Tansy: Living in the spirit thanks for your pm regarding Rainy but I think in this instance it is better to discuss her in the debate forum rather than in private as it is her that you have accused of attacking you and I don't feel comfortable about debating this in a pm, it is much better on an open forum when the pm is concerning someone else where the matter is being discussed.
Ed: In the hopes of bringing clarity since i'm pretty sure people might get the wrong idea from what you have written here, the following is what i said to you in the pm as a response to your public question from about 10 days ago wanting me to detail what additional personal attacks were made by Rainy: "Hi Tansy, Since Rainy apologized for her behavior, i don't want to continue challenging her on what she did, most especially not publicly which is why i am responding to you in private" Next pertinent comment: "If you are sincerely interested in wanting to learn from this experience and if you feel that knowing specifically what i consider to be Rainy's additional personal attacks and that this would be helpful to you and fruitful i would be willing to share."
I was just responding to your public question as a courtesy and in such a way that would hopefully not keep the issue stirred up in the public forum after Rainy apologized. Since you hadn't responded to this pm of about 10 days ago, i never did clarify to you what additional personal attacks Rainy had made. I wasn't going to do so without first being convinced that you were sincere in wanting to know the truth and that you were sincere in genuinely wanting to learn something. So far and unfortunately i don't feel that this has been the case. Also i was not interested in debating anything with you in pm either, which is why i wasn't intending to answer your question unless or until i sensed sincerity from you as well as a willingness to be unbiased and fair minded which also to this point has not been the case.
Tansy: I really don't want to pm about someone who I believe has more than proved herself on this topic. It is time to move on...
Ed: You didn't want to pm, but you did want to continue discussing it publicly even after she apologized which is something i did not want to do. Also, since Rainy has resumed her personal hostilities, i will say here that your on going exceedingly biased belief that the initiator of the personal attacks has proven herself is noted.
Tansy: No offence meant but I never asked you to contact me and you did even though I hardly know you and I know from past experiences...
Ed: I have only ever looked upon pm's as another natural form of communication among human beings and nothing taboo, but since you are expressing for the very first time that you don't want to receive a pm from me, then quite simply you won't and all you had to do was to say at any point that this was what you wanted. I know it took 6 months for you to address this and i know you chose to handle this private concern publicly which to be honest i believe you have ulterior motives for doing, but I am happy that you finally clarified your wishes so that at least i now know what they are. Just so you know this isn't rare, i have also communicated in pm with Rainy, Refreshed, Vektek, Trapper, Doc, Tomi, Loquat and several others from this site in pm over the months or years.
Tansy: I did give you the courtesy of answering you six months ago when you contacted me about someone else from the debate forum which was totally unexpected...
Ed: 6 months ago, you were in the midst of a public feud with someone, you seemed to be hurting and i was willing to hear your perspective and help you to work through it as one aspect of being a child of God. My goal is only ever for the two people to resolve differences and/or misunderstandings wherever possible which whether you realize this or not, this is also my hope in my own situation with Rainy and Loquat. But generally before a conflict can be resolved in any authentic and enduring way, the true cause needs to be recognized, acknowledged and turned from. In this case the pre-emptive personal attacks have always been the cause and then the resurgence of these pre-emptive personal attacks after the person who initiated them in the first place apologized but then resumed the attacks.
Please understand that i genuinely don't expect to convince you of anything Tansy and i already know which side you have chosen regardless of who is guilty of pre-empting the personal attacks... and i already know why.. Much of what i could say is already outlined in this recent post here: https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=2424371#i . Just responding publicly to your private matters made public and which i think through your wording could very easily have given people the wrong idea.
Rainy: Ed, you misunderstood my apology.
Ed: Actually i really do understood what you were apologizing for Rainy.
Rainy: I did apologize for not stating things in a more loving manner...
Ed: This is what i understood.
Rainy: ... which I am not sure I am even able to do with these serious errors.
Ed: Then you have your work cut out for you. First you have to recognize that treating people with kindness in disagreement is actually possible, not impossible. Maybe if you first learn and completely understand what personal attacks are so you are able to at least recognize them when your heart and mind immediately want to rush there as opposed to stating and supporting your positions? Is treating people with respect and common decency really so difficult for you? Is this how you treat everybody in the world who is not a fundamentalist "christian", a zealot for catholic originated dogma? If you are sincere about wanting to learn what ad hominem personal attacks look like and how you can state your position without making these personal attacks, i am willing to help you. I have already provided you with 20 examples. If you are unable to see what was wrong with any of these 20 personal attacks, then did you apologize for something to which you were completely oblivious?
As one exercise, maybe you can think of someone that you really love and care about. Maybe it's a 5 year old child, maybe it's your mother or aunt or maybe a cute puppy. Imagine how you would want people to talk to them with kindness and respect regardless of their beliefs. Imagine how it would make you feel is someone hammered them with the same 20 personal attacks that you leveled against me in one post. Is this how you want these loved ones spoken to?
Something else of value would be learning about "logical fallacies" and not using these in dialogues and/or debates.
Why haven't you ever said, "the reason i believe in a 100% God breathed (original) bible is x, y and z". The reason i don't believe Jesus was excluding himself when He said that His Father was the one true God is x, y and z". As opposed to: "you're so deceived because you don't believe the way i do, You don't have any discerneemtnt because you don't believe the way i do", "you need to stop watching youtube videos because only i am able to choose the right ones", etc. Maybe too think about how Brown and White and other professionals debate eachother. Nobody who wants to be taken seriously launches into pre-emptive personal attacks Rainy unless they don't know how to honestly and skillfully defend their beliefs. It is an extremely immature and unhealthy tactic. Can you even imagine Brown or white doing that to eachother?
Rainy: You would most likely have been offended no matter how I stated things.
Ed: No Rainy, this is a cop out and you are better than this. You were being personally abusive with ad hominem attacks. It really is possible to express yourself and your doctrinal beliefs without doing this. But it first takes the decision to recognize that it's wrong to behave that way and to change it. and then it would take practice.
One of the greatest ways to live in the Spirit is to develop the practice of "taking every thought captive and bringing into into obedience to Christ" which is one of the most practical and essential bible verses when it comes to Living unto God.
Rainy: I never wanted to offend you, but sometimes the truth is offensive.
Ed: Dogmatism is offensive rainy, but even such dogmatic phrases as "The bible (original) is 100% God breathed, inerrant, infallible and the final authority" ","The Koran is the 100% God breathed word of God, dictated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel" "Jesus is God" ,"Mohammad was God's greatest messenger", "God is a Trinity" are nowhere near as offensive to the person that does not believe these dogmatic statements as the kind of personal attacks you have made a habit of habitually launching into when someone does not agree with you. Hopefully you are willing to become much more clear on the difference.
Rainy: It is still better to tell the truth than cover it up in order to not offend someone.
Ed: I believe it is great for you or anybody else to speak what you believe the truth to be, but not in the area of ad hominem attacks. Speaking truth can be done with kindness, patience and other aspects of Love and need not be accompanied by ad hominem attacks. Maybe you can try to act more like Brown and White when you are stating your case and trying to convince someone to see things your way.
Rainy: The outcome can be very disastrous if we do and say all things with the motive of not offending others.
Ed: The outcome can be very disastrous if you push people away from God by hammering them with pre-emptive ad hominem attacks and if you push other people away from God when they see that your example is not at all Christlike.
You will have a much better chance of encouraging people to see things your way with kindness, not with hostility and deprecation.
This was a quick response so it's not comprehensive or as clean as i might have liked.
God bless you.
Wow that was a surprisingly hostile and angry response to my kind and practical suggestions. Once again you demonstrate that your intentions to grow were not sincere.
In every instance throughout our entire history rainy including throughout any emails we have exchanged in years gone by, it has always been you to pre-emptively initiate the hostile personal attacks. In general, it is the more spiritually immature individual who will pre-emptively initiate these personal attacks and every time you do this, you reinforce how spiritually immature you are. This unfortunate negative character trait of yours is so deeply ingrained that I expect you have been this way since early childhood and apparently you still have no intention whatsoever of changing it.
To answer your questions Rainy, i do follow the standards i expressed to you. Specifically I follow the standards modeled by Lord Jesus Himself. He was not the pre-emptive initiator of personal attacks the way you are and neither am i, but there are many examples where He has responded to the pre-emptive personal attacks of others with personal attacks of His own including by calling His dogmatic instititutionalized religious enemies hypocrites, brood of vipers, blind guides and sons of their father the devil.
According to the Lord Jesus' many examples which He modeled, it is not in itself a sin to respond to a personal attack with a personal attack of your own. Your problem is that you are consistently the one to pre-emptively initiate these personal attacks, just as the pharisees did against Jesus. Please hear me Rainy. The key here is that you are the initiator just as you were with your 20 pre-emptive personal attacks in this thread, just as you were in threads of about 2 or 3 months ago, just as you were in the eternal torment thread that comes to mind a couple years back, and just as you were in posts of several years ago and our emails from several years back.
The reason brown and white are not exchanging ad hominem personal attacks is that neither of them pre-emptively initiates them the way you do. They both have the human decency, maturity and respectfulness to not be the one to dip into the gutter. Where you and i are concerned Rainy, the initiator of these hostilities has always been you. If i debated brown and white, there would be no personal attacks because neither they nor i would be willing to stoop down into the gutter to initiate such an attack as you have made a lifestyle of doing. This absence of ad hominem attacks is also true in the various dialogues i have had with Trapper over the past few months. But if you were to debate Brown and White Rainy... well dipping into the gutter and being the one to wickedly pre-emptively initiate personal attacks is all you know.
Since the Holy Spirit did not teach you to be the pre-emptive initiator of hostile and angry ad hominem personal attacks and since this has long been such a prolific and deeply ingrained habit of yours, what spirit do you think taught you to be this way and what spirit has been reinforcing this all these years? What spirit do you think you are listening to every time you repeat this same wicked pattern of behavior?
In your stubbornness and in your apparent willful desire to remain a slave to sin, you have not allowed the Holy Spirit to teach you to overcome this exceedingly fleshy attitude and deplorable behavior. This is a deep issue of sin Rainy that you have never repented of.