undesirable, and cut you off from other humans. Very similar tactics. Quite interesting.
AnonymousMarch 21, 2019 at 3:30 PM
Agreed, however, if you agree with my withdrawal and excommunication, then would it not naturally follow you ought to be able to discuss what the withdrawal was for, and where the Bible says my Withdrawal was scriptural?
Montesquieu, a few scriptures for you to think about. 1 Peter 4:3 Excess of wine (drunkenness), Titus 2:3 not given to much wine (drunkenness), Titus 1:7 not given to wine ((drunkenness), 1 Timothy 5:23 a little wine for the stomach and other infirmities. Timothy was a young man too. 1 Timothy 3:3 and 8 not given to much wine (drunkenness), Ephesians 5:18 be not drunk with wine. Why would Jesus turn water into wine and not something else? Not to dismiss your scriptures Montesquieu. If I’m not mistaken I heard Merie drank wine. I’ve heard others in the cult and I’ll continue to call it a cult because it obviously is. But you see it differently and that’s fine. With either TC or GP giving the green light for BB to drink wine more proof they do not see it as sin. To me it’s clear drunkenness is the sin. One point I’d hear the cult make is once you get started you may not be able to stop. Possibly. You could say that about other things as well. The dangers of the internet. Once you start using it you may go where you shouldn’t.
Yes, correct, Craig it is drunkenness that is the sin. Not a single verse noted above states that a glass of wine or whatever alcoholic drink you might like is a sin, but rather it is the excess of it that is the sin. Stanton and many who still follow that cult do not at all understand temperance. If they did, they never would have made the phrase "better to err on the side of caution" so popular amongst themselves. They are afraid of temperance and the exercising of personal judgment that temperance requires.
However, it is my opinion that there are those who like Stanton, who NEED Stanton because they absolutely NEED to be controlled. I'm not saying everyone in Stanton has this need, but many do. My ex was one of them. When left to his own devices, he left nothing but destruction, hurt, and bad decisions and their consequences for those around him to deal with. A person like that needs the control that Stanton provides willingly. Many of us needed that when we are young, but we matured and didn't need that control in our lives; with maturity comes a need for independence. The liberty the New Testament speaks of. How far we take that depends on our understanding, our conscience, and our choices, and we will answer to God individually for that.
And if Stanton was able to convince us that they are the "one and only true church" through years of repetition then I can call it a cult and repeat it all I want. It's a cult. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Oh Craig and thank you for contributing the additional verses. The cult was so good at that: giving us one-sided verses to prove their point. For all their talk about "context" they actually rarely applied that form of study and preferred picking and choosing what would make their point, not necessarily what the intent of the passage was. In the SA congregation at least, midweek classes were studies that could go weeks on a verse or two. And that was week after week, year after year. Certainly not a good way to study with context.
Try jumping off of a 10 story building and see how effective ignoring the law of gravity is, M. Long.
There are natural laws of the universe that were here long before Stanton, and will be here long after. You ignore them to your own peril.
It would be nice if you disagreed with people lying as much as you agree with drinking adult beverage. But, we see many people's religion is what feels good. And woe to the person who disagrees with them. It is attitudes like this that are why the lukewarm churches are packed full of people. Low expectations. And those who tell the truth are nearly empty. Humans like the path of least resistance. But, kites fly against the wind, not with it, and adversity is the test of strength, as fire is the test of gold. You must have a test to have a testimony, and that won't come by indulging the carnal nature, including adult beverages.
Liberty requires virtue and wisdom, M Long, and you have NEVER mentioned those two words on here at all. Not sure they are important to you. We were told in Romans that our liberty was not an occasion to give in to the desires of the flesh.
Also, M. Long, it would be nice if you studied Marxism for the first time in your life, that way you don't run around repeating Marxist tropes about religions who teach most of the Bible are 'cult's'. Recommend reading 'The naked communist'. You are fighting the wrong enemies and the wrong wars, a common instance among those who get emotionally vindictive.
Most of the Bible is full of verses opposing alcohol use, and I never see anyone condemned who didn't use it, but we see plenty of people condemned who misused it.
It's incredible for humans to fight so hard for what causes so much harm. How about fighting hard to raise literacy among Americans? Or fighting hard to avoid fatherlessness? Drinking alcohol simply interferes with the important things in life, which leads to mediocrity.
Craig, the wine Jesus created was not alcoholic. http://www.bpnews.net/3163/1871-book-jesus-wine-at-cana-was-nonalcoholic
We have 10,000 people a year die from drunk driving car accidents, but that's not enough, we still have people who think drinking is a good idea in 'muh moderation'.
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Alcohol%20Kills/christians_and_alcohol.htm
And while people are drinking, they aren't studying their Bible, they are ahistorical, as they are too busy drinking to read and learn the lessons of history, they aren't getting involved in church, they aren't getting involved in politics, and they aren't telling the truth in public. So, our society is crumbling.
Monte, I disagree with your assessment on alcohol use and fully understand the Bible speaks of alcohol Abuse to the point of drunkenness. Your points regarding whether alcohol was as "strong" as today's is moot. It doesn't matter if it took 20 glasses to get drunk then compared to 2 today for example, since the point is that drunkenness was the sin. So wine very well must have been able to make people DRUNK at some point, since the Bible states this is the sin, so clearly people were drinking whatever amount to the point of drunkenness. Using statistics etc., doesn't justify or change what God calls sin. You are applying the same reasoning that Stanton does when they can't find a scripture to back up their "judgements". I don't care if the topic is drunkenness, tattoos, shirts, red lipstick pantyhose, ties on Sunday, or whatever, the reasoning you are applying unfortunately is what you learned in the cult. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but unlike you, many of us don't want to go back or justify the way they teach and add to the Bible, so we're just not going to see eye to eye.
And I'm not bringing politics on here. I get my politics outside this blog and I would venture to say most of us prefer this blog would be about Stanton and its harm and how we can heal, not about Trump, AOC, or whoever is running for president or whatever. Keep that on your own blog please!
I agree M Long and was just about to say the same. Drunkenness is the sin and not simply the drinking of wine. Christ himself drank alcoholic wine which is why the Pharisees tried to accuse him of being a winebibber, which is another term for an alcoholic or drunkard (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34) We know Christ led a sinless life and had to be sinless in order to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Saying that even taking a sip of wine is a sin is to accuse Jesus of sin also.
The scriptures on drunkenness (most of which Craig posted already) are consistent in explaining that only the drunkards are sinners. If the sin was the drinking of wine altogether, the wording in the scriptures would be something along the lines of "not given to ANY wine (or strong drink)" but instead it says "not given to MUCH wine" meaning excess is wrong, not "some".
Also agree on their "judgements" being rules that they come up with because of their fear something might LEAD to sin, instead of just simply teaching on sin. Instead of letting people have a choice they try to remove the choice altogether. Which in turn makes it so people are more focused on following the man-made rules and pleasing man instead of God.
I tried alcohol when I was younger and hated it. I didn't like the way it tasted or made me feel, and didn't see the fun in people getting drunk every weekend. Plus I saw the way drunkenness affected the lives of my friends who drank all the time and how it caused all sorts of trouble for them. So now I'm fully convinced in my own mind how bad drunkenness is and have no interest in it whatsoever myself. That change didn't come from man-made rules, but from the HEART due to my own experiences. That's what it means to have liberty. It's okay to give your opinion and advise that people shouldn't drink (I share that opinion), but not bind rules and prohibitions on others that take away their ability to make their own choice.
Not true, AOC. The Pharisees called Christ a winebibber and also said he had a devil. But we never see him drinking wine or alcohol. The Pharisees constantly lied about Christ and misrepresented him, and we condemn them today. May you profit from their example.
It's actually lying to represent Jesus as having drank alcohol when the Bible says no such thing.
All of you defending alcohol have left out the scripture that says if my liberty causes my brother to sin, then my liberty is a sin and I won't do it. You may be able to handle alcohol, but plenty of others aren't able. So exactly what does 'don't be a stumblingblock' mean to you?
Also, it's good you don't drink, but you learned subjectively. Wise men learn from others experiences, foolish from their own.
M Long, the idea that Christians focus their Christianity on defending a societal ill is pretty backwards. Certainly Stanton was dictatorial in plenty of areas, like eating food in the building and breaking the bread, but when it comes to drinking alcohol, we aren't talking about harmless recreational activities. Personally, I'm 100% certain that if Stanton hadn't banned alcohol, there would have been families wrecked by alcoholism. The numbers prove that. So it's better that no one drank, rather than EVEN ONE PERSON BECAME AN ALCOHOLIC. How about talking about the women, men, and children whose lives are wrecked by alcoholism? Let's talk about the babies born with Fetal Alcohol syndrome, where they literally need alcohol when they are born, due to their parents alcoholism. Terrifyingly horrific. A nightmare that is averted when no one drinks. You scream and shout about laws that greatly protect against great harm. When it comes to breaking the bread and food in the building, those are minor topics that are meaningless to salvation. Alcohol? Not so much.
As far as politics, it goes right along with Stanton. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. The idea you come on a space and tell people you don't like what they are saying and could they please be quiet and go somewhere else is pretty dictatorial, especially when you have no moral authority to command with. I thought you didn't like Stanton telling you to be quiet and go somewhere else, yet here you are, doing it to me?
I knew you were a closet liberal Monte. The truth always comes out. Liars always show their true colors without even knowing it.
"So it's better that no one drank, rather than EVEN ONE PERSON BECAME AN ALCOHOLIC. How about talking about the women, men, and children whose lives are wrecked by alcoholism? Let's talk about the babies born with Fetal Alcohol syndrome, where they literally need alcohol when they are born, due to their parents alcoholism. Terrifyingly horrific. A nightmare that is averted when no one drinks."
That quote is directly from every liberal handbook and is the epitome of liberal democrat thinking on every law for gun control in existence.
This is Barack Obamas quote ~If there is one thing we can do – even one life we can save -we have an obligation to try.
Here's your quote
"So it's better that no one drank, rather than EVEN ONE PERSON BECAME AN ALCOHOLIC."
You have the nerve to call someone AOC while quoting the democrat playbook word for word. You've been exposed charlatan.
Can you reason? You are calling me a liberal when they support homosexuality, Islam, abortion, and pornographer.
I oppose all four. Key word that is missing in your arguments, and that is missing in most arguments, is the word virtue. Facts don’t care about feelings.
The Democrat party is Marxist and evil. To compare me to Godless heathens is mindboggling, but malice and spite are irrational. May you profit from Cain’s example. All he had to do was change his own behavior. Instead he hated Abel, and attacked him. Abel stood for godliness, Cain stood for doing what he wanted. Not hard to tell where you are on the continuum.
The 2nd Amendment was created for virtuous and wise people, not people who valued alcohol and drugs over their freedom. The Founders understood a reasoning people were for to carry guns. A nation without alcohol is a reasonable one, a nation with 10,000 deaths a year from alcohol use in driving, is an unreasonable one.
Comparing the damage from alcohol use to that from exercising the 2nd Amendment is irrational, as once again, you miss the Spirit of the Constitution and those who wrote it, and frantically scrabble for half baked specious interpretations of it to justify your corrupt and foolish habits and reasoning.
"muh founders" fallacy.
"The Founders understood a reasoning people were for to carry guns."
From your constant word vomiting on this blog a godly man is probably the last thing to describe you as.
"Spirit of the Constitution" that's personal perspective, so its irrelevant and will be ignored.
Don't you just love when people dismiss entire swaths of history because they obviously haven't read or studied it? I do. Happens all the time. The result of a school system that deliberately dumbed down America. Now that people have nothing to reference to compare their current beliefs, they can easily be brainwashed into any nonsense. The Marxists love this.
If you want to evaluate any part of politics today, you simply are incapable of doing it if you don't understand the Constitution and those who wrote it. It would be good if you understood a lot more of world history, but hey, when television is competing for your time, it's not easy. I understand.
Blatantly coopts my terms shamelessly. LOL. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
And another meaningless Stanton attack. 'word vomiting'. Haven't you learned your uninformed subjective opinion is worth a lot…to you alone? For it to have value, it has to be informed and objective. Yours is not because you are obviously unfamiliar with the Founders of America, and rely on the Google rabbit hole. You are very lost in it, and hate me for revealing the fact.
Spirit of the Constitution means what spirit did the Founders have when they wrote it. Since your only reference to them is Google searches, it's nearly impossible for you to divine what they intended or what manner of men they were. And that's the way the plutocrats like it. The less you know, the easier you are to manipulate. Then, you will also be used to attack those of us who do know. The tyrants who run the media and schools are laughing because you are doing their bidding. Divide and conquer. Have the proud types who have been distracted and brainwashed all their lives, attack those who actually understand the lessons of the past and apply it to today. But when you understand the past and how it's lessons affect the future, you become a prophet, and we know how popular they always were in the Bible. They were the ones everyone in their day always liked quite a bit:)
If all the time spent on here attacking me for referencing the history of America and the church were spent actually researching the history of America and the church, we'd have some dynamic Christians and historians. But criticizing is easier than laboring. The crabs in a crab barrel constantly try to tear down the one ahead of them to get to the top. It's human nature.
Also, the more one learns, the more one will earn the spite, malice, envy, and jealousy of others.
Because evil always tries to dogpile good. It is never content to sit silently, it has to destroy the message of hope and salvation.
Instead of all of us working to learn the truth and reform errors of Stanton, we have some who have zero interest in learning anything. There are a few on here who are sincere, but the anonymous voices of Stanton and the media indoctrinated drown them out.
Attack alcohol and World War 3 breaks out. All of a sudden, I'm a gun grabbing liberal. Amazing mental and moral gymnastics to reach that conclusion.
Montesquieu – I've asked you privately, now I'm asking you publicly to chill a bit, be more contemplative and succinct in your comments, and stop flooding the deck with your words. I am getting daily complaints about you monopolizing the comment section. I understand maybe you've been attacked and feel justified in responding. I'm not saying not to respond sometimes. I'm telling you that you're not accomplishing what you think you are. You're pushing anyone who might listen to you in the other direction. I've helped you set up your own platform, use that in any way you like. But please be more respectful here of the intent and mission of this blog.
Thanks, my friend.
Montesquieu – You seem to take differences of opinion as an attack. I realize that's how Stanton rolls, but I'm trying to model here a better way to show unity here.
We've talked many times, and you've come my way on several issues in that time. Think back on it. Was it because I was "right" and argued vehemently? Or was it because I offered my reasoning as persuasively as I could, let you know I appreciate the fact that you feel the way you do, and reaffirmed our brotherhood in Christ despite not seeing eye to eye?
I don't agree with your radical, unbiblical take on wine, for instance. But I don't feel the need to pound you into submission on it. I'm not attacking you for it. I've offered my Biblical take on the issue, engaged in some back and forth with you on it, and left it alone.
Believe what you want between yourself and the Lord. Make your case biblically and as persuasively as you can. Once, maybe twice. 🙂 But then let it drop. Just offering some wisdom, that's all. You've done your job of giving people something to think about. But you don't convince people by beating them over the head with your opinions—even when they do happen to be "correct."
Thanks Kevin..this was long overdue. Hopefully he will listen to you..
Well, the liberals daily complain about 'Muh Donald Trump hurt muh feelin's', and we know how legitimate their arguments are. I've complained about 3 ideas. Lying, profanity, personal attacks containing vulgarity, and bringing up the past that already were repented of. Seems common sense. I never objected to anyone stating their opinion. What is wrong with thorough responses? When you are addressing controversial items, addressing all opposition saves time. For instance, here is Lincoln's Cooper's Union address, a masterpiece, and it wasn't short. http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm.
I know we are in the television age, where people have said on here they don't like to read, but why should I be punished for their intellectual laziness?
'I have always been of the opinion that unpopularity earned in doing what is right, is not unpopularity at all, but glory'.
Cicero
Just because something is unpopular does not mean it's wrong or unjust. I'm quite aware that a lot of people don't like what I'm saying. That was why we were given religious and political freedom to speak our opinions in America. Because the Founders anticipated the blog tattle tales. They knew that people often band together to silence unpopular opinions, however right they are.
Certainly, and we sparred on a number of issues, and other than my blocking you on Fakebook for disagreeing with my teetotaling, we got along famously. Fakebook retaliated by blocking me at least 6 times, 30 days each. I retaliated by deleting my fakebook account, and now I can't wait for the tech giants to collapse. Devin Nunes just filed a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter, and Google and Fakebook also need to be sued. Why did he sue them? For some of the same issues we are experiencing here. Twitter claims to be for free speech, and the opinions of all. However, they allow ruthless attacks on conservatives, and employ shadowbanning, which means you type something, and no one but you sees it. Kind of like on here, where people want to get rid of ideas they don't like, though no one is forcing them to read it or respond to it. Of course, getting rid of profanity, lies, and malicious slandering over the past is perfectly reasonable.
You were very reasonable, and I appreciate it, while also being convinced there is a time and a place for it. I'm not an irrational, vulgar, or profane person, so your approach works with me. We are dealing with irrational, stubborn, and vulgar people on here, quite often. Different strokes for different folks.
Churchill's advice is what I like, though he was tremendously disliked at times. 'If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack.'
How very disrespectful you are to Kevin & his blog. He kindly asked to you take a step back & you dismiss him as you do every other person on here with your agenda. Shame on you! Your agenda is not what this blog is intended for as Kevin stated already! Be respectful enough to know when to just be quiet when this is not your platform. You are the complete opposite of Kevin & what Kevin is doing for this blog.
Nobody on this blog talks politics except for Montesquieu. This blog isn't for politics. Some fail to see that.
Thanks Kevin for addressing the cancer in your blog.
I enjoy reading others respectful comments & approaches on this blog.
AnonymousMarch 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM
I'm pretty sure Kevin designed this blog as a place where those who Stanton's tyranny imposed upon, to come and congregate, converse, and air our views. Never saw a sign that our views all had to conform to any set standard that had universal acceptance. Can you show me where that sign is?
And, I haven't really had a single person personally tell me anything who identified themselves on here. So we have a lot of nameless tattletales who are trying to get rid of people they don't like. Sounds familiar. In Communist Russia, you simply reported your neighbor who you didn't like, and that night, the NKVD knocked on their door, and they were never heard from again. These are the tactics you and others on here use.
Shame on you for trying to incite conflict. The literal definition if sowing seeds of discord. Trying to instigate, just like kids did in elementary school. If anything I say is not true, I'm open for correction from Kevin or any one else. But if not, then I shouldn't be being harassed for having views you don't like.
Again, Facts don't care about feelings. They just are. You give us another fact free narrative, and then call it disrespectful when someone talks who you don't like. You sound like a woman, this is their approach. I sincerely hope Kevin does not give into you tattletales, informers, and skulking types.
I didn't know this was anyone's platform at all. I thought it was open for all with ideas, and if the ideas need to be defended, I didn't think we'd be shackled by people in their feelings.
AnonymousMarch 20, 2019 at 1:18 PM
That isn't true. There was just a comment on politics today by someone else. So we see, we continuously have emotional explosions from anonymous types.
We have one person who has told 9 open and blatant lies on here, and no one has complained about him. So you like Barabbas.. Hmmmm. Shows what you value.
You haven't identified anything false, vulgar, or a lie I've told, yet you hate me. Why is that?
Oh yes.
Do I become your enemy when I tell you the truth?
Context is important. You said:
"All of you defending alcohol have left out the scripture that says if my liberty causes my brother to sin, then my liberty is a sin and I won't do it. You may be able to handle alcohol, but plenty of others aren't able. So exactly what does 'don't be a stumblingblock' mean to you?"
If someone says or does something towards you directly, or in your presence, that offends you then yes, that's a "stumbling-block". Like say if someone takes some alcohol and drinks it in front of you, and you say "that offends me". That's perfectly reasonable. However what a person does in their own life, on their own time away from you, whether right or wrong, is completely up to them.
Also I agree with Kevin and others that some recent comments are a bit out of hand. I don't like to censor people either, but if this continues then maybe Kevin or someone else may need to moderate so that the integrity of the blog doesn't suffer anymore than it has.
One of the main talking points by the SCOC leaders against this blog are the comments that are completely off topic, or examples of people just attacking each other. They see these things and say "look at all those crazy people that post there" to justify telling people to stay away. It distracts from the comments from those trying to actually give scriptural understanding, or people trying to reason the scriptures together, so that we can all learn the and follow the truth in our lives whether we against the SCOC or not.
Kevin asked you to STOP. Respect that!!
Unless you are Kevin's wife, I'm not going to be quiet.
AOP, when it comes to lies, vulgarity, and slander, you have a point. When it doesn't, there is nothing wrong with free expression. I didn't see the sign at the top that we are in Maoist China, did you see it? Many on here complain of Stanton silencing dissent, but exactly what are you doing?
KEVIN not Kevin's wife..KEVIN called you out…go back & read it. HE asked you to stop. He said he privately spoke to you & is now publicly calling you out. Respect HIM. Nothing to do with his wife.
Montesquieu – And BTW, no one is "tattling" on you other than to say that they are tiring of the barage of thousands of words, including lengthy copy-and-pasted excerpts from other materials. There is wisdom in brevity—and as I've told you before, in email and over the phone, I know this because I have this problem as well. It takes one to know one, and I'll say it publicly here that I see a lot of myself in you as a younger man (not that I'm old…I'm *only* 50 LOL).
My wife and I do a lot of mentoring of teens—our own as well as foster teens. Sometimes I get on a roll and believe me, the word count starts piling up. Fortunately, my wife is wise enough to give me little queues when I'm on a soapbox again and need to step off. When their eyes start glazing over, that's a good sign! 🙂 So believe me, I'm speaking from experience.
Without taking the time to go back over thousands of words of comments, which I can't do, I'll just say this:
Proverbs 29:20 – Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.
Proverbs 10:19 – When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.
Montesquieu, I'm not attacking you or saying you're a fool, or anything like that. I like you—and maybe some in these comments don't. I think we may even agree on more principles than we disagree on. But how you express it, and how you think these principles ought to be lived out; those are the areas that I think need some refinement.
My two cents. God bless.
That's fine, Kevin, we agree on most ideas. I honestly have no idea who is tattling and what are their legitimate disagreements? I'm verbose? Possibly, but no one is complaining about the fleets of lies from hellivision. Ideas shouldn't be discriminated against because of people's feelings. If it's too long for people's tastes, then why are they reading it and telling on me about it? Obviously they are interested in it, and with 2,000 page counts a week, some people are reading it.
Speaking rashly is not wise, that's certain, but we speak out of our heart. Restraining speech is wise, but when it's on principles that need to be defended, 'there is a time to speak, and a time for silence'.
We differ on methods, but largely have the same world view.
Who are these hysterical anonymous people who keep shrieking and shouting that I need to be quiet, while never giving legitimate reasons that ever were used to silence any reasonable debate in history.
Too long? Well, so is the Bible. I sure am glad God didn't shorten it.
Too sharp? Read Matthew 23. I am not always sharp. Only when responding to vulgarity, lies, or Stanton's slanders do I respond sharply. Oh, and constant shrills to be quiet. If there is anything guaranteed to fire me up, it's anonymous types on the internet insisting that I need to be quiet for no good reason at all.
Too quick to respond? Glad Jesus responded when he did by saying 'He that has no sin cast the first stone'. If he hadn't the woman would have died.
Also, Kevin, since some people are obviously talking about me behind my back, not sure why when they can say it here to my face, why can't they identify themselves, state what I have said that they REASONABLY DISAGREE WITH, and leave it at that? But they don't do that, do they? Oh no. They go run, and try to get me banned from the site, because their feelings got hurt. I suppose it's better than being killed for saying things people don't like, but it's not that far from it.
Besides, how do we know most of these anonymous commenters aren't from Stanton? Stanton would love to silence me, because I've never lied about them, they can't dismiss me for my love of booze and tattoos, I haven't used vulgarity, and I've told the good and bad about them.
Montesquieu – I have no knowledge of people talking behind your back. They don't hate you, and they are not "hysterical anonymous people who keep shrieking and shouting." If you want people to give you the benefit of the doubt, then you need to do the same.
No one's screaming for your head or asking me to censor you, although some may like that. I think people are just tiring of your long-winded rants on anything and everything, and the constant bickering about every subject, political or spiritual. Much of it—not all of it— is just beyond the scope of this blog.
It's also not the right audience or the right communication style for this audience. They've been talked down to and preached at, and had the finger of the preacher pointing at them for too long, and they don't come here to get more of that.
In communication, choosing the right words for the right audience is the difference between success and failure if you want to have people receive what you have to offer. Neither you nor I have a "right" to be heard. I have a right to speak all I want, and be as lengthy as I want on my platform. I generally choose not to, because I know that people don't come here to hear what I have to say. And just ask my kids, I can say a lot when I get started!
People come here to feel understood in their experiences at Stanton; to know they are not alone, and that helps to figure out a way forward. I'm sorry if goal isn't the same as yours, and maybe it's not the same as others' either. But I would like all commenters, not just you, to reign in the drama and arguments, and rekindle a sense of purpose in every piece of dialogue that happens here. We'll all be heard better when we have actual conversations with each other.
God bless.
Well, I didn't know this was a safe space. I generally try to avoid those whenever I can, because I retired from Playdoh, therapy dogs, coloring books when I was a child. I thought everyone on here was grown already. I didn't know we had 10 year olds on here.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/10/u-of-michigan-gives-students-play-doh-coloring-books-to-cope-with-trump/
A grown adult ought to be able to cope with uncomfortable ideas without running for website Mommies and Daddies!
We have too many victims and coddled snowflakes in America. The sooner they learn to stand on their own two feet the better it will be for them and for all of us.
I have no unprovoked 'rant's' on here. If there was anger, it was righteous indignation.
I'd be happy to be corrected if any of my facts are wrong, but how is telling someone they are long winded and 'ranting' any different from how Stanton does? Aren't these the same tactics they use to silence people in bible classes? I can assure you it is.
Besides, my words don't bite anyone. They were purposefully angry to Mr. Arizona, and he just left the website. Well, he lied a lot, and 9 of his lies are documented. So, I'm not really sorry for disagreeing with liars.
Can you show me one reputable Church or Founder in America who silenced ideas they didn't like for being too long? Have you read the Federalist Papers? They are kind of long.
The problem is we have some coming from print based cultures, and others from television based cultures and we have a clash.
This is good; a necessary check-and-balance. I wondered if Kevin had abandoned this blog and was letting it run on auto-pilot, and now it's been confirmed that is not the case.
Montesquieu's heart is in the right place, but yes, as Kevin asserted, it is best if he sharpens his saw and makes his cuts in a more focused, economical fashion.
It might be useful to liken Montesquieu's experience in the SCOC to the proverbial 'canary in a coal mine,' insofar as the withdrawal, excommunication, and spiritual death SCOC attempted to impose upon him should have been a warning and an admonition to all others in the 'coal mine' that is the SCOC, to scramble for daylight and get out before the whole enterprise either poisons and suffocates them, or simply implodes and buries them, as it most certainly is doing to those who remain behind.
Thank you Kevin! You are right in saying "It's also not the right audience or the right communication style for this audience. They've been talked down to and preached at, and had the finger of the preacher pointing at them for too long, and they don't come here to get more of that."
I appreciate your compassion as to what many of us have been through.
Montesquieu – Oh stop. You know I keep it real here. This is no "safe space" for pansies, but it is a place for people who have had their lives severely screwed up by spiritual tyrants, often at ages where they had no choice in the matter. Have some compassion. This is a place they can come to learn about the God of the Bible—not the tyrant they were taught about.
I'm not afraid of an argument of any sort. The truth doesn't need to be afraid of a lie. But argument and debate is simply not the purpose and mission of this blog. It has its proper time and place, and I'm cool with it in reasonable doses.
But what people are trying to say is that it's just overkill. You don't know when to stop or how to bring the temperature down enough to be heard. How you come across is just not helpful to your cause.
You are welcome on this blog. But just don't be tone deaf to all criticism people offer, and take every criticism as a personal attack. It's not. Just trying to help, man! 🙂
Montesquieu, spot on concerning the preachers and teachers of Merie’s cult. Being challenged by someone who had their number they take the cowardly approach. Though they can dish it like a bully but can’t handle getting punched in the mouth. Typical bully. You are correct on the wine Jesus turned from water as far as I can tell. But why wine and not something else would still be my question?
Thank you, Craig. Exactly right. You see the teachers folded like a cheap suit when Kevin started this site. Becuz they are 'not ready to give an answer'. The NT says to always be ready to give an answer. Not sure about why it was non-alcoholic wine.
Also, we are getting an excellent demonstration on how, when you lack facts, truth, and reasoning, you can sabotage ideas that can be defended with specious, scurrilous, scandalous attacks.
Another tactic Stanton has used for decades.
Don't go into details, don't respond to all charges, simply lob emotional denunciations, and retreat. Pretend that no one likes the member you disagree with, withdraw from them, call them crazy, dismiss them as nonsensical.
Dear Stanton members,
Please try to disguise your methods better. You are too obvious. It's a dead give away. You aren't fooling anyone.
Oh, and let's not forget, when Stanton withdraws, they give the appearance that EVERYONE disagrees with the withdrawn from. In reality, everyone is too terrified to reveal they disagree with the teachers.
These are the themes the attackers on here follow. Give the appearance that everyone disagrees with Monte, so no one should take him seriously. For all we know, it could be one person from Stanton, using different names. No one knows who these people attacking me are. We are supposed to take them seriously. Could be bots. AI has perfected bot technology to be able to respond to humans. Of course, Stanton knows all about bots, since you have to be an automaton and listen to orders constantly, or face punishment.
Montesquieu, very true as you do not have a voice unless you are a teacher or preacher at a withdrawal meeting. Maybe a few questions but has a withdrawal ever not happened when they have a meeting to withdraw. Maybe s rare occasion at best. One in Portland as they were never withdrawn from as they did not attend the meeting. Though a year or so later GP said he still should’ve withdrawn even though the member didn’t attend the meeting. GP said from that point forward to treat the one as they were withdrawn from. I never agreed with that shady judgement from GP. Totally unscriptural as well.
No, Craig, you are right. There has never been a withdrawal where the members disagreed and the withdrawal was cancelled. So the whole idea of 'bringing it up before the church to withdraw from so and so is a huge sham.'
If the teachers don't like you, they will sow the seeds to get rid of you. Then, it looks natural at the withdrawal, when everyone raises their hands to talk about you. I remember I was astonished to see my dearest friends raising their hands to tattle on me. Went into analysis paralysis trying to figure it out. Fact is, if the teacher decides you are withdrawn from, it doesn't matter what the Bible, God, Jesus or anyone else says, you are withdrawn from.
'Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime'
Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin's Secret Police in Marxist Russia.
That's Stanton. If they want to get rid of a member, they will make stuff up. I was completely innocent of all charges against me, which were concocted, bogus, and made up. But, for them to lift their withdrawal, they will have to admit they are wrong, which Stanton has shown they are incapable of doing for decades.
They don't write withdrawals down. Destroy the evidence. To this day, I've never heard anyone be able to tell me why I was withdrawn from on this blog. Most of Stanton who was in the room 11 years ago couldn't even tell you. One of the men who spoke against me was asked by my mom why I was withdrawn from, and he didn't even know.
M Long, excellent point that I did not consider concerning wine and drunkenness. Though the strength may not of been as it is today what the scriptures reveal is people were getting drunk which is the sin. Not the drinking of it rather the drinking it in excess.
Liberty is not about carnal freedom, but the spiritual freedom to make your own choices with your own conscience. No one here is saying it's okay to go around getting tattoos or getting drunk. The main problem that I see when it comes to this is the MAN-MADE RULES SURROUNDING SIN, not the actual sin itself. That is the spiritual bondage I think people are talking about.
In my own research and study about many other churches and cults, just about all of them that tried to do this all ended up with serious problems, and only proves the scriptures about bondage true. Many have fallen into the same trap the Pharisees did when coming up with rules to try to prevent sin (or just things leaders didn't like) and placed extra burdens on people that God never intended (Matthew 12). Instead of simply teaching on specific sins, they try to outright ban certain things or put rules around it when it isn't their place to. The punishment or result from these man-made rules is often worse than what they are trying to keep people from doing. I will give a few examples:
I've heard of a cult that taught all doctors and pharmaceuticals were from the devil and anybody who used them was in sin. It resulted in both adults and young children dying of easily curable illness because they weren't allowed by cult leaders to go the doctor. There was even a baby that needed medical attention one service and the parents wanted to take them to the ER, but the leaders stepped in and said no even in the face of emergency. The baby ended up dying and the worst part is they refused to admit fault or repent of the teaching. They said "God allowed it" (sound familiar), and "It was the baby's time to be with God". Many who saw this left for good after that obviously.
I've heard of a cult that taught using the internet at all was a sin and banned members from using it. It negatively affected people's ability to participate in school and continue their education, or their lively-hoods and not being able to do their jobs at work that required simple things like email. Instead of teaching people to be careful of the dangers online they just ban it outright to "err on the side of caution".
The SCOC has been no different in some of their extremes as well. The May week on cell phones, where instead of simply teaching about sinful gossip or inappropriate messaging between young Christians and letting them use their own judgement, their mind was to try to stop communication altogether. Instead of teaching about being wary of drunkards hanging outside liquor stores, their mind was to call it sin to even walk into a corner store (even if you didn't buy any liquor or hang out with drunkards). Instead of simply teaching that a man and woman alone together can tempt sin and for people to use their own judgement, their mind is to automatically call it sin to even be in a room or even ride together in a car (false "appearance of evil" teaching) even when no actual sin happened. I could keep going as there are MANY examples in the SCOC like these, and some of them still continue today sadly.
Members were often withdrawn from or rebuked not just for sin, but for not following the man-made rules. Pressuring people to conform to rules like these takes away the ability to be discerning and for people to learn from experience and make judgements for themselves. Also it makes people more worried about living up to the expectations of man and not God. It's like teaching a child not to touch a hot stove. Instead of simply warning them not to touch it or they'll get burned, you go to the extreme and remove the stove altogether. Even worse would be to go around telling everyone else they can't have stoves and calling it sin for having or using one, in order to "protect them from getting burned". That's not up to spiritual leaders to decide but is up to the individuals. If someone wants to do that, then that's their choice, but it's not something you can bind on others.
Amen! Preach on Advocate! Thanks for staying the topic of this blog….to expose Stanton!
Your comment was refreshing to read compared to a certain trend of oppressive thinking that has been allowed to flourish and prevail here on the blog as of late.
Mostly agree, AOP, however, you left out the word virtue. Without virtue, liberty is impossible.
And that's not just a sentiment of Stanton, that's a sentiment of history.
http://liberty1.org/virtue.htm
It is God who decides what is virtuous, righteous, and pure, because he is pure. Not man. Our righteousness in the face of God is like filthy rags. Even if I did use the word virtue, the point still stands and the wording wouldn't change much. "Instead of teaching the virtues of God and letting people make their own choice, they substitute their own virtues in place of, or above God's."
Most, if not all, churches that came up with rules like these did so with the good intentions to try and protect people from something. However you can tell which teachings are from God and which are not based on the fruit they produce. All God's teachings produce peace, and false teachings produce the opposite. Everyone who visits this blog can read over the teachings that people have pointed out that they believe are false, and see for themselves the bad fruit it has produced.
There have been a number of studies showing fundamental Christian churches are growing the fastest, and most of them are not in America, they are in Africa. The response to me on here illustrates why.
Isaiah 30: 9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children (that's you, Mr. Arizona), children that will not hear the law of the Lord:
10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:
Montesquieu – Depending on how "fundamentalism" is defined, I could identify myself as a radical, fundamentalist follower of Christ. It is all a matter of how you define "fundamentalist Christian churches."
Since I have a son who actually spent a couple weeks in Africa on a mission trip, I can tell you from our conversations that there's a lot of the uneducated form of "fundamentalism" there—meaning a lot of people who think they can speak in tongues, are very charismatic and "conservative" in some measure, but who unequivocally don't know their Bibles. All they "know" is what their charismatic preacher, sometimes a charlatan "faith healer," tells them.
But am I a fundamentalist radical follower of Christ? Yes. Or to be more clear, I aspire to be.
Fair enough, so why aren't those who are filling this site with lies, half truths, deceit, slander, and other malice being publicly called out? I don't tattle to you in private about them, I deal with them publicly.
Why is it I'm being corrected for writing posts that 'are too long', and that 'people don't like', and these blatant evils are left uncorrected? Seems like a double standard to me.
I have made many appeals to people, both public and private (when I have contact info) to keep a higher level of discourse. I get emails all the time telling me about spam, foul language, or rude comments, and I try to deal with them as I have time and opportunity.
I'm sorry you are feeling singled out—you're not, really. You're just the most visible one I'm having to address. It's because you're taking up the largest volume of words in the conversation, turning it into a pulpit for you, not a conversation at all.
I realize that may be partly on me for taking a break, perhaps, to pay attention to other things I am responsible for besides babysitting the comment section here. But you've chosen to fill the void I left in a way that is not polite—to me or to the audience.
I'm not trying to ban you from speaking or responding in a reasonable fashion. I'm simply asking you to slow down and lower the temperature so there can be actual dialogue, and to keep it on topic about SCOC and the Bible, not political rants.
And I'm saying this as someone who could write mile-long political rants in a heartbeat. But that's not the purpose of this blog. So I don't. It's called self-restraint.
And as to why I don't respond to every "attack" on you, I simply don't have the time…yet. I am having to triage and pick the problem that needs fixing most urgently, and that is the readability of the blog. Everything else will come after that.
As I can make time, I'll try to respond to "Stanton" attacks on you or others. Drop me an email with links to the most egregious attacks if you'd like.
The purpose of the site seems to be to deal with Stanton, I think we are agreed on that. Clearly, Stanton has been gunning for me the most. At least ten of the comments in the last few weeks are from Stanton, aimed at me. This spreads dissension through the whole site, and now, I’m being called out for being the problem.
Kind of like when you have two children, one hits the other when you arent looking, and when you turn around you catch the responding punch. It’s common for a parent to go after the punch they saw instead of investigating what caused it.
Same on here, and compared with the lies, deceit, viciousness, stubborn dismissals, vulgarity, and other attacks that have come my way, I’ve handled it with grace and moderation, all things considered.
You are far from innocent & not the victim here..
This is what I’m talking about, Kevin.
Another anonymous commenter, likely from Stanton, absolutely no substance. You get enough of these types, and it seems like I’m the bad guy.
You may be right to be offended by whatever this guy is saying. I've said ad nauseum that it's your approach that is offensive to people, not always the content. Your approach is to document dump on everyone. If you want to be more effective (and I think that is your goal, not just to vent as self-therapy), my advice is to pick a point and hone in on it with laser precision. Draft it in Word first and then do some self-editing. I can typically cut my first draft down by at least 25-50% when I do that, and the result is far more effective at communicating persuasively.
I will get around to the attacks from SCOC. But first I have to pull off the kid who says he's just trying to defend himself from relentlessly pummeling the supposed attacker. Wouldn't it be better if we can turn this newfound willingness of someone at SCOC to engage with this blog into a productive, meaningful conversation?
This blog should be about speaking the truth in love. Yelling that someone is a Marxist communist progressive liberal trying to retreat to their "safe space" just isn't fulfilling that mission. Nor is document dumping cut and pasted responses from history. If that's your passion, then cool. Cut it down to a quote and provide a link to the complete works of that person. That's fine!
Try to hear my heart, man. I'm not trying to gaslight you or attack you. So stop taking this personally. You're so busy trying to defend yourself on so many fronts that you can't possibly be hearing what people are actually saying.
God bless.
Not from Stanton. Never a member.
Kevin has simply requested for you to take it down a notch & you seem to be stopping your feet & throwing a tantrum instead of just respecting him & his blog. His request was not an unreasonable one.
Montesquieu – This attacker said "you are far from innocent & not the victim here." But you said some pretty harsh things to me when I first used the word "cult." Vicious, cruel, vindictive, bitter, bloodthirsty, a vigilante, oppressive and tyrannical, come to mind.
We can't have such a thin skin when we're speaking truth to these people. If you're not willing to take punches, sometimes even cheap shots, then stay out of the ring. But if you're willing to put yourself out there and take some hits, then it's important to respond with grace, and with wisdom, and with love. Even when coming from supposed "enemies." Isn't that what Jesus took for our sins? Unfair punches, so to speak?
You know how many times people have attributed sinful motives to me for writing this blog? Dude, if that's all they got, then let it roll off your back. Keep speaking truth, always in love.
Great word, Gaslighting. Stanton uses many of the techniques, and Mr. Arizona, who has fled the site, after being continuously confronted with his serial lying, was a master Gaslighter.
Anonymous above is doing it as well.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting
Call me an emissary, not a member, but connected to one in good standing, and thus I hear things, and I see things. GP is running scared not because of this blog, per se, but because of the activity occurring on it, and the potential for that activity to stir up trouble and rebellion in the offline realm. He understands the 'Hundredth Monkey Effect,' and that if this blog continues expanding its reach and influence, that a critical mass may be achieved which will be unlike anything SCOC has ever dealt with before, and which can penetrate their hermetically sealed environment as if it isn't even there. They are perplexed, and frightened. Let's keep stirring the pot and bring it to a boil!
Anon 4:26, thanks for the inside scoop. Honestly, I'm sure they view me as a pot-stirrer, but that's not at all the motivation behind this blog. I attempt to simply be a truth-teller. But if that stirs someone's pot, so be it. Lol
God bless.
Hip hip horray ! I used to be in the church and I am still connected to somebody that still preaches in one. They will spill the beans to me once in awhile on a few things too 😉
Keep exposing the leaders.They are corrupt. They destroy marriages and family relationships constantly!
AnonymousMarch 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM
Great news!! I don't hope for the destruction of any, but I sincerely pray for the reform of Stanton's oppression. There have been many from Stanton who have been on here lately. Being a recipient from their attacks, I have no malice towards them, but I would encourage them to honestly evaluate why they believe what they believe.
AnonymousMarch 21, 2019 at 4:47 PM
Good to know!
Lastly, Kevin, may I recommend you and everyone on here who thinks I should be quiet review this 5 minute video on college students explaining why students free speech rights should be taken away?
Just because people are offended by what one says, does not mean the person saying it should be silenced. This was the foundation of America.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12003
Hmmmm?
This blog isn't about the founders of America. It's not why we come to this blog.
Montesquieu – I don't agree with much of what you say but I am not necessarily offended by what you say because you are indeed entitled to your opinion (which YOU consider fact and pure truth) but I am ENTIRELY sick of your repetitive rants that do nothing for the discussion at hand. Stick to the problems that have arisen because of the Stanton Church of Christ's man-made doctrines. You talk (type) and talk and talk and talk and yet accuse others of talking too much! Don't even try to guess who I am; you just make yourself look ridiculous when you do that. And pay attention to my initials, you're slipping, I am not AOC.
His humor evaded you –he was gently poking fun at you, since AOC currently means 'Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,' who is a recently-elected politician who is so far to the left that she is off the map, and so open-minded that her brain fell out.
Advocate for Peace, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment above written March 20, at 1:14. Please keep posting for you are an excellent voice of reason and your peaceable manner a good example. I will admit my latest post above was not entirely peaceable.
Montesquieu – You said "Lastly, Kevin, may I recommend you and everyone on here who thinks I should be quiet review this 5 minute video on college students explaining why students free speech rights should be taken away?"
You keep missing the point. I'm not asking you to be quiet. You are free to speak within reason on this platform, or as much as you want and by whatever rules you want on your own platform. I'll even support you in that. I already have!
So no one is censoring your right to speak. I haven't done that once. I'm simply appealing to your sense of conversational etiquette.
I built this platform for a particular mission. I'm just asking you politely to have some respect for that mission and not try to constantly get it off topic with political and other rants.
I never thought I'd have to say that to someone. I'm a voracious reader of current events and agree with many of your points of view. But there's a time and place for expressing that, and this blog has a different purpose.
AFC 7:24 – Amen, well said.
Thank you Anon, March 21, 7:17… I am, to the horror of one reader in particular, extremely ignorant about the current political scene. Unfortunately, as you have probably noticed, this blog has become a soapbox for off-topic politics which serve no purpose toward it's intent. This blog is awesome when the topic of Stanton's man-made doctrines and the harm they cause is discussed.
AFC & Kevin agreed.
Thank you!!
"Our righteousness in the face of God is like filthy rags"
It amazes me how much the religious world misuses this scripture. Our righteousness in the face of God is not like filthy rags. If you read the whole chapter you will see that this is talking about hypocrisy. The people living in their sins.
This is what is truth.
1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
Remember, the scriptures don't contradict each other.
@ Lynn mm My apologies, I should have worded it better. Thanks for catching that. What I meant to say was "compared to God" not "in the face of". Those that follow the will of God are indeed righteous. The context of my point was how man tries to come up with their own rules and commandments and calls that righteousness, like the examples I gave of things that were taught that didn't come from God.
AnonymousMarch 21, 2019 at 6:59 PM
If you don't care about the Founders of America, and the rights you have due to them, then move to China. When they beat you half to death for criticizing the government, then come back here and learn to appreciate, not hate.
Advocate for ChangeMarch 21, 2019 at 7:03 PM
Another emotional outburst, which has absolutely nothing to do with factual refutations of points made, but an impudent rejection of what you hate to be burdened with learning of. Was just reading Isaiah 6 this morning, and you were definitely mentioned in there, thousands of years ago.
Isaiah 6: 9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
Advocating for change alone is foolish. The Communists want change. Barack Obama, the biggest fraud in American Presidential history, talked about 'Change we can believe in'. What a hoax that was. Yours truly was duped by it for a short time. How about you and he keep your change, we don't need it!! We need your change like we need a bad cold.
Your initials are AFC, As I was. When you have a fact and logic based refutation of what I say, instead of emotional blustering, perhaps then your snide sniper shots will be taken seriously. Your initials may as well be AOC, because like her, you are ahistorical, and are off your rocker.
You don't know anything. 'If you don't know history, then you don't know anything. You are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree. " ― Michael Crichton
'Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something.'Plato
Rather than tear others down, with blistering denunciations based on your subjective feelings, how about using reason and logic to assert the kind of change you want to see?
Change needs to be in accord with history, reason, and virtue, all of which you have heavy allergies too.
AnonymousMarch 21, 2019 at 7:17 PM
Thank you! You get it, happy to see the wise are on here. Occasional Cortex is a frightening sight on the American political landscape. She's enabled by those who hate to learn history, which this site is littered with.
Kevin, I appreciate that, but why are you using identical tactics to the left? Saying someone is 'off topic' is simply a subtle way of silencing them. I address my comments mostly to dangerous ideas and to attacks upon me. I see no one who has attacked me, and included in those attacks are lies, slanders, gossip, profanity, vulgarity, has ever been publicly rebuked for their egregious attacks on me, but I'm the one called out for violations of subjective regulations.
If I'm so off topic, then why is Stanton gunning for me the most?
I believe that Anon 6:59 comments read "This blog isn't about the founders of America. It's not why we come to this blog.".
No where was it said "I don't care about the founders of America."
Kevin's comment at 7:25pm read: "I built this platform for a particular mission. I'm just asking you politely to have some respect for that mission and not try to constantly get it off topic with political and other rants."
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 10:04 AM
Well, we are the only nation on earth founded upon a Judeo-Christian ideology, we are dealing with a church that has perverted Christianity in areas, so I fail to see how going back to the roots of where Christianity in America came from is a bad thing.
The vast majority of moral issues being dealt with today, were not being dealt with, AT THE RATES OF TODAY, back then. The media and schools have indoctrinated America out of her Christian heritage, and I'm not willing to assuage the apathy of many on here by going along with the charade.
If the mission is to restore and reform, which it should be, since simply attacking and condemning accomplishes nothing, then we need to have a pattern for what the church ought to be, and how it once operated successfully in America.
So why do I have to be condemned for merely pointing out that our churches were in much better shape, when wisdom and virtue flourished, in early America? Is it because many love the carnal indulgences of today and don't want to be bothered with the self-discipline of the past? If, so we will soon be enslaved, for a people who won't master themselves will soon be mastered by others.
As Stanton cheers.
Monte- you just don't understand. I am thrilled to live in America and I'm a fan of the work of the founders of our country and their ideals. However, I don't need to read the recipe for chocolate cake to enjoy it and appreciate it and I don't have to bash others for not knowing everything there is to know about chocolate cake and it's origins. I wish you could understand how most of us feel about your repetitive rants and cutting remarks but even with the kind and reasonable pleading of Kevin, the creator of this blog, you just won't stop. You don't understand the harm you are doing. When the blog fills up with your long posts the opposition rejoices because the truly important topics and goals of this blog are buried underneath the weight of your constant and lengthy discourse. Please stop, I am asking; Kevin is asking; and others are asking. My question for you is: How does the above post written at 10:19AM March 22nd affect the heart of a person toward the man-made teachings and cruel dealings of the SCOC? The fact American churches were in better shape in the past; that media and schools have indoctrinated America; that society today is not like it was 100 years ago is all true however those points don't address the purpose of this blog. Most Stantonites know and agree with these points. Remember Stantonites don't often read books and no amount of ranting will convince them otherwise. Also, members are taught to avoid politics, voting and political involvement of any kind. Stantonites are for the most part very happy to be in America enjoying her freedoms. When you suggest people move to China you are in a sense banishing them for disagreeing with you which is exactly like the SCOC does. I wonder if (for example) Donna or M. Long or Craig left the SCOC because America is corrupt or if they left because the SCOC is corrupt? Do you think your posts are causing the readers who are currently attending to think about what is happening in their congregations or the fact the church is run by 4 people? Is it causing them to repent of the abuse they may have caused as teachers toward congregants or as parents toward children? I highly doubt it.
Thank you AFC!! You are so right! I was so taken back to read his comment
" Children are not naturally good always. By coddling children and indulging them, we have raised pampered snowflakes, which this site has it's share of, who hate to be contradicted or disagreed with. If anyone says something they don't like, they end the conversation and unleash vicious broadsides against their detractors."
Are you the pot of the kettle because you can't stand for anyone to disagree with you and immediately lash out why everyone else is wrong. Sounds like a child who refuses to be told no and must argue & have the last word.
This blog has been very beneficial for many of us and reading comments about those who share the same sad stories. I believe that is what this blog is truly for. A place we can come for healing.
Amen, AFC.
AFC, your screed is mostly fact free and full of emotions. Will address it at leisure later on. You believe you can wait, discount the facts and reasons behind my posts, say that you don’t like it, which is your basic contention, pose as if it’s off topic, when it’s very much on the topic of every comment I’ve responded too, and then try to shoo me away. Some of you on here have some pretty remarkable similarities to Stanton. Say something is ‘off topic’, and silence the person that way. It’s a subtle form of oppression, which everyone on here, should be above. You can’t criticize Stanton for oppression, when you are busy engaging in the same tactics on here.
The audacity to think that commenters on here need your approval to state their opinions is every bit as bad as anything Nerie ever did. Kevin, if you are going to call Stanton a cult, then perhaps you should not be heeding the voices of those who wish to silence the relevant comments of those outside the mainstream. For in doing so, do you not become a sort of cult of your own?
I’ve only objected to others based on moral reasons, or when they differ from the objective standards of history or the Bible.
However, others disagree with me because they feel if they don’t like what I write, or like me personally, then they are free to engage in attempts to get rid of me.
Some of you belong in Communist Russia of the past, and are out of your time period. Back then, if you said something someone else didn’t like, the NKVD came to your door, that night, and that was the last anyone heard of you. It’s no different from this site. Advocate for Change, ironically, has the same slogan as the communists used when they came to power, and imitates them as well. They constantly and religiously attack ideas they don’t like, for virtually no legitimate reason at all, using euphemisms to mask their skulduggery like ‘stay on topic’, ‘too long’, ‘not the purpose of the site’. These are all subjective evaluations.
I’m glad you agree on some points, but, I’d encourage you to join me in simply objecting to departures from truth, reason, and logic, instead to of addressing points which differ not at all from the Bible or history. As for whether Stanton members like what I say, or whether anyone likes it, I’m quite happy to acknowledge most people don’t like it. And that doesn’t bother me at all. In times of moral confusion, being liked by many isn’t anything to boast about.
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those, who in times of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality,
Montesquieu – You said: "Kevin, if you are going to call Stanton a cult, then perhaps you should not be heeding the voices of those who wish to silence the relevant comments of those outside the mainstream. For in doing so, do you not become a sort of cult of your own?"
Man, are you tone deaf or what? No one is shutting you up. We're all asking you just to exercise some wisdom and keep your comments within the mission of this blog.
I've donated my actual time and expertise—on the phone and online—to helping you create your own platform where you can pursue wider political objectives with your writing.
I've told you publicly and privately that I would even link to that or any other platform if you'd like. But instead you prefer to come in here and try to hijack the intent of this blog. I'm not kicking you out, or off.
I repeat yet again…you're welcome here. I just hope you will take some wisdom from people who are trying to speak it into your life, bro.
Talk about gaslighting. You accuse me of shutting you up, but I haven't at all tried to do that. We're all trying to get you to simply exercise some SELF-restrain. Big difference.
God bless.
Advocate For Change.thank you! We hear you…sometimes you just have to smile, nod & disengage. Some can agree to disagree…others simply can not & will continue to spew their words despite request not to. Just remember why you are hear..your name says it all: Advocate for change.
Thank you for that!
Monte, I surrender. Your grasp of history I will never come close to achieving. Your righteousness I could never surpass. All you say is right and logical. I now concede ,because, you are the arbitor of facts,truth and all that's American and rightous. I think every knee should bow before you. If you were king, all would be well on the earth.
Anon 2:00 – We laugh sarcastically, but I know a young "Christian" who literally believes in feudalism (kingdoms) as a governmental philosophy because it would allow Christians (if the "right" Christian is King) to enforce Christian morals.
And this kid has never been exposed to the SCOC! Lol
Keep changing hearts and minds, people, one kind conversation at a time. I've read the end of the story, I know who wins! 🙂
Oh gosh…here we go again…I bet it will be 11 paragraphs & you will be told you're full of emotion & not stating facts & have 4 links for you to click on & you're probably a liberal who hates America & you better not say you're a women either you will just be WRONG WRONG WRONG…free entertainment! Some wonder what you have to gain by all of that..doesn't it get exhausting? Do you feel you are making a difference on this blog?
I've simply stop replying to him. His delivery hasn't sat right with me for a while, and I have discussions all the time with people I agree with and disagree with all the time.
I've never seen him really concede a point, its always the same rehabilitated tired arguments from him.
The guy was born 243 years too late.
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 2:00 PM
Ad hominem logical fallacy. Failing to refute points made and simply caricaturing me as a know it all, who knows everything, isn't effectively making any point. This isn't personal. If I'm wrong, fine, show me. If not, then don't attack me. There are objective truths, and if I state one, and you disagree, state why. If you state one, I will never disagree, and if I do, you can teach me why I'm wrong.
How about you don't listen to me, I don't listen to you, and we both listen to the lessons of history and the Bible?
Whether anyone on this site likes it or not, the truth will always be. Either we accede to it, or we will be examples to others of why they should.
What we have is a lot of subjective opinions, asserting themselves as facts.
Kevin, I appreciate all your help, and with your aid, my site has 150,000 views in 7 months. So, not sure why people are making it out that no one comes to my site, and everyone is here. While it is true that my site is geared towards politics, and WHAT THE CHURCH SHOULD BE, rather than harping (no pun intended:)) on Stanton's failures, and that it's not geared towards comments, as this site is, it's been effective. Just spoke to a candidate for Vallejo School board last night, and he told me that he took away all cell phones, and no longer has a television in his home. We had had a long conversation about a year ago on this very topic. So for those of you who want your tattoos, televisions, and other liberties, there are people who aren't even in the church who understand the logic of getting rid of these things. Believe it or not, I've been saying it for 2 years, and California, liberal California, believe it or not, is about to ban cell phones in the schools!
This site has a far narrower focus, and a much narrower target audience. But, if something is an absolute truth, and can be explained, with the reasons, why would any website not want it? I'm not coming here to promote political candidates, though I don't hesitate to talk about the parallels between Stanton and political parties and history. There are many on here who do not appreciate this at all, and want it stopped.
And, Kevin, when you say, 'We're all asking you just to exercise some wisdom and keep your comments within the mission of this blog.',
That is subtly trying to silence me. Not everyone on here disagrees with me, though the most vocal anonymous ones often do. If you evaluate my comments, and find one where it deviates from some Christian truth that a church would be benefited by from adopting, I will apologize for it, and correct it. But, I don't think any of my comments have been along these lines. Also, most of them were responses to frequent attacks which come my way.
Also, God isn't this 'lovey-dovey, never correct anyone for anything' entity. Stanton went way too far in rebukes, but that doesn't detract from 'correction is the way of life'. There are many on here, and in society, who can't bear to be corrected for anything. I am corrected every single day, because I seek it out in my Bible, and reading from men and women from the past. I'm not perfect, and don't pretend to be. I admitted already, Kevin corrected me that having guns was fine, and so was war, by the Bible, and after a huge argument, I thought, pondered, studied more information, and changed my mind. Kevin was right, and I was wrong. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, though I am slow to accept new truths, but when I do, they are there forever.
Anon 2:18 – The truth finds its way to the top! 🙂
Kevin I can only imagine!! I'm sure it gets exhausting for you just as it does your readers. It's nice to have good conversations even when you don't necessarily agree…your tone can make or break you as to weather or not people are taking you seriously…I'm not so sure everyone understands that part.
Kevin, also, may I quote Churchill, in explaining why you get texts, emails, and phone calls complaining about me constantly?
'You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life'
Winston Churchill
Can we hear from those who are disagreeing with me, when you stood up in public, in either Stanton, in some other church, or in politics, in a hostile environment, and said what needed to be said? I'll wait, but I'm not holding my breath. Those who are too afraid to do what needs to be done in public, are often the loudest in the shadows. Just like David's brother, Eliab.
You know who else doesn't believe in cell phones and "hellivision"? Hippies.
See how I casually dismissed your entire dissertation with a simple comparison to people you despise, but share your view point for entirely different reasons?
Thank me for giving you a reason to exercise your fingers.
Montesqueiu – You say "Kevin, I appreciate all your help, and with your aid, my site has 150,000 views in 7 months. So, not sure why people are making it out that no one comes to my site."
I've never said that, and as a digital marketing guy, I'm thrilled that your site is growing in its reach! Congratulations. Feel free to plug it here once or twice if you'd like (no more than that, out of good etiquette). This is NOT a competition. You may attract far more readers, but for a different purpose. I would celebrate that accomplishment.
You say: "…[I]f something is an absolute truth, and can be explained, with the reasons, why would any website not want it?"
Because those topics are not in the scope of this blog. I have a lot of interesting things I read about. The Bible, vaccines, junk science, global warming, AIDS/HIV, apocryphal books, Nephilim, politics, philosophy, theology, hermeneutics, history, apologetics…there's very little I'm not interested in learning about.
But this blog has ONE purpose, and that is to converse with those whose view of God has been screwed up by Stanton's warped theology and hermeneutics. That is what it's for, and I respect the readers who have invested hours reading this blog and the comments here enough to try to keep it focused on that mission.
Anon 2:35 – Thank you. Yes, tone is the key to communication, whether verbally or in writing. I've grown from being an introvert in my teen years, to somewhat of an extrovert (my wife might say) now. In fact, we've kind of switched places on that spectrum in our marriage.
I'd say this happened largely because of my increased passion for sharing my love for Jesus as I grew in Christ. Once I figured out grace, you couldn't shut me up.
But along with that, it happened because I've come to appreciate the value of genuine conversation. Love means hearing other people, empathizing with their life experiences, receiving instruction and mentoring when you can, and adding something to their thinking when presented with the opportunity.
That requires listening more than speaking, I've found. Not that I'm good at it. My kids and foster kids (and it pains me to say, sometimes my wife!) think I get up on my the soapbox too often! Lol
But I do step off when I get that one particular glance from my wife, because I've learned to trust her intuition on when I'm helping or hurting my cause. 🙂
And, Kevin, may I suggest it's not really a wife's place to be telling her husband when he can talk and when not to? She can advise, and that is it.
If I were married, I'm sure I'd be acting like you, and that is exactly why I'm not anxious to get married at all. Not going to have a woman dictating my actions. The Revolutionary War would have never been fought if the Founders had to worry about their wives every action they took.
I was at a meeting last night for the schools in my district. The men were largely absent, and were hesitant and timid to speak out. The women were loud, bold, and controlled the meeting. This same group has some of the worst behaved and lowest performing kids in the schools. And, to say this would have been extremely politically incorrect, but the truth doesn't change.
A wife's place is to keep the home, have children, love her husband, and submit. She will live up to expectations. This is not contingent on her husbands loving her. While God commands a husband to love his wife, he never gives a wife a get out of jail free card to only obey when she feels like it. Women are capricious and fickle by nature, and it is largely this female response to truth that is to blame for Stanton's problems, and for the massive opposition to me on here.
Hey Stanton, if your listening, please lift Monte's withdrawal.
Wow!! You have no shame.
Ladies please don't feel insulted by this person. His words are meaningless.
I could never imagine treating my wife the way you seem to treat women. Stanton seems to be a good fit for you.
I believe his point there was that his wife knows his blind spots, and there for, helps him to be more effective. You actually maybe to self righteous for Stanton. A Eunuch maybe?
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 3:26 PM
That's kind of you, even if dubious motives.
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 3:27 PM &
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 3:31 PM
The cuckold and beta-male is strong in you. Apparently the domineering women in Stanton have come on this site. This is the problem with feminism in America. The spheres of the man and woman are badly muddled and confused.
It is the wives role to submit, period!
https://thetransformedwife.com/husbands-create-the-wives-they-have/
There are women not even in Stanton who understand women are to submit and are not to be calling the shots in the home.
I believe his point there was that his wife knows his blind spots, and there for, helps him to be more effective. You actually maybe to self righteous for Stanton. A Eunuch maybe?
No I respect my wife. We respect each other & in our home we are a team. She doesn't need to "submit" to me or anyone else! Single life is probably best for you man!
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 3:47 PM
Except the man was designed by God to lead. Failing to do this is disobedience to God.
Mont.- It's alarming that the idea of trusting a wife's intuition or a wife glancing at her husband would lead into such a response. I ask you, if it's alright for a wife to advise, is it alright for the husband to take her advise when he trusts her intuition? My answer would be… of course it is. You are implying that Kevin is submissive to his wife and she is dictating his actions. You are out of line.
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 3:56 PM
Sure, many wise men listen to and heed their wives advice. But, they aren't obligated to. Our nation is being led astray by a women's advice being taken. Witness our first female presidential candidate. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the single most corrupt presidential candidate ever. That is what happens when women are allowed to rule. The Bible is very clear, only weak men and weak nations are ruled over by women. I know, because I once was one.
This whole mess started when women were given the right to vote. If that hadn't happened, Stanton never would have happened.
Montesquieu – I am wondering why you don't allow comments on your blog?
Why are you here Ryan? What are your motives? Is it to just assert that you're right? I's it to argue and bicker? Is it to make enemies so that you verify some quote you read? Is it to rant and rave about some history you read and how it was so much better in that time, then sit back smugly about how righteous you are for saying things people don't agree with?
If your goal is to have a reader adopt your positions, and see things your way, you're failing, and you will continue to fail.
This is not a time period where you can forcibly conquer people and make them adopt your ways. I don't care how right you think you are, if you come across the wrong way, and you are abrasive and condescending in your approach, you will be met with resistance, you will lose your audience, your message has fallen on deaf ears.
You're not really convincing because you don't really have facts to bolster your positions. You have people that you hold in high regard, and if your target audience doesn't share those same admirations for those same figures, or worse, if they despise those figures, what are you going to do to convince your audience that you still hold the correct position?
It seems like you're plan is to simply just keep saying you're right, and while you might be, its not effective.
Mont – Another question, why did you attack Kevin for taking his wife's advice?
EAG, Didn’t you learn about evil surmising? How is your first paragraph any different from how Eliab responded to David? And I’ll respond the same as David, ‘Is there not a cause’? One would think the dysfunction of Stanton and America would cause us to understand something is radically wrong, and a new way must be tried, but apparently not.
My goal is to pursue and uphold the truth. Popular assent was not the lot of Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, but they steady kept speaking. Truth is rarely popular, yet, according to you and many on this site, of a lot of people disagree with you, then you must be wrong. That is the appeal to popular, logical fallacy. Many of these logical fallacies are popular in Stanton as well.
How many times must you hear, ‘Facts don’t care about your feelings’? You can bicker and contend about style all day long, but that is your subjective assessment, the underlying facts, you cannot dispute, and so choose to ignore. You really don’t care about truth, only that you hear the truth that you like to hear. If there is a better way to say that the man is the leader of the home and nation, I’d like to hear it. The Bible clearly says it, so your issue isn’t with me, it’s with God, The Bible, and history.
I’ve posted hundreds of facts on this website, so for you to say I haven’t posted facts betrays you criticize what you don’t understand. Whether people listen to the truth or not, that is their affair. When I die, I need one friend, my conscience, and I’ll not regret anything I’ve said on here.
To the tattletales, busybodies, and instigators on here, grow up!
This is way better than any reality tv!!
After I read your first sentence about evil surmising, I stopped reading. I don't care what you have to say really. I don't care about your opinion. We're done. Say what you want, and continue feeding your ego.
EATG, thank you for your honesty. You have a personal dislike for me and what I say, not rooted in any critical thinking, we’re exposed, and now, tuck your tail between your legs, and slink off.
Ego means Edging God Out. Since nothing I’ve said contradicts God or the Bible, it seems you are the one who is actually Edging God Out.
LMAO okay preacher messano!!
What a joke!!
Scorners and Scoffers.
You see, Kevin, it is for types like this that Solomon said, 'A rod for the back of a fool'. They don't learn any other way.
Not content to attack ideas they little comprehend, they insist on ruining the experience for everyone when their attacks fail.
Kind of like the unruly kid in the classroom who doesn't want to learn, but insists on ruining the learning environment for everyone.
Dude you start all this and play the victim!! You know exactly what you're doing!!
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 4:05 PM
I do allow comments on my blog. Most do not come to comment. You have to have a disqus account to comment as well.
What you're not understanding is nobody in this blog WANTS to listen to your garage!! This isn't your classroom!! You and your rants are irrelevant but you so long for a pat on the back and for someone to listen to you!! You are everything you accuse others!! The hypocrisy is strong!!
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 5:30 PM
Dude? You must be under 35. Exactly what did I start? I simply said the wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands, and shouldn't be dictating what they can and can't say.
I'm no victim, I'm simply showing what the remedy for scorners and scoffers is. Have you studied what those are? Are you certain you aren't a scorner and a scoffer?
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 5:35 PM
My garage doesn't speak, and you repeat the appeal to popular logical fallacy. Haven't you learned from Stanton. This is how they determine what is right and wrong. 'But, Montesquieu, or Kevin, or anyone else on here, all the Stanton Teachers disagree with you, so you must be wrong'.
You provide another fact free harangue. Apparently, many on this blog have spent lifetimes bullying and badgering those they dislike into silence. That was Stanton's problem. That is a woman's approach as well. Men more often use logic, reason, and rational arguments to determine right and wrong.
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 5:35 PM
Further, the truth doesn't care about your feelings, nor do you speak for everyone on this blog. I never was arrogant enough to think that my opinion was the same as everyone elses on this blogs, but you seem to have unmitigated arrogance, and have appointed yourself as the spokesperson for this entire blog.
Mont- I love you and believe you want to be a force for good in this age. Focus on what you know and understand in your sphere and pursue it with gusto.
Smh. I think I've said all I need to about my marriage and it's Biblical foundations here and here. Lol
Kevin you know Dr. Phil had to through his two cents in…he couldn't NOT say anything!
Throw*
I hope the new reader, possibly someone searching and wanting to leave the cult, doesn't get put off by all the ranting and raving. Those of us on the blog know that this has been happening for YEARS. Some of us may even feel that in this mark and avoid, the cult got it RIGHT. However, I do admire the patience that this blog has shown a certain person. He has not been removed, though many of us have complained and wish he would be. I may even be attacked on here for saying so. But seeing years of this, I know there is no reasoning, only hope that he temporarily disappears as he has in the past and leaves us be. For the rest of you with a mind to keep it on topic, please refrain from addressing him constantly. It just feeds it. I too have been attacked for my opinion in the past. I felt the need to respond. But it won't end. Let it slide and change the subject. PLEASE. PLEASE. PLEASE.
Anon 6:43
Agreed 100%.
Stop responding.
AnonMarch 22, 2019 at 6:43 PM
KS, is that you?
Matter of fact, you actually flat out agree with Stanton's unscriptural withdrawal. Just goes to show, as David Horowitz said, 'Inside every progressive, there is a totalitarian screaming to get out'. This website has brought the dictators out of their hiding. It's really nice for many of you to get repudiated publicly, as you've spent lifetimes trying to throw your weight around.
Look, America, and Christ's church aren't democracies. Democracy, where popular vote matters, is a very dangerous thing, because we have demagogues like you, who can't even explain your beliefs rationally, constantly scurrying around and trying to form groups to get your way, to heck with reason and logic.
The temerity to try and get your opinion enforced to the exclusion of others. You've learned absolutely nothing from Stanton.
Thank you kindly, AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 5:54 PM
They are unleashing a mass wave of disapproval of me, trying to get their beloved ban. Many on here can't handle the truth.
Ask yourself, dear reader, why was it that there was just a man on here who was using vulgarity and flat out lying, and these types have their feathers so ruffled by me, were perfectly docile and content. You would have thought they were cheerleading him. Many probably were getting great delight at his antics. He's gone, and many of them will voluntarily leave too. They aren't interested in the truth, merely in getting their way, and enforcing ideas they like, but can't explain why they believe them.
What I learned from Stanton is they will shove their way or no way down your throat and learned the true meaning of a hypocrite.
Your truth isn't everyone elses truth. You speak for yourself and only yourself.
AnonymousMarch 22, 2019 at 7:03 PM
What I learned from Stanton is they tried to get rid of people who they disagreed with. Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot.
No one is forcing you to come here, and even if you do, no one is forcing you to read and respond to my comments. But there you are doing it, and claiming people are forcing things down your throat. Kind of like a child, with their hands in the cookie jar, claiming someone made them do it. No, you chose to do it.
It's always kind of amazing to witness the huffy types, who are all in a dither, having conniptions, and claiming they are so set upon by the horror of having to read and respond to my comments. Umm, maybe grow up from the training wheels already? Most of us learned in elementary school how to deal with ideas that we don't like.
Also, to your contention that truth isn't absolute, but rather is subjective, I strongly disagree. There are absolute truths, and your opinion about it, as well as mine, will never change them. So, it's better to start working hard to figure it out, instead of fighting it, because a whole lot of you are getting yourselves out of sorts fighting truths that were around thousands of years before you were born, and that will be around thousands of years after you breath your last breath.
You are a sophist, and you think man is the measure of all things. This thinking is dangerous, and extremely egotistic.
Lazy people never find the truth, though they object to it the most. 'Genius is an infinite capacity for taking pains'. Carlyle.
'Wisdom comes through suffering. Trouble, with its memories of pain, Drips in our hearts as we try to sleep, So men against their will Learn to practice moderation. Favours come to us from gods." ― Aeschylus, Agamemnon
https://larouchepub.com/other/2003/sci-techs/3035sophism.html
Cheer up, if you aren't foolish, you are getting wiser right now, though it doesn't always feel good.
I seem to recall overhearing some of the teen children of Stantonites saying how much fun they had getting together to enjoy a drink called Fireball, possibly to the point of throwing up and passing out. It is a false equivalency to compare that kind of drinking, where the point is to get completely intoxicated, to the wholesome enjoyment and gladdening of heart that a mentally, emotionally, and spiritually mature adult derives from a good glass of quality wine.
Anon 1:28 I had to scroll back some to find your comment, could it be you are man fearing being the reason you will not reveal your congregation. That’s exactly the reason I did not get on this blog until it was determined I was a nonmember. GP used the fear and intimidation factor with threats of withdrawal which kept me off of it. I think Montesquieu is simply bringing out the ridiculousness of the May week topics rather it was in the past or not his points are the same. Trust me I attended six of the May weeks which really were a waste Of time. Unscriptural too. From the one and only true church. Why not share with the world your May week discussions and talks. Broadcast them. Lol, I’d be embarrassed if I were a member. I listened to talks and discussions from last years meeting which were laughable at best. I’ll be entertained again with this years as well. Another year of no elders anon. Does that not concern you? Another year of no new congregation. Not even a token satellite congregation. Anon guess what? Your church is dead. I suggest you find yourself a church that is healthy. You won’t have it with Merie’s cult.
The May week is just a who's who of the self righteous cult. They come there to play out their delusions of grandeur.
I've had a lot of time to think about my journey in Merie's group, and why it took me so long to see how off they are. At first I believed everything they said simply because I was ignorant of what the bible said-I didn't even know who Paul was1 🙂
Once I started studying on my own-and I studied a lot-I started understanding the scriptures and what God is all about. Of course, I still don't understand ALL that God is about, that's probably a never ending search and study!
But what was finally happening to me was that I started to see what Merie's group was doing was often the opposite of what scriptures said. AND…that teachers and evangelists would say one thing and do another.
I am by nature a trusting person, and I still pretty much take people at their word. What I found myself doing while in Merie's group was that when a teacher/evangelist would say or counsel one thing, I learned to WATCH what they did. I remembered what Christ said-that by their fruits you will know them.
for example, they teach against murmuring and evil surmising. But those of you who are still within the group, open your ears and really listen. What do you hear the teachers saying? Those rebukes that you hear, how truthful are they? Did the teachers get that info from the person they are rebuking, or did they get it by gossiping, murmuring and assuming the worst about the person being rebuked?
And where in the scriptures does it say that backbiting, evil speaking, gossiping and murmuring is ok for the teachers and leaders but a sin to everyone else?
Christ warned us that whoever offends a child of God needs to watch out! Merie's group's teachers use the excuse that they need to keep the church "clean", but where in the scriptures does it say that the end justifies the means? That it's ok to sin in order to get rid of sin in others?
And just how effective is that kind of "teaching"? It's not. Just as Kevin said, people who are continuously punished without working on the heart just learn to hide what they are doing. We all do better when we are encouraged to be a better person.
My way of seeing things has always been deal with the negative, but focus on the positive. When dealing with children, or employees, I have found that it works wonders! People know when you truly love them and believe in them. When you believe in them, they can start to believe in themselves too. They start to grow and understand that just because they sin or make mistakes, that DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE A BAD PERSON and on their way to hell.
I like what you said, Donna, about the women in the strip clubs-they are broken, not unredeemable. When ones are made to feel that they are unlovable, they can't even love themselves. It changes their hearts when they encounter someone who doesn't see them as unlovable!
Hmmm….sounds familiar, doesn't it? Oh wait! That's what God does……He doesn't see us as unlovable or unredeemable. Isn't that why he sent His Son here? Christ didn't come for the righteous, now did He?
Debby – Awesome comment. Nailed it!
Great points Debby!
Kellie? Your first post is buried deeply with the comments so I hope you see this note. I would like to welcome you here. I hope you enjoy Kevins blog posts and the personal stories, historical data etc. I’m curious, how did you find this blog?
Greetings and Salutations,
I found this blog by accident. I too can attest to many statements on this blog. I'm sure I'll write more, but for now I'm here to take in your many points of view. Just know, I have been out of the "religion" since 1992. What I have learned is time is a good medicine. Enjoy the rest of your day and I'll strive to do the same.
AFC I had seen Kellies comment too and was searching but it had been bombarded with other comments so I couldn't. Glad I wasn't the only one looking. Welcome Kellie!
Debby, you are always a breath of fresh air.
M. Long, Kevin and Advocate-I still read every comment-though there have been some when my eyes glazed over and I moved on to the next one 🙂
All of you present wonderful and thought provoking things. I still remember when I first left Merie's Group and how difficult it was. I was alone. When a person is used to thinking, living and being with a group, it's difficult when you first leave that. our thoughts are now completely your own, and it's a little scary!
That's why this blog is so important. It's here so that ones can come and relate to others and realize they aren't alone. And that God has not given up on them, they are loved. That was a very difficult concept for me to accept. I had spent my life feeling unlovable-first by my parents and then by Merie's group. That is one reason I so readily joined the group-it was FAMILIAR.
The constant put downs, the negative thinking-evil surmising about you-the yes you did this good thing here BUT….always bad motives put on you for any good thing you did. And, of course, you never do it well enough, hard enough, long enough, often enough….
This blog helps for ones to let the seeds of truth enter in. It encourages them to think on these things, search them out-which Merie's group limits.
All of you are an important part of the new growing process, so please keep it up! Don't let one person's long and rambling monologues frustrate you to the point of quitting!
I love reading your thoughts and excellent points. You have no idea how much they still help me!
Thanks for the encouragement, Debby! During the seasons where I haven't been able to engage with the blog, I would still occasionally check on the page views or comment count and be amazed at the growing readership. It's an honor to be a small part of whatever changes God's bringing about here in the lives of members and ex-members.
Debby, I sympathize with your experience, but if you have ought with any factual thing I've written, you may express that. What is very tiresome, is the women on this blog constantly trying to usurp the authority of the men and trying to gain a teaching part. Have you not learned from Stanton? The women's place is in the home, not teaching men on their place, and lecturing them. I'm not here to fit in with your idea of Christianity, and as for your assertion that my posts are long and rambling, my dear, you have little to no comprehension of history, and would do well to keep silent and not speak on topics you have little comprehension of. The rebellion of feminism has infiltrated Stanton, infected America, and is all over this blog. Kindly stop trying to teach men, and keep within your sphere of keeping your home, children, and teaching other women. Stay in your lane. Thank you.
Kevin, I'm pretty sure the fair sex has been complaining the most, along with the effete men about me. But, I'm not here to appeal to their feelings, and you shouldn't be either. You and I are accountable to God, not to women. You give into these stubborn women on here, and you'll answer to God for your disobedience, just like Adam had to. Choose wisely.
https://thetransformedwife.com/the-christian-womans-legitimate-sphere-of-action-and-influence-the-home/
Montesquieu – I'm having trouble with Blogger linking to the right area to find particular comments, which is why my next upgrade will be to move from Blogger to a custom WordPress site.
But to answer your comment…wow. You think that you are more qualified to speak on any topic because you're male? And you think I'm emasculated because I know when my wife's intuition is dead-on? Haha. You obviously haven't been married, and certainly not to a godly wife. Next relationship you get into, you'll be asking me to delete your past comments again, just watch. :-0
Dude, I love you man. I really do. I think you know that, but your Stanton upbringing trained you to throw stones instead. But you are making a fool of yourself.
Nevertheless, you're welcome here—much to the chagrin of many other readers, I might add. We'll all get to watch you grow up, I suppose.
And that's no slam. I've said before and I'll say again that I've kept a file of old sermons. Man, I hung my head in embarrassment when I last looked in that file. I offered some apologies to some people, years later, even.
Psalm 141:3 – "Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips!"
Kevin!!! Can you hear your viewers applauding you!!!
No, I didn't say my being a man makes me more qualified to speak on any topic. I'm saying that in the church, men aren't to be taught by women. I'm pretty sure we can see the devastation that Merie and others have caused with this. Women have many wonderful gifts, however, teaching men isn't one of them.
Taking a wife's advice at times is nice, but for her to forcefully give her opinion, well, that's crossing a line in my book.
The kind of women that were common place 100 years ago are rare today. I believe I'll be perfectly content being single. Better single and free, than muzzled by a woman's whims.
Solomon said it was better to dwell in a desert than with an angry and contentious woman, and this website has excellent demonstrations of why this advice is so profound.
Not every disagreement is rooted to Stanton, however, they did have some excellent foundational material, that I consider the baby that I won't be throwing out with the Stanton bath water.
Thank you for your welcome, and yes, there are many chagrined readers, who prefer uncomfortable ideas and fierce criticism be banned.
If growing up is watching women teach men in Church, then I'll stay in Neverland all my life.
Since the fall of Eve, and she fell first, there has ever been a power struggle by women to seize the man's God-given authority. Every time she gets it, bad things happen, and both she and the man are punished. America is on a path to be severely punished for handing over the reins to women.
Montesquieu, I have gained much from the comments from both female and male. My two biggest encouragers through my transition away from Merie’s cult have been females. My mom and another who you were in the same congregation with for a time. Both females and males have corrected me on this blog and I receive the correction the same. You as well have corrected me my friend. Every comment from Debby has been spot on.
Thank you, Craig, and I have had women who were helps to me as well, and for that they are to be commended. However, while their input and advice can be invaluable, the original design was not for women to guide the home, the church, or the nation, and that has gotten sadly out of focus. There were very big female influences in Portland as well, and exactly how did that help the church?
This nation, marriages, churches, and Stanton are sorely lacking male leadership, and it was never appointed to women to fill this void. They have been trying to for the last 50 years, and our nation is a wreck as a result. They will say, 'But if the men were what they were supposed to be, we would be in subjection'. Not what God said at all. Next, they will bring up all the stories of extraordinary abuse to justify them leaving their role. God wasn't talking about them submitting to abuse. But, I've abused no woman, and you can see how they are on here, chattering and scheming, to usurp my ability to speak. As a child will always try to test it's parents, so since the fall of Adam and Eve, the woman has ever tried to subvert the authority that God gave the man.
We men are accountable to God. Adam was punished for yielding to Eve's rebellion. We will be punished for yielding to women subverting our authority as well. Stanton has been punished from the beginning for subverting God's design.
Let's be honest. Stanton never had a chance of being successful, because Merie violated God's design from the very start. Kevin personally saw how she emasculated his very learned and wise father.
I would be a better person right now, if I had been guided and led by Kevin's Father, rather than the women who commanded Stanton. I didn't get that leadership, and I am angry, and am not about to sit here quietly and let women continue this nonsense.
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF ALL THE EMASCULATED MEN THAT THE WOMEN OF STANTON HAVE LEFT IN THEIR WAKE WITH THEIR REBELLION, GOSSIP, AND REJECTION OF GOD'S DESIGN.
The women are way out of line, and it's high time this stopped. It's for their own good. They have ripped down America, marriages, the church enough. It's time we took the approach that worked in the past.
I am not the only one saying this. There are millions more, but the media, schools, and most churches are infected with the cancer of feminism, where women are viewed as 'equal'. No, they have their sphere, and men have their sphere. We will never feel good about ourselves until we assert the place God designed for us in the universe, and that was to lead women and children, not be dominated by them. And our leadership was not contingent on whether women think we are 'nice'. No, we've all seen 'nice' men, and women trample all over them. Sick of the games, and I'm sick of watching women wreck homes, families, and ruin kids childhood with their ceaseless rebellion.
Let me be clear, there are millions of good women in America and in the church, who understand their role is not to teach men, but to instruct children and other women in godliness. My sincerest commendations go to them. However, many of the women on this blog, the most outspoken ones that is, are way out of subjection. These are older women, who poison the younger women with their rebellious spirit. So, the younger women rebel, end up with loser louts who beat them and wonder why they are miserable, lonely, and childless when they are 50. That's on you, older women. It's your job to raise the children. You are doing a terrible job teaching younger women to marry, keep a home, love a husband, and have children. Instead, the younger women today are suckered into thinking that going to college and getting a job is what life is all about. So, our nation is being destroyed by selfishness. Enough!!
Further, what man wants to marry a rebellious woman? No wise one, that's for sure. We avoid them with a ten foot pole. Women's rebellion is a large part of why men turn to masturbation, pornography, prostitution, and fornication. Men recognize that getting married carries the risk of their wives taking half of what they own, and their children, if she suddenly wakes up and doesn't feel like she loves him one day. Women initiate 80% of divorces. Men don't want anything to do with that. But, our natural drive doesn't vanish. God created it to drive us to marriage, and children, but we are afraid of rebellious women, and we have every right to be. Unlike Islam, we don't beat rebellious women here. Women need to voluntarily learn submission.
People will tell me, 'Monte, if you are nice, she will love you'. That's a lie, been there, done that. Of course, no woman will be perfect when you marry her, for that matter, neither am I, but if she doesn't acknowledge her husband as the head of the household, there will be problems.
Kevin!!! Can you hear your viewers applauding you!!!
You know what I would do if I were trying to destroy a blog that I viewed as detrimental to an organization that I value, and wanted to protect?
I would fill the comment section with non compos mentis tirades, attack anyone who I view as a threat to my church with posts filled with unintelligible drivel, posts links to shoddy fly by night websites, espouse ideas that I know will derail the mission of the blog, display toxic behavior that discourages any person from further communication on the blog, marginalize and delegitimize a group of people that I view as mentally weaker because of their gender without any clear display of validity for my claims.
It seems to be very effective.
Not really. If I wanted to take out a blog that I viewed as detrimental to an organization that I valued, I'd attack the most prolific commenter, who is attacked the most by that organization. You are doing a good job. If you want to imitate Joan of Arc, you are doing a miserable job, as she stood up for a heroic ideal, and perished in the attempt. You obviously have no heroic ideals, since you attack those you either don't understand, or disagree with.
Goebbels said if you tell a lie enough, eventually people will believe it. And that seems to be your tactic, and that of many others on here. Call someone crazy (imitate Stanton), ignore all facts, attack style, and viciously take out the knives. You got your name wrong, it should read Brutus and Cassius. They knew all about your tactics of taking your knives out in the dark and stabbing people in the back. Ruthless and sinister.
Calling ideas drivel that you are, frankly, not bright enough to understand, is the approach of the foolish. When you can't refute an argument, simply dismiss it.
Then you engage in specious Google reasoning, calling the websites I post 'shoddy, fly by night' varieties. Not one of them can be honestly refuted by you, but you, like your angered brethren on here, hate to actually reason and explain your positions, instead, you prefer to lazily dismiss what you don't understand. The mark of a fool. Wise people consider and then speak. You speak, and then consider. You believe your passion and emotion will make up for the absence of your intellectual work. Hint: It never will.
Paul asked, 'Do I become your enemy because I tell you the truth'? I ask you the same question. You'll say it's not the truth, but this entire blog can see you haven't refuted a single point, and think you will come in and with 10 sentences dismiss 6,000.
The impudence and arrogance of many on this blog is quite astonishing. May I recommend you actually learn history before trying to adopt the titles of historical figures, so you don't look ridiculous?
And you conclude with the typical Marxist double speak of accusing me of 'marginalizing and delegitimizing a group of people', for merely advocating that men and women have their spheres.
If you bothered to go read history older than a century ago, rather than coming on here an braying your ignorance for all to see, you'd understand that what I'm saying is how they lived, and we had far healthier families.
Very effective propaganda piece though.
If my comments discourage people from commenting, it sure didn't discourage your distortions, uninformed thinking, malice, and vitriol from commenting.
However, the liberal media and schools that just were exposed for the biggest political scandal in American history, for trying to wage an insurrection against a duly elected President of America, agree with your nonsense, and so there will be many readers who are swayed by your sophistry. Satan's delusions are quite appealing, as yours will tickle the ears of the naïve and gullible.
Antibiotics apparently don't kill all germs.
Ok Cartman.
The same truth that hardens certain clays, also softens others. And so are humans. They respond to truth differently. We clearly see who hates it, and who loves it. The majority, as has ever been the case, hate it.
Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth.
Severe rebuke and criticism is very good. It exposes faulty reasoning and ideas that cannot be exposed any other way.
Just as you can tell the flavor of a tea bag when you put it into hot water, so you can tell what a human is made of when you put them in hot water.
Belay my last, meant to say 'The same sun that hardens certain clays, softens others'.
I read all of Montes comments in the voice of Cartman from South Park.
Yes, examining this blog from the eyes of Southpark, one of the most degenerate shows ever, seems to be wise.
You see, Kevin, people don't object to me because of facts, it's because they have ever rebelled against truth. But, they keep right on coming, don't they.
Nope, not the blog. Specifically your comments only.
Probably a good time for you to look up impudent, impertinent, insolent, debauched, libertine, and lecher for the first time in your life. All South Park fans could profit from looking these up in Websters Dictionary. South Park would have no fans left if Americans were all virtuous and wise.
You see, Kevin, I'm objected to by South Park fans. Why aren't others objected to by South Park Fans? Probably because most fit in with the South Park culture.
Sorry Cartman, I just cant take you seriously with that high pitched voice.
Ad hominem, logical fallacy.
If debating you were a boxing match, it would be easy to win blindfolded with one hand tied behind my back.
"Probably because most fit in with the South Park culture."
Not me. Won't watch it, never will, and I believe drivel like that is part of the downfall for any rational thinking. A deranged mindset.,
Bahahahahahahaha @ Anonymous 11:21AM������
What a clown!! Remember folks..you can't fix stupid!! Carry on & bypass his nonsense!!
AnonymousMarch 23, 2019 at 12:13 PM
Another entitled snowflake. Conditioned to believe they are the center of the universe, and they flip out when they find out that the truth is different from what they've been brainwashed with. It will be alright, 12:13, breath deeply and stay calm. The delusion is strong in you. Try not to hyperventilate.
A lot of attacks on me follow Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals', a book devoted to Lucifer. Constantly avoid reason and logic, launch personal attacks, maliciously malign, and try to overwhelm your opponent with vicious and underhanded tactics.
One man with God is a majority. This is apparently news to a few of you.
We see many have been infected with the Stanton way of doing business. Call someone stupid, a clown, nonsensical, crazy, 'lost their mind', and keep repeating it until you beat them into submission.
Psychological terrorism being carried out by 12:13.
This site was designed to be able to show what wrongs occurred with Stanton, to heal, remedy, and reform.
However, there are uncomfortable Christian truths which are encountering massive resistance from the lukewarm, and they are sabotaging the site, all the while claiming I am the problem.
I'd be happy to address corrections of facts, statistics, or statements I've made, from men, as women and children have no right to be publicly correcting men. Instead, I'm beset with catty remarks from women who haven't learned subjection and are over 50, a very sad state to be in, people comparing me to South Park characters, gross mischaracterizations, logical fallacies, and personal attacks.
It would be nice if those who are commenting can focus on the goal of the site, and stop needlessly assaulting ideas they either refuse to learn, or reject.
People have tattled to Kevin based on subjective criticisms of me. 'But he's too long'. 'He rambles'. 'He hurts my feelings and I don't feel safe'. 'He reminds me of Cartman', 'He's stupid', 'He's a clown', etc. LOL, it's hilarious. None of the criticism is rooted in logic, reason, or truth.
Thank you. There are courteous readers, they are unfortunately drowned out by the rambunctious and recalcitrant blowhards.
Eat your own words man! "The delusion is strong in you."
Craig encouraged me to read this post. I was hoping I'd have something to add, but with the bitterness and strife I've read, I am just numb… So I'm going to just step away and pray the God open hearts and minds. That peace can be found and we can use this blog for growth rather than a.m attack platform. I'm not at all about fearing man and watering down the truth, but our presentation of the truth is very important. We just had a sermon from James 3. Read it all, then focus on vs13-18. A great point he mentioned was when we deal in strife it's eathly, sensual and devilish. Why is it devilish? Because we do his work for him. We cause people to step away or not even enter because they know what they are witnessing is wrong.
Ronita I agree. I used to enjoy coming to this blog and reading every ones stories. It was comforting to feel like I wasn't alone. Going to step away awhile myself. It's gotten a little out of hand and off topic and just isn't for me anymore. I thank you Kevin for doing what you do. You have helped more than you may know.
Hello Ronita. Long time no hear. Go read my story and you will see why I am here. It got really bad after you and Roberto left. I tried to fix it, but outside leaders to their sides.
Welcome and thanks for the words of advice Ronita.
When I read my Bible, it tells me to 'Prove ALL THINGS, and HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS TRUE'. So, if anyone has a problem with my style take it up with the Apostle Paul, who wrote Thessalonians.
We are told to contend for the truth, and there are many who have no appetite for, and are allergic to the truth.
'Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:'.
Many wish to have their ears tickled, and are offended when truths which this entire nation knew a century ago, are uttered. As mentioned before, facts don't care about feelings, and those who impudently attack ideas they have never really researched, aren't going to be allowed to run roughshod as apparently some are accustomed too. People throwing temper tantrums over not getting their way, when it's clear to the rational reader, their temper tantrums are due to their own irrational thinking.
And, we see the same strategies used to silence the Christians in the First Century used to silence the truth here. 'But Monte is causing a commotion'. 'We had peace before he came'.
And, its remarkable, I'm one of the most merciful and forgiving of Stanton, compared with people who call it a cult, and I'm called the rabble rouser, the bitter one, the person with the axe to grind, and the narcissist. There is some serious lack of self-introspection, which is quite common in the world. In a church world where it's viewed as a virtue to not make sour faces at willful and brazen sinners, my actions are mouth dropping blasphemy.
But, I sort of recall a man who went into a temple with a whip, and cleaned house with all the money making church types, which is the vast majority of American churches today. These same types who complain about me on here, will go to church tomorrow and drop buku bucks into the offering plate to fund the mission work to Nigeria, China, or Thailand. Ummm, how about America? We have plenty of problems right here. That same offering plate will pay for the nice preacher to tell us all about the love of Jesus. I don't ever really see Jesus' love entailing smoothing over hard truths. Truth comes first, then unity. The religious world, Stanton, and even many on this site are about unity. Well, without truth, you can be united and jump off a cliff. There is no reward for rushing down the wrong path and being united.
For those leaving the site because the truth rubs them the wrong way, the same thing happened 2,000 years ago.
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
None of the truths most leave here because of will change. Wherever you go, there you are.
Part of the problems with the churches in America, is few of the parishioners have the stomach to hear the truth. Most prefer nice, watered down flatteries. They prefer sycophantic and obsequious preachers, who speak syrupy words of love, and ignore the glaring errors that need to be corrected.
People don't get better by being flattered, they get better by being told the truth.
Even the Greeks recognized this, before Christ. In Oedipus Rex, the title character refused to stop, no matter how painful, until he learned the entire truth about himself. When he found it out, it was quite painful, but, he was satisfied.
The site or this blog doesn't rub people the wrong way..nobody has said anything about this site. You just don't know how to shut the hell up!! Seriously!! GET OVER YOURSELF!! You're not God! You're not Jesus!! Your head is so far stuck up your own ass you can't hear other people!!
Another example of a hyperventilating snowflake. Try learning facts and reason, then come to a debate. Otherwise you are coming to a gun fight with a pea shooter. Since all you have is emotion, you are easily worn out.
All kinds of straw man arguments in your last comment.
Also, saying 'everybody, nobody, etc' are exaggerations that are nearly always wrong and lessen your credibility.
With your language, you certainly have no idea what God, Jesus, or the Bible stand for, and would do well to study it first before lecturing others on it.
I just love when my Christianity is judged by non-Christians who have never bothered to study the Bible, and have no intention of living it.
It's interesting the supposed Christian types allow your vulgar comments, but they raise holy hell over mine.
That shows you what their standards are. They don't care about good and evil, they don't care what is right, they care only who is right.
Dear blog bullies,
who think if you shout, yell, scream, use vulgarity, and gang up on others, you can silence them, it won't work.
Sincerely,
A First Amendment Supporter
“If someone succeeds in provoking you, realize that your mind is complicit in the provocation.”
Epictetus
“Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it.”
Maimonides,
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”
Voltaire
“Debate refines a good idea. That's why we have two major parties in Congress. Somebody says, “I have a great idea for the country.” We say, “Wonderful! Put it on the table. Let's debate.” And we start the debate by questioning the guy who has this great idea. After the third question he says, “I withdraw my great idea. I forgot about those three questions.””
Jim Rohn,
“Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness.” – James Wilson, Of the Study of the Law in the United States, 1790
“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.” – John Adams, 1765
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence, 1776
All men were created equal by God, and, unless they violate God's laws, have every right to speak as much as they wish, on any topic they wish.
You're on here for the wrong reasons.
Readers don't come here to debate or looking for arguments.
Your first sentence is evil surmising, and since you don't use reason and facts well, your reason for being on here is what you need to be questioning.
Readers seem to have no problem commenting. Judging by the fleet of comments following mine, we don't have many shy types on here, though we do have many with victim complexes. People want to shout how oppressed they are by opposing opinions, when wise people see the 'oppressed' are only conceited people who don't like being disagreed with in public. A lot of people took their Stanton habits to this blog.
Truth is reached only when fierce criticism is allowed. If you can't take that, you don't value the truth, and are simply looking for people to like you and tell you nice things. Sorry I'm not that person.
I see my scriptures were disregarded.
Ronita and others, please don't leave the blog entirely. I know it's difficult when one person hogs and fills up the blog, but just scroll past their comments-don't even read them. There are so many more that are helpful, and most of us need and value your comments on this blog. Your insights are important! And you just never know what you might contribute that will help others! 🙂
You're right Debby. I do that a lot. I look on here for anything I can use for myself, but bypass a lot of it.
No, they weren't disregarded, Ronita. More context was needed. Last nights study of Matthew 10 yielded these verses.
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
The idea that you and many others have on here that the truth will always lead to peace and harmony is no where in the New Testament. The exact opposite is portrayed.
I no sooner get done showing the biblical model for women, that this entire nation happily practiced a century ago, and the place goes nuts, with lynch parties targeting me on a daily basis. I don't feel bad at all for saying what I said, and I'll say it again. Women have no business teaching men, it is their role to teach children and other women.
This is the underlying lesson of Stanton. While many of the women will come on here and complain about how they were wronged by Stanton, I see many of them imitating the very same problems Stanton had, namely, women trying to usurp the authority of men. That's a great way to destroy homes, marriages, churches, and nations, and for the women who wish to proceed in this behavior, you have found yourself in an implacable foe in me.
Debby, not sure how to let you know this, but you aren't the spiritual expert you pride yourself in being. You are quite capable in leading children and other women, but you'd do well to leave your evaluations of my writing to someone who has actually researched the topics I'm discussing. Your not understanding it is a reflection of your own intellectual laziness, and I don't appreciate the catty aspersions you insist on throwing my way.
I've attacked no one first, but if you attack a truth I've stated, you will get double back. Apparently, many of you women are used to throwing your weight around with no blowback. You already threw the kitchen sink at me over the past few days, and I'm still here, so get used to it.
And no, God did not tell you to respect me if you FEEL they are respectable. We know how that works. Women will find every reason under the sun to not respect and not obey men and their husbands, respectively. Well, a few of us men aren't playing games. We are tired of seeing women tear down truth, ideas, and families, and we aren't going to stand for it. Women are far more emotional. So, a man's words rule, just as God's words created the universe, a man's words, when inspired by God, create the family and nation.
Never in my life have I spoken one cross word to you, Ronita. Yet, inspired by blog blowhards, you feel the need to preach to me.
Walking softly and carrying a big stick is a good strategy.
I have no animosity towards any on here, but for simply telling the truth, I have been ruthlessly excoriated. An honest objective observer can easily understand I have said nothing factually or logically incorrect. So where is this disagreement coming from? Humans don't always like the truth, and that is quite obvious from this blog.
You may not understand a truth, but no one forces you to read and respond to it. Denigrating what you don't understand will bring pain, that is a lesson life teaches all.
And Monestquieu,I have no ill will toward you. Just wanted to make that clear.
Oh, I meant Ruth, but Esther is good also.
It's wonderful that you desired to be home, and your children were always a pleasure to be around.
God did use women in the Bible, but only in the OT, and only when the men were too weak to do it. Even then, Deborah didn't try to lead the army herself, she appointed Barak, Esther also didn't do things herself, she used her skill and guile to have King Ahaseurus kill the Jews enemy, Haman. As for Ruth, she found a Godly man, the son of a Prostitute, Rahab. When she married Boaz, then her destiny began. On her own, she never would have had a book in the Bible. The two books of the Bible, Esther and Ruth, named after women, both have powerful men who made it possible. Ahaseurus and Boaz, and both women were in subjection to these powerful men.
Vashti, on the other hand, got out of line when her husband made an unreasonable request of her, to show off her beauty before his lords when he was drunk. A very humiliating thing. However, she was proud, and wouldn't do it, and was removed from being queen. She was replaced with Esther.
If the homes and children were in great shape, which they aren't, then perhaps a woman's voice would be needed in the public square. Further, while women have gotten more involved in leadership in the church and in politics, both are in the worst shape they've ever been in.
God created the woman last, and she was his most perfect creation, however, she was designed to be a helpmeet, not a leader. When she attempts to promote her feelings as church or national policy, it rarely turns out well.
I've never had anything but respect for you and your family.