Hi
I couple of weeks ago I issued Reed with an amber strike due to a number of addictions he was trying to get met on the forum in terms of superiority/dominance and arrogance with regards to his feelings of being certain emotionally as to the identity of Jesus & Mary (and which I could not agree with him on). You can read more about this previous strike by following the below link:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=663
I later found out that his motivation to post about the above came from a debate he had with another member of the forum whom was a woman as she came to me privately informing me that it was her. The reasons as to why this debate/intellectual argument that drove his action to post on the forum will be revealed and make more sense in more detail below, particularly the part about a woman being involved.
I have issued Reed with a further 2 AMBER STRIKES and therefore a muting of his account on the forum due to his interactions with Lena on the below thread:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=656
The below AMBER STRIKE criteria has been breached by Reed:
1) Any co-dependent, emotional bartering based exchange with other visitors with the purpose of getting your own addictions met
2) Posting comments with feelings of demand or expectation attached to them
Firstly, much of the below was shared with myself and the other moderators by Mary and this can be seen due to how thorough the feedback is in nature. I will use two colour themes for the below; BLUE whereby myself and Mary felt the same things from Reed, and PURPLE/PINK for where Mary felt additional things from him that I could not recognise.
There is a lot of facade, lack of transparency and insincere motivations driving Reed's initial post on this thread as well as his subsequent posts towards Lena.
Reed appears to be supposedly asking a question about compassion but he isn't up-front about his (already held) strong opinions about what compassion is and is not. (He really doesn't have an idea about what it ACTUALLY is from God's perspective BUT he pretty arrogantly believes that he does know). It strikes me that a humble person would post in a more transparent way. For example they would be willing to expose their real thoughts and feelings while still seeking an answer e.g. "Look, I reckon the world doesn't have a clue about compassion. I don't like the following video or post because it feels off to me. Am I correct or do I have an error?"
Also, the "I'm not mentioning any names" line seems very strange and the way the facebook post is introduced it seems that either:
1. Reed is being lazy. He doesn't want to self reflect and explore his actual feelings enough to just explain them and/or ask questions. He wants other people to do that work and so he just posts a facebook post (or the video) to get people to discuss something he doesn't want to explore enough to describe his feelings. He wants other people to 'do the work' of figuring out what his point or question is, or,
2. He is trying to make a point through his posting 'questions' and isn't seeking answers at all - which is dishonest and not humble. Reed actually eventually got upset with Lena for answering his "questions" e.g. when she gave her opinion on the facebook post being posted in addiction. This further indicates that there was no humble seeking on his part. He really just wanted to make a point - Maybe Reed posted the part about his friend to 'shame' them about their facebook posting, particularly if they are another member of this very forum.
So, if a person were more transparent (less in facade) and considerate with others (even if not yet very humble) they would either state that they want to make a point and aren't interested in feedback, they just want to express an opinion OR that they do want to ask a question and they take the time to feel about what is bothering them and explain that clearly to others.
Reed likes to have engagement with women. It meets some addictions in him for attention from women. He likes to have women 'work' for him. He certainly doesn't see that as a gift. He simply has addictive emotional desires for sexual validation from women. To get this he draws them into exchanges in which they give him time, attention and approval. When the woman/women cease to give him this he then expresses rageful, angry, condescending emotions at them underneath a facade of 'innocence'. This entire dynamic originates in his relationship with his mother. I have the feeling that he had a mother who gave his a lot of sexual validation and did an extreme amount for him. As a result he now feels entitled to this and gets rageful when he doesn't get it.
The only reason Reed responded to Lena's original request for him to formulate his ideas into questions is that he wants women to engage with him and so he wrote the questions.
Thanks for your time and of course, thanks a ton for Mary for being so clear and explicit in expressing her feelings on the matter.
Nicky