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.