Mark 1

 

^"29 As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. ³⁰ Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they immediately told Jesus about her. ³¹ So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.

³² That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. ³³ The whole town gathered at the door, ³⁴ and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Jesus Prays in a Solitary Place

³⁵ Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed. ³⁶ Simon and his companions went to look for him, ³⁷ and when they found him, they exclaimed: “Everyone is looking for you!”

³⁸ Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.” ³⁹ So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons."

 

I have to come up with some sort of quick devotional based on this passage for tomorrow night.   So far, everything I've come up with is too much for that situation.  

 

But not for here.  The three things that have struck me are as follows.

1.  Jesus was very clear about what His purpose was.  He came to preach the Gospel.

2.  Jesus could have easily stayed in one place and did what the people wanted Him to do, heal people.  He was more interested in pursuing His/His Father's agenda than in doing what was popular.   To be sure, the healing and casting out of demons were part of His ministry.  By doing those things He demonstrated His power and authority, in essence His miracles were done to demonstrate the Truth of His teaching.  

3.  He knew the importance of spending time alone with His Father as a way to better prepare Him for doing the work His Father sent Him here to do.   

It seems clear that Jesus chose not to heal everyone that wanted His healing.  It seems clear that Jesus wasn't driven by what people expected from Him.  I seems strange to think that the gospel Jesus preached was primarily about offering things to the poor/oppressed, when He intentionally chose not to help all of the poor/oppressed that wanted/asked/expected Him to help them with their physical needs.  He literally abandoned them in their poverty and oppression. 

If we take Dan's philosophy to heart, we learn that the following parts of Jesus' ministry were less significant/valid.important etc because He came to preach the gospel to the "poor/marginalized/people/groups".    His first public miracle, Raising Jairus' daughter, Mary anointing Him with oil, the prostitute washing His feet, His interaction with the woman at the well, His interaction with the woman caught in adultery, His interaction with Zacchaeus,  His interaction with the disciples on the Emmaus road, and the last supper.   

 Jesus lied to the people, when He told them that He was casting out demons.

Finally, this healing was a glimpse of how The Gospel looks,  Simon's mother-in-law is sick (possibly serious) and can't do anything about it on her own,  Jesus heals her, she begins to serve His.    

 

Swift

 It seems like Trump and his Trainers have decided that Taylor Swift is somehow a threat to Trump.    I'm not sure I understand what they hope to accomplish.  

Given her previous support of Biden, it seems likely that she'd support Biden again, or at least the DFL candidate.   I don't recall her ever being as political as other artists/pop stars.  I don't recall her ever "attacking" Trump either.

What is strange is why this is a think.   Swift is unlikely to ever support Trump, so what's the upside to Trump to go after her?    The only think I can think of is that someone in the Trump camp sees how much press she's getting right now, and decided that they wanted to get some of that spotlight.     

Swift appeals to a broad demographic, one I'm not in, and that broad demographic polls as leaning more towards Biden than Trump.  Yet the number is not 100% Biden.    I guess I wonder what potential positive results the Trump folks hope to get, and what the risk is that this'll drive people who haven't already made up their mind about Trump away.   

I'm not, by any definition, a Swift fan.   She's written some good songs, has a reasonably good voice (no auto tune), and plays at least an instrument or two.   Here image is built less on serialization than many female pop stars, and while her politics are no a secret, she's definitely not as outspoken as she could be. 

In short, it's just one more example of the Trump camp engaging is something that appears to provide little positive to their campaign, while risking more negative results.   Trump polls lower among the women who make up a big chuck of Swift's fan base that almost any other group, it seems like the better strategy is to court them, than it is to piss them off.  

But clearly Trump is playing 6 D chess, while everyone else is playing checkers and we must simply trust that everything (or most everything) he does is intentional, calculated, and designed to win the election. 

Love

 As we've been discussing 1 John 4 and the term love in that passage, it seems worthwhile to note that John is using the term agape in that passage.   What it seems like others may be doing is saying something like, "1 John talks about agape and we should agape others, we clearly seem people every day who phileo each other so clearly those who phileo each other are living out the 1 John instruction to agape.".

I think this is a much bigger issue in society today.  For many/most love means eros, but talking about eros when agape is the target seems problematic.   

Stan frequently points out that the term love has a changing definition, and he's right.   But I think part of what he is seeing is the intentional use of the vagueness of the English word love to mischaracterize what scripture is really telling us. 

Razor Wire

 Let's get this straight.  The feds insist that razor wire in not appropriate on the US/Mexico border to protect the US citizens in TX, and are actively trying to remove it.

While at the same time there is a relatively new razor wire border around the US capitol, a sturdy fence around the White House, and the Egyptian border with Gaza has multiple layers of walls and razor wire. 

Why are congressmen, the White House staff and residents, and the citizens of Egypt more worthy of protection than the citizens of TX?  

"Trans" v. Abortion

 https://nypost.com/2022/10/07/boston-childrens-hospital-says-kids-know-theyre-trans-from-the-womb-in-deleted-video/

 

" Boston Children’s Hospital posted a video on its YouTube channel in August where a psychologist explains that “a good portion” of children she sees at the hospital’s Gender MultiSpecialty Service (GeMS) clinic know their gender identity “from the womb,”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypbheZ9ZlCY

https://meaww.com/harvard-boston-childrens-hospital-slammed-for-claiming-babies-know-theyre-transgender-from-the-womb

This seems like one more conflict between two constituencies of the DFL.   On the one hand you have the unlimited abortion at any time during pregnancy crowd, and on the other you have the "trans" crowd.    Well it seems like an expert saying that children know "from the womb" that they are transgender suggests a degree of sentience that most of the unlimited abortion folx would deny exists.  

Seriously, if a baby has that degree of self awareness from the womb, doesn't that pose problems for the unlimited abortion crowd?   Or is this one more manifestation of the Magical Birth Canal trope.    Where the baby magically knows the instant it clears the birth canal that it is "trans".   Because obviously babies fresh from the womb are completely aware of sex, gender, and the blending of the two.   The whole thing is absurd, but likely an attempt to make "transness" genetic.   Which again poses a conflict between these two groups.   If you truely support abortion for any reason with no restrictions, then you'd have to support parents aborting "trans" babies because they don't want the difficulties.  

This is one more example of the problem the DFL has.  They have too many constituencies that are critical to their electoral success, yet the goals of some of those constituencies are so diametrically opposed that they can't coexist.   

Barracoon

 One of my cousins posted something the other day about encouraging children to read a book called Barracoon.   It's the story of an interview with one of the salves on one of the last slave ships to reach the US and his subsequent life here.

I'll start by saying that I have no objections to children learning the accurate Truth about the slave trade and slavery in the US, I think it's important.   I do think that there are some issues with age appropriateness with some children.   

I think the book sounds interesting and I'll likely read it sometime this year.   But I'm not as interested in the book, as I am in the messages people take from the book.    I read the initial post and the comments, as well as some Amazon reviews and the things that struck me the most was how many people were only focused on the US part of the system.   Not much anger at the Africans and Arabs that ran the slave Trade in Africa, not much anger about the reality that life in Africa was marked by tribal conflict, wars, captivity for the losers, hunger, disease and the lot.    I'm not trying to minimize the horrible nature of slaver in the US or give those who engaged in it a pass in any way.   What I am trying to say is that maybe we should broaden our context a bit and apportion blame/responsibility more broadly than so many do. 

Maybe the Democrat Narrative isn't Quite Right

https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/1749885473328164910?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

"Democrat presidential candidate Dean Phillips went to a Trump rally and found out that Trump voters are thoughtful, kind, diverse, hospitable and generally awesome people who feel like no one is listening to them but Trump. He now says Dems are delisiomal."

 

Dean is a local congressman, and is pretty much a creature of the extremely liberal MN DFL party.   I'm not sure why he's actually running, but this video is an interesting counterpoint to the narrative that the rest of the DFL  is obsessively pushing. 

Stop Being Brainwashed

"If Palestinians have the ability to stay alive by simply not killing Israelis, then they are not facing genocide.

If the Israelis have the ability to stay alive only because of their tremendous defense systems, then they are facing genocide."

Unknown

There is amazing video of protesters in Park City who didn’t know what river and what sea were the borders to the Palestinian homeland.   

Israel offers a 2 month cease fire to a Hamas in exchange for releasing the hostages.   

Hamas said no!

Plastic

 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers/

 

We hear increasing amounts of concern for the plastic that ends up the the oceans.   We also hear a lot of effort being put into using that concern to force Americans to change their behavior.  

Yet, science tells us, that 88-95% of plastic waste transported by bodies of water comes from the following 10 rivers.

Niger

Nile

Indus

Ganges

Mekong

Pearl

Yangtze

Yellow

Hai He

Amur

 

What is the common denominator of this scourge?   It's concentrated in Africa and Asia, not Europe, North or South America.  

Voting Security

 https://gazette.com/news/wex/dhs-knew-risks-of-mail-in-voting-but-continued-censoring-concerns-anyway-lawsuit/article_3da5f23c-9f5f-5360-a366-da68579f68d5.amp.html

 

This seems like a bad thing if it's accurate.   

New reports suggest that AZ didn't have signature matches on 25% of mail-in ballots.   That also seems like a bad thing if it's accurate.  

We had proof in court that Dominion voting machines were easily hacked, and that GA also had significant issues with significant issues with signature verification.  This also seems bad, if accurate. 

Of course, the Fani Willis goat rope isn't looking good for the integrity of GA voting. 

Human Rights

 https://t.co/ODedB8cmOc

 

We hear frequently that human rights are very important, and justify all sorts of things people do.   Yet, this gentleman makes an eloquent argument from a Materialist/Darwinian/Naturalist viewpoint that human rights don't actually exist.   Based on his worldview preconceptions it's a completely consistent argument to those made by Dawkins and others that we are simply machines who only act based on physical instinct and nothing else.  

Colonization

 The Israel/Hamas situation has raised a lot of commotion of colonization.   I came across a couple of books that take a look at the empirical data of the results of colonialism and draw some conclusions.   This seems like one of those things that does leave lots of empirical data in it's wake, and lends itself to quantifiable outcomes.  

For example, if 40% of the population of country X died from disease or starvation before being colonized and only 5% died after being colonized, it seems reasonable to conclude that colonization might have been beneficial in that metric.  

Obviously not all colonization was equal, and not all post colonial  governance was equal, but it does seem like there are measurable metrics that we can use to evaluate the benefits/harms of colonialism.  

Not Stolen,  Jeff Flynn-Paul

The Case for Colonialism,  Bruce Gilly

Good Things

 We're told that the good things Trump did outweigh all possible bad things.  And we're told that Trump's SCOTUS nominations were one of his best achievements.   

While I agree that better Trump nominate to the court than Biden, it also seems like the good/bad evaluation of a justice is something that is measured over a long period of time. 

In this case, one of Trump's nominees joined with the liberal justices to effectively stop Texas from controlling at least parts of the US/Mexico border.    It's actually possible that Barret's decision was the correct decision, but in a world where partisans expect ideological lockstep from their justices, this is probably not a welcome message.  

Nonetheless, whatever the metric of good/bad that is assigned to ACB and Trump probably should take a tick toward the bad side after today's ruling. 

Post Script

 

^"4 It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the Father commanded us. ⁵ And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. ⁶ And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

⁷ I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. ⁸ Watch out that you do not lose what we^[a] have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. ⁹ Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. ¹⁰ If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. ¹¹ Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work."

 

 As we see in 2 John, John has only one reason for writing the letter, and it has nothing to do with loving the "poor/oppressed" in the way Dan says we should.  He focuses on Truth, obedience,  and the importance of the doctrine of the incarnation.  

As we increase the context, it becomes more and more clear that Dan's out of context, cherry picked, proof texts, are not the primary focus of John's epistles and are at best secondary. 

Trump Trials

 Well, it sounds like the Trump "rape" trial isn't going well after the "victim" testified about the dress she was wearing.   A dress that didn't exist until years after the alleged "rape" allegedly happened.   It sounds like they are trying to set up a Blue Dress scenario, except the don't have a dress or any physical evidence.  It also sounds like Trump has already be tried for this "rape" and found to have not committed it.  

In the GA trial, we're learning that the prosecutor decided to bring in the guy she was having an affair with, who'd never prosecuted a similar case, and got paid millions of dollars to do so.  

People keep acting as if Trump's legal troubles are so serious, yet in these two plus the NY trial,  it's looking like it's not particularly significant.    It's likely that Trump will "lose" in NY because it's pretty obvious that the Judge has already decided the outcome, and we'll have to wait for the appeals to get a better idea of what actually happened.   Given the fact that the alleged "victim" of Trump's "fraud" had the loans in question completely repaid, did their due diligence before the underwrote the loans, and has no complaints at all, it's hard to see where the convictable "fraud is, but I'm sure the judge will follow the evidence and ignore it if needed. 

Darling Nikki

At one point I thought that Nikki Haley would be a good candidate from a demographic standpoint.  To some degree I still do.  Her immigrant heritage, sex, and skin color would blunt the typical leftist attacks on a GOP candidate.    However the reported but unsubstantiated, revelation that she has allegedly had multiple affairs raises a big red flag with me.

1.  The fact that she ran for office thinking that this information was not going to come out, indicates that her judgement is questionable.

2.  Just like Clinton and Trump, I still believe that anyone who refuses to take their wedding vows seriously, will be less inclined to take their oath of office seriously.

3.  As we've seen with multiple candidates, the US electorate has a surprising tolerance for adultery in it's presidential candidates.     Given that, she probably could have been up front about this and gotten a pass.

4.  I'm not suggesting that this alone is disqualifying.  I am saying that my above concerns make a vote for Haley even less likely.  

5.  Not adultery related, but the fact that a democrat is one of her major donors also raises red flags.

The Experts

 https://winteryknight.com/2024/01/19/are-puberty-blockers-reversible/

 

So, if the Experts who are pro "trans" and  who've actually written the guidelines for "transing" are ready to admit that puberty blockers are not "reversible" as the MSM, the APL, and Dan have insisted, shouldn't the entire conversation about "transing" children be revisited?

It seems like "bone loss", "disruption of brain development", and "infertility" are significant negatives and should probably be given more attention.

Random Stuff

 How is it possible for a woman with zero hard evidence, beyond the statute of limitations, who literally can provide zero specific details of what happened magically gain standing in a court to accuse someone of a crime?

Is it me do do all the instances where "illegal immigrants" are being reportedly allowed on commercial aircraft in the US without having to go through any of the security protocols the rest of us are subjected to seem like a problem?

The White House press secretary was confronted with a claim the that Washington Post fact checkers has given three Pinocchios to because the WH claim was false, proceeds to argue against actual evidence that the WH claim was accurate.  

Daniel Penny subdues a violent guy on a subway threatening the passengers, and accidentally kills him.   For some reason he's being treated as the bad guy.   I can't imagine what his conviction will do to anyone who might be tempted to intervene in defense of people.   Likely we'll see more people standing around with their phones on record, than intervening to save people being attacked or threatened.   New reports indicate that Penny was threatened as he left the court house.  The threats were racist and violent.   Does the justice system have a responsibility to protect Penny from these left wing, racist, thugs?

Apparently the Biden administration decided to block the merger between Spirit and Jet Blue, and a federal judge agreed.   According to CNN, it's likely that this will result in Spirit going out of business with a loss of @12,000 jobs.   I don't understand how this will benefit the economy.  

Remember back in October of 2020 when Biden claimed that the Hunter laptop story was a "smear campaign", and "disinformation" from Putin?    Fast forward to 2024 when the DOJ confirms that Biden was lying and the the laptop and it's contents are as advertiser.   But it's OK Biden was just lying to protect his election chances and his depraved son.  September 2021 Jen Psaki called the laptop story "disinformation". 

We know how the left loves polling data, except when it says that 71% of Americans think the Biden economy sucks. 

Conclusion

 Again, I'll note that my purpose here is not to offer a competing interpretation with Dan's, but to look at Dan's cherry picked proof texts in the context of the entire epistle and draw conclusions about the accuracy of Dan's eisegesis and interpretation.  To see is Dan's appeal to his personal "reason" and "rational" gift aligns with the plain meaning of the text that John wrote.  I'll note again that Dan's contention that we are "born of God" based on how we "love" the "poor/oppressed" ( " Those who show love to others give them food when they're hungry. Help them find work when they need work. Accept them for who they are, so long as they're not hurting others. Support. Accept. Welcome. It's not hard to understand.") doesn't actually appear anywhere in 1 John.    I'll note that John himself contradicts Dan's assertions about the most important thing to take from this epistle. 

I'm sure Dan will flood this with comments where he'll insist that John really means something entirely different than the plain meaning of the text, and that he won't actually provide proof of those claims.   I'm sure Dan will try to look beyond the scope of 1 John, and beyond the writings of John, but doing so undercuts his original point that 1 John (4), and John himself, explicitly teaches Dan's "poor/oppressed" theology.  As usual, I'll post Dan's comments.  But I doubt I'll even try to parse his comments as I usually do.   I could probably predict almost every complaint he'll have and I have intentionally stayed away from interpretation or exegesis because he'll definitely play the "it's your interpretation against my interpretation" card.    That's just an excuse to avoid actually proving that his eisegesis is the most accurate possible interpretation of the text.  Enjoy.

Chapter 6

 

"5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. ² This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. ³ In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, ⁴ for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. ⁵ Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God."

 Dan was insistent that everyone who loves in a certain way is "born of God", yet John seems to disagree, at least to the extent that loving as Dan demands is the only/primary way to be "born of God".   FYI, children are "born of".   Strangely enough we "know" that we love by being those who "keep His commands", not give stuff to the "poor/oppressed".   It could be argued that ONE OF God's commands is to give stuff to the "poor/oppressed", but it seems clear that "commands" is plural and includes all of YHWH's commands.  Big emphasis on Jesus being the "Son of God". 

^"6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. ⁷ For there are three that testify: ⁸ the^[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. ⁹ We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. ¹⁰ Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. ¹¹ And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. ¹² Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life."

Back to the whole importance of "blood" in YHWH's covenant and Jesus' role in fulfilling that covenant. More about the importance of truth.     "¹¹ And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. ¹² Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.".  I don't know but that seems pretty straightforward and direct.  It never mentions the poor/oppressed, does it? 

Concluding Affirmations

^"13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. ¹⁴ This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. ¹⁵ And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him."

 

"Son of God", check, Jesus' authority, check.  Direct access to petition YHWH for ANYTHING, check. 

^"16 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. ¹⁷ All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death."

 

Correct our brothers and sisters who sin, check.  "ALL WRONGDOING IS SIN", check. 

^"18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them. ¹⁹ We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. ²⁰ We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."

 

Stop sinning, check.  Truth, check. Eternal life, check.

^"21 Dear children, keep yourselves from idols."

 

Kind of random, but good advice.  

Chapter 5

 

"4 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. ² This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, ³ but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

⁴ You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. ⁵ They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. ⁶ We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit^[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood."

 

It seems strange that the first two paragraphs of Dan's centerpiece are dealing with false teachers/prophets.  It's also interesting that John seems to not give a lot of credence to things of "the world".    

God’s Love and Ours  (Dan's primary focus)

^"7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. ⁸ Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. ⁹ This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. ¹⁰ This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. ¹¹ Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. ¹² No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."

 He starts by noting that love comes "from God" first.   Then we see "how God showed His love among us".   Wow, being told specifically how God "showed His love among us" seems like a really important thing.   It seems like "how God showed His love among us" might be (and as we saw earlier, is) the model for how we show His (not our) love for others.  So, how did God "show his love for us" and what is love?  "This is love, (that's quite the claim): not that we loved God (didn't Dan say "The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are, as a result of the fall, not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and reject his rule."?  So, should we believe Dan or John when they contradict?) , but that He loved us and sent His son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins".    Not only does John seem pretty clear about what he is trying to communicate, this is the second of third time he's said this in 1 John.   He concludes that "since" God "loved us" by sending His son to die for our sins, that we should follow God's example and love others.   Still no mention of giving the "poor/oppressed" anything. 

 

^"13 This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. ¹⁴ And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. ¹⁵ If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. ¹⁶ And so we know and rely on the love God has for us."

I'm pretty sure Dan left this part out as he was cherry picking.  Probably because it's a little too supernatural (not based in Dan's reason) and repeats that Jesus was sent to be "the Saviour of the world", not to succor the "poor/oppressed".  

"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. ¹⁷ This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. ¹⁸ There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

 It seems pretty clear that the way love is "made complete among us" is that we will have confidence on the "day of judgement" (doesn't fit with the non judgemental, non punishing God we hear about) because we have no fear of judgement because of what Christ has done for us.  Again, note the focus on future judgement, not on giving stuff to the "poor/oppressed".

^"19 We love because he first loved us. ²⁰ Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. ²¹ And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister."

Repeating what's been said earlier.  Note that "children of God" might suggest that "brother and sister" do not mean every single "poor/oppressed" person in history.  One wonders why, if giving stuff to the "poor/oppressed' was so vitally important that John failed to mention the "poor/oppressed" once?

Note

 A quick note here.  The purpose of my going through the larger context of 1 John is NOT to suggest that my interpretation is "better" than Dan's.   It's merely to look at Dan's cherry picked proof texts in context and determine if Dan's eisegesis is correct.   It's possible, even likely, that Dan'll try to suggest that the things I've pointed out are not clear "to him" or that his "reason" can't reconcile John's words with his hunches about God.   I'm merely suggesting that we look at what John says in context and compare that to what Dan says about what John said and what he really meant. 

Chapter 4

 

"3 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. ² Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears,^[a] we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. ³ All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure."

 Here we see John asserting that our status as "children of God" (those "born of God", perhaps) is entirely due to the Father lavishing His love on us, and not as a result of our loving of others.   Again, note the focus on purity. 

 

^"4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. ⁵ But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. ⁶ No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him."

More about sin and not following the law, His "taking away our sins", and about those who keep on sinning. 

 

^"7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. ⁸ The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. ⁹ No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. ¹⁰ This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister."

 

Wow, a warning about those who will "lead you astray".   More sin, more devil.   "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work", strange that "The reason" doesn't mention the poor/oppressed. 

More on Love and Hatred

^"11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. ¹² Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. ¹³ Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters,^[b] if the world hates you. ¹⁴ We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. ¹⁵ Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him."

 

Finally, a mention of loving one another, man that took quite a while.  

^"16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. ¹⁷ If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? ¹⁸ Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth."

 Interesting that John tells us what love is (Christ laid down His life for us) and that we should (lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters), which raises that question about who our "brothers and sisters" are.   Seems like those who are also "born of" or "children of God" might be an good answer.    Finally, we get to sharing what we have with our "brother and sister"s, but no mention of the poor/oppressed, as well as noting that this is the result of what Christ did not a prerequisite for us to be "born of God".  Also, note the focus on "truth". 

^"19 This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: ²⁰ If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. ²¹ Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God ²² and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. ²³ And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. ²⁴ The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us."

 Something that sounds like eternal security, check.  Recieving our requests from God, check.  Keep God's commands, check.  (twice) KNowledge from the Holy Spirit, check. 

All Apologies

 All apologies.  I wasn't going to take this long, but realized that I had to use the whole context, unlike Dan. 

Context is Important Chapter 3

 

"2 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. ² He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

 In chapter 2:1 John is quite clear as to his purpose for writing this particular epistle.   You'll note his focus on sin, sacrifice, and salvation through "Jesus Christ, the Righteous One". 

 

Love and Hatred for Fellow Believers

³ We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. ⁴ Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. ⁵ But if anyone obeys his word, love for God^[a] is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: ⁶ Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

⁷ Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. ⁸ Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

⁹ Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister^[b] is still in the darkness. ¹⁰ Anyone who loves their brother and sister^[c] lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. ¹¹ But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.

 He starts this section by highlighting the importance of keeping the "commands" (rules) of Jesus and goes as far as to say that the mark of a believer is "keeping His commands".     He points out that we must "live as Jesus did", which would certainly include sacrificing ourselves for others. 

Reasons for Writing

^"12 I am writing to you, dear children,
    because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
¹³ I am writing to you, fathers,
    because you know him who is from the beginning.
I am writing to you, young men,
    because you have overcome the evil one.

¹⁴ I write to you, dear children,
    because you know the Father.
I write to you, fathers,
    because you know him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
    because you are strong,
    and the word of God lives in you,
    and you have overcome the evil one."

 

He goes on to give more detail about why he is writing.   Again, it seems worthwhile to note that John still hasn't mentioned any of the stuff Dan cherry picked from 4.    We should also note that John is clear that their is "the evil one" and that he can be overcome if "the word of God lives in you".  

On Not Loving the World

¹⁵ Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father^[d] is not in them. ¹⁶ For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. ¹⁷ The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

A warning against focusing on things like lust and pride which don't come "from the Father", and a suggestion of an eternal life. 

 

 

Warnings Against Denying the Son

^"18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. ¹⁹ They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

²⁰ But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.^{[e] 21} I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. ²² Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. ²³ No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

²⁴ As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. ²⁵ And this is what he promised us—eternal life.

²⁶ I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. ²⁷ As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him."

 

Wow, John places more importance on the antichrist, than on Dan's hunches about how loving the right way is most important.   Big focus on the truth, and on affirming Jesus' divinity and role as the Messiah.  He also notes that he's writing to keep Jesus' followers from being "led astray".  

God’s Children and Sin

^"28 And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.

²⁹ If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him."

 

It would seem that John is contradicting himself.  Dan is insistent that we must love (as Dan defines it, CH 1)  in order to be "born of God".   Yet here John is tying being "born of God" to righteousness.   Again, no mention of Dan's hunches about love through 2 chapters of the text.