Thursday, May 19, 2016

Amanda Blackburn Murder Part Three: Ideology and Deception

While pregnant, Amanda Blackburn and her pre born child were murdered.  
The husband, Davey, made many statements and was interviewed on television shortly after the murder.  

 Police eventually arrested and charged 3 gang members with her murder.

Blackburn, as husband, had a strong alibi:  he was at the gym when the home invasion and murder took place. 

 It appears that he was not polygraphed

His language shortly after the murder shocked the public.   

I have heard two dismissals of Blackburn's words, both using the ideology:

1.  He did not grieve his losses and concentrated on numbers because he loves lost souls so much.  

This was to defend his bizarre language using the ideology.

the second is equally wrong:

2.  His language was due to his ideology.  It is not that he is showing guilt, or even a need to be found among others in a plurality to assuage guilt, it is just that he sees himself and his 'god' in such close proximity that it went into the intuition of pronouns. 

Both of these claims dismiss the analysis due to the ideology that Blackburn affirms.   


Both of these claims are wrong as I will exhibit in this lengthy article about ideology.  

To understand much of the language used by the victim's husband in the Amanda Blackburn murder, it is essential to grasp the ideology.  This is true in any analysis, though it is often not noticed until a cold case is presented:

Ideology; culture; behavior; language.  The language is not reality, but the subject's verbalized perception of reality.  

I will give an overview (general) of the ideology first, 
then, I will raise the question:  

Is the husband's affirmation of this ideology done in a deceptive manner? 

 Lastly, I will bring forth analysis of his language, while referencing the ideology in a separate article. 

Why? 

Why the need to show the ideology first?

It is more than to just understand his language; which is important enough. 

There is something far more important in this murder case where the statistics tell us that when a pregnant woman is murdered, the number one suspect is the husband/father of the child. 

Much of what the victim's husband has said has been dismissed due to the ideology that produced it.  This is to show ignorance, both of criminal analysis, and of the personality embracing a specific ideology who deliberately exploits it.   Here, we will take a basic look at the ideology and then the subject's view towards the ideology and how this may impact the analysis.  

The central question is this:

Is the subject honest or  deceptive, regarding his use of the religious ideology that he publicly espouses?

Is he honest about it?  This is vital for analysis of this case; not is he 'incorrect' about any part of the ideology, but is he deliberately altering, deleting, adding, or outright changing that which he states is unalterably divine?  To affirm divine origin is not only to affirm inerrancy, but it is to hold something to a level of "sacred"; that is, set apart from all else.  

Is he, somehow, deceptive, which means, 'knowingly' changing the ideology for a specific purpose. Is this purpose narcissistically based? 

 If so, it provides strong insight into his personality and subsequent language.  


In researching this element, these factors must be present:

*The ideology must be believed (and stated) to be of divine origin.  This means it is unchanging truth, given to us by God, and cannot be changed or altered to fit human opinion.  Truth, by definition, is not impacted by external influences, including time.  For what I am looking for here, the premise must be that the ideology of the victim's husband is that it is divine truth which cannot be altered.  

What type of personality element can claim that their ideology is of divine origin yet alter it, or even have a need to alter its presentation, in spite of believing it to be divine? 

*The alteration must not an error, misunderstanding, or disagreement.  The alteration must be deliberate.  

If one says "this ideology is divine" and then adds, subtracts or does any alteration of it, in application, presentation, or core belief, the personality is being revealed to the audience, and where the self places his view in comparison to divinity.  In a murder case, it is vital.  

It is as to say, "God is good; but I, that is, me, myself, I am better" in a sense of narcissism that is all but impossible to contain, even by the most talented egotists.  The filter simply gives way once he enters the free editing process of speech where he chooses his own words.  

Question for consideration:  Does Blackburn alter the ideology, in any way, to fit a specific agenda that belongs uniquely to him?

This alteration can be in design, scope, presentation or application, but it must be deliberate, of which I offer a few examples, which would then allow us to gain some insight into the personality.  

We also need to have a basic grasp of the ideology to understand the language in a deeper, more concise manner for the purpose of analysis.  

By understanding the ideology, we may be given insight into personal conflict within the victim's husband.  

This now will give you insight into the element within the personality.  We must step  back in ideology, and then on to the subject's variant on this ideology including any cultural 'adjustment' or compatibility towards it.  This, alone, will provide insight into the personality and temperament of the one person who has done much to foster suspicion that he is connected to the murder, though the case may be 'closed' by police. 

Please consider that everyone is under the influence of an ideology whether we embrace it or not.  

If you were raised in "Western civilization", Judeo Christianity, as an ideology, shaped your own thinking, inherited from your parents, who inherited this from their parents, and so on, regardless of the element of "faith" or personal conviction. Even if you do not believe in either Judaism or Christianity, you are a product of a Judeo-Christian culture, that is, the practical and measurable outworking from the ideology from the Bible. 

 It does not mean you believe in the Bible nor claim to be Jewish or Christian.  It means you were raised in a culture that had its roots in the Bible's ideological positions, even as, generationally, the culture shifts further and further away from it.  Today, it may be fair to estimate, Judeo Christian ideology is no longer the influence it has been, but in many ways, it is even despised, even as some have altered it to make it culturally compatible.  Yet, even in a 'post Christian' generation, its influence remains with us.  The fascinating element of this alteration is that they still claim the ideology to be "divine", meaning, it needs no change, no dressing up, no persuasion, and so on, to be relevant because the divine message, if divine, is perfection, and without "need to persuade" found outside itself.  

In other words, if it is divine, those who alter it, even if in presentation, are showing great weakness.  They either do not believe it is divine, or...

they note that 'divinity needs help' and you can guess just who it is who is bright enough to offer divinity a hand.  

Now, if divinity 'needs help', can you guess the personality that is willing to 'fix divinity' to make it relevant or culturally compatible today?

This is essential in understanding the history of thought (and language) and where specific arguments come from.  

For example, if you dwell in relative safety between your neighbors on the left and neighbors on the right, this may be due to a cultural external adherence to "thou shalt not" of Judeo Christian thought.  To dismiss this as 'common sense' is to deny one's own history and to show ignorance of how others, in other cultures, think about this.  

Here is a more practical and easier to spot example:  

While at work, when you are insulted or humiliated and withhold your anger, it is as a result of culture which was shaped by an ideology that prized self-governing of your emotions.  You presented an idea at your work in which one person disagreed and when you asked him why he disagreed, he ridiculed your appearance, or some arbitrary position, while avoiding giving any practical reason for his disagreement.  

You remained silent and were viewed as 'strong' in your position; admired by coworkers. 

Other ideologies (and the subsequent cultures) would not admire you for your restraint, but would hold you in contempt for your weakness.  This is a basis of the Islamic ideology and its impact upon eastern culture.  What we saw in Cologne was not so much misogyny, (though rape is) but a powerful contempt of European men who are incapable or unwilling to protect their women, lest they be called names such as 'racist' or 'right wing' or now, the new insult, 'nationalist.'

The same event has two very different opinions due to differing cultures, which are due to very different ideologies which impacted the cultures.  

When you show a sense of justice; you are not a 'blank slate' of 'new ideas' but as a result of your upbringing, your parents' upbringing, their parents' upbringing, and so on and how they were influenced by the world around them.   Example:  

The 'West' loves children.  Think of 'nativity' scenes where they bow down before a child in a manager, and how they talk of childhood innocence and such.  This is juxtaposed next to Islamic nations where children are human shields, strapped with bombs, or used for propaganda purposes by migrants.  

This photo is upsetting to the western mind.  To the Islamic mind, there is nothing wrong, nor inappropriate about it, and they question why this would upset any western male.  To them, it is the cultural outworking of the Koran's teaching of the value of woman.  


Iconic photo of Islamic culture invading Europe 

All throughout northern Africa, the middle east and parts of Asia, women and children are denigrated culturally even though these are different peoples, nations, tribes and languages. What is the common denominator?  The ideology;  Islam.  

Westerners project their culture onto a people who hold the ideology of the west in contempt.  It does not work. 

Let's take a look in American culture and ideology and see the waning influence of Judeo-Christian thought. 

Another example is the Titanic Society that heralded the "women and children first" ideology that is distinctly opposite of the dominant Islamic ideology that encompasses much of the world.  The notion that "women and children" are placed first is due to the physical weakness of both.  Rather than "survival of the fittest" (including Marxism today), the distinctly Judeo-Christian thought is that when one is given strength, he is expected to sacrifice his strength to protect those without.  This was the historical definition of "masculinity" that arose from the ideology.  A "patriarchal" society, in this definition, meant that the male sacrifices for the female.  It has been redefined to mean male exploitation of the female, as ancient ideological beliefs are now replaced with "more progressive" beliefs, which are not, as claimed, new to history.  



Here is a rather superficial example, yet for analysis, it is important. 

In the late 50's, Elvis shook his hips on TV and was roundly condemned for being "vulgar" because the culture (outworking of ideology) felt that sex was personal and private.  The word "obscene" means 'off-stage' or 'private.'  Today, this same video clip is used for humor to ridicule another culture.  It was not that sex was wrong, it was private and the performer was mimicking in public that which the culture held as private.  It was 'in the wrong place' but not wrong, itself.  
Not exactly Madonna's dog 


Let's say you were assigned a cold case of a murder where the subject was a young teenager when he heard his parents' anger at Elvis on The Ed Sullivan Show.  He was impacted by something you are not impacted by.  You need to enter the 'shoes' of the subject who was raised to believe that Elvis was, in deed, vulgar, though you, the reader/analyst, may not personally agree.  If you cannot 'see' what the subject 'sees', you might completely miss valuable elements.  This was the recent work done by our top analysts in a cold case murder investigation of which I expect a conviction.  

When a pregnant woman is murdered, statistics point to the husband/boyfriend/father of the child.  

To understand the language of Davey Blackburn, look at:

1.  The ideology
2.  The culture
3.  His public reaction to the ideology
4.  His public reaction to the culture 
5.  Any contempt of the ideology.  

Remember: he is a professional public speaker.  His business is that he sells an ideology and has stated his desire to see his audience grow.    

Then, take yet another look at his language:  It is intended to be understood.  When he was alone, and used the word "we", it was not a signal of psychosis, nor was it a belief that it was him and Jesus.  This is a bit of a journey, but for those who wish to learn analysis, it is indispensable.  It is why I have been prompting study of Islamic ideology, Islamic culture, and the criminal outworking of both.  It is an excellent exercise for those who wish to become analysts.  Listen to Dr. Nicolai Sennels, for example, as a criminal psychologist who treats Muslim men in Dannish prisons.  He was given an amazing education over the years as he learned that their thinking and subsequent impulse was nothing like his own nor the average European.  I disagree, personally, with some of his ideology, but respect his study.  

Those who, for example, can only project their own thought and culture, cannot work cold cases from yesteryear when culture was different from our own. (they fail for a variety of reasons not listed here but of the same theme:  projection).  The dramatic shift (rapidity) today, whether due to political influences and/or the speed of transmission of information, means we must adapt to analyze.  

You must hear Blackburn from Blackburn's own language. 

I ask readers to attempt to understand this ideology apart from any personal belief or faith.  No disrespect is intended in the language, nor in the punctuation.  It is an attempt to bring understanding and clarity to 'enter into the shoes of the subject.'  

Exercise 

I would like all readers to consider, for this analysis,  that Judaism and Christianity are utterly false superstitious stories in an attempt to explain that which cannot be explained, though every human asks the question as to "why" they are in existence.  I want them to view the ideology separate from belief, faith, loyalty, and so on.  This is an exercise for analysis and it is about moving deeply into language; language nurtured by culture, born of ideology.  It is a hypothetical exercise, similar to what we do in expectation to every statement we approach.  

 What you are being asked to do is this:

Is Davey Blackburn, husband of murder victim, Amanda Blackburn, true to the ideology he sells, or is he one who knowingly and purposefully does 'violence' to the ideology to pursue his own personal goals and agenda? 

This is not "Is Blackburn perfect?" as a question.  No human is. 
This is not "Is Blackburn correct in his understanding?" as a question. 

 The best human beings fail in all things in life.  These failures are spectacularly published when one claims to be a Christian though they are the failures that the accusers, themselves, participate in without public reproach.  

 When you meet a perfect family, you are meeting one that hides their frailties well.  When you hear of the perfect marriage, you are hearing elements of fiction.  The Bible's books that are biographical are considered unique as they never present anyone (sans Christ) in a perfect (or even good) light whereas biographies throughout history have traditionally been white washed, lest they are "tabloid tell alls" of today.  

We are in a murder case analysis. 

 It matters not if we disagree about this understanding or that understanding.  We are interested in his understanding, the subject, himself, and what he does (or does not) do with it.  I see the evidence of emotion in the comments of this case. There is deep shame, embarrassment, anger over misrepresentation, as well as the usual anger of believing this to be a miscarriage of justice. 


The Basic Ideology 

It is difficult in choosing the distinctives within this ideology, so I have chosen some basics, and, most deliberately, I have chosen some that are provocative as they are in direct opposition to what is culturally accepted today.  This is vital to our analysis:  where the ideology is in conflict with popular opinion today. 

Short Historical Sketch 

In the middle east, a man of no renown, education, money, nor place in society, stepped into the pages of history and made stupendous and exhaustively intolerant claims.  This was more than 20 centuries ago, predating modern methods of communication, including the printing press, cameras, video and the internet.  Word of mouth and carefully copied parchments alone would rehearse his biography and ideology. 

He claimed that the entire religion of the tiny nation of Israel, "Judaism" was all about him.  He claimed to be present at creation where it is written "Let us make man in our image" (Elohim, plural), in the establishment of all living things.  He claimed that each book in the collection of ancient works that had been used to construct the tiny nation's laws, were written about him and that each ceremony and even historical event, reflected, mirrored or had at its essence, him. He claimed that predictions made, over the course of centuries, in different languages and by different authors, was accurately fulfilled in him, from his birth, exact geographical location, chronology,  betrayal, trial, to the actual detailed forensics of his death, hundreds of years prior to the event.  He claimed to be the unique fulfillment of every prediction.   

To have such an impact as He has, we note his His career was very short; about 3 years.  He claimed not simply to know God, but to be God, as the unique Son, and this, his view point, was utterly intolerant. He claimed to be the exclusive avenue of access to God and that every other means was to indicate deception and fraud.  

He also made historical predictions, including the destruction of the famous temple, and the utter description of Jerusalem, 70 AD, by Titus of Rome, giving both dating and detail which, 40 years later, happened as predicted.  

He gave revolutionary ideas to the small crowds and the distinctions are well known.  Justice would be limited and mercy endorsed.  We grew up, whether we believed (faith) in this ideology or not, influenced by it.  Our nation was founded upon its influence and its influence was in all of the textbooks of the schools, as well as in the legal language of the founding (s) of the country.  Oaths of allegiance were sworn to him by those elected as rulers and even in the legal language of colony, territory and state constitutions, he was referenced. 

He taught and upheld the Old Testament (Judaism) and His explanation of its meaning, pointing to Himself as the fulfillment of all the promises, and then gave explicit instruction to 12 men to spread His message.  He predicted his trial, death and that he would live again.  

On the third day after his illegal trial and execution, eye witnesses claimed to have seen him, at different times, and by different numbers of eye witnesses.  This added a little more than a month to his overall short career.

This poor obscure blue collar man from the middle of nowhere, 20 centuries ago,  claimed to be complete "king" over every nation on earth.  His rule was also laid out:  his followers were to spread His ideology by example of doing good to others, with the consequence of rejection being eternal rejection, but not temporal, nor violent.   

The entire Western world was forged with this powerful and revolutionary ideology.  To "treat one as you want to be treated" was, in history, something that was revolutionary and in lands where it was accepted, progress was seen.   The list of "thou shalt nots" put great restraint upon mankind.  Even the "eye for a eye" was shocking, as it limited justice in a most violent and dark world.  He predicted that his followers would be hated and persecuted, which began in earnest shortly after his death and was the norm for more than 300 years where those who held to this ideology suffered horrific deaths.  Even so, the ideology grew. 

  He was obscure and his local fame, numerically small, was resented by politicians and religious leaders who felt the best way to end the revolution was to kill him.  This became the norm for society, including the powerful Roman empire who would, for hundreds of years, make those who embraced (faith, belief) the obscure man's ideology, targets for violent and cruel death.  Eventually, a merger of his ideology and Roman culture took place.  

How violent was the world outside of this ideology?

Did you see the movie, "Gladiator"?  In one seen, after a brutal battle in which the Roman legion invaded Europe for the purpose of exploitation, the lead character, a general, was asked what he wanted to do next in life.  He stated that he wanted to go home and raise crops with his wife and son, of whom he had not seen at length.  As an invader of foreign lands, he said that he had "seen the rest of the world and Rome is the light!" 

Rome had many Jewish slaves and were influenced by the ideology that came from Israel.  If you view the complex ceremonial descriptions you see the basic ingredients of soap, for example.  In the movie, we view Rome as 'horribly violent' with the multitudes enjoying violence as entertainment and the brutal chattel slavery as its norm.  Yet, this movie had much historical and linguistical accuracy.  Rome, which had brutal slavery, was not as dark as the rest of the world. The ancient world was far more violent.  As the Judeo-Christian ideology spread, things changed, but where there was little or no Judeo-Christian ideology there was almost indescribable brutality.  
The search for Dr. Livingstone

Early slave traders, fame seekers, missionaries and those who simply loved exploration, wrote first hand accounts of African villages that is close to being unreadable.  The writers were of varying motive, which makes it better for us to read, but what did they write?  What was the world outside of this ideology like?  A typical description of a village in Africa, for example, showed that slavery was the norm, with 70% of a village in slavery, and that food stores had specific meat selling, with human meat being the most expensive.  One slaver-wanna be wrote that he watched a fat girl run through a pathway where men jumped her, tore her apart, and ate her alive.  Another wrote that one wealthy owner was having friends over for a dinner and did not have enough meat.  His most loyal slave volunteered to be the host's main course, due to his 'devotion' to his master.  


They found no books, no poetry, no literature, no plays, theaters, hospitals, nor schools, and this was similar wherever in the continent they landed.  Missionaries lamented that they could not convince the native Africans "thou shalt not kill", as it seemed bizarre and silly to them.  The cruelty they exhibited one to another, especially to children, was unwatchable, but it was their norm. If a baby developed teeth in one side of her mouth before the other, she would have to brutally killed to appease the 'gods' they feared.  Although locale by locale the beliefs changed, brutality and filth, with little reverence for life, was the same.  The white man who came as a missionary was targeted by the Africans because, they learned quickly, he was destructive to the lucrative slave trade.  He was targeted by Africans, Arab slave traders, and European slave traders besides the general danger from cannibalism that was the norm in the entire continent.  Please consider the number of missionary deaths, including family, as well as their testimony of celebration over just one convert to their ideology.  This is something Christians point back to proudly, and must be compared to Blackburn's anger at his followers' failure to meet his pre-set target for numbers "even though" some people professed conversion.  This was stated in the form of minimal comparison, structurally.  It also showed what topic (failure) would produce the pronoun "I" for him.  


If European descendants wish to consider themselves superior to the Africans, one only need to consider some of the testimonies of the Roman invaders to see filth, brutality, and 'the law of the jungle', that is, the survival of the strongest, to know that my background, Irish, for example, without the influence of Judeo-Christian ideology, was as brutish as any other in Europe, which was similar to the barbaric African.  

In fact, this beginning is something we all share in common.   

As this obscure middle eastern man's ideology spread, it was accepted, in measure; (some higher measure, some lower), while some mixed with the local culture.  Improvement in life was slow, but steady, with some setbacks, errors and then recoveries.  

Yet, today, the world around us has been utterly shaped by the ideology presented, so much so, that it divided the world into 2 basic parts:  those areas that accessed his ideology and those which did not.

In general, those that had this ideology went on to create "Western civilization" with advances completely beyond any and everything else, especially at the major turning point of the Reformation, including:

Equal rights,  innovation, freedom, Shakespeare, Architecture, Music, Bach and Beethoven, justice, dignity, human rights, and led to the most bizarre human experiment ever conducted;  the founding of a new nation, of all immigrants, that would come to, in short order, be the most dominant and powerful nation in history. This was unprecedented.  America stood alone having its foundation from the flow of intelligence out of England, where the early charters of the settlements (colonies, states) professed loyalty to the single middle eastern man who lived almost 2000 years prior, and had the short, 3 year career.

It is interesting to note that innovation, itself, is prized by western civilization, while Islamic nations see the 7th century as the "golden age" and hold no noble thoughts of innovation, outside of pragmatism.  

This does not mean that everyone was Christian, nor even claimed to be,  but that the basic ideology drove the general population, while the nations and continents that did not have this ideology, did not advance, but remained well behind, impoverished, rife with criminal violence, and so on.  The "Protestant Work Ethic" became a driving force of innovation and the age of exploration was fueled not only by the desire for wealth, but under this sole man's marching orders to spread his message to the utter parts of the world.  Some went out to spread the message, while others, under the guise of spreading the message, went for wealth, no matter how gained, including theft and murder. 

In history, killers and despots have used the ideology to justify killing and abuse, but this, too, was in contradiction to the ideology.   Even the rules of engagement in war, how Prisoners of War were to be treated, and how treaties would be conducted,  were influenced by this  ideology.

It is interesting, for example, to listen to UK's comedian Pat Condell, as he decries the illogical destruction of his homeland by criminal  Islamic ideology and feminism's castrative impact.  

Listen to his reasoning on his pointed you tube videos and watch his argument develop:  

He takes Judeo Christian ideology and employee it to argue why Islam is counter productive and when his argument is complete, (and successful) he turns and condemns Judeo Christianity.  He borrows from it, has inherited a culture influenced by it, and speaks its language, while then condemning it.  Again, coming from the position of historical thought, it is fascinating, and another example of a talented performing intellectual narcissist making videos to analyze.  

The Middle Eastern Man's Morals


It can be argued as such:  if there is no god, and jesus was a liar, and all of this simple superstition, history  has never produced a more conducive ideology for prosperity, freedom, health and safety than the ideology that the obscure middle eastern man presented 20 centuries ago.   

As an atheist, who would you rather live next door to?

One who 'knows' that the only possible consequence from breaking into your house is the possibility of getting caught by police or...

The one who not only fears the same consequence of being caught by police, but has a 'superstitious' belief that in doing so, he will be punished when he dies?  

In Statement Analysis in hiring, we have a visible barrier to theft and exploitation:  video cameras, eye witnesses, forensic computer footprints, and so on.  

It is not enough.

We see those who also have the invisible barriers, such as the tender conscience, taught in childhood, that theft and exploitation are morally wrong, and have a negative internal consequence upon the employee.  

The results for businesses are amazing; not just less theft, but less unemployment, less fraudulent claims, and an increase in morale, which leads to an increase in sales.  

While young and strong, it is easy to dismiss anything about the afterlife; but not so easy when one gets older, as the philosophers lament and envy those of faith, while in advanced years, getting older, slower, with more limitations, aches, pains and ability to enjoy life; looking forward to...nothing.  This is why I wrote earlier, that the question of "why?" in life is asked by all thinking human beings.  

It is fair to say that Jesus Christ was either Who He said He was, or he is history's greatest liar and perpetrator of fraud.  Please presuppose in the analysis that the victim's husband asserts the former.  

This is an overview of the ideology publicly espoused and used in business by the victim's husband.  I wish for readers, again, to separate themselves from belief or faith and consider the business side:

The husband of murder victim, Amanda Blackburn, works full time to sell the ideology of the middle eastern man, for a living.  Like most men, he works, and wants to be successful in what he does.  This is a 'neutral' for analysis.  In analyzing employment applications, we look for employment motive:  earning money, building a resume, gaining experience, and so on, are all appropriate motives for seeking a job.  In the case of Blackburn, he has spoken extensively about this business aspect:

He has allowed us to know, in analysis, what his priority is.  This will be revisited in the actual analysis of the statements, but it is easy to assert now, to anyone who has either listened to him or read his statements, his priority is numerical success in his business.  It was in his most immediate statement made to his "fans" (his word) when Amanda was murdered, and it was not only analyzed as a priority due to order, but repetition and context.  It is an overwhelming priority, so much so, that it, alone, caught the attention of the public with such questions as, "How could he be talking about publicity for his church while his wife's killers are on the loose?" and "Why does he care about these things while his baby is murdered and...?"  and so on.  

The defense is to use the middle eastern man's ideology, is it not?  Have we not heard something along these lines?  "He is so concerned for the souls of others that he concentrates..."?  

Have we not heard dismissal where some say he is so 'delusional and lost in religion that you cannot take his words seriously'?

These are two attempts to discredit the analysis of the murder case; one from within, and the other from without, the ideology itself.  

Deception Within the Ideology

What about those who "change the rules"?

There have been murderous rulers who have committed atrocities in the name of the ideology but in doing so, they were deceptive.  They were not commanded in the ideology to steal and if you get beyond the propaganda of wars, you will find at all the non Islamic wars there was a consistency beneath motive:

Greed.

Money, land, power...Greed.

"I will have my tariffs!" from Lincoln, led to 600,000 dead.  Eventually, the argument from tariffs went to "save the union" and eventually slavery.  Lincoln's racist statements are all but forgotten in history books today, and even the Emancipation Proclamation is edited for not fitting the narrative today.  


 England had freed its slaves without the need for bloodshed.  

"We need living space!"  Hitler, though he began with a false flag bearing in Poland and had to "intervene" to "save" the innocents.  If you were a citizen of Germany in 1939, you read daily accounts that made your blood boil with anger:  innocent German citizens being attacked by criminal elements within Polish society, manipulated by Polish aristocracy, while Jews were profiting from the blood shed.  You believed main stream media and you wanted your government to intervene.  You knew nothing of Hitler's plans of theft and death.  (Another good reason to study deception detection)

Generally, but not always, the invader or aggressor, was the guilty party, and generally, too, was the quest for wealth, including power that generates wealth, or land that generates wealth.  Religion becomes the pre text and cover for greed. 

This is to go directly against all those unique "thou shalt nots" in Judeo Christian ideology.  If you live in relative peace thinking that while you are at work that your neighbors will not enter your home and steal, it is because an ideology of "thou shalt nots" became part of a culture and even if only superstition, you have benefited from it. 

If you argue that this cultural or ideological influence is in wane, you are not going to meet many who will disagree.  It is said that "Democracy only works" with people of good will.  Your neighbor may not break into your house and steal, but he might hack your computer and steal, or file a false lawsuit against you as the influence is in retreat.  Prisons filled, and once where the Protestant Work Ethic meant personal, internal responsibility, socialism and government dependency re-defines what "compassion" is, for the purpose of voting blocks.  

Judaism gave the origin of marriage, plainly, by painting a portrait of nature, with first plant life, bearing "seed after its kind", so that an orange tree reproduced an orange tree, and then on to animals, so that a horse would "bring forth after its kind", a 'baby' horse.  Then it was time for man in the creation account of this ideology, with "woman" taken from the man, with the pronunciation of what marriage is.  "Therefore a man shall leave his family and cling to his wife and they shall be one..."



Marital laws have, in following this, not only affirmed this definition but added limits (which came from the same ideology) including any union that would harm the offspring, such as siblings.  

The very word "husband" only works as it relates to one created to react to the design of the male.  In statement analysis, it is a dependent word, indicating that while used, another thought is in play.  One can "husband" only a female, with scientific reciprocal physiology; physically and emotionally, in the historical and creative definition of "marriage."  

We, today, have re-defined the word "marriage" as a cultural shift.  It puts things into perspective:

The middle eastern man's ideology affirms the definition of marriage as "one man and one woman" exclusively.  If you make public claim to represent this man's ideology (which presupposes Divine Authorship) yet are willing to publicly oppose his ideology, for the purpose of profit,  it is a form of 'deception', which is commonly called "hypocrisy", but has powerful emotional elements within it regarding truth and exploitation.  

Consider this:  someone who claims to be a "minister" (professional) of this ideology cannot say "it is divine" and then affirm a new definition of marriage, and be truthful.  If it was divine, it was perfect, is perfect, and cannot be altered.  If it was human, it could have been wrong, and the change acceptable.

This, too, begs the question, Why not embrace a different ideology that one is more comfortable with?  Why the need to do violence to this particular historic ideology and demand it yield to personal agenda?  This is a question repeated due to its importance.  What kind of personality is willing to claim divinity and then claim authority over the divine ideology?  This is not one who does not understand, or is in error to the ideology.  It must be deliberate in order to be deceptive.  

This is where 'truth seekers' end up; an almost indifferent external view that observes and questions.  The relevancy is critical in the investigation into the murder of Amanda Blackburn.  The re-definition of "marriage" is just a sample of deception by those who claim the ideology has divine inerrant origins.  It is not a disagreement of interpretation; it is to make an entirely different claim on a statement.  

My assertion here, in context, is about a specific psychological form of deception that takes a unique personality type to employ.  

II.  Ideology and Deception

It is fascinating to listen to people who want to 'own' as theirs the ideology of this obscure man from 20 centuries ago, but at their own recipe.  These are those who see the claims, know the claims, but deliberately present deception. This deception is by re-defining language, which is to pass counterfeit currency, linguistically, or by 'amputation', which is to directly contradict the claims of that man's own claims. 

Why?

Why bother?

If they do not agree with the man, why not simply adopt another ideology entirely?  

It seems genuine to say, "Christianity limits sexuality to heterosexuality; therefore, I have no need of it" than to say, 'that's not what it really teaches" or "jesus and the apostles did not have the understanding of genetic sexual attraction as we do today" which assaults his claim to be God and his word being perfection.  

Statement Analysis:  "thou shalt not lie with man as with woman..." as a prohibition that is from Judeo-Christian ideology.  A truthful one can say, "I do not agree" and be done.  A deceptive person has a need to deceive and change the intent of meaning.  This refers to a specific personality type.  

What happens when this deceptive personality type has talent?

What happens when this deceptive and talented personality type has  a single-minded obsession for something?

Most people have respect for honest disagreement. 

 I've had fascinating discussions and interviews with homosexuals who have said, "Of course I am not a Christian.  Christianity  is against my belief in my sexuality."  Yet others have said "I am a Christian.  The Bible didn't really mean that..." and retail the deceptive responses  they have heard from others.  

It is not Statement Analysis of the texts. 

This is why I often state that Statement Analysis has a "freeing" affect; we let the statement speak for itself; what is true is true; what is not true, is not.  It is as if we are outside looking in, with scientific indifference.  

Some have made the latter claim due to ignorance of the ideology.  
Others have made the claim while knowing the ideology.  This brings us closer to what it is we need to find out.  

Honest Debate Versus Willful Destruction 

There are lots of issues that faith debates over, but issues that are debated are done so to learn.  When one takes a plain, "thou shalt not" and say, "no, that is wrong, it should say, thou shalt!" while claiming to hold to the ideology do so as one who deceives.  He may deceive himself, or he may put himself in a public position (such as in a business to sell this ideology) and knowingly state:

1.  The Bible is Divine
2.  The Bible is Wrong
3.  Please come to my business establishment where I share this ideology 
4.  I am superior to Divinity

In other words, they know what ideology A teaches, but instead of simply disagreeing with it, and moving on to ideology B, or C, they demand ideology A bend to their own beliefs or bias. 

This is where the personality must be in view of the one who takes upon himself (or herself) the public bearer of the ideology of the man from the middle east 2000 years ago.  

This is why it is important to highlight topics of disagreement in this pre-analysis study.    

Another example.  The ideology and women 'business owners' of the ideology:

1.  The ideology claims to be divine; therefore inerrant. It cannot be wrong and it cannot be changed by time, culture, or any outside influence.  Truth remains what it is.  
2.  The middle east man behind it chose 12 men to carry his ideology to the world.  They, in turn, kept the leadership restricted to men.  
3.  The ideology forbids woman to be pastors.  
4.  The ideology reported why this prohibition existed.  
5.  The ideology said that the prohibition was not due to culture. 

Therefore, if I am a woman and I want to be a public representative of this ideology, I am faced with some choices. 

I can, of course, be honest and say that I will find a different ideology to cling to.  I disagree with this middle eastern man's ideology, though it has many fine points, because it excludes me.  I will find something else to sell...or

a.  Ignore the ideology as temporary solution until challenged;
b.  Oppose the ideology by various arguments including-the ideology is wrong, which then leads to, the "what if?" problem.  

One cannot claim divinity and error and be truthful.   

This then leads to the genuine question that says, "Why not find a different ideology to follow?"  

Instead, we find people willing to publicly demand the ideology change to fit their own personal bias. This is heightened if the person wishes to publicly 'sell' the ideology as a business.  The business owner wants to make money off of the ideology which he states is of divine origin, yet:  

 'The ideology, which claims to be divine,  will bend to my will.

This takes a very specific personality type.  It is not the personal or private opinion that I address, but one who is making a public declaration against the ideology while making a public declaration to represent the ideology. 

This next part is a bit difficult to explain, but I attempt to do so in order to allow you, regardless of your own position in any of these matters, to enter into the shoes of the subject, who is a public figure, publicly stating to be a true representative of the middle eastern man's ideology.  

This person is deceptive.  It goes beyond what most people understand psychologically:

'This book is the Word of God; It cannot be wrong.  
I know it says, "this", but I still choose "that" personally.  
I do this because, in essence, I am smarter than God."

Any claim to state the Bible is the inerrant Word of God but then changes it to fit one's own bias or agenda, is to show a personality that is not only unafraid of lying, but he (or she) unafraid of lying publicly, and even unafraid of divine retribution.  Take this a quantum leap further and place the person as one who, publicly and professionally (for money) asserts the ideology in his 'business' or church setting.  

Even if you believe it is all fairy tales from thousands of years ago, you should be able to see the inconsistency in those willing to change the message in order to be popular or successful.  Yet, can you see, from their own perspective, that they see themselves as superior to the god they claim to bow to?

For some, it is to claim the Bible to be God's Word, but it is "wrong" in limiting marriage to one man and one woman. 

Truth is not changed by time.  If something is true, it was true yesterday, and it will be true tomorrow.  Consider that a minister studies philosophy, so these are not new assertions to them.  

The ideology instructed him to teach the message.  When someone claims the message to be authentically Divine, it is submitted to.  

For another, it is to claim that the message is divine (note the capitalization change to reflect the internal)  needs to be altered to fit the person's own agenda.  

If the person adheres to the ideology being perfect, that is, 'complete' because it is divine, does not the person set himself up to be above the divine author?

Does this person now place himself as judge over the divinity?

It is easy to ask, 'Why not just embrace a different ideology altogether?  Why not start her own?' because this would be genuine and being genuine, or true to one's own self, is something humans respect.  

I do not speak to those in ignorance, nor those who have honest disagreements one with another:  I want readers to see that there are those who know what it teaches, but are of a personality that demands the ideology change to fit his or her own opinion rather than adopting a different ideology.  

They demand, for example, that 4,000 years of ideology change, instead of simply saying, "I am not a believer in Judaism or Christianity. I believe..."  

These are people who deliberately "lie" about the ideology are revealing a personality type that is very important to get to know:  profiling.

If the ideology says "thou shalt not lie with man as with woman" you can either:

1. Accept it
2.  Linguistic gymnastics
3.  Ignore it
4.  Truthfully, condemn it and adopt a different ideology in a "live and let live" philosophy.  

To be "truthful" would be to say, "Hey, I don't buy this.  Therefore, I am not going to cling to this ideology started by a man from the middle east 2000 years  ago.  Instead, I will find something else more suited to what I like regarding a man having sex with a man."

This is truthful.

You may or may not like it, but it is authentic. 

 If Jesus claimed to be God, and God, by definition, cannot change nor be wrong, why not bail out instead of claiming to believe Jesus is God, but Jesus is also wrong?  

*It takes a very specific element within a personality to place himself or herself above that which they consider divinity.  

The answer is not singular, but I implore readers to consider one particular element.  I recognize the hatred and the antagonism but in context, consider that those who alter the message may do so to personally profit from the ideology.  

Readers come here for truth.  They are, more than in other places, perhaps, open for the truth to be told than the general public.  They want to hear what analysis shows.     

"Hey, I'd like to have 3, maybe even 4 wives.  I see that the precept in Creation says, "nope" to my idea, so I am going to adopt a different ideology so that I can practice polygamy. " 

You may not like this person, but he is, in the least, being truthful.  It is completely different from the person who says "I want multiple wives and the Bible teaches it."  If (and the word "if" is critical) the subject knows the Bible both condemns polygamy while historically reporting it historically, he is deliberately twisting historical recognition to justify his own desire.    

Over the years, I have had gay friends who have been open about this and I respect them for it.  "I'm not interested in assaulting the beliefs of others; it is not for me."  

"Why would anyone join a religion with so many restrictions, anyway?"  This is a good question and an honest question.  It is asked in sincerity.  

It is not, however, the question for this analysis.  It is sometimes helpful to see the shadow before we see the original.  

It is most fascinating to see people who rush to an ideology that condemns them, demanding that the ideology bend to them, rather than they find something else to hold to.  We see this in the news almost daily today, as it has become increasingly popular to hold people in faith in contempt and to call their sacred beliefs 'phobias' and 'immoral hatred' not while walking away from the ideology:  but while walking into the ideology, with demands in hand.  

There is something within the personality that lies in this manner.

If it says "thou shalt not", why not just be honest and start a new religion or ideology?  Why the need to input oneself into something that disagrees?

Since this question has been posed several times for impact, it is now time to ask:

"What kind of personality walks into an ideology demanding it bend to fit one's emotions?"

Now we are moving closer to the object, away from the shadow.  

We must consider it from a professional point of view.  

There are a lot of reasons for this, but it is important to note those who are, publicly, willing to deceive even their own profession, for personal gain.  This is what it comes down to:  altering the message to propagate myself.  

On the obvious level:  It takes a very selfish person to do this, yes, but there is still more. 

It takes a very selfish, and talented person, to do this and do it successfully.  

Over the years, most, though not all, of the "televangelists" have done this very thing.  They have a powerful desire for money, and fame makes money.  Those who hold to the ancient ideology as "faith" or "belief", cringe. 

Why?

Most of what is offered is accurate.  

It is the drive for money, one way or another, that causes them to 'alter' the message even if it means creating an imbalance in the message.  

Let's call these who change or alter the message knowingly to be "pragmatic" for the backdrop of this understanding. 

These are individuals who use this man's ancient ideology for personal gain.   They know that it is easier to get the masses to brace a bumper sticker slogan than complicated truth.  They will say and do pragmatically whatever it takes to gain what they seek.  This is almost always money, and when it appears to be fame or power, remember that these are steps towards wealth.  

In the 1970's, there was an attempt to bring the "hippies" to Christianity.  

What would be presented to them?

Consider the choice faced.

Person A says "I will deliver the same message as always, "Repent and live" and call them to live a life forgiven and now intent on keeping the "thou shalt nots", while "loving thy neighbor" and working hard to provide for self.  As society has gotten more and more wealthy, this message has lost some of its popularity.  

Person B says, "If I deliver the same message, few are going to come.  Therefore, I will just present one particular side of the message and once they are in, then I will tell them the other side.  So for now, I will tell them, "Be forgiven" but I won't tell them those "thou shalt nots" which turn them off. They want to do their own thing.   I will tell them to "love their neighbor" but the word "love" needs a bit of tweaking."

Person C  has been watching the others and he says, 

"I see Person A has 10 people and is impoverished.  I see Person B has 100 people and he is feeding his kids.  I'd sure like to surpass him and get 200 people, so I will further "tweak" the meaning of "loving thy neighbor" and this 'jesus' that John the Baptist said would judge...he's got to go.  The guy who went violent in cleansing out the temple...I will emasculate and instead, he is going to have long hair, because my hippie audience does this, and..."

The message of "repent" gave way to new "prosperity" messages and so humorous songs like The Rolling Stones' "Girl With Far Away Eyes" has a comical, but accurate look at the silly message that says if you send money to the evangelist, you're going to find wealth. The key is it is deliberate.  

This ideology progressed in affluent America and with each wave of "political correctness", many willingly changed the teaching of the man's ideology and did so in a rush of competition. 

When the person knows that what he or she is saying is in contradiction to the ideology but do it anyway, the person is  lying and is doing so for profit margin.  

Remember, lie detection has to do with intent.  Simply repeating what one believes is not to lie, even when the information is incorrect. 

When an English Iman said, "Islam is not consistent with democracy" he was countered by non Muslim English politicians who said, "that's not true."  

The Iman told the truth.  Love him or hate him, he was truthful, in a stark moment where he embarrassed the "multi cultural" politicians but he told the truth.  He actually showed the influence of the UK's culture upon him.  He was 'goaded' into the truth, instead of the cultural 'tacquia' that honors deception.  

Baptist and Presbyterians have disagreements on baptism.  These are genuine disagreements, but what of the personality who says,

"I know baptism, by either means, is in the Bible, but today, people hate the water thing, so I am going to change it and say, "there is no such teaching of baptism today.  This was culturally due to...you know, how people in those days rode on smelly camels and they got camel poop on their, well on their heads if they were short, and in those days, everyone was short, so baptism was just needed to wash off the camel poop.  Uh, check history.  It's all there.  In fact, in the original Greek, there were some words found in ancient philosophers that held to camel poop as sacred and it really caused disease so the church invented this baptism as a way of washing off the poop!"

Bingo.  

The more intellectually clever the deceptive one is, the more he can explain off anything that might hinder his goal of fame and fortune.  Here we come to the personality of pragmatic success, even while claiming the ideology to be of divine, unalterable character.  

In understanding this murder case, you must see how powerful this pragmatism really is, no matter your opinion of Judaism or Christianity.  

Many (not all) murderers feel a need to put their victim on trial, which both condemns the victim but it also justifies the action.  This is crucial in analyzing a statement.  It is found to slip into statements where accidental death is claimed.

"The baby wouldn't finish her dinner."  

Now, she is dead, claimed as an accidental death. 

 In the Blackburn case, we had one who:

has embarrassed those who want justice for this case, with his change of Christianity, an ideology many  hold sacred. 

People have become obsessed with Amanda Blackburn's murder, which some interest can be explained in the obvious circumstances but there are other elements:

a.  Blackburn's seeking of attention.  This almost always triggers anger. No one likes being 'played the fool' with liars.  Recall how anger brewed at Falcon Lake 'widow' who emerged from Falcon Lake, Texas, sans husband, with an outrageous theft of the modern "Titanic" hollywood version.  She could barely contain her zeal, going from network to network, while the public insisted that she be polygraphed.  She never was and even made it as far as the Governor's front steps.  Attention seekers hold their audience in contempt, even if they are only appearing in an attempt to control information as was the case of Billie Jean Dunn, in the murder of her daughter, Hailey Dunn. 

b.  Blackburn's crass commercializing of her death. 

This is key to understanding, not only who he is, but who we are.  This irritated people and for some, gave them more resolution to learn the truth in this case.  

In doing so, people of positions of justice-mindedness were (and are) enraged that he would take her death and use it for fame and subsequent fortune.  

c.  The circumstances, including:

1.  Complaining about her publicly.  
2.  Telling the public how his business would be better without her
3.  Making distancing and deceptive statements 
4. Circumstantial Evidence including the conclusion of "no one can be this lucky!" from many seasoned investigators.  The 'odds' of all of the factors coming together on the very day he did not lock the door and stayed on the phone, days after waving around a gun...
5. Flamboyancy as an irritant to audience seeking truth. 

6.  Faith

Some are likely obsessed with this case for all of the above, but have an additional emotional component:  anger at one who holds their faith in contempt for the purpose of exploitation.  In this sense, it is rather personal and it is reflected in the length of comments about this murder case.  

Everything he says, does, and even in appearance, is not only flamboyant, but is designed to entertain, entice, convince and bring fame and fortune that numbers bring. 

He is, at the core of his being, one obsessed with success and his chosen area for this end is the ideology of a middle eastern man from more than 20 centuries ago.  

I suggest to you that Christianity, as an ideology, presents the perfect platform for exploitation by Blackburn, and all others like him, who know plainly, that they are presenting only portions of truth, changing other portions, and deliberately presenting to people a specific personal version of truth, pragmatically designed, to make him famous and wealthy. 

This is all "justified" by the religious veneer.  

Years ago there was a 'televangelist' who said 'God' told him people's woes and he would wow the crowd by revealing,

"Your aunt Polly is sick with cancer.  She will be healed!" to the amazement of the subject and audience. 

Later, it was found that he had a small blue-tooth pre-blue tooth like device in his ear and was exposed as a fraud.  

He lost it all.

How gullible and vulnerable are Americans?  He made it all the way back to TV.  This does not affirm nor deny the ideology, but it does affirm the thief.  

It is this justification that I hope readers will bear with this lengthy article and give consideration to, as I move from backdrop of ideology, to analysis. 

My assertion is that these exploiters know and deliberately alter the message, present an imbalanced message, and withhold truth for the pragmatic purpose of personal gain, no matter what they feel needs to be changed.  For some, it is mild changes, while for others, it is wholesale changes, but the common denominator is deception; that is, the willful knowing that what he (or she) is doing is contrary to the middle eastern man's ideology that is claimed to be perfection.  

Next, consider the personality type who knows, lies, and goes public with it.  Again, this is not one who is in error, but sincere; it is one who knows precisely what he is doing and does it, anyway. 

How much talent does this deceiver have?

What of his presentation's design?

What does his language reveal as his priority?  

For those who hold to this ideology in sincerity, differences are presupposed and accepted among people of good will; while recognizing how many are motivated by personal gain.  

It is within the personality of one bold enough to:

1.  Learn the Ideology
2.  Deliberately twist, pervert, change,  imbalance, manipulate the ideology for personal gain. 
3.  Have the nerve to go 'public' on a large scale, including fearlessness in the face of scrutiny
4.  Remove any hinderance to this 'mission' for success. 
5.  Resolve:  under the public scrutiny, the personality digs his heels in, no different than the liar who backs up his lie with yet another lie, rather than own the truth and admit fault.  

I warn employers incessantly that liars will always put themselves before the material needs of their companies, as well as their employees and customers.  Liars destroy.  It is what they do.  If one is a habitual liar, one has a trail of broken lives, broken promises, and losses for as long as they have practiced their deception.  

From "King" to "weepie, effeminate affirming therapist" 

When the 70's turned into the 80's and 90's, there was a disappearance of "Christ the King" and His rule over the nations, demanding repentance and obedience from them as His subjects, as He claimed the crown rights  both for Himself, and from the Old Testament scriptures, while there was an appearance of a new 'jesus', who is not king, but weak, weeping, beggarly, just asking people to 'accept' him, and have some form of "personal relationship", as if they were having coffee together while seated in a sunny porch on a lazy day. This new 'jesus' existed to 'meet your needs'...what needs?  "All" your needs.  It is easy to do this by destroying context, and history.  Blackburn is not the first, and he won't be the last to use pragmatism to promote his business venture.  He is, however, very talented in what he does.  

It takes a certain personality to first know the truth, and then to pervert it to fit a particular aim, but it takes someone with a deeper commitment to self to take the ideology, bear it in contempt, and then go "public" with it for personal gain. 

Blackburn Videos 

This 'personal relationship' is presented in a sexualized manner, including tight pants, pop haircuts, and an overall "front and center" narcissism of a showman. It includes the open indictment of the victim, Amanda, to 'make a point' which statement analysis shows: 

the need to persuade his audience that he has a powerful heterosexual drive for sex.  

Audience Expectation 

They produce studies and expensive workshops on how to grow their "business", with "example models" and "the latest techniques" on how to "grow your church", with the chief end being numerical success.  

They are taught in seminars how to use the "bumper sticker" education so popular in the United States today where catch phrases supplant the hard work of education.  This, too, is not new or unique to "the best is yet to come" we heard after the murder.  

Remember the bracelets, "WWJD"?  This stood for "what would Jesus do?" for teens who were at R rated movies.  The inherent issue of this bracelet is that it is speculative and it encourages one not to study and learn.  Instead of taking the time (and effort) to learn what Jesus did, and what He taught, and what His disciples taught, one could simply speculate.  For some, "jesus" would steal, assault and even murder. This appeals to the lazy minded audience who craves entertainment over instruction.

 Recall the sad account from the attorney who's client was being sentenced for armed burglary and assault listening to the client's mother and aunts "claiming in jesus' name!" that the guilty violent young man would "have the victory", which meant:  he would get away with his crime.  The attorney lamented that there was no prayer for the young woman he beat up, nor for victims in general.  For them, this 'jesus' existed to bypass justice and help criminals remain as criminals and not learn from mistakes.  

Without getting into what specifics Blackburn twists to further his cause, one can simply choose any video of his and instead of studying it, one can simply listen for a few minutes.  There will be no argument.  Better still?  Look at several videos, just a few seconds of each, to get an even wider portrait.  If you can listen, go to those with Amanda, or about marriage and note how often he talks about himself and his sexuality.  How many times must he tell you that he is heterosexual before you ask, "Why the need to persuade?"  

His presentation of an ideology, precious and sacred to some, is an affront.  

This bothers people, all by itself, but to have video where he insults his victim, complains about his victim, and finally, waves a gun around, compounds with the inherent insult of public lies, to cause a powerful reaction within people; especially people who love the very words he twists or uses for exploitation.   The murder case, itself, fascinates, but to give an in-depth analysis means to understand the ideology, and the 'violence' done deliberately to the ideology, as it reveals the personality. 

Liars are destructive.  This means that they destroy. It is what they do.  "When push comes to shove..." always happens in life:  push will come to shove and when it does, expect the liar to fulfill his pattern in life:  he will protect himself with lies, even if it destroys others.  He will also lie so that it destroys others.  Get him some success and he will lie some more, but get him a lot more success in his ambitions and watch his ambitions grow to levels of ruthlessness.  

Ruthlessness?  Talk to those who have dared to disagree with Blackburn's mentor, the one who described Blackburn as sexy at Amanda's funeral.  

Honest people lie

When they lie, they hurt, they repair the damage but most impressively, they learn from their mistakes.  When they hear a sermon, for example, about theft, they do not say, "I am glad I am not a thief", instead, they look within and say, "I told the ticket puncher that my daughter was 12 when she was 13.  I stole" and seek to amend this, while learning from it.  The 'shaming' of thievery, therefore, is something they found inspiring and helpful because they seem themselves as personally responsible and with the ability to change.  Those that seek to blame others, blame society, blame external forces, cannot make such amendments.  

These hear Blackburn's messages, or worse, watch his carefully choreographed video appearances, and they react with such words as "nauseating", "infuriating" and it fills them with a desire to see justice for Amanda, even though there are thousands of victims of murder that have not received justice.  

They are particularly upset because he has deliberately invaded an ideology they hold sacred, for his own gain and state that the message he gives uses similar language from their ideology, but is very different.  

My assertion is this:

The spouse of Amanda Blackburn has spoken a great deal.  What he has spoken about the murder indicates deception.  Some of the deception appears to be, in context, about sexuality.  When this is coupled with his videotapes messages about his own sexuality, with its specific choreography and costumes, it further asserts deception about his much affirmed heterosexuality.  

But that is not all.  

He is one who is not afraid to deliberately tailor the ideology precious to many to fit his own agenda, nor is he afraid to talk about his agenda; he does it boldly.  His wife had not yet been buried and he was already publicly celebrating an early success in his agenda of numerical success.    

He is more honest and upfront about his "numbers" agenda than he is about his sexuality, and about what happened to Amanda, even though he talked a great deal about his own sexuality, on video.  

To understand his language, and how he puts everything in the context of this ideology, you must first understand the ideology and then understand the personality type that is dishonest enough to alter the ideology to fit popularity and success.  Then, you must see and estimate the measure of his intellect, along with his boldness in the face of scrutiny.  These are all elements of personality emerging.  

Take that another step up and see the boldness of one who not only isn't afraid of television and exposure, but seeks it.  

Take that yet further:  he can read analysis and still be unafraid to attempt to explain away that which is consistent with both guilt and deception.

Let's say that you were in a very unhappy marriage, even to the point where you considered lucky, blessed or fortunate to be freed, even in horrible circumstances, from this marriage. 

Would you use such distancing language?

I affirm that you would not.  In fact, you would feel guilt over having wanting a divorce.  This is called "survivor's guilt" by some in psychology.  "Why Amanda?"  

If your wife, even if you wanted with all your heart and even your sexuality, wanted out of this marriage, was brutally murdered and the killers running free, 

would you express no concern for your son, or your own life?

This article is written, in part, for those who foolishly dismiss human nature and say, "Davey was fearless because he trusted God" and "Davey did not mourn because he knew he would be with her again", and finally, "Davey's use of "we" is because he sees himself and Jesus as one."

He does not. 

I assert that he sees himself as superior to Christ.  I assert that he sees himself superior to the Apostles and to the message they carried.  I assert that he feels the need to 'coach', and 'guide' and give a 'new presentation' to the ideology that he claims and believes to be divine and perfect. 

He sets himself up above perfection.  

This is a form of narcissism that is combined with a well above average intellect and a talent for deception, manipulation and persuasion.  This is wrapped up within a desperation for relevancy that drives him to success.  When he said that he would have been content with x number of congregants, this statement was, in the context of Christianity's ideology, an unnecessary statement.  It is why we have "Negation" in Statement Analysis, and why that which is in the negative is elevated in importance of that which is in the positive.  

He portrayed this number in the context of 'humbly accepting less', which is distinctly negative, and he did so in the wake of his wife's murder.  


The more one speaks, the more we know. 

If he knew his own ideology he would know that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

So from this abundance, I can simply count words. 

How many times did he use Amanda's name?

I can do the same thing at the Amanda memorial service.  

What did his mentor talk about?

The resurrection from the dead, as the ideology teaches, based upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Question:  How many times did you hear the word "resurrection" used from one who is ordained as a minster of this ideology?  If you are familiar with the ideology, the resurrection from the dead is "front and center" not only ideologically, but at every funeral and memorial service where the subject represents the ideology.  

How many words did he dedicate to tell us about the victim's husband's physical appearance?

He told us that something "wasn't right" about Blackburn and that the "fix" or "repair" would be a woman; Amanda.  

My assertion is that this ideology, from an Israeli man of obscurity, more than 20 centuries ago, is used for personal gain; not as so much a primary motive, but also from a pragmatic viewpoint:  to change whatever portion of the ideology that might hinder the goal. 

Where the ideology teaches that there is joy in Heaven over one sinner repenting, we saw and heard the strong introduction of the pronoun "I" from Blackburn, berating his followers so that they would not celebrate any turning from sin to Christ, but because they failed to reach his expectation of numbers; a mandate he set, himself.  

He is unafraid to challenge and change anything in order to accomplish his goal. 

He told us that Amanda and her pregnancy hindered him from his goals just a few short years ago and from there, he went on to complain about his wife not fulfilling his heterosexual sex drive. How obsessed did he present himself?

He claimed that he could not "concentrate" on a dinner date with Amanda, lest he had sexual intercourse first.  

This he gave to an audience of young people, including females, who could watch him strut back and forth, allowing their imaginations get ahead of them:  perhaps they could satisfy him since she can't.  Couple this with his complaints about her and you get the picture:

Focus upon him.  Focus upon his sexuality.  Him:  good.  Amanda: bad. 

We listen very carefully for one to justify his own actions.  See the short article on this where murderers sometimes play the role of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, of their victims, verbally. 

Step back from this and place it all within the contextual language of the ideology of Judeo Christianity.  Christianity actually gives him justification of his complaints. 

What did he complain about her?

Was it about her ears?  Her family?  Her money?

Think of how he took complaints and indictments against her back to his twisted view of the ideology.  

If one can, whether or not belief in Christianity is held, see the ideology, his alterations of the ideology and his use of it in his narrative, you can begin to understand the language and the analysis.  

It is convenient, in hindsight, to say "we" is "me and jesus" yet Pronouns are intuitive and are used...

after making such a claim.  When he returned, 6 months from the murder, the same pronoun pattern appeared, including distancing language and the dropped pronoun. 

This is a talented, well above average intellect, and showman who has placed himself, naked, in the location of needing to be washed, with Divinity, Himself, having taken "instructions" from the Creator, to go out and receive his fame. 

He is not delusional.  "Crazy Davey", as his mentor called him, does have something "wrong" and that is "very wrong" with him, and it is something that his mentor said would be fixed by a "woman." He knows what he is saying, and he is consistent in both his priority and in his guilty use of pronouns. 

This message, given 'off the cuff', that is, from the Free Editing Process, was a brilliant form of manipulation that included 'preparing the soil' for the message, taking authority over his father in law, his father-in-law's work, the entire congregation, and then to take his wife's murder to boldly give himself a status that demands either submission with all reverence, or... scorn.  

Whether you or I believe him, his message, or in Judaism or Christianity, is not relevant here. 

It is what he believes. 

It is within his assertion.  

Those more familiar with the ideology can have a better understanding and insight into the spouse of murder victim, Amanda Blackburn, when he speaks.  

It comes down to this:  

Is he true to the ideology?

or, 

Does he affirm the ideology to be perfectly divine, only to set himself up, slightly above it, for the purpose of achieving his personal agenda of success?

How far will he go while driven for success.  

He told us.

Amanda died so the church would live.  

Consider this, aside from blasphemy.  

Consider that this was the claim of Jesus Christ.  Years later, Paul pointed to science. 

A tiny seed must be given a burial and from this burial in the ground new life would come, highlighting that humans, too, with all life, experience life from death, in the resurrection.  The little tomato seed is buried in the dirt as to 'die' symbolically, with 4 months later, a 5 or 6' plant yields much fruit.  

Amanda died for the church, he claimed.  

She was not dead but a few days and he already was counting the 'tomato' production, to the point of giving an actual number of people who tuned in to the memorial via the internet. 

Do you see what he is doing?

This is a form of justification of her death.  It uses specific language from an ideology of which he sets himself up as "over" it, or superior to it; in need of his theatrics, as well as his picking and choosing which to emphasize and which to withhold.  

Distinctly within this narcissistic like personality trait is a belief that he is superior to the god he claims to represent.  He takes the ideology for business success reasons, and alters it to fit his compulsion and drive for the fame and fortune of numerical success. 

Whether this is done in theatrics of presentation, or by imbalance, it is clear that the analysis of his priority is correct.  When facing the greatest tragedy a man can face:  losing his own "person"; that is, one half of the "full person" that Creationism teaches, his response was to happily report the numbers coming in.  "Jesus" is just a buzzword to cover this insatiable drive for fame.  "Jesus" bears no resemblance, linguistically, to the middle eastern historical figure.  

There are those who alter the ideology to fit their agenda, revealing an element of narcissistic thinking within themselves, demanding that the ideology be accepted as Divine, while demanding it bend to their will.  This, alone, helps us understand their motive.  

Yet when the need to assert both elements couples with the single minded purpose of drive for fortune as well as the talent of public speaking and the flair of theatrics, it reveals a personality that says:

Nothing will stand in my way for greed.  Nothing.  

This is why we saw no grieving but an almost inability to conceal his giddiness at the free publicity he received and why he was able to say that the murder victim died for this success.  

Fear of the unknown killers?
Fear that they would return to silence him and kill his son?
Bereft of his "better half"?  

No, she was the albatross slowing him down, along with a pregnancy, from his very publicly stated goals.  The memorial was, in deed, celebratory, with the reason for celebration claimed to be a resurrection that was not even mentioned. 

Our words give us away.  

The reason men die throughout history is from greed.  It is the source of wars and it is the source of murders.  True, they hide behind religion to masquerade their greed, or, as in the case of criminal Islamic ideology, violence is prescribed, but to what end?  To the end of taking what others have, including their land, their homes, their wives and their possessions.

Greed. 

Greed kills.  

It is not that money is the root of all evil; it is the love of money that is not all evil, but its root cause. 

Power is intoxicating and it, as fame, brings great wealth. 

Some wars are necessary to stop the greed of others and are fought defensively or to free those taken away by greed.  The number one cause for the American War for Independence was "duty."  Men believed it was their "duty" from this specific ideology, to provide for their families and that when the king of England did not stop the tyranny of a parliament that held no legal representation of the colonies, the decision to fight was that the oppressive taxes caused men to be incapable of providing for their families.  It was the call of duty to resist greed and the tyranny that facilitates greed. 

Greed drives men to insanity, or in the least, to illogical and even murderous decisions,  

 One can claim that good things come from tragedy and this is precisely the teaching of the ideology, yet, there is no suspension of human nature.  This does not explain away the incessant complaints against his wife, or how she held back the growth of his business.  This does not justify the extreme nature of distancing language.  This does not clarify the childlike guilt found within the plural use of "we", when he was alone.  This does not explain any of it. 

For some, he is hiding his sexuality behind the magnificent heterosexual sex drive his wife could not satisfy and is crassly cashing in on her death of which he was just incredibly lucky.  

For others, the language of guilt far exceeds any guilt felt from commercializing her death.  

My conclusion of his language in this ideological setting is this:

The husband of murder victim Amanda Blackburn has revealed, linguistically, a personality that is so narcissistic in scope, that he demands that his audience accept that the ideology he sells is both divine in nature, and that he thus reveals that he, himself, is a counselor and advisor to divinity, and the purpose of such is to advance his ambitious agenda of greed.  

When he claimed that he was personally spoken to by divinity, standing naked in his shower, he deceived his audience, deliberately, to propagate an authority that leads to numerical success.  When he said he received the news that he would be part of a history making event, he was not simply showing his narcissism, but he was deceptive.  

The coincidental nature of the murder is next examined in light of the statements he has publicly made.  






2,877 comments:

1 – 200 of 2877   Newer›   Newest»
Peter Hyatt said...

If one argues over the ideology due to personal belief, you will miss the entire point of the article:

It is not your belief, nor my belief that matters. Here is what matters:

The subject claims divine origin but is unafraid to assert himself above divinity in order to facilitate his agenda.

This is a personalty trait critical to understanding the murder case.

Peter

rjb said...

Hooray! I have been eagerly anticipating this post. Now to read it. Thank you for delving into this, Peter.

Leslie said...

Thank you, Peter, for this thorough post that helps instruct some of us that are new to SA.

Imagrandma said...

Thank you
I can't wait
To read this with
My morning tea

We certainly will
Not give up
On this case

I hope Me2l
Stays off this thread

Bobcat said...

Thank you Peter for this informative read. I very much appreciate this line:

"When you meet a perfect family, you are meeting one that hides their frailties well."

Jen said...

Here's something I wondered while reading. If, in fact, his ideology is (based on)Christianity, then why didn't he say that the 3 men that killed her were evil? That satan had overrrided their soul? In my experience as a Christian, satan's influence is what causes people to do bad things. People have a choice. Follow God's teachings or follow satan. Would saying that the men were evil not have led to more numbers? Amanda's life was taken by God so the church would grow? She was violently attacked and shot 3 times,had a tooth knocked out, all while pregnant, leaving her very precious young son motherless, and this was the work of God? No, um no, he'll no!!

Another thought: the question of why? Why are we here? In a very broad nutshell, to love one another and choose God. This is from MY ideology. MY upbringing. I am in no position to argue about religion.
What is the point of Islam? What is their answer to Why? Seems all rape, pillage, plunder, greed and deception.

Davey will be found responsible. Just wish the 911 call would be released.

Jen said...

What is the overriding purpose of Islam. That is the second
No part of my comment, not to argue Christianity.

Jen said...

The second part

Peter Hyatt said...

I point out Pat Condel's inconsistency in thought because it is interesting for those of us that are truth seekers. Having said that, I enjoy his videos and his latest may be the most emotional, regarding free speech.

It's at you tube and he decries that no matter how many flags are burned, no matter how many embassies are attacked, and so on, we are not going to respect the beliefs that are imposed upon us and that free speech will prevail, so "suck it up."

It was pointed.

AP said...

In certain "movements" (for lack of a better word) of Christianity- the leaders and members of the church all "hear" from God on a somewhat regular basis. Conversations are peppered with "God said" this and "God said" that. They are not quoting Scripture, they are telling of what God spoke to them individually. I have heard testimony of God speaking to people about vocational choices, telling people who they would marry, what to name their children, the list goes on and on. I do not believe these people intend to twist the truth around, but if you listen for long enough, it becomes clear that God is always speaking to them an affirmation of what they already want. I don't think most of these people mean to be manipulative. But it does wield a lot of power in that particular church environment. Is it possible to do this unwittingly? Even for Davey? Has he just been around it for so long that he cannot help but get caught up in it?

HISG said...

I haven't had a chance to read this yet bc I am at work, and I can't wait to get freed up to read it, but I was thinking about the discussion on the other Davey Blackburn thread:

I was thinking about how Kenneth WAgner says the texts "began to flood", the "emails began to flood" after he was initially told while he was "sitting at lunch" that Amanda had been killed, and when all the messages began to flood in "then he knew it was true".

My question is this: Why did Kenneth Wagner passively wait for the texts and emails to "flood in" (these were all texts/emails telling him Amanda had died). Since he was so close to the couple, why wouldn't he have made some phone calls once he was told the news...I would think anyone would immediately be on the phone calling someone to seek more information, or at the very least, to need to share this news with someone.

Instead he continued eating his lunch and passively waited for many texts and emails regarding Amanda having died to "flood in".

I also wonder if Peter would think that his use of the phrase "flood in" twice could refer to water. I think it is an odd expression to use. I wonder if it could indicate some type of sexual abuse even going on in the church. But of course, also, Amanda was found half naked at the murder scene so evidently someone did that to her.

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Facebook Panic Follows Kroger Kidnap Claim

A woman's claim that she and her daughter were targeted by kidnappers at Kroger was swiftly debunked, but not before it led to local alarm.


http://www.snopes.com/2016/05/19/kroger-kidnap-attempt-claims/

Lis said...

Wow, I learned a lot from this article. There is much here that I will be thinking on.

One can claim that good things come from tragedy and this is precisely the teaching of the ideology, yet, there is no suspension of human nature.

Exactly. The promise that God will bring good to those who trust in him in the end is meant to comfort us in our painful humanity, it is not a means to remove our humanity and supersede it with something altogether unfeeling.

I feel that some examples from the Bible are not black and white (i.e., the exact role of women in the church) and sincere believers can disagree to some extent on them. Davey Blackburn, however, goes far beyond the sincere disagreements of those who search the scriptures for answers. He displays no reverence for the Christ he claims to believe in. He knows the lingo well enough to use it for his own purposes.

Unfortunately, there are many Davey Blackburns out there. I don't know of another who has gone to this extent of wife abuse (although Nicholas Hacheney comes to mind) but many use the language of the Bible to pursue their own gain, twisting it to support whatever it is they crave.

"men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain." 1Tim 6:5

Lis said...

AP said "if you listen for long enough, it becomes clear that God is always speaking to them an affirmation of what they already want. I don't think most of these people mean to be manipulative. But it does wield a lot of power in that particular church environment. Is it possible to do this unwittingly?"

AP, The times I have been in groups where believers were pressured to "hear from God" or speak in tongues, sincere and truthful believers have said silently waiting and finally concluded it was not going to happen. I do think some people can be manipulated by their emotions and convince themselves that the voices in their heads are "God" speaking. My experience is that these people often become inured to reason and the scriptures and "tossed to and fro by every wave" that pops into their minds.

Peter Hyatt said...

Lis,

I agree with those who are deceived. This is not Blackburn. Everything he says is directed for one purpose: his fame.

Like John Lennon singing "Imagine no possessions", while strolling through his refrigerated storage room of furs, he knows he is deceptive, but does it for a purpose. People may love the haunting piano or even ascribe to the lyrics, but the message is not lost on truth seekers.

Davey Blackburn is very intelligent, and he is very talented. He is not deceived.

Peter

Lis said...

Hi Peter, I agree. If Davey Blackburn is deceived, he is deceived in thinking God does not see him, see right through him, and weigh him.

I tend to think the same of those who claim God speaks to them, though I think there are some who are deceived while others act out of self interest and self promotion.

Apple said...

OT
This story is about a 10 year old calling 911 for his choking baby brother. I am interested in how to interpret the unexpected in a seemingly innocent 911 call. I am referring to a greeting, the social introduction, the manners.

"“Hello? Hi. Hello. Can you please come to 30 Williston Road we have a baby who's choking,” 10-year-old Benjamin Doctoroff said on a 911 call."

http://www.myfoxboston.com/news/police-firefighters-help-choking-infant-in-brookline/292089833

Lis said...

The times I have been in groups where believers were pressured to "hear from God" or speak in tongues, sincere and truthful believers have said silently waiting and finally concluded it was not going to happen.

oops, meant to say *sat* silently.

Lis said...

Apple, it's strange that in that news article it gives no indication of whether the adults were present. Did the 10 year old follow instructions to call and what to say, or was he alone with the baby? If alone, I would be concerned.

Peter Hyatt said...

Caution:

If you are tempted to say (or write),

"Well, this can't be real because in my church we have..." please try to remember this is not about your belief nor my belief but what one does with his own ideology.

If you do not think the subject has been deliberate in altering the professed ideology, you will simply disagree with the analysis, which is fine. My point is to not stir debate, but to show that a specific personality trait emerges when one knows one thing but does another thing, for a very specific end.

If you feel that temptation, and it is personal, see if you can put it aside, just to see where this is going in understanding the murder victim's husband's own language.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Apple,

the 10 year old called 911 and used the greeting.

This is appropriate for a few reasons.

1. his age
2. speaking to adults of whom he has likely been trained to be respectful
3. his training in school. He is probably polite to adults there, too, not just at home.
4. his confidence that things would work out. The 'police will make everything ok" type

it makes sense given the context.

Great story!

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

PS:

his training?

“We are so grateful to live in Brookline and be protected by your firefighters and the other emergency personnel. We will forever be grateful to this officer (and would love to know his name) for saving our sweet baby,” the family wrote.


Kudos to his parents!

HISG said...

Great article!
Regarding Davey's homosexuality: Homosexuality should be put back into the DSM as a mental disorder. Homosexuality is an indicator of narcissistic personality disorder. Our culture is very stupid for not "getting" that. It is actually in the psychological literature and the Greeks illustrated the phenomenon perfectly in the myth of Narcissus and Echo.
Unfortunately, just as with NPD, homosexuality is not treatable.
I have compassion for gay people. They are personality disordered.
How Davey looked down on Amanda, feeling himself so superior in looks and intellect and hating, really hating the fact she was not a man.
How I wish Amanda had found a caring heterosexual man instead of this selfish flamer. And by the way, he is really not "all that". Without the gym body, fake tan, chiclet teeth and beard, he is plain at best.
AMANDA WAS MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN YOU DAVEY. YOU WERE JEALOUS OF HER BEAUTY. THAT IS WHY YOU STOLE HER JEANS JACKET AND JEANS PANTS. YOU WANTED TO LOOK LIKE HER YOU FAGGOT!

HISG said...

Lis,

I agree.
Just to add: A lot of killers think, no matter how deviant their behavior, that they are operating according to a superior morality than those condemning their actions.

Yes, they are utterly immoral, but believe they are superior morally.

Incredulous said...

I cannot tell from this piece which sect, if any, the author identifies with. However, it does not appear that he is familiar with DB's brand of Christianity (i.e. late 20th/early21st century American Evangelicalism). In this corner of religion, encompassing many denominations,as well as "non"-denominations, it does not take a very particular type of person to twist an ideology for his or her own gain. It does not appear only in a few televangelists or narcissistic madmen. It is common and usual and in the language of this blog, expected!! The difference is that most of their wives are not murdered in a home invasion in which the door was unlocked and very little of value was taken in the supposed burglary attempt. But many within this religion make bizarre statements that get passed over because their families have not been involved in a high profile crime.

lynda said...

Thank you Peter.

I kind of understood when you would talk about ideology, belief systems, and how they impacted language but I was having a hard time fully grasping the concept and how it applied. This blog was so detailed and it walked me right through, step by step, so I can now fully understand. This particular blog is a great teaching tool!

You answered my other questions up thread. I was wondering if greed and fame are on in the same as I feel that not only does Davey want money, he also wants the fame. One can be rich but have no fame and be perfectly fine with that. Davey wants both. I don't think Davey would ever be happy just having money, he HAS to have the fame also. Davey wants Resonate to surpass everything that PN has created.

Daveys new blog is up if you want to take a gander. His narcissism is on full display and wile it shouldn't be after all we know about him, it's unbelievable that he draws the reader in by implying the blog is a story about Amanda when it is ALL about him and his greatness.With 5000 followers, you would expect more than 4 comments. This is proof to me that even amongst his "fans" he has to frantically delete most responses. The pic he uses for this particular blog is in poor taste also IMO

https://daveyblackburn.com/

Apple said...

Thank you for the explanation, Peter.
It is a great story.

Bobcat said...

"What did he complain about her?"

She loved Jesus MORE than him.

He wanted her to worship him,
and if she had done so,
she could also have worshiped Jesus
... and lived.

Leslie said...

Bingo, Bobcat! Good catch, and worded well. Short, succinct, but loaded.

Anonymous said...

Peter -

This was on his blog. The source is at the bottom...

"I remember the weight of these words hitting me like a tsunami. I felt the Lord speak to my heart and remind me Amanda wasn’t mine. That she had been stewarded to me by our Heavenly Father for a season, and when that season is done it would be my responsibility to present my Bride to the Father. I felt The Lord’s voice whisper to my heart:

Remember, son, I loved her first.

Immediately I put down my coffee and Bible, got up from my chair, walked into our bedroom and laid down next to Amanda. I cuddled up to her with tears streaming down my face and told Jesus I would do my best to steward the responsibility He’d blessed me with."
----- https://daveyblackburn.com/2016/05/04/i-loved-her-first/

-KC

Peter Hyatt said...

He has a tremendous need to win PN's approval by surpassing PN's numbers.

Fame, fortune, but fortune without fame?

I agree, Lynda.

He needs it all.

Peter

maudes harold said...

anger at one who holds their faith in contempt for the purpose of exploitation

I have been studying these kinds of people for 37 ½ years, starting with Jim Jones.

Davey is like a Jim Jones. Davey’s cadence and content pinged Jim Jones in my brain early on, more content than cadence tho. Davey has used actual phrases Jones did that made me wonder if he had studied/listened to his ‘sermons’. While what most people know about Jones is like a forensic autopsy, there are plenty of primary sources too.

It occurred to me awhile back that Davey is like a Jim Jones of the Selfie Generation. We are seeing his ‘making’ in real time, from his owns words and actions-a study if you will, especially knowing what we do know of Jones now. Whether Davey is involved in his wife’s murder or not, he is a danger to others’ souls, if not more.

maudes harold said...

I might add that the bolded quote could be changed in that these people hold other people faiths in contempt too.

Me2l said...

This is riveting analysis, and after having read through it, I now want to go back and study the points.

I will say this.....the ideology involved in the "Christian" religion, and in extreme cases in some of those churches, says that nothing happens in a believer's life without it being God-ordained. There is a reason for everything, regardless how tragic, and that reason is to glorify God; glorify God in part by advancing His church

So, the idea that DB says Amanda was sacrificed for the church is a fairly typical type of idea among these groups and not really questioned by the members.

Of course, that appears to conform to what Peter was saying about a vast difference in how we see right and wrong.....how we view God.

Me2l said...

I apologize; reading the comments more thoroughly shows me others here have said this much better than I.

Nic said...

Peter asked:
Does Blackburn alter the ideology, in any way, to fit a specific agenda that belongs uniquely to him?


I have not read everything DB related; however, based what I have watched and read, I would like to offer an emphatic yes to your question.

I offer the following example, his agenda to receiving sex on demand. Note too, that he was able to cherry pick which question he wanted to answer... and that they were going on a mommy/daddy trip.

Q&A Video 3

Q as read by DB: The bible says that the wife must submit to their husbands. Is this idea outdate? So again, The bible says that the wife must submit to their husbands. Is this idea outdate?

A. Um, so I would, I would answer with this: um, there, there is nothing in scripture, um when you understand scripture, to its, uh, totality and uh, in its, in its context, there's nothing that's outdate. Okay, scripture was written by a God who is outside of time. So God is never having to catch up with culture. Never. So everything, then, everything in scripture is then, um, God's word, is all inspired, is infallible. And so what th-the important thing is to understand the entire context of what's happening. And s-so, to answer your question, sure, no, this is not an outdated idea. Now the problem is that we completely misconstrue and misunderstand this idea of submission, okay. Um, m-a lot of times there will be, especially like alpha male men or husbands who will use this verse as this, as a way to manipulate or control their wife. Right? Like, 'You've got to submit to me, so you've got to do as I say.' No. If you have to say that, you're not stepping into your role that God's called you to do, sir. And your role is to be a, um, I would break it down into three L's. To be a learner, a lover, and a leader to your wife. So let me, let me help you

Nic said...

...cont'd

understand what that means. Learner is a um, pursuing after knowing more about the heart of your wife. K? So that's, um, 'Man, I want to know you more. I wan, I want, I want to see what your, what your thought process is. I wanna learn your heart, I wanna learn your feelings. I know it's really difficult to, you know, ask for feelings, cause she'll, she'll give them to you. She'll give the long version of it. I get it. But, but learning and being a student of your wife. Um, the problem is, we are more as students, husbands, we are more as students of our fantasy football teams than we are our wives. And uh, that creates lots of problems. We need to be uh, we need to be studious of the heart of our wives. So a learner. A lover is someone who is pursuing after and romancing his wife. Um, s-scripture says, "Greater love has no man than he lay his life down for his friend." K? Your wife is to be your best friend, someone that you should be willing to lay your life down for. Um, Jesus demonstrated this, and Jesus calls husbands to love their wives like Christ loved the church. Ok? To, to literally, listen, lay our lives down for her. K? So let me put a pause for a second. Wives? Scripture calls you to submit to your husband and I understand that's a difficult task. But understand the difficulty of what He's called us to do. He's called us to die. Ok? So, so husbands your called to do, even, even go even further, sacrifice even more than what wives are called to do right here. K? We are called to lay our lives down. And that is a genuine, authentic display of love. That no longer do we operate based on our desires, our whims, what we want to control. We lay our lives down for our wives. And then those two things earn us the right to be a leader in the relationship. And that's the roll that God has called us to, to lead our, lead our marital relationships. Um, also, before I kinda let Amanda speak to this, in the context of wires submitting to your husbands, right before that, in verse Peter Ch. 3, if you go and read in verse Peter, Ch. 2, I think is what it is, it says, 'Each one of you should submit to one another out of a love for Christ.' And so its in the context of mutual submission, is have a mutual respect for one another, considering each others um, uh considering each other's needs and thoughts and ideas before your own as philippians chapter 2 talks about. And so all of that is is surround the idea of wives submitting to your husbands. And uh, that's why it's not an outdated idea, because it's just honestly, the way that God has called a marriage to operate, the way that God has called followers of Jesus to operate in their lives is uh, mutually submitting to one another. And so, uh, I'll let Amanda speak to this too....

Nic said...

Part 3 of 3

John 15
http://biblehub.com/bsb/john/15.htm

Philippians 2
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202
2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.



Peter Ch. 2
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (Note "emperor")


Ephesians 5:22-33
http://biblehub.com/bsb/ephesians/5.htm

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ...

Imagrandma said...

Me2l wrote

I will say this.....the ideology involved in the "Christian" religion, and in extreme cases in some of those churches, says that nothing happens in a believer's life without it being God-ordained

Nothing could be further from
The truth
Me2l

God sees and weeps
Over the fall of
A sparrow
From it's nest

He does not ordain
It's fall

You are confused
About Christian theology
Young man
I can tell
You do not believe
in Jesus
Or God

Nic said...

It really bothered me to hear Amanda talk about having sex before dinner so that he would grant her the opportunity to be heard. The opportunity to enjoy quality time together and a decent conversation. She submitted to him "first", (prostituted herself,) in exchange for respect and common decency.

I haven't listened to him pontificate at all lately. Others could probably address whether he continues to harp on the submission thing, or not. I'm guessing not. Read into that what you will.

Rosy said...

Much to digest in this analysis.

In fact checker mode -

"In Greek, the word [for greedy] was philargyros, literally 'money-loving.'" (etymonline). But in English, greed is "an excessively eager desire to possess" f. OE and Germanic signifying "voracious, hungry," also "covetous, eager to obtain." Greed applies not always or necessarily to money. Some people are greedy for experiences, so much so that they sacrifice income and other goods.

I guess DB's primal hunger is for attention, admiration, and so forth: a desire to come first. First in mother's eyes (when he was an infant) ahead of his father; in father's eyes (when he was a boy) ahead of his mother. First in the eyes of fellow-students (at college) and impressionable church-members (as a pastor). First in his own eyes ahead of the God he proclaims to worship.

He was born intro an era in which a lot of money could be made by certain types of preaching. He aimed for that target. He channels a good deal of desire into catching up and competing with mega-pastors who are raking in this money. He avoids the sub-group of mega-pastoring that puts substantial amounts of money raised into charitable work.

Couple of footnotes -

1) Nit Paul but the gospel of John 12:24: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.”

2) At least one historian has argued that words attributed to Lincoln about tariffs are mythical. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1885656

Lis said...

the ideology involved in the "Christian" religion, and in extreme cases in some of those churches, says that nothing happens in a believer's life without it being God-ordained.

Me21, you are speaking of Calvinism. Not all Christians agree on this.

Nic, it is so hard to read through DB's rambling thoughts. But it seems to me that he understands what the Bible teaches, though he has a strange way of showing it. Does he live it. That's another question.

I feel like I'm still not quite getting the point of this lesson, Peter, like it's going over my head just a little out of reach.

Rosy said...

As applied to Amanda his wife, DB's greed in the form of "an excessively eager desire to possess" expressed itself early on in his unabashed promotion of the idea of a "sling-shot" wife," one who would catapult him to fame and fortune.

Was his whole desire to possess her instrumental, not for herself but for how he could use her for his career purposes?

Oddly, I think his anecdote of knowing she was the one when she shot milk-shake out of her nose shows another side to it. She was the one because (he felt at that moment) she would make few serious, adult demands on his integrity. He could have fun with her and use and hoodwink her all at the same time. This turned out to be untrue.

Imagrandma said...

Davey is Islamic
At heart
He wanted to put
His wife
In a full Burkha

And have all eyes
On him

He wanted Amanda to
Bow down to him
And recite
The Koran

He wanted to be worshipped
Simply
For being a man

When it didnt happen
He grew a beard
And dressed in tight jeans
He stole from Amanda's closet

He changed
The Koranic verse
To read
"I am gay
Please put on your
Burkha
And kneel down
To a bearded one in tight
Ladies Jeans

Leslie said...

Nic, thanks for posting part of the transcript for Q&A video 3. Davey's words:

"So let me help you understand what that means...Learner is a um, pursuing after knowing more about the heart of your wife. K? So that's, um, 'Man, I want to know you more. I wan, I want, I want to see what your, what your thought process is. I wanna learn your heart, I wanna learn your feelings...."

Nic, I agree with what you said about his actions on Date Nights with Amanda. Quite a contrast from how he instructed his flock:

Blogger Nic said...
It really bothered me to hear Amanda talk about having sex before dinner so that he would grant her the opportunity to be heard. The opportunity to enjoy quality time together and a decent conversation. She submitted to him "first", (prostituted herself,) in exchange for respect and common decency.







Me2l said...

No, I didn't mean to imply it applied to all Christian religion.

lynda said...

Davey said

Okay, scripture was written by a God who is outside of time

I might be nit-picking here, but why say "A" God? That infers that the God he is talking about is one of many. This God is just A God, not THE God, not the only God.

____________________________________


Um, s-scripture says, "Greater love has no man than he lay his life down for his friend." K? Your wife is to be your best friend, someone that you should be willing to lay your life down for. Um, Jesus demonstrated this, and Jesus calls husbands to love their wives like Christ loved the church. Ok? To, to literally, listen, lay our lives down for her. K? So let me put a pause for a second. Wives? Scripture calls you to submit to your husband and I understand that's a difficult task. But understand the difficulty of what He's called us to do. He's called us to die. Ok? So, so husbands your called to do, even, even go even further, sacrifice even more than what wives are called to do right here. K? We are called to lay our lives down. And that is a genuine, authentic display of love. That no longer do we operate based on our desires, our whims, what we want to control. We lay our lives down for our wives. And then those two things earn us the right to be a leader in the relationship. And that's the roll that God has called us to, to lead our, lead our marital relationships.

_____________________________

I think this is a great example of Davey's ideology comes into play and how he twists scripture to promote his own needs. He HAS to explain to us that the whole part about submission is really about sex. It's not about anything spiritually, it's about SEX. Which is what he demands and Amanda has to submit too. Then he goes on to say while that might be a tough thing for wives (having sex on demand because God says so) it's not nearly as hard as what HE has to go thru. He has to lay down his life for her. He has to DIE for her. Women have it easy because basically they're just whores (he actually calls women that) but HE, men have to put up with all their shit and then supposedly die for them. That's a mans job. Women aren't called to do that. They are only called to submit sexually. This whole twisting that he does to promote his own ideology makes me sick and is very dangerous to people just dipping their toes in the waters of Christianity. If Davey was your first teacher of the Bible?? Man, you'd be really messed up by the time he got done with you.
Davey twists the Bible to make sure everyone knows that women are to be subjegated, and used as personal prostitutes, and that is okay because HE has it much harder. HE HE HE, I I I..ugh. I think it's obvious that Davey never had any intention of actually dying for her. Her dying for him? Well, that's okay. God ordained it. It was meant to be so Davey could become the next PN..better than PN. Davey calls women whores but that is all he is to people that can see him for what he is. FAME WHORE

Anonymous said...

Why isn't there outrage that Alonzo Bull has remained free? It's very odd that Amanda's friends and family and the community haven't demanded his arrest in connection to her murder.

Rosy said...

Anonymous Imagrandma said...


Davey is Islamic
At heart
He wanted to put
His wife
In a full Burkha
===================

In actuality, early Christians opted for women to cover their heads. This was years before Islam. Paul wrote:

"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head." 1 Corinthians 11.
Here's more on this, from centuries before Islam:

"It was customary for most women in the ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, and the Greco-Roman world to cover their hair when they went outside the home. In biblical times, women covered their heads with veils or scarves. The unveiling of a woman's hair was considered a humiliation and punishment (Isa. 3:17; cf. Num. 5:18 on the loosening of the hair of a woman suspected of adultery; III Macc. 4:6; and Sus. 32)."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08618.html

Paul, born in Tarsus (which today is in Turkey), aimed to convert not only Jews but an entire empire of Hellenists and Romans.

Some historians suggest the injunction for women to veil their heads and his emphatic order for men NOT to cover theirs reflected Roman practice.
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/greenberg-center/Veiled%20Women%20Catalog.pdf


Imagrandma said...

Regarding: Davey needing to have sex before dinner

Amanda should have kicked
Him
In the balls
Gently, of course

Leslie said...

From Davey's blog post, "I Loved Her First."

"...And though I didn’t even realize it in that moment, I helped Jesus present her to the Father holy and blameless. If I truly love her I can completely trust her to Jesus’ perfect love. His love is infinitely better than mine..."

https://daveyblackburn.com/2016/05/04/i-loved-her-first/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This blog post has been discussed before in comment threads. Besides how presumptuous and ludicrous the paragraph is, the line, "IF I TRULY LOVE her I can completely trust her to Jesus' perfect love" jumps out at me. He still has never said he he loves her. It was unnecessary for him to even write, "If I truly love her." He could have just said, "I completely trust her to Jesus' perfect love."

He knows people have noticed that he hasn't outright said he loves/loved Amanda, yet he can't say it.

- - - - - - -

OT: How do you bold type when posting comments? I am using a Windows PC.

Imagrandma said...

Rosy my dear
Thank you
For reminding me
Of this practice

I always forget
Even though
My son attends
A Christian church where only Latin
Is spoken
And the women cover their hair

His faith is far stronger
Than mine
I struggle
Just to gather
Enough sanity
And faith to make it through
Each day

He tells me to pray
More often

I try
But my mind sometimes
Scatters
Into different directions
Often

There is no peace
In my brain

Bad Juju said...

Leslie, put < b > before and after (both without the spaces) to bold. Replace the b with an i for italics.

Bad Juju said...

Oops ... the "after" disappeared. That's weird. Put < / b > with no spaces after the phrase you want to bold.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bobcat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leslie said...

Thank you, Bad Juju! (This is my test to see if I'm doing it right.)

Nic said...

Wives? Scripture calls you to submit to your husband and I understand that's a difficult task. But understand the difficulty of what He's called us to do. He's called us to die. Ok? So, so husbands your called to do, even, even go even further, sacrifice even more than what wives are called to do right here. K? We are called to lay our lives down. And that is a genuine, authentic display of love.... And then those two things earn us the right to be a leader in the relationship. And that's the roll that God has called us to, to lead our, lead our marital relationships. ...


This sis more than DB's "needs" first. It didn't matter how much Amanda contributed, what she did, he said because he was called to "lay (our) lives down" what she did was not "authentic" or a "genuine" display of love. So she had to submit to his most "ultra" sacrifice and prostitute herself, aka, "13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, "

As if.

Amanda was a smart woman. Given his incessant need to pontificate the submission spiel, imo, she was very versed in scripture and debated his interpretation of the "scripture".

Nic said...

lynda said:
Davey said

Okay, scripture was written by a God who is outside of time

I might be nit-picking here, but why say "A" God? That infers that the God he is talking about is one of many. This God is just A God, not THE God, not the only God.


I caught that, too. Hence my "emperor" notation. (And his reference to Napoleon in his blog.)

He equates himself with God, so God, is not the almighty, just one of. Like him. Per Peter Ch. 2.

Rosy said...

Lynda,

Thanks for highlighting the horrible passage from the train station video in which DB says, with special emphasis, "So let me put a pause for a second. Wives? Scripture calls you to submit to your husband and I understand that's a difficult task. But understand the difficulty of what He's called us to do. He's called us to die. Ok?"

As you say this is really messed up, a gross distortion. He wants his pastoral cake and eat it too. He says: "We are called to lay our lives down. And that is a genuine, authentic display of love. That no longer do we operate based on our desires, our whims, what we want to control. We lay our lives down for our wives. And then those two things earn us the right to be a leader in the relationship."

Ha! His desires and whims and control over her are all precisely what he did want. He used his putative sacrifice to justify indulging his desires and whims and exerting control. On date night he wanted sex before they had dinner. He wanted a certain types of sexual activity regardless of whether she wanted it too. He wanted to undermine her, denigrate her, exploit her, and he did so in public, stripping her of sanctity and privacy.

"Cherish her, and she will exalt you; embrace her, and she will honor you." He did not do that. He did not CHERISH her.

Then at the train station he gets a holy look in his eyes and claims he and Christian husbands sacrifice themselves, their desires and their whims, and die for Christ. Sure thing, you and your band of holy roller buddies "kill" your "flesh" (as Paul calls it) for Christ, and in exchange you get to treat your wives (as Lynda says) as your personal whores.

This combined with the gun--waving "shoot your worries" sermon 2 days before the shooting on November 10 makes an uncanny prelude to the crime.

Nic said...

Sorry Nero. Was it Nero he referenced? Not sure why I typed Napoleon.

Nic said...

Peter Ch. 2
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (Note "emperor")


I really like this verse. DB basically interprets this to say, "submit yourself for the Lord's sake to *every* human authority; whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

Does that not sound like a delegation of "authority" or what?

On.Every.Single.Level.


Imagrandma said...

Emblazoned in my
Mind
Is the look
Of pain
A wincing pain
On Amanda's face

When he was
Done
Speaking about
How women
Should be raped
Using such
Cruelty
To justify
The Act of Rape
With a lie
That he would ever
Lay down his life

It was this lie
That opened up
Her wound on camera
As he spoke
She remembered
Him raping her
With anger
Because he is gay

Nic said...

Lis said:
Nic, it is so hard to read through DB's rambling thoughts. But it seems to me that he understands what the Bible teaches, though he has a strange way of showing it. Does he live it. That's another question.

I feel like I'm still not quite getting the point of this lesson, Peter, like it's going over my head just a little out of reach.


You've answer your own question.

Does DB twist scripture to fit his own agenda? ("he has a strange way of showing it. Does he live it.")

Does he?

:0)

Nic said...


DB said:

Nero didn’t ask these early Christians to recant Christ. …He merely asked these Christians to worship him FIRST, before they worshiped Christ...These early martyrs could have easily succeeded to Nero’s wishes, all the while holding on to their “love” for Jesus in order to spare their life.

But they didn’t. They chose Jesus over anything else. Over comfort. Over health. Over safety. Over convenience. There’s no pre-laid-out terms of contract in this whole thing. He just says take up your cross and follow me.

Amanda chose Jesus over anything else. Over comfort. Over health. Over safety. Over convenience.

Anonymous said...

Davey reiterates that Amanda was "sacrificed."

Does his choice of word - sacrifice-relate to ideology?

Nic said...

One thing about DB always pontificating about sex: Sex "sells".

This was my thinking every time I listened to one of his sermons.

He could have his own program called "Sex with Davey" per/ Dr. Ruth

Jo said...

Peter
I suggest you read daveys blog. Professionally done, emotionally - laden photos - of him & son Weston at grave, etc,

AND

AMANDA 'S STORY number one.
People are encouraged to submit their tales of how "Amanda's Story" has affected them

Looks like their will be many more to come.- which could later become part of daveys first book.

Imagrandma said...

How come noone mentions
The word
Evil
When it comes to Davey?

Davey looks crazy in the eyes
Which is
A sure sign
He has given
Himself over to
Satan

Just as one can serve the Lord
One can serve
The devil

Warped ideology is a part of it
But I see in
Davey
Kenneth Warren
Ashley and stoner hubby
That they are
Demonically influenced

Pastor Noble is an $sshole
But I dont see
Evil at work in
Him

IMAGRANDMA said...

Jo
Davey's professional
Picture
Of Weston approaching
His mother's grave
Is a type of exploitation of Weston
That is hideously evil

Rosy said...

Perry Noble is a prime example of changing an ideology for his own advantage, to grow his church, attract more bodies, especially youth, and more $$$. Perry Noble changed the 10 commandments to 10 "suggestions."

Imagrandma said...

I'm HISG, in case you can't tell, lolol.

Leslie said...

HISG, so you're Imagrandma. But there's still:

IMAGRANDMA

IMagrandma

and the original,

Ima.grandma

(Imareadyforbed)

Imagrandma said...

I did not write that
At 10:26

I guarantee Me2l
Wrote it
That is
Definitely
His Handiwork

I am not HISG
Is that
A reliable enough denial

Leslie please get some rest
I too must retire
It is hard staying sharp and alert
For these cases
I was much quicker on my
Toes at age 95
Sharp as a Whip
I was
Occassionally
I have bouts of senility
But recognize Me2l's
Deceptive
Statements
Clear as Day!

Imagrandma said...

Rosy yes
Perry Noble is a tricky
Case
Although I dont think he is evil
Rather
Batshit crazy

It is too recognizable in him
Evil is more subtle
Better disguised
When he
Changed the
10 Commandments to the
10 Suggestions
He makes it too obvious that he is
Twisting God's Sacred Law
Evil comes in a
Trickier disguise

Not funny said...

HISG, it's not funny for you to be trolling, pretending to be ima.grandma.

ima.grandma still uses her Google account to post, so you're not fooling anyone. It's cruel to make fun of her when she's clearly not feeling well.

It's cute that you pointed out your reliable denial, though. You made sure to put that in there.....making it seem less reliable, really.

rjb said...

My husband was once sharply chastised by a woman at our church for not "laying down the law" when it came to something that he wanted to talk to me about before making a decision about something relating to our family. He was told that it was my job to submit and his job to tell me how things were going to be. I accept my role in submitting to him, but he accepts his role in loving me, and for us that means that we talk about things and gain one another's perspectives rather than him simply saying "this is how it is going to be" with no room for my opinions and insight. The real irony there was that the woman who told him that definitely "wore the pants" in her martial relationship.

I have been under the teaching of many who warped the teachings of Christianity in order to further their own agendas. I bought what Mark Driscoll was selling with no questions asked. My most recent church was a hotbed of nepotism and a stringent clique system. True Biblical doctrine fell by the wayside as each challenge in the lives of church members was addressed not on the merits of what scripture said about the situation, but rather how in favor each family was with the shot-callers in the church.

Christianity is easily exploited by those who wish to use it as a stepping stone for their own success and glory. As a Christian, I take comfort in the fact that those who take responsiblityy for the spiritual guidance of others will be held to a higher standard of judgment than those who do not take such responsibility upon themselves.

tania cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tania cadogan said...

If you think about it, davey is running a business.
He is selling what people think they want to hear.
He isn't selling a physical product per se, he is selling a god, someone who will be who you want him to be, say what you want him to say, believe what you want him to believe.

New improved god, does exactly what you want him to.
Want to make a lot of easy money?
Commit a crime to get it?
God will forgive you as long as you say sorry and promise not to do it again.

Want to have lots of sex?
God will make sure you get all the sex you want and if you are married, well god will forgive you 'cos you had a hard life and your partner doesn't understand you like he does.

Say the right words, do the right actions, spend the right money and you will be forgiven.
Don't like some of the rules?
Not a problem for the new improved god, he will forgive you everything if you spend a few bux on his latest book.

The new improved god, doesn't judge, he doesn't condemn, he doesn't expect you to do good deeds or help others or even care about anyone else, all he needs is for you to show you care about him by buying this super duper guide to being a modern day christian.

Get one on one time with god by giving money to your pastor, show your love for god by having sex with the pastor.
Your pastor is god, god is your pastor therefore sex is not only fine it is sanctified, you might even get pregnant and be the next holy mother, blessed by god.

He is selling you what you want to hear.
He is selling you success, prosperity, wealth, fame, sex.
All you have to do is ask and pay and you got it.

Changed your mind?
Not a problem, the new improved god will change as well.

This is why he is all about numbers, all about his appearance, his heterosexuality.
He wants what he sees the megachurch pastors have, the televangelists.
He wants the money, the fame, the women, the lifestyle.
He wants what the company presidents have.
He doesn't want to be a franchisee scrabbling for a few meager crumbs, he wants to be the franchise owner doling out favors and choice morsels to a favored few.

I bet right now he has women throwing themselves at him (and more than a few men i suspect)
He is playing the role of the anguished husband and single father, struggling to raise his son on his own as well as raising a flock for his church.
He knows with his looks and him being a single dad and a pastor,there are going to be plenty out there who want to help ease his 'suffering', to ease his burden, to become favored and maybe hit the jackpot with money, fame and adulation.

Davey is selling a dream, he is selling you your dream.
Everything you want, he can get you if only you believe and spend spend spend. (scientology anyone?)

Anonymous said...

When PN stated that there was something wrong with narcissistic, hypomanic, immature, insincere Davey, he didn't say "a woman could fix it". He said AMANDA could fix it after he met Amanda.

Amanda was a humble, far from narcissistic, mature, follower of Christ. Her sincere faith attracted others to Christ and to any church she attended. She was a magnet for bringing new members into the church (important goal for PN). IMO, PN thought Amanda's humbleness, maturity, and sincerity would strongly influence/"fix" Davey.

Lis said...

Here's a more complete article about the choking baby- http://www.wcvb.com/news/little-boy-helps-save-baby-brothers-life-in-brookline/39616364

The baby, just short of 1 yr, was with 8 & 10 yr old brothers and a babysitter and a tutor. The 10 yr old reacted more quickly than the adults and saved the day.

I was concerned after reading the first article as it seemed the baby was left with only a 10 yr old in charge. Although, he does seem to be a pretty responsible 10 yr old.

lynda said...

Anon @ 8:28 PM said,
"Why isn't there outrage that Alonzo Bull has remained free? It's very odd that Amanda's friends and family and the community haven't demanded his arrest in connection to her murder"

Anon..I've been saying this since the PC doc came out. I'm pretty convinced that AB or DM is the CI in this game. They CALLED him from the site and he told them not to leave Taylor. He knew what went down and didn't notify LE.

Hisg said

"Pastor Noble is an $sshole
But I dont see
Evil at work in
Him"

____________

Really? PN is the proverbial false prophet. He distorts scripture for his own gain. Fame and money. Davey is learning from the best and PN is right there to make sure it happens for DAvey because that will bring HIM more fame and money. PN actually says, "If there weren't so many greedy Christians, they would be able to tithe more and we could eradicate homosexuality. " PN is a hatemonger, liar, false prophet, crook, snake oil salesman and he is NOT serving the Master he says he is.

I can't even comment on how Paul's teachings are somehow equal to Christ's. I have a big problem with Paul. I do not worship Paul. I do not put Paul's "edicts" on the same level as Christ. I do not give them the same weight.
Davey LOVES Paul because Paul is the one that talks about women subjegating to husbands, women covering their hair, women don't speak in church..blah blah blah.

Anonymous said...

Why haven't the two incarcerated black males made a deal with the district attorney and snitched on cracker Davey?

The only logical answer is: Davey didn't hire them.

Imagrandma said...

Me2l wrote

ima.grandma still uses her Google account to post, so you're not fooling anyone.

Exactly. Hers is in blue
Mine isnt
It is
Very obvious
I Wasnt trying to impersonate
Her

I simply value
Being a grandma
I am a grandma
And I am proud

Were you the class tattle tale
Me2l?

Lis said...

Nic-
"You've answer your own question.

Does DB twist scripture to fit his own agenda? ("he has a strange way of showing it. Does he live it.")

Does he?"


Thanks, Nic! I'm notoriously dense sometimes :-P

So, by looking at him teach on the subject, we can see that he understands the Bible to teach:

Wives are called to submit to husbands BUT
Christianity is a life of mutual submission AND
Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church, in a sacrificial way

He also says that a husband should be a student of his wife's feelings

So, now we look at the way he behaved and the things he taught in his sermons and the way he has responded and spoken since her death, and we see he has not followed these teachings, he has spoken and behaved selfishly, putting his own urges first.

So we know he is not deceived- i.e., he does not think the Bible teaches the crass and abusive things he has said and done. He is acting outside of what he purports to think is true. (Doesn't that make him a hypocrite, technically?)

Is that it? Or is there something more that I'm missing?

Rosy said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
May 19, 2016 at 11:47 PM

Why haven't the two incarcerated black males made a deal with the district attorney and snitched on cracker Davey?

The only logical answer is: Davey didn't hire them.
=============

Two possible reasons why not -

1) snitches will be attacked, hurt, maybe even killed.

2) These are lower echelon gang members and have no idea what went on above their heads.


Imagrandma said...

Lynda you wrote

Really? PN is the proverbial false prophet. He distorts scripture for his own gain. Fame and money. Davey is learning from the best and PN is right there to make sure it happens for DAvey because that will bring HIM more fame and money. PN actually says, "If there weren't so many greedy Christians, they would be able to tithe more and we could eradicate homosexuality. " PN is a hatemonger, liar, false prophet, crook, snake oil salesman and he is NOT serving the Master he says he is.

I did not say he is serving God
But he is also not serving the devil
What he is
Is batshit crazy

Take one look at him
And you know
He is completely nuts

Anyone with a working brain
Knows that when he
Changes the 10 Commandments
To 10 Suggestions
He is doing something wrong

When he says not enough people
Tithe
And that is why there are so many
Homosexuals
He believes it

He is an &sshole
He is crazy
But I maintain
True evil
Wears a much more
Subtle disguise

True evil brags
Of how "good" it is
And wear a mask of sanity

Do you see Perry Noble
Wearing a mask of sanity?
No
He looks insane
It jumps out at you
Immediately that he looks
Crazy

This is not how evil
Masquerades

Robin Duehring said...

Since Amanda didn't die right away, how do they know Davey didn't attack her? He sat in the driveway on the phone for a much longer period than normal. Isn't it possible knowing that a neighbor's house was robbed just 2 days before he seized the opportunity? He went to the gym established an alibi, took his weekly phone call and put the caller on hold or muted the phone for a few minutes? He could have easily gone inside the house and shot her, then returned to his car in the driveway and talked much longer than usual to firm up his alibi. He could have removed his own clothes to prevent blood splatter stains on his clothes. They found no unknown fingerprints, nothing was stolen. No murder weapon has been found. They allude to sexual assault since she was partially nude, but she wasn't raped. It kinda sounds like staging to me. I am just wondering how did they establish the time of the attack? Why did they clear him 100% so quickly?

Forensics have come a long way but it's not foolproof. With a narcissistic sociopath who is smart, he could have easily planned to murder his wife. The men they have in custody have plead not guilty. They are burglars, that doesn't mean they are also murderers. If there were two men in the house they would have left some trace evidence, especially if they had contact with Amanda, hairs, fibers, skin cells or saliva. From what I've read the case against them seems circumstantial.

All of these strange circumstances combined with Davey's cold and calculating demeanor is chilling. His statements, body language and gleeful facial expressions right after her death strikes me as a man who has gotten away with something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQJMlgc1O7A

In the Q&A videos they did on their way to Chicago - I couldn't help but notice Amanda's facial expressions. She is wearing sunglasses so you can't see all of her eyes but her central forehead was contracted the entire time which can indicate anxiety, She looks away from Davey several times, and the timing of her looking away is in response to what he's saying. From 2:00 to 2:09 As Davey is saying "I want to learn your heart, Learn your feelings.." she is frowning, her Central forehead is contracted, lateral lip tension, subtle lower lip pouts, She does a hard swallow, brushes her hair away behind her ear and does a full lip press downward. She looks miserable, she is not in agreement with what Davey is saying. They are going on a romantic getaway - There is zero affection being displayed. If you listen to what Davey is saying - he's relaying that scheduling romance is a Duty, a chore. He wraps it up in ideological phrases, but the message is clear.

Peter Hyatt said...

This morning in AT

Cultural nod.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/my_country_was_of_thee.html

Me2l said...

The IP for this troll can be easily seen by Peter or the tech in charge of this blog.

It's really a shame a troll such as this must ruin every discussion here.

I hope Peter steps in and shuts down the troll.

As for this discussion, Peter's analysis and many of the ensuing comments are some of the best ever.

Me2l said...

Equating themselves to God and/or even asserting their superiority to God is an element of narcissistic personality disorder. It would seem this element is partially what drives Davey.

Me2l said...

Good article (American Thinker)

From AT:

It is biblical thinking that brought people here,

......and yet, the Christian ideas and thinking that brought the settlers here not only didn't prevent them from mass killing of the natives, including women and children, but they saw it as ordained of God.

Turner said...

My thoughts about your article are often overridden by reading the comments before I write so I am waiting.

You are a gifted man. I've seen your knowledge, spiritual wisdom & the truth and consistency to our shared ideology in the way you present things all throughout your blog. This particular article has left me feeling weak and helpless wondering how I can possibly raise my 3 kids as I see our ancestors hard fought work being turned away from, changed, lied and mocked. Times have changed before my own eyes and at times I feel so un-equipped to fulfill my duties & purpose but just as you've shown -- God's word doesn't change. Regardless of what's happening all around us, it is whole and complete and I know this.

Theres so many points made here I will be reading again and again to take it all in. I see how he is fooling some, many. You've laid out his premeditated words and thoughts & his carefully chosen slogans. But it really bothers me that you consider him an intelligent man. I only see him as a fool who will parish. He's cleverly figured out how to propel himself a career, manipulate and deceive but I guess knowing it's all driven by greed and evil doesn't let my mind render that as intellect.

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

OT:

Dr Phil:

A Mom’s Dilemma: Her Infant or the Love of Her Life?

Kristina wrote to Dr. Phil for help “finding out the truth” about her boyfriend, Jayson, who lost his rights to their newborn son because he had also already lost rights to his other children due to sexual abuse findings. Kristina says she loves Jayson and believes him when he says he never harmed his kids.

However, Kristina’s mother, Mary, says she is convinced Jayson is dangerous and guilty. Jayson says he wants a chance to prove his innocence and be reunited with Kristina and their son.

And, on Friday, Jayson takes a polygraph.

Jayson says the day his infant son was born was both the “happiest and saddest day” of his life.

That’s because, just hours after his girlfriend Kristina gave birth, Child Protective Services came to the hospital and gave Kristina an ultimatum: lose your baby or lose your boyfriend.

“CPS said Jayson has been accused of sexually molesting his daughter and his son [from a previous relationship],” Kristina says. “CPS gave me a choice. They said if I don’t sign the piece of paper that would keep Jayson out of my son’s life, they would have to take custody of all three of my children.”


Jayson denies the molestation findings against him and says there was another reason he lost custody of his children.

CPS took away my kids because they claim that they were being neglected. I neglected my kids by not spending enough time with them. I admit to that,” Jayson says. “I absolutely did not molest my children. I never touched my kids inappropriately.

Jayson also claims he did not know having more kids would raise any flags.

“I was very excited when we found out that Kristina was pregnant,” he adds. “I did not know that CPS was going to remove the child, if I had another child with another woman. If they claim they told me, that is a lie.”

It’s now been over two months since Jayson has seen his infant son.

“The last day I saw my new baby was the day he was born,” he says. “My dream is to be with Kristina, to have all my children and her children together.”

Below are snippets of the show. The full episode id below that.

http://www.drphil.com/shows/a-moms-dilemma-her-infant-or-the-love-of-her-life/

Full episode:

http://vodlocker.com/pkpvm969zijc

Anonymous said...

The media blitz continues. Davey article in Indystar yesterday on what would have been Evie Grace's birthdate, or due date, as he calls it.

There can be no doubt - nothing is wasted.

His new blog is revolting. He is so bold.

I can't wait for the Lifetime movie. Maybe it will be a whole series, like Betty Broderick.

Leslie said...

Below are some of Resonate's tweets recently posted:

"At Resonate, we need to be more about the people we are REACHING, than the people we are KEEPING. #HomeRunForLife"

https://twitter.com/resonateindy/status/732878477091868673

- - - - - - - - - -

I find that interesting, as DB has revealed the importance and priority of the numbers in his "pews," numbers saved, and numbers baptized.

- - - - - - - - - -

and

Evangelism = one begger telling another begger where to find bread #HomeRunLife

https://twitter.com/resonateindy/status/733603267599605760

- - - - - - - - - - -

This tweet just made me go, "huh?" ast to the meaning, and then the misspelling of "begger" (beggar) jumped out at me. Perhaps I'm overthinking it, but, it seems to me that Resonate members, who consider themselves Christians, saved, etc, would think they have the bread, and are willing to share it.

Evangelism is Resonate's big push right now, according to the posts....But, no, it's not about the numbers.



Leslie said...

Whoops! My own spelling correction: This tweet just made me go, "huh" *as* to the meaning...

Hey Jude said...

'We are beggars: this is true.' Famous last words of Martin Luther.

Anonymous said...

Leslie,
Could you please post link to Indystar article 5-19-16 -Davey Blackburn Remembers Amanda On Her Due Date ?

I cant post link from my IPAD

Nic said...

Q&A Video 3 - Cont'd

Amanda: Um, yeah, there’s, it’s really easy for a wife to submit to her husband when her husband is leading her well. And I mean, as women, we are called to submit to our husbands regardless if they are leading us well. But, um, I just wanted to speak a little bit about what leading your wife means because I think there is a misconception of men think or women even think, maybe we don’t even know exactly what leading us well looks like. But we think it’s like, ‘Hey, like hey lead us in a bible study, a family bible study you know, even night or morning, or lead us in prayer all the time, or um, you know, lead us in our financial decisions, and it is some of that. But I really think you can lead your wife best by just being a really, really godly example to her. And so the closer you follow after Jesus, the more she’s gonna want to follow after Jesus. And the better decisions you make abou-with your finances, or with your time, um, with your energy, the more she’s going to respect you, admire you, and want to follow you, want to submit to you (looks at DB). Um, so it’s like, the best example I can give is when we were, uh, newlyweds, um, Davey started getting up early in the morning to do his devotions, and um, I was like, ‘That’s great, you know, good for him, like, but I’m not a morning person, I don’t need to do that.” And then the longer he did that, it went by for a couple of weeks, and I was like, ‘Man I feel really guilty staying in my bed, you know, like an-and kind of making Jesus my last priority because I do my devotions at the end of the day when I was tired and I didn’t have any energy left. And so, because he was doing that, though, because he was getting up early, I was like, ‘You know what? I think I am going to try that.' He never said anything to me. He was never like, ‘Man babe, you should get up and be as spiritual as I am.’ Um, but I did, and I’m literally since then I’ve been addicted to getting up in the morning and doing it. I hate doing it any other time. Um, but that’s just a small example of, like ways you can lead your wife is by doing what Jesus called you to do running really hard after Him and pursuing Him. And she is watching you. Majorly. And so she’s gonna follow and what you’re leading her to do and if you’re being lazy, she’s gonna tend to be on the lazier side. So I think it’s important to remember that.

_____________

Whoa. Sounds like the shine was off of the penny and there was a power struggle, as you will see in the next transcript of the last of Video 3 (DB's response to this,) because you know, he had the first and last word on the subject./sarcasm intended.

Obviously Amanda wanted DB to treat her kindly and with word respect and consideration. DB did not cherish his wife. That she had to clarify what it "really" meant to lead your wife, (what she needed from him). It's obvious he chose to ignore the rest of Ephesians 5:22-33 because it is about a husband's responsibility to his wife and that would mean he would have to "prop" her, listen to her, speak kindly to her. There was only one to be propped in his world, only one to speak and it is him. jmo

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

Nic said...

Q&A Video 3 - cont'd

DB: Yeah, so much of leadership in general in any context, is um your followers catch things more than they receive things to being taught. Right? You’ve heard the phase, ’it’s caught not taught; caught not taught’. And so like, even like, leading an organization, if you’re a business person and you’re leading an organization, um, th-the, you’re, the decision falls down to you. You’ve got to initiate conversations, you have to initiate some of the decision making processes, you have to be able to recognize the reality of what’s going on and point people to the future. But I have a, in our church, I have a leadership team around me that I’m asking for, vetting for, their weigh in on decisions. I need, I need them to help me decision make with decision making processes. So husbands, if your, like, trying to Lord over this idea of leadership over your wife and you’re never asking her for her weight in, and her buy in on these decisions, then I believe you’re being a terrible leader. Cause good leadership says, ‘I need wha-we need, um t-together, talk through these things, um, decide some of these things, um, f-th-for the direction of our family. And uh, but, but as a leader, I have to be the one to initiate those, to recognize when we need to have those conversations, and um so tha-that boils down to the conversation with how we spend our money, conversations with h-how we spend our time, uh how do we parent our kid, kid -slash kids, if you’re, if you have multiple kids, um, how do we, you know, jus-just, big life decisions. What about career moves, or what about moves geographically. Husbands you’re to be the ones that are suppose to initiate these as the leader and then the wife um, kinda comes along, and, and, and, you ask f-, you obviously want to make those decisions together. So there’s never really been any I mean there’ve probably maybe once or twice where I’ve ever had to be like, ‘Hey, this is what I feel like God wants our family to do,’ and Amanda has like not agreed with it. Right? And I’ve had to say like, ‘Hey, w-jus, I just feel like this is what we need to do.” Um, an-and, so, I d-I don’t know if that really happens a lot if you’re walking through your biblical roles well. And so submission means to be a support, means to be a help mate, it means to uh, prop up, to be the lift behind the leadership that your husband is suppose to take. An-and wives if you do that well, he will step in and lead. He will step up because men, men are wired, um, to want to lead. And so, um, yeah, that’s that’s what I would say to that. (Amanda's definition?)

Nic said...

So there’s never really been any I mean there’ve probably maybe once or twice where I’ve ever had to be like, ‘Hey, this is what I feel like God wants our family to do,’ and Amanda has like not agreed with it. Right? And I’ve had to say like, ‘Hey, w-jus, I just feel like this is what we need to do."

I don’t know if that really happens a lot if you’re walking through your biblical roles well. ...

____________

I think for Amanda, there was a business boundary she had no problem respecting, leaving DB to lead the church and making the decisions around that; but then there was her marriage which she felt she was a partnership of, which DB fought for control over and fought with her to submit/defer to his leadership. Over the marriage, over her, over how the money and their time would be spent. That he brings up how the kids would be parented by the leader, leaves me little doubt he judged her parenting style and undermined her every opportunity he could take to make her submit to his style. Like a test to see if she was being submissive and walking through her biblical role "well" (by his standard). If she balked, she failed. If she balked about how money would be spent, she failed. If she balked about his traveling along and/or how time would be spent together, i.e., with Weston or not, where and/or when, she failed. Submission meant she didn't get a say. The more she demanded her place and corrected his interpretation of "submission" and fought for right as a woman, wife, mother, the more it was evident she did not put DB before "her" saviour. So he failed her. Over and over and over. Ultimately that meant he did not "step up" for her and fulfil his promise to love, cherish and protect her.



Nic said...

** If she balked about his traveling alone and/or how time would be spent together,

lynda said...

Amanda was very clear about what SHE thought that scripture meant, and she was much closer to the true meaning than CD was. Amanda does not mention or imply having sex at all. It is all about the spiritual aspect of leading his wife thru example so that together, they manifest God's love. Davey continually uses analogies of "business". He takes God out of it. Another way Davey twists the WORD to fit his ideology. "Buy in", leading an organization", "business", "career."
Davey of course, has to come back in for rebuttal and basically wipe away everything Amanda says. He leaks that there have been problems and when there are, he bullies her with her "submission" role. A woman's role is delegated to "support" and "lift up" her husband no matter what he does.

Nic said...

So we know he is not deceived- i.e., he does not think the Bible teaches the crass and abusive things he has said and done. He is acting outside of what he purports to think is true. (Doesn't that make him a hypocrite, technically?)

Is that it? Or is there something more that I'm missing?


__________

I agree with you that he is a hypocrite. Now you have to figure out if he actually buys into what he's selling and how he interprets it to fit/justify his agenda/s.

Peter said;
The subject claims divine origin but is unafraid to assert himself above divinity in order to facilitate his agenda.

This is a personalty trait critical to understanding the murder case.

Fm25 said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
May 19, 2016 at 11:47 PM

Why haven't the two incarcerated black males made a deal with the district attorney and snitched on cracker Davey?

The only logical answer is: Davey didn't hire them.
----
----
That is not the only possible explanation. Hit men don't talk. Mafia, gangs, whatever. I don't understand why people are surprised by this. I guess the inner workings of gangs are not as sensationalized as that of the mafia, but it's the same thing. There is nothing to be gained by talking but do your time and you will be rewarded. The retribution for snitching would be worse than the death penalty.
-
If you have followed this case from the beginning and watched videos of Davey's sermons, read peters analysies and are aware of all the circumstantial evidence which is too much to be coincidental "no one is that lucky", than you should realize that davey not being involved is the least likely scenario.

Bobcat said...

I think DB was always most interested in Amanda's ability to play the role of "Pastor's Wife". Success in his chosen business is his #1 goal.

He needed a wife to succeed, so he chose one who fit the bill perfectly.

He didn't choose her because he loved her.

He stated that when he proposed: "...I vowed to always fight for her heart and asked her if she would join me in the greatest fight of all - the fight for people's hearts to be connected to Jesus." https://www.instagram.com/p/BBx86Jkh4EI/?taken-by=daveyblackburn

It was a business proposition for a ministry partner. DB was a pastor first, and husband/father only as needed. He expected Amanda to fall in line, at all times, in business. He would help her move furniture as a good husband, but thought he should get a gold medal for any unprofitable husband tasks he completed.

Being a mother took a HUGE chunk of her time away from growing the business.

The second pregnancy would push the business goal off even farther, and that was completely unacceptable to DB.

When he hatched the idea of her demise and realized it could/would be a huge boost for his business, she was doomed.

He's flying over the rockies now: https://www.instagram.com/p/BFnBMo8B4Mm/?taken-by=daveyblackburn

New guest blog by Amber: https://daveyblackburn.com/2016/05/20/easter/

Nic said...

Part 1 from DB's blog

My counselor asked me this question during one of our conversations. He said, “Davey, do you think Amanda would have still said ‘yes’ to Jesus about moving to Indianapolis if she knew she was going to lose her life four years into it?” I really had to chew on this before I could answer him.

I’m not sure why that question caused me to ruminate for so long. Perhaps it’s because I’m not sure how many people would immediately jump at the chance to die for Jesus. How many people does He even ask to do that? Certainly not many! He normally just asks us to LIVE for Him. But die? So it stumped me for a moment.

As I sat there and pondered his question a few images surfaced in my mind. I thought about the journal entry she wrote after our last Sunday service at NewSpring:

Jesus thank you for that message yesterday. It was awesome and such a good perspective for me to be reminded of. Job 42:12 - The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s lie more than the first. Davey said the other day - God must have big things in store for us b/c we are learning what we think is the greatest church in the world and the greatest city in the world. And it’s encouraging to me when give and you take away and yet I can say Blessed be your name b/c you are working everything out for a perfect purpose. Jesus I needed that perspective yesterday. Give me strength to not had on to the material things. I’ve I’m starting day #1 today for packing. Help me Jesus to just trust you through these next 2 weeks. Please encourage my spirit and sustain me. Help me to remember what you have in store. I love you. Give me faith to trust what you say.

Nic said...

Part 2

I thought about the journal entry she wrote the day after we arrived in Indy with all our love, vision, and worldly possessions loaded into a 99 Mercury Mountaineer, a 97 Honda Civic, and a Uhaul moving truck:

Well… we made it!
We are officially in Indianapolis!
I can’t even believe it.
Jesus you are faithful in your promises.
Thank you for getting us here. Thank you that we are actually here.
It was so awesome as we drove in last night we saw the city scape and it was such an inspiring view. I don’t think I will ever forget that. I just felt a peace coming here yesterday and I cried while I listened to the lyrics of this song,
“I will take up my cross and follow Lord where you lead me.” I remember when Davey and I knew we were called to go to Indy (and hadn’t told any yet) we were at Fase and they played that song and I just cried. Two different kinds of tears but all with the same meaning. We’re here….and it’s time to get busy. Jesus - direct us every step. I pray that we would not waste time. I pray that we would never look back. I pray that we would never lose heart. When it gets difficult and discouraging I pray that you will remind me - I will take up my cross and follow Lord where you lead me… I will take up my cross and follow where you lead.”

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

Part 3

I thought about the prayer she prayed at our leadership retreat in the old fitness room of a Cincinnati hotel the weekend before she was killed. We were spending some time as a leadership team praying and worshiping, honestly preparing our hearts to listen for the plans Jesus had next for our church. It was one of those moments you could feel something different in the atmosphere. Almost as if Jesus himself was sitting in the room with us. Amanda led out in prayer. In tears she said, “Jesus I’m sorry for the times I make my life about my agenda. I want my agenda for my life to be Your agenda for my life.”

That simple prayer opened the floodgates for prayer after prayer from our team all congruent with this one theme: SURRENDER. Amanda led the way in surrender. Surrender to a greater plan. Surrender to a greater story. Surrender to a greater God than anything she could have ever imagined or fabricated.

Nic said...

Part 4
On Monday morning, November 9th – the morning before she was killed – I remember walking into our bedroom at about 7:30 in the morning. I had just finished some time reading the Bible and praying and knew that she was up doing the same. When I walked in the bedroom, however, I didn’t see her in her normal spot propped up on the bed reading. I peered around the corner to check the bathroom. She wasn’t there either. When I looked back toward her side of the bed, there she was, on both knees, bowing beside the bed. Leading the way in surrender.

As these images flooded my mind I looked at my counselor and said, “Yes. She still would have said ‘yes.’” Because for Amanda, no matter how much it hurt, she always chose the route of obedience over comfort.

My counselor then shared with me about his visit to Rome a couple years ago. He said he’ll never forget visiting the ancient Colosseum. At one point the guide ushered them down to the dungeons where they housed the early Christians moments before they would meet their demise in front of thousands of screaming Roman citizens. Nero was the Emperor at the time, and he hated everything about the movement of Christianity. Some of the monstrosities committed against these Christians are outlined in Hebrews 11.

Hebrews 11
....[snip]
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death

__________

Could we say, in a manner of speaking, DB has received Amanda back from death? By surrendering her and "propping" <-- her up (being used as a prop) could we say, in a manner of speaking, his agenda (to grow the church) became her agenda for "her life".

Rachael said...

This statement of his, from his blog dated 4/14/16, 'Nothing is Wasted', tells us exactly how he feels about his faith.

"People were meeting Jesus and buying into the vision."

He is a salesman. Nothing more.

https://daveyblackburn.com/2016/04/14/nothing-is-wasted/

Leslie said...

Anonymous at 8:35-
Here's the link you requested:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/05/19/davey-blackburn-remembers-amanda-her-due-date/84610618/

Jude, I stand corrected. I did not realize Martin Luther said we (Christians) are all beggars.

Leslie said...

Corrections: Anonymous @ *8:39*

&

HEY Jude :)

Nic said...

Part 5
What’s fascinating is Nero didn’t ask these early Christians to recant Christ. Ancient Rome was a polytheistic society, meaning most Romans worshiped MANY gods. He merely asked these Christians to worship him FIRST, before they worshiped Christ. These early martyrs could have easily succeeded to Nero’s wishes, all the while holding on to their “love” for Jesus in order to spare their life. But they didn’t. They chose Jesus over anything else.

Over comfort. Over health. Over safety. Over convenience.

None of us know what “cross” Jesus is going to ask us to carry. There’s no pre-laid-out terms of contract in this whole thing. He just says take up your cross and follow me. Amanda chose Jesus over anything else.

Over comfort. Over health. Over safety. Over convenience.

I want that kind of faith. I want that kind of boldness. I want that kind of courage. Truth is, for many of us Amanda is still leading the way in surrender.

Fm25 said...

From Davey's 05/19/16 Instagram post:
"I never could wrap my mind around how one could love 2 kids equally until the day Amanda told me she was pregnant again"
-
There was no blog post about yesterday being Evie's expected birth date. Just the Instagram post which was made after ambers Facebook tribute. I'd venture to say he did t remember until then and didn't have time to prepare a blog entry. He may be working on one now.
-
The sentence I copied bothered me the most. It is very deceptive. If he did love his unborn child equally as he loved Weston then why did he barely mention her in the months after Amanda was murdered. He has only recently started to do so consistently as she is now part of the story he is marketing. Reference perry noble saying in interview with davey that one of his first thoughts was Amanda was pregnant with a baby girl. This he could not have known at the time.
-
I noticed I ambers post that Amanda learned she was pregnant mid September. Davey announced the pregnant on 11/08 and Amber recalls Amanda telling her about how she "broke the news" to davey on 11/09 (day before murder). I wonder how long she waited to tell him she was pregnant.

Nic said...

Re DB's reference to leader/leadership/"emperor", and how he projects himself into all those positions. (Husband)

Read what he says about Nero and how martyrs were sacrificed for their belief and putting Christ "first". Then he lumps Amanda in the the martyrs and refers to her death (the why) in the exact same manner.

I have always found this post to be revealing of his narcissism and how he sees himself (compares himself to Nero - Nero was an emperor/leader and that is how DB has referred to himself -- even using the word emperor in comparison to being a leader (what he declares himself to be,)) Leakage.

That he compares what Nero did to martyrs and then calls Amanda a martyr all the while talking about his leadership position in the church and their life, that Amanda was to submit to him and put him "first". It's all rather chilling, in my opinion. Diabolically so.

AP said...

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/05/19/davey-blackburn-remembers-amanda-her-due-date/84610618/

Link requested above.

Also, as mentioned in a previous comment- I, too, have a hard time thinking of Davey as intelligent. He seems so very dim to me. What in language indicates intelligence? I may possibly be getting confused between intelligence and educated. Although, he doesn't appear to be either to me.

Nic said...

DB said:
Amanda chose Jesus over anything else.

I want that kind of faith. I want that kind of boldness. I want that kind of courage.


He is not saying he wants the kind of faith and devotion to Christ Amanda had.

He is saying he wants this from his followers. That hey would be faithful to DB. The kind of faith that is "bold" (be ardent in their faith) and courageous (die for DB).

He wants to be #1 supreme being. He wants pure adulation. He wants unwavering, devoted, submissive followers, as Nero expected from the (christian) Romans.

---- or else, perhaps, if we were still in Roman times, "they (will) meet their demise in front of thousands of screaming Roman citizens.

jmo

mom2many said...

I posted part of this thought before, but I think it bears repeating in light of this excellent analysis.

Here we have a marriage, partners who seek to be united in working towards the same goal, advancing the same business. But, one believes in the Divine origin of the business, while the other manipulates so the business advances himself rather than the Divine.

The honest believer advances the mission by bringing people to Christ, while the manipulator brings people to his business. People who know Christ leave the business.

We know they were struggling to retain people. He complains about it repeatedly. While alive, she continues to serve God. Once dead, her legacy is in his hands to manipulate for his purpose.

Now his business succeeds.

While he may not have been sure that her murder would propel his success (but had good evidence that it would via Levi Lusko), it definitely would remove her influence which drew people to the real Christ.

mom2many said...

I wanted to also address the comment that DB could have shot her sometime during the call with KW, but I can't find the exact comment right now. Two points to consider - there is a neighbor who had a security camera that caught LT on the Blackburns' front porch. If DB got out of the car and went inside before he stated he did, there would be evidence on the video. Second point, they have charged LT with another murder, as well. These aren't just burglars.

smh said...

Donae told the police Taylor was wearing Alonzo's jacket and told the police about the gun Taylor hid at their apartment.

Alonzo told police Taylor was wearing his jacket.

Three individuals (who are not Alonzo and Donae) whose names are redacted on the rape affidavit also rolled over on Taylor and Watson.

Those who say there will be no snitching are ignoring these facts.

smh said...

And let's not forget the "cooperating individual."

Bobcat said...

mom2many,

"While he may not have been sure that her murder would propel his success (but had good evidence that it would via Levi Lusko), it definitely would remove her influence which drew people to the real Christ."

Davey also has a Pastor friend/Starbucks date Jake Baird whose first wife died.
Jake preached in Davey's absence at Resonate after Amanda's death.
http://resonateindianapolis.com/mediacast/resonate-church-how-to-get-through-a-bad-day/

Jake talked about how Davey "loves" and "cries" for his congregation.

Jake is Associate Pastor at the more successfull i-town church in Indianapolis.
http://www.itownchurch.com/who-we-are/

Ima said...

Davey indicates
To us linguistically
That he did not
Sleep that night
Rather he was on the couch
With God

He does not tell us
The last time he saw Amanda
That morning
Which means she was killed
At night

He had the gun
They are attributing
To the thugs
The gun that
Put the bullets in her

Taylor or the one that
Got out of the car
When they went to pick
Taylor
Back up
Threw their gun
In the neighbor's yard

Ima said...

Could Davey have told thugs:

Door is open,
Go in,
Take the bag

Telling them
There was something
In the bag for them

For example
Stolen goods, drugs
Payment

So they took the bag
But Davey
Had placed the murder wespon
Inside of it
To frame them?

sore thumb said...

If that were the case, HISG/Ima, the thugs would've told the police that, and Davey would be in jail. There is no logical reason why the thugs would take the fall for Davey. None.

lynda said...

Sore thumb,

I don't think you understand gang mentality. The thugs ae not taking the fall for Davey. They may not even be privvy to the knowledge that there is a LINK to Davey. They are NOT snitching on whoever told them to go out that morning and that appears to be Alonzo Bull. THATS who they are not rolling on. AB has made it very clear on his FB that if someone crosses him or snitches, he has people that would "take care of it". They will never give up Bull if indeed it is him.

Rosy said...

Robin Deuhring said...
at 2:28 PM

Since Amanda didn't die right away, how do they know Davey didn't attack her? He sat in the driveway on the phone for a much longer period than normal. Isn't it possible knowing that a neighbor's house was robbed just 2 days before he seized the opportunity?....

In the Q&A videos they did on their way to Chicago - I couldn't help but notice Amanda's facial expressions. She is wearing sunglasses so you can't see all of her eyes but her central forehead was contracted the entire time which can indicate anxiety, She looks away from Davey several times, and the timing of her looking away is in response to what he's saying.
=========

Robin, I agree completely with your analysis of Amanda's facial expressions and her interactions in the train station video. The sole discrepancy with the picture of anxiety is her voice, strong and surprisingly confident. Vocally she does not sound conflicted. She does not use her voice to dissociate herself from the topic. One might say she would make a far better teacher/preacher on this topic than he, but yet she was willing to sit beside him, not meek or browbeaten but as a strong woman in her own right who was still choosing to support and strengthen his ....(fill in whatever word fits).

Now, as to the morning of - the relevant burglary at their neighbor's 2 doors down was happening BEFORE HE LEFT THE HOUSE (not 2 days before).

Here's a crime scenario. Pure fiction:

A Christian husband will prove to the world that he is willing to lay down his life for his wife. How can do it? Wielding his gun, given to him as a Christmas gift by his wife's grandfather, he will stand his ground in defense of her and their unborn child.

A sling-shot publicity stunt to boost his career! Except he doesn't plan on any one of the assigned home invaders to arrive carrying a gun and itching to use it. He doesn't plan on any one of them to have murdered a man and raped a woman less than a week before. He's expecting a couple of dumb-clucks.

They, the crew, set off around 3 A.M and do the part he doesn't have to plan - heist a vehicle. While they're about that they steal some stuff. Then they drive to his street to break into a house that he, through their higher-ups, has directed them to, his near neighbor's house, empty overnight.

He's been up about an hour, since 4:30 A.M, downstairs, on watch for their arrival. Around 5:30 A.M he sees them drive in and park. They've been ordered to wait it out in the neighbor's house, chilling, till a pre-assigned time - at which they will wander over to his house and he will confront them.

He has made sure his front door will present no barrier. But instead of waiting to ambush them and prove himself a hero, for some reason he chickens out. Perhaps he receives a warning. Around 6 A.M. or before, he gets in his car and drives away, "forgetting" to lock the door.

Anonymous said...

From my experience dealing with highly manipulative people, I came to the conclusion that manipulation is almost like another kind of intelligence. Some people are smart, others are not, but people who can manipulate others could come from either. I don't think DB is intelligent. Otherwise he would realize where his words are leading him and stop. Also, his appearance of "intelligence" is partly due to the fact that so many people are willing to believe him. Those people are either idiots or are so desperate to belong to something that they will even cling to DB, PN or the like.

DB uses religion as a tool to power and wealth. I wonder what he will turn to when it doesn't work out.

mom2many said...

Bobcat, thanks! I had thought there was at least one other example, but didn't remember specifics.

lynda said...

Nic @ 11:40, Good Post, I agree. Davey is first a narcissistic business man, he promotes his business plan of achieving fame and fortune by using the "pastor" buzz word. He is not an ordained Pastor. He is nothing. If he worships anyone it would be L. Ron because at least he came right out and said, if you want to be rich, start a religion.

lynda said...

I think the 3 in jail are the fall guys.

If 2 snitched, it was part of the plan from Alonzo (the CI)

HIsg, they did NOT throw the gun in the yard. That is not true.



Anonymous said...

Posted yesterday or today by DB on his Instagram Account:

"Enclosed in the envelop is a note Amanda wrote Weston before he was born. It was entitled "Weston I want to tell you about your daddy." I keep it beside my bed to pull out and read on those days I need inspiration to keep being a good dad. Today I would have been a dad of two. Today was Evie Grace's due date. Although I never met her I loved her more than I ever thought I could love a little one. I never could wrap my mind around how one could love 2 kids equally until the day Amanda told me she was pregnant again. In that moment my heart expanded to twice it's original capacity. I love you Evie Grace and I can't wait to see you and your beautiful mommy again one day. Happy Birthday, sweetie!"

Nic said...

Rosy and Robin,

Re Amanda's conflicting confidence. In response to DB's first answer about submission:

Amanda says:

But, um, I just wanted to speak a little bit about what leading your wife means because I think there is a misconception of men think or women even think, maybe we don’t even know exactly what leading us well looks like. But we think it’s like, ‘Hey, like hey lead us in a bible study, a family bible study you know, every night or morning, or lead us in prayer all the time, or um, you know, lead us in our financial decisions, and it is some of that. But I really think you can lead your wife best by just being a really, really godly example to her. And so the closer you follow after Jesus, the more she’s gonna want to follow after Jesus. And the better decisions you make abou-with your finances, or with your time, um, with your energy, the more she’s going to respect you, admire you, and want to follow you, want to submit to you (looks at DB)

but refutes that which was said prior. What follows is what is important (and her point):

I really think you can lead your wife best by just being a really, really godly example to her. And so the closer you follow after Jesus,

Note follow *after* Jesus, not BE Jesus

What defines Jesus? Think of every nice thing you could say about someone's treatment of another human being. That's what she wanted him to be like to her, but he wasn't out of choice. He was FIRST.

And note what she says next (and) being missing time/information (wonder what is she thinking of, though she uses the universal "you" to be less obvious about the fact she is speaking to DB):

And the better decisions you make abou-with your finances, or with your time, um, with your energy, the more she’s going to respect you, admire you, and want to follow you, want to submit to you

Note future tense. Going to: respect you, admire you, "want to" follow you, "want to" submit to you.

Note order, and most likely what they fought about, 1) money, 2) time, 3) energy.

She did not want to follow DB because he was mean to her - or submit to him because she lived by the word of the Lord, in the true sense. (Have no other gods before me.) She didn't respect or admire him. She didn't agree with his decisions regarding their finances or how he used his time or where he put his energy. She is speaking directly to his opinion about his expectations of her. Thus he finishes with:

" if you’re walking through your biblical roles well ...be a support, ... be a help mate, ... prop up, to be the lift behind the leadership that your husband is suppose to take, if you do that well, he will step in and lead..."

In other words, do as I say, put me first above all and "your" Christ and thenI will "love" you.

DB's love is conditional and limited. Jesus' love is eternal and unconditional.

jmo

sore thumb said...

"lynda said...

Sore thumb,

I don't think you understand gang mentality. The thugs ae not taking the fall for Davey. They may not even be privvy to the knowledge that there is a LINK to Davey. They are NOT snitching on whoever told them to go out that morning and that appears to be Alonzo Bull. THATS who they are not rolling on. AB has made it very clear on his FB that if someone crosses him or snitches, he has people that would "take care of it". They will never give up Bull if indeed it is him.

May 20, 2016 at 2:24 PM"


Lynda, I don't think you understand what I was responding to. HISG/Ima suggested -- as she has many times -- that Davey was in direct contact with the three thugs, not that the thugs got their directions from higher up. Again, in that scenario, the thugs would be taking the fall for DAVEY, not their "gang" buddies.

Bobcat said...

Anon @ 2:45,

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFkuLnWh4KK/?taken-by=daveyblackburn

I would bet that the envelope was written by Davey. Amanda doesn't make exclamation points or heart like those on the envelope.

Amanda also does not write in all caps, but Davey does.

He is a liar, and yes, his pants are on fire. (I couldn't resist)

Compare writing samples here: http://case-discussions.blogspot.com/2016/04/who-wrote-amandas-final-journal-entry.html

Nic said...

mom2many said:
one believes in the Divine origin of the business, while the other manipulates so the business advances himself rather than the Divine.

The honest believer advances the mission by bringing people to Christ, while the manipulator brings people to his business. People who know Christ leave the business.


Very well said and spot on. I totally agree with you.

"People who know Christ leave." This was essentially what was happening. However, have you noticed that the new script/plan is all about the "killed" Amanda. They hook them with Amanda's name and contrived story and he stands up and all they see is him talking... And he doesn't have to pontificate his homily around the scripture (nobody would believe him, he's "caught" that. ) He just plagiarizes Amanda's "word" (her journal), plays the pity card (widower/single dad) and brings out the prop (Weston, who is as cute as a puppy, evoking the same kind of emotional response a puppy would,) and it's pennies from heaven.

Who needs God, he's got Amanda. Per:

Hebrews 11
....[snip]
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death

DB passed God's test. He sacrificed and God delivered. Amanda is doing more for his church dead than she did alive. In addition to his numbers growing, 1) she's not showing him up, 2) she's not talking back, 3) Amanda's "story" is the write song sheet to sing from/plan, 4) Weston has a "plethora" of submissive mama's, 5) all of DB's time and energy is put to "better" use being the leader because he is wired for this and there is nobody wining that their husband/father isn't home spending time with them; he has essentially delegated his parental style to the submissives living under communal his roof.

jmo


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

*right
*whining
*mamas

Rosy said...

Nic,

your analysis is fine-grained. Looking closely reminds me that in watching this video I've been troubled by how Amanda puts finances first as well as last. We may expect focus on finances of Davey, and judge him as the salesman, the huckster. Yet Amanda never dissociates herself from that.

"we think it’s like, ‘Hey, like hey lead us in a bible study, a family bible study you know, every night or morning, or lead us in prayer all the time, or um, you know, lead us in our financial decisions, and it is some of that"

"And so the closer you follow after Jesus, the more she’s gonna want to follow after Jesus. And the better decisions you make abou-with your finances, or with your time, um, with your energy....."

They designed their video as counsel to questioners in their congregation. Why, though, were they running part of their church like a debt counseling service? Finances were on their mind since before they married. As soon as they started Resonate, they took on that role of debt-counseling.

The main example Amanda gives of Davey "leading her" by example is how his habit of getting up early to do his devotions changed her pattern of praying at the end of the day. She uses the phrase, "running hard after" Jesus:

"that's just a small example of how you can lead your wife, is by doing what Jesus called you to do, running really hard after him and pursuing him...."

This is vacuous. It says nothing specific about what Jesus called his disciples to do. If anything it contradicts Jesus's teachings on love and charity. For example - Mark 10:17 ff.

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”

“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

rjb said...

I think that DB has a very pragmatic, formulaic mindset. "If I do X, Y will happen." His choice of Babywise as a parenting manual demonstrates this. The entire premise of the book is that one can train one's infant to be the perfect, easy baby with no regard to the actual personality and unique traits that one's child may have. It tells parents when to feed the baby, when to allow play time, and to create a rigid nap/sleep schedule, regardless of the child's own internal clock, appetite, etc.

This is also demonstrated in his frustration over the low numbers at his church. I'm sure his thought process is along the lines of, "But I said this, the church gave away this, it's week (whatever) and statistically there ought to be (x number) of buns in seats and (y amount) of tithes and offerings at this point." He is not equipped to deal with any curveball life throws at him, not unless he can exploit it to advance the life he has already scripted for himself.

mom2many said...

Nic,
Exactly! Davey now owns her in a way he never could when she was alive. She is now made perfect. /sarc

Ima said...

Lynda,

OK then who threw
The gun in the
Backyard then?

Ima said...

Davey telegraphed
Shooting Amanda
With a gun

Davey telegraphed
Knocking her tooth out

He is the one who
Assaulted her

If the thugs were found with
The murder weapon on
Them
They are screwed

Even if Davey
Put it in the bag

If you were a cop
Would you believe them if they
Said
Officer someone put
It in the bag
We just stole
From a house
Containing a dead body?

Davey killed her
He telegraphed exactly
How she would die

Nic said...

Rosy said:
This is vacuous. It says nothing specific about what Jesus called his disciples to do.


I agree. She was a smart woman. She addressed DB first. Note: "misconception" and then answered the question (running hard after Jesus,) without really saying anything at all. They were having a public disagreement. :0) DB gave her an opportunity to speak and after she sat through his b.s. submissive spiel (which she obviously disagreed with re: misconception and then weekend (buried) her f.u. rebuttal by saying "even" woman, etc.) She wasn't allowed to be smart or outshine him, and definitely not contradict him -- she would not be "walking through her bible role"! But she kinda did at the end (followed his "lead" by changing her devotion schedule.) She disagreed with him coyly, that she could do it so stealthily and defiantly, makes me proud of her. The fact that she took the opportunity when she did (publicly/video 3) truly demonstrates the power struggle between the couple. By recanting a "vacuous" story about devotions (which he very loudly was not to her, which has me thinking that was another "swing" at him (devotion being leakage,)) she came off sounding like a good "little", preacher's "not well schooled" (is that how described her?) wife.

That's my interpretation of Amanda's response in Video 3.

Anonymous said...

Rjb, I thought Babywise was Amanda's idea first, no?

Nic said...

You have to remember that Resonate was their livelihood. She was not going to blatantly show DB up and make him look like an ignorant fool. The consequence being she would ultimately be hurting herself and Weston. (Security.) She had to maintain a facade of unity.

Here's another bit of leakage:

yeah, there’s, it’s really easy for a wife to submit to her husband when her husband is leading her well. And I mean, as women, we are called to submit to our husbands regardless if they are leading us well

Nic said...

Also, note the timeline of the devotion story. When they were newlyweds. She had to go all the way back to the beginning of their marriage to find an example of being well lead and following. I find this revealing. It's like the blinders came off after the honeymoon period.

Leslie said...

I keep having to remind myself how very naive, sheltered, and inexperienced Amanda was. She could have rebelled from her upbringing, but, instead, she embraced conservative Christianity. She took a purity pledge early on and took it seriously, having like-minded accountability friends to keep each other in check. Not only did she endeavor to remain a virgin until her wedding night, but, she NEVER kissed a "man" until she and Davey became engaged. She might, or might not have ever really dated and had a serious boyfriend before Davey (?). And, although her strong convictions are very admirable, her lack of experience in relationships could very well have put her at a disadvantage with Davey.

Not only was Amanda a "Preacher's Kid," but she attended a private Christian school for her K-12 education (whereas Davey is, of course, also a PK, but attended public school). Afterwards, Amanda attended Pensacola Christian College. It is a VERY sheltered environment. For instance, I read on a forum that until recent years, mixed sexes were not allowed to ride on elevators together. Further below is a link to their student resource guide that gives includes a code of conduct, and information, such as details as to what to bring to college, etc. It has arrows to the side of each page. If you click on the hyperlinked list of what NOT to bring to this college, headphones and earbuds are listed, along with movies and DVD's. Although most colleges do not allow pets, such as cats and dogs, this college does not even allow fish.

A sampling of some other rules:
Dancing is prohibited, "The seductive nature and worldly music of most forms of dancing are contrary to biblical principles."

Females are to dress modestly in dresses and skirts, and are not allowed to wear pants, nor anything made of denim. Athletic shorts may be worn for athletics.

Martial arts are prohibited, "because some have direct ties to Eastern Mysticsism."

If students want to enjoy Pensacola's beaches, men and women are to visit different beaches (they segregate and list which beaches), and leave by sundown.

PCC's swim center lists separate times for the different sexes.

Music practice studios have separate buildings for the males and females.

Students have "lights out" times, are not allowed to rise before 5:30 a.m. (except for off-campus jobs), and have chores to clean various parts of their rooms on allotted days.

Besides weekday morning chapel four times a week, Wed. pm services, and Sun. church services, students have prayer nights in their dorms three nights a week.

There are designated study hours.

Students must obtain an overnight pass to visit their parents.

Single students 25 and older are allowed to live off campus.

You get the idea.

https://www.pcci.edu/pathway/ArrivalWeek/PlanningYourArrival.aspx

I do not mean to be criticising Pensacola Christian College, but, wanted to try to wrap my head around Amanda's upbringing, her ideology, and culture.

Although Amanda enjoyed close family relationships with her parents and siblings, I get the impression that they are all pretty private about personal manners. So, if Davey demanded frequent sex, or unusual sex (he said "anything goes" in the bedroom in one of his sex sermons), chances are that Amanda did not compare notes with Amber or close friends (I'm speculating). Even if Amanda was not thrilled with Davey's sexual demands, she had no reference point to gauge it. She probably endured the frequency, and possibly, acts she was uncomfortable with, as she believed it was her place to submit.

Leslie said...

Correction: I get the impression that Amanda's parents and siblings are private about personal *matters.*

Nic said...

Peter said:
It takes a very specific element within a personality to place himself or herself above that which they consider divinity.

The answer is not singular, but I implore readers to consider one particular element. I recognize the hatred and the antagonism but in context, consider that those who alter the message may do so to personally profit from the ideology.


Here's one (brackets my comments):

Grandiose Delusions (or Delusions of Grandeur)

Symptoms:

According to the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for delusional disorders, grandiose-type symptoms include grossly exaggerated beliefs of:

self-worth - check
power - check
knowledge - check
identity - check
exceptional relationship to a divinity or famous person. (like Nero) check

For example, a patient who has fictitious beliefs about his or her power or authority may believe himself or herself to be a ruling monarch who deserves to be treated like royalty. (Or to be followed like Christ.) There are substantial differences in the degree of grandiosity linked with grandiose delusions in different patients. Some patients believe they are God (or above God (first)), the Queen of England, a president's son, a famous rock star (dresses and presents himself like George Michael), and so on. Others are not as expansive and think they are skilled sports-persons or great inventors.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions#Causes_of_delusion

Bobcat said...

"When you meet a perfect family, you are meeting one that hides their frailties well."

As long as it all looks pretty on social media, the Lumpy Rug Syndrome stays under the rug.

Nic said...

I do not mean to be criticising Pensacola Christian College, but, wanted to try to wrap my head around Amanda's upbringing, her ideology, and culture.

Leslie, reading your post it made me think that Amanda was a pleaser. Her dad was a preacher, so she embraced the family life wholeheartedly. That included education and conducting herself accordingly (not bringing shame upon her dad). And she was rewarded for her loyalty. (Love.)

But in every parent/child relationship, the kid eventually grows up and rebels/fights for their independence! :0) DB didn't just grow a church, he grew a woman. A woman who challenged him on every level. Right down to, 'if you want a do right woman, you've gotta be a do right man". That's not how Artheta sang it, but that's what I'm saying. It boiled down to give and take and the emotional bank account. Too many withdraws and no deposits means you are in "overdraft" and your (emotional) withdraw is declined. (sighting 7 Habits of Highly Effective People)

Nic said...

*Aretha

Geesh (which my autocorrect just turned into geese.) Good Lord.

Nic said...

Peter said:
*The alteration must not an error, misunderstanding, or disagreement. The alteration must be deliberate.


This is how I see DB deliberately altering the Divinity/divine word.

Taking a page from Nero's story, DB's followers can enjoy "their" Jesus, but they must put DB first and follow his lead. Under the guise of "Nero", DB can interpret/alternate the holy word any way he wants to. His ardent followers are bold! They put him first. The growing numbers affirm his alteration/truth. Therefore, he is divine.

Leslie said...

I agree, Nic. Amanda did seem to be the ideal child (her mother said she never gave her a bit of trouble), and was probably a pleaser. Yet, she obviously was authentic in her beliefs. And, that's a good point, that she essentially grew up, once married. For her, rebellion or exerting her independence could be as simple as wearing jeans or dancing (gasp) to a secular song! Yet, in her compliance, she still showed spunk. And, Nic, you're right, Davey was bound to have felt challenged by her. And, as has been mentioned previously, she knew of Davey's porn habit or addiction, and received the emails, along with PN, of the sites he visited (when he didn't use the app he bragged about, which got around the restrictions or reporting). She held him to high standards and expected him to rise to them and be the leader she thought she had married. She might have discovered a bit too much and needed to be hushed.

Leslie said...

To be accurate, "That girl didn't give me five minutes worth of trouble in her life,' Blackburn's mother, Robin Byars, said in the video."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320520/Thousands-gather-memorial-pastor-s-pregnant-wife-shot-dead-couple-s-home-week.html#ixzz49EiSDTcS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Ima said...

Amanda knew
That Davey was
Bad news
When
She married him

That is why she
Gave him up
For Lent

She desperately wanted
To get away from him

I bet she was
Forced into the marriage
By her dear old
Dad

And yes
She was a pleaser

Bobcat said...

It's interesting that her mother used "That girl" to describe Amanda.

Not that she didn't love her, but she already had her daughter and son before bonus Amanda came along. Amber raised Amanda (and did an amazing job!).

Leslie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leslie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leslie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bobcat said...

Leslie,

I'm not criticizing Amanda's mother for saying "that girl". As a fourth out of five children, I speak from experience. My younger brother tells people "she (meaning me) raised me". Amanda was a good girl, so good her mother never had to fret about her. That could explain the "that girl". I think Amber knew Amanda better than their mother did. This is only my opinion, and not a dig at her mother.

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

Bobcat, I hear you. Similar to Amber, I helped raise a couple of my younger siblings.

Btw, when I deleted some posts and links that were irrelevant just now, I accidently deleted my previous reply to you.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Phil Byars has some interesting sermons on audio, on topics ranging from murder (2014), when covering the 10 commandments, honest / deceit, "Who Do You Think You're Fooling," and many more that seem...ironic, in light of suspicions many have of DB.

http://www.nowsprouting.com/firstbaptistchurch46/media.php?pageID=19

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Also, the local Elkhart, IN newspaper has some interesting and passionate comments, on both "sides," on some of their articles that cover Amanda's death. I'd read many other newspapers' accounts, and comments, but I don't think I'd read from this source before:

http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/crime-fire-courts/2015/11/11/Amanda-Blackburn-daughter-of-First-Baptist-Church-in-Elkhart-s-Phil-and-Robin-Byars-critically-injured-in-Indianapolis-shooting.html

HISG said...

Did you guys ever think that more than one person could have objected to Amanda's desire to divorce Davey? Did you ever think one of them could have been Phil Byers? Especially if "that girl" had never given them one ounce of trouble?

Phil Byers' video interview is the most insincere thing I have ever seen.

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

Btw, there was a debate on a previous thread about where Amber was when she got the call about Amanda having been attacked and in the hospital. From one of her fb posts, I interpreted her to imply that she was at her grandparents' in IN, but, I stand corrected. According to Phil Byar's sermon on 11/22/15, "Jesus is...Trustworthy," around the 05:00, he speaks of being at his parents' in CA, along with Amber, and other family. They quickly changed their airlines tickets.

http://www.nowsprouting.com/firstbaptistchurch46/media.php?pageID=19

HISG said...

Quote from Phil

“I’m proud to be her dad,” said Phil Byars, Amanda Blackburn’s dad. “I’m proud of what she turned into. I’m proud of the woman that she was and the mother that she was. That’s all I have to say about that.”

THAT'S all I have to say about THAT.

Distancing with the use of the word "that" from his supposed "pride" in "what she turned into".

Could not "what she turned into" be derogatory?

I feel like that expression is usually used negatively like "I can't believe the monster he "turned into".

SEparately, was he NOT proud of her before she "turned into" a "woman" and "mother"?

What if when she wanted to divorce Davey, especially while pregnant, he was no longer "proud" of that?

HISG said...

http://www.nowsprouting.com/firstbaptistchurch46/media.php?pageID=19

One of Phil's first sermons after Amanda's death: around 9:45 he talks about how he told his wife shortly before Amanda's death "something big's gonna happen" because there were "guys" handing him nickles and saying they were going to pray for him.

Something's fishy.

Rosy said...


Nic said ....
Here's another bit of leakage:

yeah, there’s, it’s really easy for a wife to submit to her husband when her husband is leading her well. And I mean, as women, we are called to submit to our husbands regardless if they are leading us well
May 20, 2016 at 4:50 PM

---
Yes, and that's chilling. First off, in those videos neither of them mention possible abusive relationships. As pastors they must or ought to have known about domestic violence, whether against women or children. Indiana mandates reporting of child abuse by "Health care provider; any member of medical or other private or public institution; school, facility, or agency, and any other individuals." http://statelaws.findlaw.com/indiana-law/indiana-child-abuse-laws.html

Physical abuse of spouses or children are, of course, crimes.

How many churches ignore these statutes? I don't know but to do so is reckless. So at the least, I would expect even pastors who say women are called (in our belief) to submit to their husbands to add, but that does not mean women must submit to or allow abuse.

Evidence suggests that by the time of the murder, the church and its finances and the Blackburns' marriage were both in a state of crisis. The pregnancy added to the first level of financial/marital crisis (probably before DB knew about the pregnancy). The Love Song series and train station Q&A amount to denial of the crisis. By "sharing" cartoon glimpses of their marital strife, DB aimed to boost buzz about Resonate, draw in more members, and make more money.

Bobcat said...

I'm listening to Ken Wagner's first sermon back in Dover after the funeral. Like DB, he says "I'll be honest with you" repeatedly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGXN9NYd_xA

lynda said...

Ima,

There was a gun that was turned into a fire station from a guy who said he found it 2 blocks away from the Blackburn home in some guys yard. That's where this rumor started. It was NOT the gun and it was weird the guy would turn it in to a fire station instead of call LE> Just google it, you'll find all the info. Ikd if they have ever found the murder weapon

Rosy said...

Leslie said...

Leslie said ....
Btw, there was a debate on a previous thread about where Amber was when she got the call about Amanda having been attacked and in the hospital. From one of her fb posts, I interpreted her to imply that she was at her grandparents' in IN, but, I stand corrected. According to Phil Byar's sermon on 11/22/15, "Jesus is...Trustworthy," around the 05:00, he speaks of being at his parents' in CA, along with Amber, and other family. They quickly changed their airlines tickets.
http://www.nowsprouting.com/firstbaptistchurch46/media.php?pageID=19
================

Yes!!! Thanks for this, I was almost certain Amber was in California with her father's parents. The point of the trip was to introduce the new grandchildren to the CA grandparents. It seems odd that Amanda did not go on that trip, it was a rare, special event.

Now can we explain time and date of Amber and Amanda's meeting at Trader's Point church?

Bobcat said...

Rosy,

"It seems odd that Amanda did not go on that trip, it was a rare, special event."

They couldn't afford it, or DB wouldn't budget it.

Rosy said...

Bobcat - Yes. Wasn't a priority. Yet Resonate found enough for a bunch them to spend a weekend in Cincinnati doing sweet what that couldn't be done in Indy? Praying on one knee in the hotel's dismal, dis-used basement gym? And DB and AB went to Chicago.

HISG said...

Thanks Lynda for the info on the found gun. It is still odd, and I agree it is odd that the guy brought it to the fire station. My first instinct would definitely be to call the cops.

They claim they found the murder weapon under one of the thugs beds and that one of the thugs had posed with the weapon on facebook. In other words, that weapon matched the bullets left in Amanda, and the one under the stairs.

rjb said...

That's not the impression I got from reading various earlier DB blogs. There is also nothing about her that seems the Babywise type. I could be mistaken.

HISG said...

Phil Byers telegraphed the murder also when he said to his wife "Something big's gonna happen".

I can't stress enough how incriminating this is when an individual "foresees" something bad happening or "speaks" of something terrible happening to an individual before it happens.

Phil psychically knew something "big" was going to happen. Except he's not psychic, so that is a huge problem.

If Amanda was sent to that Catholic college where nothing was allowed, if she was raised so strictly and never made a peep of trouble, all hell may have risen up if she confided to sister, mother, whoever that she wanted to leave Davey, nevermind, gasp, divorce him, and who knows, maybe she confided this while pregnant.

Rosy said...

HISG -

Pensacola College is not Catholic, it's Independent Baptist.

Bobcat said...

HISG,

I don't think Phil retroactively telegraphed anything. He seems to be trying to explain the unexplainable for his dry bones congregation. He is not a great preacher.

Leslie said...

Rosy said:

"Now can we explain time and date of Amber and Amanda's meeting at Trader's Point church?"

Rosy, would you refresh my memory what this was about, please? I'm drawing a blank, but, I'l try to research it.

HISG said...

Rosy, thanks for the info...I didn't realize that, but I still stand by my opinion.

If Amanda had colored inside the lines so perfectly her entire life, and that was expected, it may have caused an extreme reaction if she wanted to leave Davey. Who knows? Maybe she was sick of the whole church.

Leslie said...

Blogger rjb said...
That's not the impression I got from reading various earlier DB blogs. There is also nothing about her that seems the Babywise type. I could be mistaken.

May 20, 2016 at 9:24 PM

- - - - - - - -

rjb, I don't currently have links on this topic, but, it's been discussed in prior threads. Davey posted a picture of the Babywise book on at least one social media account, and if I remember correctly, Amber was reading it at beach, when expecting Weston. In Davey's blog post "Weston, I Wat to Tell You About Your Mother," he references the book, without giving the title, here:

"Your mommy was diligent. You may wonder why every night around 8pm you get really sleepy, why every morning you wake up at 8am on the dot, ready to take on the world, why every afternoon at 1pm you’re asking to go “night-night.” Your mommy and I read a book that helped us learn how to direct healthy sleep and feeding patterns for you. Even when it was tough and exhausting, she followed the plan. She would get up with you in the middle of the night. She would cuddle with you and sing to you when she could barely keep her eyes open. She remained patient with you when you didn’t want to feed. She was determined. She always had your future health in mind for you even from the beginning."

Although Amanda might have trained Weston to be on a sleep / wake schedule, and she might have gleaned other information that she implemented, it seems more fitting for Davey to have "led" her in reading the book and applying the method, whether in part, or in whole, imo.

https://daveyblackburn.com/2016/05/09/weston-i-want-to-tell-you-about-your-mommy/

Bobcat said...

Leslie and Rosy:

"Rosy said:

"Now can we explain time and date of Amber and Amanda's meeting at Trader's Point church?"

Rosy, would you refresh my memory what this was about, please? I'm drawing a blank, but, I'l try to research it."

Here it is:
https://www.facebook.com/amber.b.wilkinson/videos/10208026172233877/

HISG said...

Bobcat,

I just watched the video camera footage you posted from Amber's page and read her passage she had written about Amanda.

Nothing struck me as odd until the end where she talks about a volunteer approaching her, saying she had seen the 2 of them interacting so beautifully and then "offering" to comb through surveillance footage to give her a 45 second clip that doesn't show them interacting at all.

It's very freaky actually.

Quite frankly, it has the tone of alibi creation. What I mean by that is: See, I was with her! And we were getting along great!!! A volunteer even commented when I went back there 'oh I could just tell you 2 were the best of friends when you touched her belly! Let me comb through hours of video footage (and why would a church volunteer have access to that?) so you can see you and your sister separately entering the building!!!

And I don't understand...why is Amber saying she was home from the trip to CA on the 8th but the parents stayed behind in CA to visit longer? Is that what happened?

Leslie said...

Anonymous HISG said...
http://www.nowsprouting.com/firstbaptistchurch46/media.php?pageID=19

One of Phil's first sermons after Amanda's death: around 9:45 he talks about how he told his wife shortly before Amanda's death "something big's gonna happen" because there were "guys" handing him nickles and saying they were going to pray for him.

Something's fishy.

May 20, 2016 at 8:45 PM

- - - - - -

HISG, here's my take on what you posted, above. You know that saying, "Be careful what you wish for"? Well, amongst some Christian circles, it's, "Be careful what you pray for." That slogan became more prevalent after many read Josh Wilkinson's book, THE PRAYER OF JABEZ. Basically, some Christians realized that if they prayed for patience, for instance, God would send situations their way where they could develop patience. So, in reverse, there's this thinking that there could be a reason that one is going through hardships. Did they (or others, on their behalf) recently pray for strength? It's kind of mindset, or way of interpreting hardships.

I honestly have no idea of the significance of parishioners giving Phil Byars nickels, but he referenced some baseball term, or phrase? Surely someone in the church had the idea to recruit participants in giving Phil nickels. I'm unsure if that meant they were praying for him? Again, there was a baseball reference of which I'm unfamiliar. But, some Christians look for, and find meaning in everything. To Phil, this showering of nickels indicated he had prayer and support, perhaps, and something big was around the corner. He didn't imply, or project that something bad was going to happen....

HISG said...

And did she really go back there a few days after Amanda died because her kids had been cooped up and needed to blow off steam and that was the only place she could think of to take them? Or did she go there to get that video footage?

Rosy said...

Thanks Bobcat and Leslie.

Re: submission, a post I made a few minutes ago has disappeared, perhaps deleted? I referenced a Wikipedia article on the college the sisters attended, Pensacola Christian College. If you are interested, look it up and read the subsection Controversies / Student welfare.

I omit the link, lest it led to the deletion.

Bobcat said...

Here's something interesting:

Southern Wesleyan Dean's List Fall 2007 Released January 2008: Davey Blackburn, English
http://www.swu.edu/about-swu/news/swu-announces-fall-deans-list/#.Vz-_4_krK00

Student Honors April 2008: Religion and Communications
http://www.swu.edu/about-swu/news/students-awarded-at-honors-convocation/#.Vz_F8vkrK00

Wedding Announcement June 2008: Bachelor's degree in Communications and Christian Ministries
http://www.elkharttruth.com/weddings/2008/06/29/Amber-Byars-and-Gavin-Wilkinson-Amanda-Byars-and-Davey-Blackburn.html

Did he change his English major to Communications the second semester of his senior year and add Christian Ministry?

HISG said...

Leslie,

I agree with your take on Phil's sermon. Also when I listen to him speak without being able to see him on these audios he seems less virulent and more like a preacher who perhaps is not the best, but is trying.

In the past 10 minutes of thinking about Amber's video footage, however, and also her written passage accompanying it, I am becoming increasingly alarmed.
While doing a quick chore and thinking about the passage in my head, I realized that the entire tone of it is to explain WHY things happened. Why Amanda ended up picking her up from the airport, why she went back to the indoor park, etc. Also, there is tremendous emphasis on convincing the reader of the good quality of their relationship.

What is eerie is that Amber knew the police had gotten video surveillance footage of Davey from the gym and "cleared" Davey.
SA tells me that Amber's need to explain why she went back to the indoor park is deceptive. I believe she went back there to attain video footage proving she was there with Amanda. She also includes statements that attempt to "prove" she was seen there interacting with Amanda by the volunteer.

I don't know what to make of this, but I wonder if Amber left the indoor park (may have left her kids there with Amanda) and did something. What I do not know.

But there is something fishy with her attaining that video footage and posting it.

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

Bobcat, that's an interesting find. According to SWU's website, English and Communications fall under their Humanities department, and, a Religion major, and Christian Ministries is a concentration that falls under Religion:

http://www.swu.edu/academics/academic-programs/

I guess it's possible that DB realized that he took enough communication courses, while majoring in English (overlap of courses that could count for either major), that he was able to change that major for his last semester? And, likewise, with religion and Christian Ministries. It is a small college, and he likely had pull (he has an uncle that is, or was a youth pastor in residence at the college). But, it is all a bit odd and suspect. He might have a double major, such as Communications (changed from English), and a minor in Religion, with a concentration in Christian Ministries. Or, a minor in Communications (although he has never distinguished between majors and minors). Or, he had a double major, which would be very difficult to do in four years (unless he went to summer school, or took some online courses).

HISG said...

From Amber

Note all of the SCAN sensitive "howevers", "becauses"--the need to explain why something happened (I have capitalized these)

To summarize: She explains WHY Amanda ended up picking her up instead of the grandma

She explains WHY she ended up staying for a few days in INdianapolis when she had not initially planned to.



It was Sunday, November 8, and I was flying home from a week long trip in California. I had traveled for almost 12 hours with Rowen, my 6 month old son, and I could not wait to FINALLY land in Indianapolis. My grandma was planning to pick me up from the airport with my two girls, HOWEVER, I received a text at 1:30 that day that read - "SISTER! I'm coming to pick you up from the airport tonight! What time do you fly in? I can't wait to see you!!!" I was so excited to get her text! I thought the rest of the day how MUCH it meant to me to have her take the time and leave her family to come see me! I was planning to drive home early Monday morning, but BECAUSE of the long day of travel (and coaxing from Amanda), I decided to stay in Indy a few days! It was a decision that will forever impact my life - and one I will ALWAYS remember.

HISG said...

More from Amber

1) Need to explain WHY she didn't hug Amanda

It was finally time for her to go home. She was holding Weston in her arms as Davey loaded the car. I didn't even hug her goodbye BECAUSE her arms were full, and we would be hanging out again the next day - Tuesday, November 10. I regret that decision every single day. If only I knew that would be the last time I ever saw my precious sister. It is a moment frozen in time - and one I will ALWAYS remember.

It's so difficult to write this. It is even MORE difficult to go back and remember her voice, and her laugh, and her hug, and her sarcasm, and her love, and her wisdom, and her jokes, and her LIFE. She is one of my most favorite people in all the world, and oh how hard it is to imagine this life without her in it. She added so much beauty and value to this world. I'm just so thankful that God would allow us to have one last day TOGETHER. It was truly the most beautiful gift - and one I will always, ALWAYS remember.

Leslie said...

Interesting-
In a SWU article on the commencement speaker on May 12, 2008, graduates are listed by state and city. Under SC:

"Etowah
Davey Blackburn, Bachelor of Arts in Communication."

A Religion major or minor, with a concentration in Christian Ministry is not mentioned.

http://www.swu.edu/about-swu/news/commencement-speaker-urges-graduates-to-bepatches-of-grace/#.Vz_PnJErLIU

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 2877   Newer› Newest»