Tuesday, April 22, 2014

A Lengthy Analysis of Dan's Post

at Dan’s blog, he attempts to respond to questions posed by Craig within a discussion at another blog.  Craig’s questions were provoked by Dan’s typically convoluted explanations of his understanding of Scripture as it relates to matters of wealth and poverty.  Needless to say, Dan’s “take” leaves a little to be desired, in that it smacks of his usual leftist worldliness that colors his understanding.

Before I delve into the quagmire, I want to make especially clear that what follows should in no way be inferred as dismissive of those struggling in economic poverty, or that I in any way believe those who have are not duty bound to help those who have not.  Indeed, this very paragraph should be read a good half dozen times by any left leaning visitor so as to deflect any such nonsensical accusations they might otherwise be so willing to lodge.

One other point necessary to highlight is that Dan is one who constantly refers to himself as one who has come to his Scriptural understanding by way of serious and prayerful study.  I’ll let you, gentle reader, decide if there is evidence of that obvious in his responses.  Now let’s get on with it.

The questions Craig asked of Dan revolve around Dan’s use of the words of Christ to the effect of, “I have come to bring good news to the poor.”  Craig asks of Dan to explain what he thinks it means.  It’s the first question of Craig’s that he attempts to answer.
1. You use this quote a lot, but what do you think it means?

Dan’s initial response is that he cannot know.  No one can know.  Jesus didn’t say.  But Dan goes on to “take a crack at a guess”. 

There’s really no guessing required.  The line comes from Isaiah 61:1-2.  Jesus read from that scroll in the synagogue in Nazareth as told us in Luke 4:14-19.  What Jesus read was that which identified Him as the Messiah.  That’s what the Isaiah piece was describing and Jesus applied these verses to Himself as a way of describing just Who He really was.  This is cemented by Jesus saying in verse 21, “Today this scripture if fulfilled in your hearing.”  The message was quite clear to those of the time who were students of Scripture.  What’s more, that Jesus used the Isaiah piece in this manner is the reason the people of Nazareth moved to throw Him down a cliff. 

Now, I must stop here and elaborate a bit.  Some will look at the verses 24-27 and proclaim them the reason the Nazarenes took umbrage.  Jesus is not speaking well of Israel and suggesting better toward Gentiles.  But the original language that is verse 22 is often interpreted as if the people were impressed in a good way by Christ’s use of Isaiah to introduce Himself as Messiah.  This is not necessarily so and not every Bible version interprets it in such a positive manner.  To some, it is more like they were stunned by His words.  Regardless, His use of the Isaiah piece is indeed meant to imply to His listeners that He is the Messiah. 

None of this shows up in Dan’s response to the question.  He can’t help himself but to put a spin on it that revolves around the people being oppressed by the MAN.  Even when Dan refers to Jesus using this verse in response to John the Baptist, it is to confirm for John that He is indeed the Messiah.  That was, after all, what John was asking of Jesus:  “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect another?”  Jesus answer was, in so many words, “Yes.  I am that One.”

Craig’s next question to which Dan takes a guess is:

”2.  What, specifically, was “the good news” that Jesus preached to the poor?”

Again, Dan doesn’t seem to know or even believe that Jesus explained it.  I don’t know how one can “seriously and prayerfully” study Scripture and then say that Jesus didn’t state what “the good news” was.  The message of the “Good News” was proclaimed from the time of the Immaculate Conception.  It was proclaimed by Zechariah at the birth of his son John, when he said, “...for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins…”-Lk 1:70.  It was proclaimed by angels to shepherds:  “Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; He is Christ the Lord.” Lk1:11.  When Joseph and Mary presented their baby in the temple, Simeon praised the God for having allowed him to live long enough to see the Christ, and the prophetess, Anna, “gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.” Lk2:38.  John the Baptist proclaimed the Good News when he “saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” Jn 1:29.  And of course, Jesus Himself said, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.” Jn14:6. 

Throughout His ministry, Jesus spoke of Himself and His purpose, which was to be our Way to God through His sacrificial death on the cross.  Not all who heard Him understood Him.  Even His apostles were hazy on the true meaning of His teachings in this regard, even when, as Peter did, they acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, they didn’t quite get it entirely.  But Jesus, while not being as straightforward as Dan obviously needed Him to be, did indeed express what the Good News was.  And we certainly should know it by now, with the knowledge of His apostles’ subsequent teachings in Acts and their Epistles. 

Put another, but very accurate way, Jesus was the Good News that Jesus preached to the poor.  So then, the third question of Craig’s…

”3.  What, specifically, does this mean for us?”

It means, quite plainly in fact, that we, as sinners, have the very same path to God.  Jesus is that path and He died for us so that we, as well, can be sanctified and made worthy to be in the presence of God by virtue of His atoning death on the cross.  We accept Him as our Savior and our sins are washed away by the Blood He shed for us.  It means, specifically, we are saved.  Hallelujah!

”4.  What, specifically, should be happening that is not in order for us to ‘preach good news to the poor’?”

This question is not truly answerable to one like Dan who doesn’t even know what the Good News is.  That is to say, discovering that News would seem to be the Prime Directive, the first step before any thought could legitimately be given to how to deliver it.  Indeed, he claims we can’t know what it even means to preach that Good News if we knew what the Good News was!

One thing is certain, and that is that to Dan, it all has something to do with everyone else giving their stuff to the poor, while he does all he can to avoid acquiring stuff to give away.

Dan goes on to list examples of what he believes are manifestations of what should be happening that is not:

He has a problem with “crystal cathedrals” and mega-churches.  I have to assume he doesn’t believe such larger congregations don’t minister to the poor in a manner he finds suitable, regardless of whether or not he has any idea as to their effectiveness.  He also apparently believes there should be some limited size beyond which no congregation should grow, as if his preference for small store-front churches should be shared by all and are somehow an indication of…what, exactly, true Christianity?  There is also the matter of expectations to which one has no right as regards the spending to tithes.  I don’t believe that what a church does with the money it receives in the baskets on Sunday is of any concern to those who donate it.  THAT money belongs to God’s priests and ministers.  All money for charity is what one gives after. 

He speaks of “intentional” community as opposed to gated communities.  Gated communities arose in response to crime.  They would not be necessary if in preaching the Good News to the poor, the actual teaching of Christian behavior was stressed a bit more heavily. 

I really don’t understand the point about art galleries.  Is this to suggest he doesn’t like how the art market operates?  I have no idea what his concern is in this area and would love to see him post on it.  I’m sure it will be entertaining.

Dan speaks of more associating with poor people.  I have a better idea.  Let’s really help them by voting for people who understand the best that can be done for the poor is to expand our nation’s economy.  We can’t help the poor by being poor ourselves. 

Dan wants the church to look like what he thinks the early church looked like based on his understanding of the descriptions of it from the Book of Acts.  But as was pointed out in the video to which I linked in my April 19 post about ending poverty, there is no evidence that what Dan likes to think was common place throughout early Christendom actually was.  That is, there is nothing known to exist as evidence that the pooling of resources was either practiced elsewhere or even was meant to be a permanent practice.  In any case, it was a totally voluntary thing on the part of all the believers described therein.  What’s more, there is nothing anywhere in the story that justifies the suggestion that the early church did not have expectations about behaviors, rules, if you will, nor that ignoring them would not bring consequences of some kind.  Paul, also an early church leader, explicitly taught about expelling the unrepentant. 

The most problematic aspect is Dan’s statement that this early church as he sees it was a spiritual home that would be literally good news for the literal poor.  It sounds then like the Good News was stuff.  That’s not much different than Obama phones and Obama money.  What compels devotion once the stuff is no longer provided?  This is what Dan thinks churches should look like:  stuff for the poor, finding them work, a communal life whether they like it or not.  I have to wonder how this would actually work in a community that avoids wealth as Dan claims to in his own life.  Where would the stuff come from to provide for the poor so that there was no one in need if no one had excess due to their wealth avoidance practices?  This doesn’t even rise to the level of naïve.

I did a little research on the verse  “I have come to bring good news to the poor”.  I looked for commentaries and found a website called “Studylight,org” which provides dozens of commentaries on Scripture.  I looked at what was said about this verse by each of the following:

Adam Clarke
James Burton Coffman
Matthew Henry
John Gill
Peter Pett
Joseph Benson, who was a follower of John Wesley, and
John Wesley himself.

There were others, but I didn’t look at all of them.  But of the above, they each regarded “the poor” of the verse to mean either the poor in spirit, or both the poor in spirit and materially poor.  I don’t recall that any of them were Anabaptists, so they’re all likely full of it.  But that’s what they said in their commentaries.  However, despite God’s concern for the materially poor, and Christ’s teaching that we should care for them ourselves, it is extremely hard to believe that He would focus on those who were marginalized on earth and by doing so marginalize all others.  The thrust of Christ’s ministry was the spiritual, the things of God, not material poverty for material wealth is that which moth and vermin destroy. 


Marshall Art said...

Tried something different with the fonts, but didn't really expect it to post that way. Not about to change it now.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Excellent analysis!

Dan is no more of a Christian than was Adolf Hitler. His ideology is certainly based on his emotions rather than rational study. Of course we've known that for years, haven't we?

Marshall Art said...

Of course, the main problem with Dan's position is his constant demonizing of those who also care about the truly needy, but see the solution in that which has been proven throughout history. Like the left in general, he insists on propagating a stereotype about our position simply because it acknowledges the reality of personal choices and responsibilities. And then to pervert Scripture to prop up his own notions of his own goodness only further lends his position to suspicious scrutiny.

Feodor said...

"Dan is no more of a Christian than was Adolf Hitler."

"Of course, the main problem with Dan's position is his constant demonizing of those who also care about the truly needy..."

Oh, man, you guys are too funny.

Marshall Art said...

Nice counter argument, feo. You are too pathetic and sad.

Feodor said...

I don't see the pertinence. I'll tell you what, from now on I won't make an argument until you do. As it is, you only make obfuscations of your prejudices.

Marshall Art said...

Who are you kidding, feo? You never make any arguments. You make assertions and offer links that don't support them. You also make wild accusations about "prejudices" without basis. But if you're being honest, I don't expect I'll see any comments from you from this point forward. OR, you could drop the pretension, arrogance and condescension and actually engage as if you have a clue.

Feodor said...

And i see the wait is on.

In the interim, and not unrelated to the real plight of the poor - and so, not related to impotent pursuit of biblical dogmatism - Justice Sotomayor's words in her brilliant dissent to callous justice are directive:

“As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.”

Marshall Art said...

"And i see the wait is on."

The wait has always been on, you freakin' idiot. I've been waiting for years for you to support your positions and accusations and charges. I've waited in vain.

I've waited for years for your evidence that shows my positions are flawed. I've waited in vain.

In the meantime, as I have in this post and in all previous, I have presented any combination of logic, fact, science, direct quotes and in context excerpts for my positions and you actually try to pretend I make no arguments? "False priest" just doesn't go far enough in describing your level of deceitfulness. I'm thinking a better title is "Bastard Son of the Father of Lies".

But here's a special treat just for you, you pathetic slug: I'm going to do a post on your quote from Injustice Sotomayor. I've read a few articles describing her 58 page dissent and I found it notable that none of them bothered to find anywhere in those sheets where she explains how her betters on the bench have erred. But unlike yourself, I'm going to read all 58 pages to find out firsthand if the drivel is accompanied by anything akin to wisdom. "Callous justice" indeed.

Oh, and since you lack understanding, you can refrain from any further off topic comments here and wait to make a jackass of yourself about this righteous decision in the next thread. If you have anything substantive to say about the topic of this post, go ahead and make me laugh. I love how you demonstrate your idiocy.

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

"I'm going to do a post... I've read a few articles describing her 58 page dissent."

I'm going to write on why Barcelona is so beautiful and the people awesome as they stroll down the the Ramblas.

Because I've read travel books.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

There is no such thing as "racial inequality." That is a liberal construct. Any "inequality" is brought on the the choices of the individuals, but everyone has the equal chance to education and to progression in their status.

Marshall Art said...


First of all, why is it so common for you to make multiple attempts to appear clever and still fail to do so?

Secondly, your analogy is typically idiotic as it does not illustrate anything I'm doing. It's very much as off point as Sotomayor's dissent, from what little her sycophants have provided about it. But then, you lefties have a real problem focusing on actual statements and positions put forth in favor of invented positions you believe you can rebut. In that you're very consistent. You're also quite consistent in straying from the topic of a given thread. All of which is evidence of your consistent deceitfulness, which we now expect from the Bastard Son of the Father of Lies.

Since I have no doubt that you'll fail to understand the above, it means that I'm not going to comment on the beauty of Barcelona, nor did I make any statement to that effect. My comments will be an analysis of Sotomayor's dissent of the opinion of an action taken with regards to Barcelona. Put another way, by reading the actual 58 page dissent, I will be traveling to Barcelona to see for myself.

In the meantime, if you have no substantive comment regarding the topic of this post, no further comment you post here will remain.

Feodor said...

So, Glenn, how do you account for the disparity in numbers of poor and incarcerated between white, brown, black, and native?

Isn't the explanation for educational underachievement - and, thereby, economic depression - by black and brown kids due to the fact that a much higher percentage of kids of color live in poorer neighborhoods where family strength, mental health, nutrition, proximity to waste and plant facilities all contribute to a MUCH poorer quality of life, access, and education?

Feodor said...

It's now so hilariously obvious, Marshall, that you don't get satire or analogy. That you can't fathom how the analogy of my - not your - writing authoritatively about Barcelona while never having been there and only reading guide books mocks how stupid your statement was that you were going to write [authoritatively, not] about Sotomayor's dissent while not having read it, only having read articles ABOUT IT?!

God, how stupid. You need not only to block this comment but erase your own.... quick!... cover up the stupidity before your bromance with the Simp is damaged.

And "the Bastard Son of the Father of Lies." Seriously? You're that psychotically paranoid? Jesus.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

IT's choices. Period. Educational "underachievement' is because a segment of the black population - those who are the poor, etc - teaches that being educated is "whiteness," and any black who wants to be educated is condemned for acting like "whitey." The racism is on the BLACK side.

You'd learn a lot if you read the book: The Un-Civil War: Blacks vs Niggers." Those of us who have actually lived and witnessed such lifestyles, and have studied the issues for decades, won't learn anything new from the book, but people like you will - IF you open your mind to learn something.

Feodor said...

You say "choices," and you say "a segment of the black population."

But it's not a segment of the black population that is in poverty, Glenn, it's more than a quarter who live below the poverty line and almost two thirds that are poor or in "working poor" and so not in the middle class.

How do you account for over half of black americans making such choices that keep them poor?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Your numbers are skewed. But it is still choices. No one forces them to refuse education and to join gangs, to do drugs, to be "baby mamas," to abort at a higher rate than anyone else, etc, etc.

The normal blacks don't like them either.

Oh, and "poverty level" in the USA is a laugh.

Marshall Art said...


Could you be more obtuse? Scratch that question. You continue to show the sky's the limit on that score! But I have no need to hide anything I've said. In fact, I'll quote my own self now:

"But unlike yourself, I'm going to read all 58 pages to find out firsthand if the drivel is accompanied by anything akin to wisdom."

So clearly, I had stated my attention to withhold my analysis UNTIL I've read all 58 pages. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need help with the bigger words?

And yes, you are indeed the Bastard Son of the Father of Lies because the truth is not in you. I can't, however, say you were lying in your last, except for the implication that you actually closely read my comment. A deficiency in comprehension on your part is more likely here.

What does being poor have to do with educational underachievement? Especially in this climate of gov't spending to fight "the War on Poverty"? We know that kids not eating well doesn't help, but tax money goes toward school breakfast and lunch programs and there are also food stamps and charities of all kinds devoted to feeding the hungry. But even then, kids not eating well is a problem with their parents' choices. Poverty doesn't compel parents to ignore their duties as parents. It didn't for my mother who was left with five of us after the old man passed when the oldest of us was ten. And there are many who had it far worse than myself who have achieved far more despite their situations. The real question is why some succeed and some don't. The answer begins with "choices", not racism.

Feodor said...

I'm asking for a reason why so many would "choose" poverty, Glenn. Especially when compared to whites.

And how would you explain so many latinos in poverty when compared to whites? Is it still the fault of niggers?

Feodor said...

Pardon us, Marshall, but we may have an argument coming.

Marshall Art said...

You don't get to choose who may engage with whom on this blog, feo. But I've no doubt you're hoping you'll fare better with Glenn than with me. So far that hasn't been the case. He clearly has not implied that anyone has chosen to be poor. Only an idiot like yourself would make such a suggestion. But choices have consequences and sound choices often require self-denial, self-discipline and too many people of all backgrounds struggle with that fact. It's only a mystery to people like yourself.

Feodor said...

He hasn't made any argument yet; just claims. You must be coaching him on foundation less claims.

The question as to why, Marshall, is where any argument gets made.

Marshall Art said...

In the meantime, you've not provided anything more than claims of your own. I don't expect we'll get more than that, as it isn't your style.

Timmy Jimmy said...

I'm surprised you have given Dan this much space on your blog. He is nothing more than a false teacher and a fool. Don't answer a fool, lest he think himself wise in his own eyes. Which Dan certainly does, all though he will throw up some false humility rant to show otherwise.

It's obvious that if he cannot answer what Jesus meant by the good news, then he doesn't need to be speaking to the issues of what God's people, i.e., the church, should and should not be. He has proven himself inept.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The fault of latinos as well as blacks is the culture they desire to live and chose. Only ignorance or rank stupidity would say otherwise.

The percentage of Americans who are truly poor by factors not of their own choosing is quite small. Deny it all you want, but the fact remains.

Marshall Art said...


It requires little effort to correct blatantly foolish interpretations, and there is always that incredibly micro-thin possibility that an actual good one is hidden within the rest somewhere. But anything published on a blog that allows responses deserves responses. In this case, it was just easier to respond here. So far, he hasn't felt a need to engage. Maybe he's as yet unaware. I'll make sure he is.

In the meantime, many have suggested that I no longer waste my time with him. But I have no problem with it as I don't do it if time does not allow for it. But again, I do feel a bad point of view should not stand without response, lest some be swayed.

Marshall Art said...


I think our opponents get hung up on the concept of choice in these matters. Note that feo actually supposed you meant that people choose to be poor as if it is a conscious decision to be poor. I don't see how allegedly educated people can miss the point that conscious decisions about any number of things can, and do, lead to a life of want, or impede upward mobility. That this is even in question is remarkable. I have no doubt that among people who suffer the consequences of their choices and actions, some wonder at what they're doing wrong or assume they must be doing something wrong. There are also those who simply don't care enough to wonder, but instead assume other things, such as that they are getting screwed by life in some way.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Yes, the meaning anyone with the ability to read and comprehend was about life choices leading to poverty, not that people choose poverty.

However, there is a segment of society, mostly in the subculture of black and latino, who actually choose to live in poverty because they can live off of Uncle Sam. THAT is a fact, as reported by those who have been there.

Marshall Art said...

Even still, I think the choice they are making is simply to do nothing until they have no choice but to be do otherwise, not to be poor per se. Just sayin'.

Feodor said...

What we have here, as the man in the movie said, is a failure to communicate. And that's because you both are so twisted by subconscious anxieties that you can't put 2 and 2 together between the two ideas you have in your heads and the 2 dimensional words you have to express them in.

To wit:


Marshall: "In the meantime, you've not provided anything more than claims of your own."

Au contraire, mon monstre. I am certain that if you look back at your previous post - and perhaps in your dim recollection - you'll see that I put forth the argument that centuries of the experience of being victims of the slave trade, Jim Crow laws, and recent contemporary racism such as redlining have so devastated the financial stability, family health, psychological resilience, educational access, etc. etc. throughout the generational experience of black americans that horrible results have accrued and kept an unjustly high percentage of the black community at or near poverty.

So... you're completely wrong there. And I'll add that neither you nor Glenncito had any way to take on those socio-historical facts and rebut the argument. (Probably because there are too many big words for either of you to absorb.)


Glenncito: "The fault of latinos as well as blacks is the culture they desire to live and chose."

Marshall: "I think our opponents get hung up on the concept of choice in these matters."

Well, I don't really expect the two of you to get your act together and clear away your mutual confusions, so let me help you out.

As I wrote, it's in answering the why question that arguments are made. All else are just baseless claims until some reason is made as to why.

Glenn claims that "the fault of latinos as well as blacks is the culture they desire to live and chose."

Now, I don't pretend to understand quite what Glenn intends in this awkward phraseology - and I'm not sure he knows entirely either - but moving on, it's incumbent on him to give a reason why... if he wishes to make an intelligible argument that is. If he is just making baseless claims, then he's fine.

Which he now more recently clearly seems to be doing since he just landed in complete agreement with the asshole Cliven Bundy, whom even conservative Republican politicians disown when it comes to race!!!!!!

Cloven-hoofed Bundy: "I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro ... because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Glenn: "the subculture of black and latino, who actually choose to live in poverty because they can live off of Uncle Sam."

So, everyone in the nation is calling Cliven a racist, including Paul Rand and Sean Hannity but Glenn is in league with the same thinking.

And Glenn says black folks are the real racists.

We now can be clear that Glenn is a raving lunatic.

And, Marshall, you give the weakest little whimper of a whisper that you think something's wrong in Glenn's head.

The real reason I keep coming back, Marshall, is that you guys are supremely unique in blending fantastical humor with such dehumanizing horror and lunatic, fringe paranoia and in so inseparable a compound... that I can't even find such a thing here in New York.

Thank you both. You've plummeted an aspect of human abjection that I've never seen.

You've really taught me something.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Well the Libs like you didn't understand the analogy Bundy was making, which isn't surprising since all libs can think is "Racism" when they are the real racists.

So, if one tells the truth about why SOME blacks and Latinos remain in a subculture of poverty, that therefore makes them a racist?!?

What if a BLACK man is the one who makes the charges? Taleeb Starkes is a BLACK man who wrote the book explaining the problem - so is he racist? And am I racist if I cite him?

Let me give you HIS definition of NIGGER so you will understand the context of citations I post:

"NIGGERS - Also called BLACK trash, are the lowest, most dysfunctional, and violent segment of African-Americans. The term is primarily used throughout the book to describe males, but at times describes the entire parasitic subculture. Like BLACKS, this rogue splinter group is also a minority within the African-American population. NIGGER is also an acronym for Negro Individual Generating Grief Everywhere Routinely."

Feodor said...

Glenn, Englishmen and Americans lauded Hitler for wanting to strengthen the Aryan race - meaning white people.

And Hitler was white.

You must feel proud to be likewise so bold that you've left humanity behind you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Please understand that NIGGERS aren’t the “have nots,” instead, they’re the “rather nots”! Why do I call them the “rather nots”? Because they “rather not” productively contribute to society, they “rather not” cease NIGGERtivity, they “rather not” accept responsibility for their actions, they “rather not” (feel free to fill in the blank).

Note: "NIGGERtivity A fusion of the words "NIGGER" and "Activity," which describes they typical turmoil and violence caused by NIGGERS. It ranges from simple assault, murder, and all crimes in between.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

NIGGER parents don’t mind if their children fail to adjust to society’s measures of success because they inherently believe that America is rigged by WHITES for African-Americans to fail. In the NIGGER subculture, failure is always an option because of their belief that racism is so pervasive that no amount of individual effort will overcome it. Furthermore, failure is routinely embraced because it navigates their kids toward that reliable path of government handouts, which generationally has been the financial pillar of their subculture. … Oklahoma State representative, Sally Kern (R), expressed similar sentiment regarding the subculture’s outlook by stating, “We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.” Although she makes the common mistake of mis-labeling NIGGERS as BLACKS, she is spot-on with her observation.

Feodor said...

Look what comes pouring forth from your brother ape, Marshall.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Glenn, Englishmen and Americans lauded Hitler for wanting to strengthen the Aryan race - meaning white people.

And Hitler was white.

You must feel proud to be likewise so bold that you've left humanity behind you.

This is one of the most asinine claims ever.

Feodor said...

No arguments. Just ugly claims and hiding his pathetic should behind a perverted black man.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You're the nigger, Glenn. If ever there was one

Nice ad hominem attack fool. You have a real problem with me citing a black man who grew up in the "hood" as part of the "NIGGER" movement and matured to expose the subculture for what it is?

"Ah! Destructive ignorance, what shall be done to chase thee out of the World!” Cotton Mather

Mather obviously had people like Feo in mind.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, and Feo decides the man is a "perverted black man" because he tells the truth. The Feo's of the world are what the author calls "NIGGERfiliacs" - they will defend to their death the subculture which sucks off the government teat while destroying their neighborhoods from within. Starkes is "perverted" because he exposes the FACT that the subculture is intentionally in poverty.

Feodor said...

There were Jewish Nazi collaborators. Alfred Nossig. Chaim Rumkowski. Stephanie von Hohenlohe. Stella Kübler. etc. etc.

Notice please, how much they were in the extreme minority.

Like Alan Keyes. Allen West. Ben Carson. Mr. Starkes.

And then there were cretans like you, Glenn. Sycophant followers of titillating subversion. They claimed religion, too, like you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

So, the only REAL blacks in Feo's mind are the stupid ones. All other blacks - the conservatives who talk about taking responsibility for one's actions, are really just like Nazi collaborators.

Talk about racist!!!!

How about a citation from Bill Cosby?

“It’s standing on the corner. It can’t speak English. It doesn’t want to speak English. I can’t even talk the way these people talk. ‘Why you ain’t where you is go, ra.’ I don’t know who these people are. And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. Then I heard the father talk. This is all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and you got into the house an switched to English. Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can’t land a plane with ‘why you ain’t…’ You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. There is no Bible that has that kind of language. Where did these people get the idea that they’re moving ahead on this? Well, they know they’re not, they’re just hanging out in the same place, five or six generations sitting in the projects when you’re just supposed to stay there long enough to get a job and move out.”

Yeah, he's just a racist collaborator.

Feodor said...

Your racism is revealed in how you misquote him.

Marshall Art said...

This link provides the entirety of Bundy's remarks. Though not the most articulate man, nor one who weighs his words for the benefit of the irrationally sensitive, he clearly is not speaking as a racist. It seems clear that once again, based on this fuller version of his comments, the left purposely took snippets out of context in order to smear this guy. Maybe he really is a racist. But this little speech holds no evidence for the charge.

Marshall Art said...

As to feo's comment of April 25, 2014 at 5:05 PM, this...

"...I put forth the argument that centuries of the experience of being victims of the slave trade, Jim Crow laws, and recent contemporary racism such as redlining have so devastated the financial stability, family health, psychological resilience, educational access, etc. etc. throughout the generational experience of black americans that horrible results have accrued and kept an unjustly high percentage of the black community at or near poverty."

...is a mere claim. You've put forth NOTHING that proves the claim is true. EVER. You've restated it in a variety of differently worded ways, but you've never proven it in any way. You've provided links and quotes that make the very same claim, but doing so is also not evidence. It's just someone else making the same claim. There has never been any "why" given by you to explain how any past experience translates to present condition. No connecting of the dots you believe are linked.

My previous post on poverty contains a link to a video that presents steps to eliminate poverty. Watch it and learn something. It shows how one connects cause to effect. It doesn't merely make claims without basis.

"So, everyone in the nation is calling Cliven a racist, including Paul Rand and Sean Hannity but Glenn is in league with the same thinking."

Not true. What is happening is there are people like yourself calling Bundy a racist based on a snippet of his comments and too many conservatives who should know better find themselves unable to refrain from running from the term rather than face the slanderous charges head on. I, for one, had no opinion on the guy's level of racism because I hadn't even heard the full out of context portion about which everyone is feigning outrage. Now that I've heard the whole thing, I can only say he speaks poorly while still getting his point across, except to leftist race-baiters.

Glenn and I are of like mind, that most people in this country who are below the gov't poverty rate are victims of their own choices in life. There is no confusion between us. You'd only wish that were true because it allows you to avoid dealing with the point. You, like Dan, choose to regard the poor as victims. And they are, but of their own choices in life. There are simply too many who have risen out of the worst neighborhoods for it to be otherwise. There are far too many people of color from other countries who thrive despite both their color and their accents. Are you going to disparage these exceptions, these exceptional people, by saying they were just lucky?

The funny thing is you think yourself a champion for the black race. You're really just someone helping them to kill themselves.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I mis-quoted no one.

Feodor said...

Yes, Glenn, you did. And maybe you copied from some God-awful go to site that you soak up, but you've misquoted him.

It's not so much the fact that you've done so, but the astounding way in which you cannot instantly recognize what's wrong just by reading the first ten words. It proves your inhumanity in the way in which you instinctually refer - even in your imagination - to black people.

Bill Cosby would never use such a word to do so.

It shows how vile and disgusting you are.

Feodor said...

Here's your "left," Marshall:

Sean Hannity (Bundy's media booster) calling Bundy "repugnant" and "racist":


Rand Paul, "offensive and racist":


Greta van Susteren, "I condemn what Bundy said":


You and your hooded friend, Glenn, are out on a tree.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


I took the citation from a book, and copied it exactly as cited.

The only "vile and disgusting" person here is you, a person who enables those in a lowlife subculture to remain where they are, and justify your racism by saying they are too stupid to do anything else.

Seems to me by looking at this link that it was pretty accurate:


Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I came across an old article in my collection of things. It has more black people condemning the actions of their subculture. I guess they are also "white racist collaborators"


Marshall Art said...

"You and your hooded friend, Glenn, are out on a tree."

You wish, so desperate are you to portray the right wing as racist. I don't know, at this writing, if any of those who were critical of Bundy's comments heard the complete version. I would wager at the time of their critiques, they had heard only that which the leftist media purposely distorted. But if you have just a bit of courage and strength of what you would call "conviction", go ahead and explain what about Bundy's complete and uncensored comments indicates racism to a highly educated person such as yourself. Be specific for a change or just say you're not up to such a simple challenge.

Feodor said...

"I especially see apartheid in the US. True, the country has made racist speech taboo. Use a racial epithet in public and your career combusts. That’s lovely. However, American school taxes are usually raised locally, and many neighbourhoods are segregated, and so most poor black children attend underfunded schools where they learn just enough to do lowly jobs for whites. The US later tries to airlift a few victims out of the ghetto through “affirmative action”, but by then the damage is done. Like apartheid South Africa, the US ensures through schooling that most black people won’t succeed. It just doesn’t call this “Bantu education”.

My instinctive measure of a society is how closely it resembles South African apartheid. On that score the Netherlands – despite ample racist speech – arguably beats the US, because the Dutch give so-called “black schools” more funding than white suburban schools. Similarly, ethnically mixed-up London has less apartheid than segregated Paris."


Marshall Art said...

While I should delete your comment for being off topic (that's what Dan would do and this thread is about him and his views, so deleting you would be tribute to him), I always feel letting an idiot like yourself remain exposed as the idiot you are since you went through the effort to do so.

What's more, you quote an idiot to boot. How perfectly idiotic of you.

Kuper, and you, seem to ignore a few things about public education in our country. His statements ignore the federal funds earmarked for the disadvantaged of all ages. That's #1.

While it is true most schools are paid for by property taxes from the towns in which the schools are situated, they also receive state money as well. That's #2.

#3, Amenities of a school building have little to do with the dedication of the student body to learn what is taught and their parents to see that they do.

What's more, the idiot presumes that there is some intent on the part of the state or the nation in general to "ensure through schooling that most black people won't succeed." What a freakin' racist thing to say! I would love to see the evidence for this. I mean, aside from Lyndon Johnson.

Of course it might be true. Those Democrats that have ruined our economy and culture may have the enslavement of the black population in mind, but I haven't seen any proof that such is part of their agenda, in the way that the annihilation of the nation of Israel is the goal of Hamas and the Palestinians.

And are these people forced to live in "black" neighborhoods? Or have they formed them on their own much the same way as did the Irish, Jews and Italians?

And here's something feo and his idiot reference also fail to understand: affirmative action, even if it wasn't the failure it is, can't raise anyone out of poverty who doesn't put in the effort.

Take your racist crap somewhere else, feo. Stay on topic or delete you I will. You've been warned.

Feodor said...

Showing your ignorance, it was the Johnson administration that passed the legislation for "the federal funds earmarked for the disadvantaged of all ages."

Repeatedly refunded over four decades, the budget nonetheless represented a reduction in buying power vs. inflation each decade of Republican occupancy of the White House. Bush's efforts lacked funding for the rhetorical teeth.

But you swallowed the lies long ago.

And do you know were the federal dollars go that do get to school districts? Third party consultancy and training organizations.

Not students and teacher resources.

All of which show's your doing armchair spitballing.

Waiting the armchair gas of your mind bearing on Justice Sotomayor's brilliant dissent.

Feodor said...

"The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
he time from introduction to vote on this bill was only 87 days – a record time for legislation. ESEA was set in the center of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and was influenced by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ESEA provided, in a very short time, massive changes in the ways students who differed from the norm by reason of disadvantage would be treated."

The League of Women Voters

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

An example of what liberal policies do to the education of blacks.


Marshall Art said...

"Showing your ignorance, it was the Johnson administration that passed the legislation for "the federal funds earmarked for the disadvantaged of all ages.""

Showing YOUR ignorance, Johnson passed that as part of his "War On Poverty", put forth so he could...

“...have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

It's amazing what YOU'RE willing to swallow in order to perpetuate your mythic understanding of race relations in this country.

Not yet completed the long slog through Quotamayor's idiocy. Have any idea when you plan on reading it?

Feodor said...


Two things I love about this. 1) it Shows how effective are conservative policies in the "heartland."

And, of course, the race based explanation no doubt shared by the both of you: where white children are drug a abusers, Satan is at play. Surely where children of color are in trouble, it's culture and liberalism.

Marshall Art said...

And here's what I love about your post:

1. You're an idiot and prove it again.

2. "Two things I love about this. 1) it Shows how effective are conservative policies in the "heartland.""

You mean like this policy? It's from the worst state on the list, Missouri, and refers to its methods for dealing with the problem:

"But the court works: the non-recidivist rate from US drug courts is 90 per cent, while prison recidivism runs at about 50 to 60 per cent."

3. You seem to think conservative policy guarantees the corrupt and sinful will will cease to exist. That's typical leftist stupidity and dishonesty, as you continue to disparage the better philosophy. But conservative policy acknowledges the imperfection of mankind, just as the founders did and just as Christian teaching does.

4. Your racist nature cannot help but play that race card. The addict you quote is not referring to white people, even though the population of the people in his experience are white. There's absolutely no indication in the story from which that quote comes that he would say anything different if black people were involved. And given the fact that there is, at least stereotypically, a strong religious influence in the impoverished black communities, there is also high crime. Thus, the addicts point remains the same regardless of race you idiot racist.

4. You're likely to follow this up with another example of what an idiot you truly are, and seem intent on being.

Feodor said...

"Inequality is the root of all social evil."

Pope Francis

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

"Pope Francis"

I love it when the left cite heretics, as if their views mean anything to Christians.

Feodor said...

"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."

Another leftist heretic by your judgment, Glenn.

Feodor said...

Pope Benedict: "hotbeds of tension and confrontation caused by the growing inequality between rich and poor and the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mentality also expressed by unregulated financial capitalism."

Pope John Paul II: "But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed with a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. (Centesimus Annus, n. 42)

"human freedom in totality" Not inequality.

You guys have cheap theology; a cheap paper based God; and only red ink to think anything in the world is beautiful.

You guys are damned by your own withered hearts.

Marshall Art said...

"You guys are damned by your own withered hearts."

Ironically, you just pretended you understand "Judge not", and now you pass judgement. Perfect.

With all due respect to pontiffs past or present, their opinion does not guarantee fact. It certainly doesn't with any that you've offered.

Benedict, for example, ignores the fact that economic systems do not create greed. Greed exists in any economic system. But capitalism has done more to allow more to rise above their stations than any other. But it also allows the most ambitious to rise higher at a faster rate. Why this is seen as a problem indicates an inability to understand such things. And concern for economic inequality is mere covetousness. If you care for those less well off, donate and encourage others to do as well. Otherwise, shut the hell up, especially since neither you, nor the prelates have demonstrated how capitalism causes poverty, much less "tension and confrontation".

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


You apparently don't understand the meaning of that passage. Firstly, it is about hypocritical judgment - e.g., if you play the lottery don't rebuke someone for playing the casino. Secondly, if you continue in the text it doesn't say one can't judge - it says to first examine yourself so that you can judge properly.

We are told throughout Scripture to judge teachings and teachers. We are told to expose false teachers and false teachings.

The Roman Catholic Church is NOT a Christian organization. While they have Christianity at their root, they have added so much heresy and legalistic traditions to it that the real gospel is buried and difficult to find.

But people like you are ignorant about such matters.

Feodor said...

You don't know Jesus, Glenn. If you did you wouldn't be an anonymous racist and a christian Pharisee.

Feodor said...

Marshall: "Ironically, you just pretended you understand "Judge not", and now you pass judgement."

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,* and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them."

Just doing as Jesus does, Marshall. He shows me the way in everything.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


I know the Jesus of the Bible, the real Jesus - not the false Jesus you made up. You're no better than a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness.

And you bear false witness against me - i.e., you are a liar. I am not a racist. I know you libs pull out the racist card every time someone disagrees with your ideology, but it still isn't true.

You also show your ignorance about Pharisees. Let me enlighten you:


Feodor said...

Jesus isn't in the Bible, Glenn. Jesus is living. And that you think Jesus is a Bible thing results in calcifying your heart... as St. Paul could have said.

"... you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


You are being intentionally stupid. You know very well what I meant. The Jesus that is identified by the Bible; where we learn about who He is - who He really is contrasted with the one you made up in your little pink head. Fool.

Feodor said...

I know what you think you mean, Glenn. But I have come to tell you what you are actually saying. You need to hear what you are saying and be alarmed at it's Pharisaical commitments.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

No Feo,

You want to practice eisegesis with what I say. I specifically stated "Jesus of the Bible" - i.e., the Jesus as identified in the Bible. There was no hint of him being a "Bible thing."

Again, you have no clue what a Pharisee is.

Feodor said...

know what you think you mean, Glenn. But I have come to tell you what you are actually saying. You need to hear what you are saying and be alarmed at it's Pharisaical commitments.

Marshall Art said...


You are in no position to dictate to either of us whether or not we are being true to the teachings of the faith or not. You have shown an incredible inability to understand Scripture, to apply legitimately and to know when or whether anyone else is applying it. You're a fraud and have proven that repeatedly.

In the meantime, you cast aspersions in our direction without so much as a hint of why your accusations might be true. Like most lefties, it is enough for you to simply accuse (in a most judgmental manner that contradicts the teaching of "Judge not"). You don't even understand how complimentary you are to Glen with your quote from Paul in your 5:44PM comment. But YOU show that you ARE NOT a letter of Christ, but of some fantasy you invented for yourself that you choose to call "Christ".

Feodor said...

"You don't even understand how complimentary you are to Glen with your quote,"

Oh, but I do.

... for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Marshall Art said...

Oh, but you don't. If I'm wrong, show how your quote is appropriate following your initial statement. Here it is again in its entirety:

Jesus isn't in the Bible, Glenn. Jesus is living. And that you think Jesus is a Bible thing results in calcifying your heart... as St. Paul could have said.

"... you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."

Now you back-peddle and pretend you intended good things. You're either lying now, or you've turned over a new leaf which is incredibly untypical and based on your track record, not believable. If the latter is true, you can prove it by showing, for once, the relevance of the quote to the words that preceded them.

Feodor said...

Has anyone suggested to you, Marshall, that you may have an OC personality? You're rigid when compared to normal population, that we know. But you also tend to have a wooden, first impression only reaction to what you read. You don't very easily get things that are non-verbal: innuendo, satire, irony. And you lose any connection to what you've written before.

Like the whole LBJ thing. You raise up federal aid as a panacea but paint Johnson in a bad light - the very President who enshrined the wisdom of federal education aid for the disadvantaged.

And here. I refer to Paul's comments to the Corinthians as inverse commentary on Glenn.

In Romans 10 and here, Paul is referring ti Ezekiel as prophetic to the truth of faith: it is lived in the spirit not the law. Tablets are not where one finds God or oneself and neither do they circumscribe the faith community. The spirit directs and the spirit directs because God and God's son are living and can be found in relationship. Scripture is a foreground of relationship but not the relationship itself. Scripture serves the relationship, not the reverse.

But this is not where you and Glenn stand, rooted in anxiety as you both are, you want something more concrete that the faith that is born of the spirit. You both want tablets of stone so that you "know" what the truth is (thereby totally missing that the truth is love).

You both are much more like those in the Galatian community that so pissed Paul off. You both " tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but... are unwilling to lift a finger to move them."

Little do either of you realize that Christ has already done so and continues to do so with all those who enter into relationship with him. He is alive and is ready to relate. Not just be read. But be in relationship. Which rules the reading. Hearts of flesh not stone, faith born of the spirit, rules Scripture, which is the servant of both.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


That has to be the most disingenuous comment you've ever made. HORSE PUCKY. You make me want to puke.

Mr. "Holier than thou" preaching that it is all about "love" when your idea of "love" is liberal ideology and nothing to do with what Christ preached.

And again you are a liar by claiming that we are legalistic. You will NEVER find anything I have written anywhere that is legalistic.

No, you call it "tablets of stone" when we demand personal responsibility from people. Funny, all through Scripture you will read about personal responsibility.

Feodor said...

Holier than thou.

You looking at a mirror, Glenn.

John 3:16.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Great comeback. How many hours did it take you to think that one up?

Feodor said...


Marshall Art said...

"Has anyone suggested to you, Marshall, that you may have an OC personality?"

Never. But I'm sure that won't stop you from labeling me without basis in that manner as well you have with other charges.

"You're rigid when compared to normal population, that we know."

Not surprising that you would compare yourself against the general population. I try to compare myself to the standards set by God. You should try that instead sometime.

"You don't very easily get things that are non-verbal: innuendo, satire, irony."

You're assuming you've been utilizing innuendo, satire, or irony in a way that would be easily recognizable as such to anyone. You're also assuming that anyone would swallow the notion that you were being ironic, satirical or indulging in mere innuendo the moment you've been exposed for the fraud you so clearly are.

"And you lose any connection to what you've written before."

Not that you've ever been able to prove. To wit:

"You raise up federal aid as a panacea but paint Johnson in a bad light..."

No. I didn't. I raised the point as a clarification of the various sources of monetary aid for public education, and that there is money specifically intended to aid the very people he believes is purposely shortchanged due, he believes, to racism. Try to pay attention.

"...the very President who enshrined the wisdom of federal education aid for the disadvantaged."

And yet, according to you and Kuper, we still have the disadvantaged. You seem to have lost connection with what you previously wrote.

"The spirit directs and the spirit directs because God and God's son are living and can be found in relationship."

You pretend the spirit directs away from the teachings of Scripture, when Paul, who you try to cite in support of your laughingly poor understanding, warns against that which is in conflict of what has been taught. In posturing yourself as wise and insightful, you expose yourself to be incredibly inane and heretical.

You pervert the notion of being in relationship with Christ in order to relieve you of having to acknowledge that Scripture teaches us what is or isn't pleasing to God as regards behaviors, so that you can engage in or celebrate behaviors that are pleasing to you. You aren't fooling anyone, God especially, with your self-satisfying and self-serving "pearls of wisdom".

But hey, Glenn and I can only speak the truth. It is up to you to accept or ignore it. I've no doubt you'll continue to ignore it in favor of your invention you call "Christianity". Good luck with that.

Feodor said...

"I did a little bit of research. More whites believe in ghosts than believe in racism," Abdul-Jabbar said..."


Marshall Art said...

A point would be nice. Do you have one?

Feodor said...

These would be your people, with your kind of mindset - and Glenn's:


Glenn E. Chatfield said...

There goes Feo telling big lies again.

Feodor said...

I'm glad to hear of your progress toward sanity, Glenn, in that you no longer think the administration is out to get your guns.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


The administration and all libs are out to get our guns. Only a fool would say otherwise.

But that has nothing to do with the link you posted.

Feodor said...

But the link between you and the link is so easy, Glenn.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

No Feo,

You are being intentionally an ass. No link at all.

Feodor said...

An intentional ass vs. an intentional idiot.

A classic.

Marshall Art said...

"An intentional ass vs. an intentional idiot."

And classically, feo, you make being both look so easy.