Proverbs 1:10-16

10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.

11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:

12 Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:

13 We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:

14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:

15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:

16 For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.

I was thinking of verses 14 and 15 particularly before I looked this up.  I woke up this morning thinking my neighbours were absolutely right and justified in everything they were doing, that I was in the wrong and needed to let this community embrace me on its own terms, which it seemed obvious to me it wanted to do.  Including the screaming into my home every time I move and the computer hacking, which I saw as a good way of bringing a sinner to repentance and for supporting each other and knitting the community together in love and security, that the people who are doing this to me should be regarded as elders and I should love, respect and obey them.  And if I did, that would all stop, it was just a corrective measure.

Then I thought, ‘but they are doing this to someone they know to have a mental health diagnosis’.  Then I thought, ‘they are healing me, this intense stalking, harassment, computer hacking, it is a method of healing of mental illness that I ought to respect’.  Then I thought, ‘But every time I say it’s happening to the authorities they say the fact I think it is is evidence of a mental health issue.  Not the fact that it is and I have a problem with it, object to it.  My objection to it isn’t the problem.  The evidence of a mental health issue, they say, is that I think it is happening at all.  Am I required to exercise something like a willing suspension of disbelief as you would in a theatre to be fully involved with it and let it be real and do what it is supposed to do, without questioning whether it is right or wrong?  Is questioning and doubting and strongly opposing its supposed rightness evidence of bad faith and bad character?’

I read these verses in the context of the whole chapter and found myself more confused.  A question that has just occurred to me is, ‘what is an innocent person?’.  You hear all these news reports about bad things happening to ‘innocent’ people.  I’ve questioned for years that there is any such thing as an innocent person, unless we are all innocent.  People used to say, ‘no one’s perfect’, but they divide people into innocents and perpetrators of evil for their news shows, whether that is the truth about them or not.  Surely it isn’t the truth about ANYONE.  We are being brainwashed and taught to polarise, as if we needed that teaching.  I’ve just thought of something Hegel posited, that in this instance might mean that there isn’t just evildoing and victim making.  Hegel said there is thesis, antithesis and synthesis.  As I understand it, synthesis brings the other two together.

The reason I eventually found myself confused by these verses is that they are in the chapter that talks about the dark sayings of the wise and teaching subtlety to the simple.  (I’ve never heard it said by Christians that any of the wisdom in Proverbs is bad.  Some of them don’t like Ecclesiastes, they say it is the disillusionment and negativity of a backslidden person, or they used to).  I wondered if computer hacking was the new wisdom and that I am unsubtle not only not to accept it, but not to value it.  I wondered if the (new?) wisdom and subtlety of the authorities is to hack people’s computers and let other agencies hack their computers and stalk them, yet judge the hearts and character of the hacked and stalked by whether or not they are prepared to accept the edict that it isn’t actually happening to them.  They talk about God preparing you for something big.  Oh my Jesus, I find this a big problem, if this is what is involved for people.

Either the Church has knowingly collaborated in this mental health scam or it has been brainwashed.  It is corruption, in my would-be free and independent eyes.  If it has been brainwashed I, and I am sure plenty of others like me, have said plenty over the years to challenge that brainwashing, and I know they read my blog and Facebook page because they are making constant references to it.  The only Church I ever watch these days is Kensington Temple, and then not every week.  I listen to Premier Christian Radio as well.  Both of those are constantly making references to what I write, but also to things that go between my neighbours and me, and things I write in private messages, and comments I make in closed groups and on other people’s timelines and pages, sometimes within seconds or minutes of my doing so.  Not that it is only Christians.  But these are the people who say they have the Word of God and if we don’t obey them we might end up in hell or that what is happening to us is God’s discipline to bring us back to obedience to the truth.  To me this is evil doing and as someone who is being personally betrayed by this I’m a little reticent about sharing a purse, or my life, with them and subjecting my body and mind to them in one of their buildings.  John Pantry, Rick Easter, Colin Dye, the three that readily come to mind, all aggressively and bitterly push the mental health thing knowing exactly the position with me and what they are subjecting me to.  I still believe that in any authority and power relationship this will eventually happen, so guys, come on, can you understand my consternation?  That is why I think you should come to me in repentance and confession, uncoded, without referential stand-ins and all that, either in person or in a letter.  An open and genuinely vulnerable giving up of abusive power.  I think that might have something to do with the revival you always say you are wanting.  You use a lot of methods to try and substitute for that.  How can we do this better and what methods do we need to reach these people?  Sorry, but that is missing the point.  I was taught in Church that it isn’t about methods.  Maybe I heard an incomplete message, though.  The way things are I have to believe that they have either changed their position or that I heard an incomplete message in the first place.  If I heard an incomplete message then I have obviously misunderstood.

Lots of slander and gossip put about enabled, partly, by cyber stalking and computer hacking.  People ‘intuiting’ based on what they’ve already heard on the grapevine.  I know my neighbours hack my computer.  I said to them last night, ‘you’re not loving awareness, you are criminal awareness’.  Elmer Darnall said if someone told him to watch out with someone but he himself had experienced no problems with them he would tell his informant so and assume it must have been a problem in the relationship rather than a problem with their character.  My experience of the Church is that it does not follow his advice and example.  I found myself wondering if the rumour mill actually followed me to London in 1980 when I went there to be a student.  I know it was already active in Nottingham before I left, but it was only over the last week that I thought this church rumour mill might have been activated many, many years ago and been handed over to London when I left Nottingham.  That there was never any discontinuity allowed.  No one ever told me, until my excommunicated years, but it does make sense now I think of it.  I went to Talbot Street and one of the elders reeled off all the churches in London I had been to over the preceding few years.  I told the mental health authorities this and they refused point blank to acknowledge that there could be any connection or organisation.  They also asked me who was involved and I gave them some people to contact, including David Shearman.  I don’t think they ever contacted anyone, they just added it to their evidence base for my paranoia.

The Bible says do not receive an accusation against an elder from one person alone.  I wonder how that actually worked out?  I wonder, if the person was alone with no witnesses, they had to confide in someone thought responsible and convince them to take their side and that person, based on their judgment of the complainant’s character, would then be acceptable as a witness, even though they were not at the scene of the crime.  If not, how many people would be required to be victims of rape or sexual misconduct, for instance, before it was decided they had enough witnesses to act against the elder?  Or embezzlement, or cruelty, or corruption of any kind?  On the face of it it seems unfairly loaded to me.  People lie, too.  Romans 1, I think, throats are open sepulchres and all that.  For the record, I think the mental health professionals know they are lying and being evasive as well.  And I think they still read my blog.  I’d like to call them out on it.

I love my neighbours.  They seem adorable to me.  I feel like a let down sometimes.  I am not predisposed to hate anyone.  The question is, as it is with those further away from me, are they right to stalk and harass my every move and hack my computer, knowing I have a mental health diagnosis and am being told that the fact I think any of this is happening is evidence of mental illness?  Are they right to do all these things aside from that consideration?  There is no question in my mind that this is happening.  And to me that is terrorism, whatever the reasons behind it.  Maybe I need a bit more behaviour modification and brainwashing before I see and surrender my heart and mind to the light.  And that is not simply bitter humour, it’s a very hurt and confused statement which really thinks, as I am often inclined to, that I really am the one who needs to change and come into line and accept the overtures already being made.  Here endeth. . . .

Advertisements