Some personal history and though development

Page with some notes on personal history and the developments of my thoughts, with a focus on the subject of abuse.

Starting points

Again I want to refer to several books I've read about mainly sexual abuse, somoe by experts such as the Belgium woman writer (will look up her name, the title is "kinderen houden niet van krokodillen", translated "children don't love crocodiles"), who states that serious child abusers and killers should be treated, because fear of major punishment is not effctive as a means of preventing these types of crimes. She describes them as no especially noticable individuals, who without treatment will always become recidivists after release of (non capital) punishment.
It is clear from the events in her country that there are many links between this type of criminal and people in every layer of gouvernment, police and justice circles, with enough power to set even serious offenders like this on the loose in the sight of hundreds of thousands protesters, expressing the feelings of many more.

As a highly relevant side remark: why is it that in dealing with the killed infants in belgium the ramoan catholic church in official statements has the nerve to proclaim possible peace as the result of the death of these children? If that is not blasphemous to the God I only want to serve I don't know what is.

Assuming that these abusers are acting more or less independently and are the only ones connected with serious sexual and power abuse, as I did until not so long ago, is an almost completely unlikely point of view.

When I read a book about almost everything but lethal abuse called Jolanda (nl), who stated that she knew practically half her little town because she had encountered them as abusers, it started to dawn on me that what I've been told in spirit by a girl I've been close with (and would love to meet again), may well be under instead of over stated.

To set the thought frame, some of the horrors include: every possible kind of penetration with every possible type of object, piercing and burning, touching with acids and chemicals, mutilation of the most sensitive body parts, repeated near suffrocation, drugging, unwanted pregnancies with every possible thinkable actions including grave physical assault during pregnancy and "deliverance", such as mutilation and eating of babies right after or during birth, every possible type of humiliation, emaotionally and physically, such as eating of feacies, and every type of violence with or without lasting injury, depending on the value of the merchandise.

All this with terror to the exxtend of killing (non-baby) relatives in front of abused children to induce fear, use of every possible human emotion such as mother-child bond and feelings about families, friendship and relationships to prevent exposure of the criminals.
This is without including the "spiritual" and non-primary emotions side which can be equally or more captivating and fear inducing, and especially keep persons away from ever finding themselves and freedom to experience desired emotions more or less freely.

To my utter horror, I found that both in "gouverning" and "believer" circles, these type of crimes are more than sometimes not just condoned, but actively taken part in. The reasons for this being even remotely possible without people kicking them out of their position into prison I can only take from non-tangible evidence, and by infering that my own experience in christian and professional circles are strongly related to this.
Roughly that picture amounts to a portion of society including "top" circles actively involved in crimes like this (as a means of getting of? Just for power? Purely demonic? Lack of true skill? I think some things will always be a mystery to me), keeping themselves in place by either tricking others into thinking there is something to gain and then keeping them in by shame and blackmail (like bad-old Babylon's rites) and by using every mafioso type of method to scare of those wanting to expose and condemn them.

At a crucial time when some (mainly girls / women) informed me about this, (at that point, a few years ago, alledged) situation, I could contact one of them had started to communicate with me in spirit about these situations, and who I at that point had put of having a relationship with for a variety of reasons, but mainly because I didn't want to take her out of her engineering study when I wanted to go to the US for a few years, and because I couldn't find sufficient trust that she realy wanted that as well. When I first met her she very soon started a "relationship" with someone else, which I didn't understand at all, and of course still had in memory, which brings me to the subject related to sexual abuse: emotional abuse, and people who apart from being victims of the abovementioned (alledged ?) maffia are either sexually involved or not, a part of it by bringing more misery on sexual abuse victims in the rest of their lifes by keeping them under control, making evil use of their emotional state, and taking advantage o fthe situation.

It took me quite some time to realize that there are people willing to abuse relationships that if not romantical could be loving or at least caring into something even more abusive, and turn their bond with an abuse victim into a mafia watchdog function. Probably varying degrees would exist, but the idea is repulsive, and I only recently started to take the possibility serious that this could exist at any serious scale. Unfortunately, when the girl in question started to inform me about all this in spirit, I couldn't imagine that all she signalled, part of which I summed up above, was actual truth, and because she was reluctant to contact me, even though I was near and indicated I wanted to see her, I wasn't sure where the catch was (because at that point she indicated all this was in the past for her), and didn't want to deal with her in another way then we previously had (she had changed in a way I didn't like at all, possibly for exactly the reason of communicating without verifyable contact), and lost physical contact. I loved her for a person I couldn't find anymore when I approached her, and interpreted that as a sign she didn't realy want to be with me. In retrospect she must have been terrified.

At about the same time, I was re-evaluating my position with respect to my christian faith, which I had put aside for about 7 years after an active and disciplined period of at least 5 years in a bible school. I would like to refer to my pages on spiritual connections, because there I explain what I percieve as essential, but what I want to emphasize here is that until she started to communicate in spirit, this sype of communication only amounted to the level of "gut-feeling" for me, except for the time I was active believer and ascribed the Holy Spirit the ability to speak, with the troublesome extension of an evil spirit, but not between humans. Coincidence ? Appearently she was the only on e with the will and the capability to do that, and she told me with high amount of detail what she thought would be important to known, at a time she could have "had" me, while for her it meant exposure of her life in a highly shamefull way, without any certainty of what my response would be. That means something personal to me that can hardly be superseded, and it means that at least someone values truth more than games. Christian values?

The question immedeately arises which spirit is which, and when I started to think about the meaning of "prayer" as including the coming together in spirit of people I immedeately started to reconsider what had in the past, only to find out after taking serious the possibility of people impersonating the Holy Spirit that He had been quite accurate and quite right in essential situations. Mind you that I always took my faith (and abstinance from it because I abhorred the fruits I started to observe of the woman that led the group I was in) very serious, and that even though some of my views on especially relationships and sexuality have changed considerably, I was never malicious or a liar or a hypocrite to any extend that I can still remember. At the time I bluntly assumed that marriage was Gods institution for man-woman relationships, that sex outside it may not be the worst thing on earth, but undesriable, maybe with the exception of a relationship that would lead to marriage, because what's the meaning of a little note in the city hall?
My current views don't exclude the possibility of a good, sane, pleasurable and God given marriage, but the percentage of people that God will have a match for that no man shohuld seperate is probably not so high, e.g. see my notes on 1 Cor 7, where simple translational corrections make clear that Paul exhorts the Corintians only to marry when either passions and jelousies take on the shape of an an insurmountable barrier for freedom, or when it clearly fits the internal structure of a person, and I would say that the Holy Spirit will be the judge in final instance of wether a marriage is actually in the Lord inthe sense of being actively intended by Him. Let's not despise and thouroughly test prophesies.
For the rest it is the law ("nomos": norm, grazing grounds) of freedom, the "fitting" after trial ("peirasmos": trial, temptation, test), the seed of David and his illegitimate (?) son Salomon, and their exemplatory lives for those who will supposedly reighn as kings (do they have the crown of life?), and the turning back form missing the mark, the most straightforward meaning of "amartalo" (to sin), that seem to gouvern the times of the gentiles. To be precise in terms of social behaviour that I feel should be the conclusion of this, I think man-woman (making friends seems clear enough as long as yo are truthfull and don't play games, including joint power games) relationships should include sexual relatioships, evidently when both parties without any pressure or lies want so of their own account. These relationships could be temporal or not, depending on the fittingness, which also will determine the attitude of the parties toward eachother, and evidently the fitting ones could last and be beneficial to all parties involved because they are loving, free and gracefull (remember grace also has a meaning along the lines of outward beauty, graciousness, and of course free gift), free from filthy lucre and sour. (The rules of Acts: no taking of one's internal life (the blood), no suffrocation, no sacrifycing to deamons but the sacrifice can be eaten, and no prostitution (selling).) It was her and a noticable few others who started to (in spirit) point in this direction, but not after He seemed to indicate the same, and that it would yield a lot more than I anticipated. When I started doing some retranslations, I thought a bit looser rules would be the result. 2 years later, almost the whole picture is upside down, just by using a greek lexicon and fairly straightforward retranslation. Guess He was right again.
Does that mean there are no rules? Everybody can relate to and sleep with everybody and that's it? No, I think it means, when I read a lot of both old and new testament material and examples, that there are stricter rules than the religious leaders would force you to uphold, it is more strict, and relies a lot heavier on the new man created in all righteousness and holyness than forced marriage relationships. And the fruits must have been similar, when it sais in acts that people were highly regarded but noone deared to conceede in living with them because they feared the God that would let you drop dead at the entrance when you seriously lie. I'll try to elaborat ea lot more on this, but want to continue the rest of the history here.

When the aforementioned girl started to give information that at least I could verify,