16 (Dehler & Robert Baty) Questions for Christians TV Show, Part 1 of 2 

@ Stonyvvvv That's a little off topic, and I have noticed there has been a lot of chatter and dispute about what, if anything, Kaku had to say about it. In doing a quick check, for instance, I found this reference: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/34234/does-michio-kaku-claim-he-has-found-proof-of-gods-existence ----------------------------------------------------------------

If you actually knew a lot of atheists you would find out that a great number of them are former "true" believers. They just now view it as a god delusion.

@ John Olaoluwa I responded more generally in a stand alone comment posted separately. I will, however, in this response, deal with one of your specific, misguided and/or false claims. You wrote, in part: - "#2. Everyone, including Bernie Dehler, acknowledges or knows - that Kent Hovind runs a ministry on his beliefs in Creationism. - But Mr. Baty was persistently refuting this known fact - why - if - not for some personal agenda?" Kent's characterization of his business as a "ministry" is not disputed. I have my own "ministry" as well. It was Kent's business, and he could call it "buttermilk" for all I care. My criticism is that Kent's use of the term "ministry" has been in the context of trying to claim that as such he should have some special benefits under the law. As I noted in the interview, it doesn't work that way. I was simply proposing that, for tax purposes, Kent had no special tax benefits available to him because his business was not a "church" nor any other tax-privileged operation; not as far as how "we the people" recognize such operations for special benefits. Part of Kent's "ministry" included extensive preaching of his anti-government, anti-tax, sovereign citizen theology; which has nothing to do with "creationism", John Olaoluwa. Jousting with Kent's misguided and misinformed wannabe apologists, like you John Olaoluwa, is a little wearisome. Kent needs to come out and face me, or send out his Champion. We have things to talk about. See: kehvrlb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Baty, thanks for answering to my comment. More importantly, you picked on a point which, for me, was the crux of the matter - ministry or no ministry. Yes, I do not agree with Kent Hovind about his ant-government stance, but neither would I crucify him for it. Is it not supposed to be a free state with freedom of speech? Since when has a government been a pure and holy government that can truly be absolved of all kinds of nepotism and embezzlement? Please show me a country where such does not exist. On the matters of being a "wannabe apologist", while that is a childish remark from your end, it is a disgraceful remark from someone like you, if you call yourself a pastor. You know why? I very much doubt if Christ would applaud your cheap shot of a statement. Any true believer should be ready to give an answer to what he believes as being true. If you are a good student of the Bible, you would know that Paul did not train to be a Christ apologist, but he has a reason to speak (or write) convincingly on his beliefs. You said, "Kent needs to come out and face me, or send out his Champion. We have things to talk about." Really? Is this what Christ called you to be doing? Let us assume for a moment, Kent is guilty of the so many crimes he has been accused of, you want to tell me that you are the chosen judge over him? Worse still, the man (Kent Hovind) keeps claiming of his innocence, but you want to play the role of the Holy Spirit, who convicts the world of sin. Hey, you are not God and sitting upon that throne of judgement is beyond your jurisdiction. "Who are you that judges another man's servant, to his master he stands or falls". If the earthly courts have tried him and found him guilty, but he claims he's not, then leave him to God's court. If you are a true follower of Christ, what you should be doing is fasting and praying for your brother to repent of his sinfulness that he may not end up in Hell.

@ John Alaoluwa I think your approach is replete with what I consider and label Hovind Hypocrisy. It's not about me, it's about Kent Hovind who has made himself and his issues a matter of public interest and importance. Maybe if we can come to an agreement regarding some of those issues, and there is time and interest, we can take up your secondary and/or tertiary supposed concerns. For purposes of evaluating the case of Kent Hovind, you are welcome to consider me, as Kent and his people tend to do, a hell-bound sinner. Kent was not prosecuted for speaking his mind; he was investigated, charged, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated for acting out is criminal tendencies. It's just another example of how Kent and his people refuse to accept Kent's criminal career to try to change the subject to how imperfect government operations might be at times. Kent has yet to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct and even the sending of is wife to prison, among other things. Have you really not followed Kent's performances? Me childish? You gotta be kidding? I am not near as childish as Kent! Yes, Kent keeps professing his innocence, even though he knows that he is guilty. Would you call that lying? Let's not "assume" his guilt for "sake of argument". You, in my opinion, need to consider the matter and make up your mind one way or the other or recuse yourself from the discussion about his guilt and related behavior. If you are interested, we might discuss why you question his guilt as to the 2006 convictions. As I have noted so many times, there appears to be many who have no informed notion as to Kent's guilt. They just like the guy. I currently have 62 propositions that have "evolved" and which I have presented for Kent's consideration at such time as he comes out and we begin the negotiations for a reasoned and reasonable exchange regarding his legal and related matters. You are welcome to consider them and pick and choose one or more that you might like to pursue. See: kehvrlb.com/kent-hovind-v-robert-baty-the-challenge-in-58-propositions (the address was created when there was only 58 propostions) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Baty Btw, I didn't answer your point on the matters of the "ministry" very well before jumping to the next point. I would appreciate your criticism of Kent Hovind's ministry, if you would successfully prosecute the numerous American millionaire preachers who are busy exploiting the ignorant people of God in droves. I need not be naming them, but we see them online and what they preach or stand for; manipulating and taking advantage of God's people. They make people throw money at their feet and in return celebrate by jumping and dancing and screaming like desert foxes! We see them, in their limos and their God-forsaken pulpits, asking the poor to "sow" their last dollar, of which I am yet to see the reverse. God and prosecute those first and then come back to prosecute a well-beaten and battered man called Kent Hovind.

@ John Olaoluwa Typically, John, you again demonstrate a problem in trying to get to some matter of mutual interest to discuss. Why not try something easy, and first agree that Kent was guilty as charged in 2006, and that he sent his wife to prison as assuredly as King David sent Uriah to his death, and then maybe we can build on that if there are matters of mutual interest we may wish to pursue. Those 62 propositions remain for your consideration. Kent is NOT "well-beaten and battered"; he's an UNrepentant, tax cheatin', Baptist, sovcit preacher who sent his wife to prison and, among other things, was seemingly criminally negligent in causing the life-long disabilities of one of his sons. And you and others appear to give him a pass; while others, more appropriately in my opinion, suggest he should go away instead of trying to re-establish himself as some sort of "pastor" and leading light amongst young-earth creation-science promoters. There are reasons, so it seems to me and so I have been told, why Kent's own family is estranged from him, and it is not for the reasons Kent might suggest. As long as Kent insists on being a public figure and promoting his false legal narrative and related matters, my "ministry", or one like it, many like it, will have their place. See: kehvrlb.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Kos It's tax fraud when it's committed, whether or not you are convicted. In Kent's case that is not an issue either way, though. Kent was committing "tax fraud", as that term is commonly understood, and he was criminally convicted of such regarding his employment tax issues and civilly held liable for the "FRAUD" penalty with regard to his personal income tax liabilities. In both cases, the decisions were upheld on appeal. Kent may not have put on a defense in either case, but he did appeal both cases and lost both. So, one may confidently affirm in Kent's cases that it was "tax fraud".

Liar, liar, Kent's anonymous and cowardly apologist returned on cue to promote lies and cover for Kent; anything but take up an open, honest, reasonable and reasoned discussion of Kent Hovind's legal and related matters.

Erin you speak of harassment yet here you are, once more stalking Robert all over the internet. The only reason the old page was shut down was because of your constant lying by reporting it for harassing a religious organization. Which Kent "Dr. Dolla'" Hovind is not, he just a greedy con man who took all the money you sunk into him while he was in prison, and when he was done with you, tossed you over his shoulder like an empty beer can.

Too bad Bernie, you as an atheist, didn't debate Robert on his 'fake' Christianity. Now that would be an interesting debate! I bet you 2 would have a lot more in common with your evolutionary thinking....

Regarding what Therese Moore (aka herbelina) had to say. I would certainly consider "debating" Kent Hovind on a theological issue of mutual interest. We can put that on the list which now has 62 propositions to choose from and negotiate how best to advance our proposed discussion. Kent's man Mark Hill (aka knome king) and I debated a theological issue and Mark Hill was found to be the one in error on the point discussed. Therese, why don't you document your effort to get Kent to agree to begin the negotiations for your proposed "debate". Report back when Kent gives you his answer.

+Robert Baty Try to follow what I said, Bob. I requested a debate between a atheist Bernie and you the fake Christian. I would like a discussion on your beliefs and what god you are following. I'm sure even Bernie with his former knowledge of being a fake Christian, could flay you open very nicely.

You are the hypocrite who has a log in his eyes and is desperate about the mote in another man's eyes. I asked a simple question and you have not answered it: What do YOU stand to benefit from pursuing 62 counts against Kent Hovind? If you are not a hypocrite, when was the last time you spent all night praying, like Samuel, for Kent Hovind to be convicted by the Holy Spirit for his sins? I doubt if you have ever genuinely spent just FIVE minutes in prayer for the man and his family. Kent spent some time in prison justifiably (or unjustifiably), the government is satisfied with that punishment, you - so-called Christian, are still pursuing him for more punishment. Is that not wickedness? Why not let the matter rest? If Kent is displaying pride, who made you his judge? You are a hypocrite!

@ John Olaoluwa Enough of such banter, John. You, from the beginning, showed yourself unqualified to openly and honestly consider the issues that Kent Hovind has brought before us and has pledged his life to pursue; his false legal narrative and related matters. So, we both consider the other a hypocrite. Readers can decide if it's one or the other, neither, or both of us. I have my opinion on that subject. Thanks again John for putting on your little demonstration, but I think you have done enough to illustrate some of the points I have tried to make. Look me up at such time as you decide you want to openly and honestly consider what you may not currently be man enough to face; Kent's criminal history and related matters. Kent says he is going to spend the rest of his life promoting his false legal narrative, and so my ministry's work seems to have a certain amount of "job security".

Drip, drip, drip, the anonymous and cowardly Hovind apologist returns on cue do do what they do; anything but take up an open, honest, reasoned and reasonable discussion of Kent Hovind legal and related matters.

Robert Baty I am not having a banter with you. I am very serious. You have murderous intent You think I am afraid of you or even the devil himself? I don't fear the systems of this world, they mean nothing to me. In fact, you don't have a clue as to my type. You think my type are the wimps you just say some silly stuff to and would go and cower in some corner. Yes, you are a hypocrite! Until you repent and leave the saints of God alone, you will not have peace. You are a fake Christian. We are at a time in history when every true saint are supposed to be self-searching and repenting, but you have made it your business to seek evil against a child of God. He has not stolen your money nor cheated on you - why have made it your business to pursue this path? People like should not be called a follower of Christ. I don't know if Bernie is just using you as a tool or you are using him - you certainly do not deserve the accolade he's heaped on you. You have demonstrated yourself as a desert fox, a fake believer. You have refused to reason as a true saint, so you deserve no respect accorded to a saint. You are a hypocrite!

@ John Olaoluwa I think most of us get your theological rantings, claiming the high road for yourself while observably traveling the low road of consigning me to hell as a diversion from taking up any substantive topic regarding the video interview posted by Bernie or any of the specific 62 propositions in my challenge to Kent Hovind. Your demonstrations have been a valuable contribution to how Kent and his people operate, and yes, you get characterized as one of Kent's ilk by virtue of your own demonstrations and refusal to address the substantive issues presented in the video and in my challenge to Kent. Bye, bye; but look me up when/if you figure out there might be some topic of mutual interest that we might pursue. See: kehvrlb.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kent Hovind knows more than he will admit to, which we found out is a tactic he uses in dealing with his problems that he doesn't want to face.

+Robert Baty Everybody takes a vacation once in awhile at the denial resort. You evo-heads have no room to talk. It takes a BIG LEAP to think this little blue planet pulsating with God's Creation came about billions of years ago by some undirected atoms. And all the other planets are empty. 🌍

Baty works for the IRS, but I don't want to throw him in a box. He has been working for some real characters - Lois Lerner, Koskinen, others whose hard drives have disappeared - let's give him a chance. Hello? Mr. Baty...

@ Daniel It doesn't appear you have been paying much attention, but maybe I can wait awhile longer and you can get your act together. Which of the 62 propositions, for instance, might you be interested in discussing. I posted them in the other thread here just for your consideration in response to your request. So, "try once more", if you wish; or not. I do not work for the IRS. I never worked for Lois Lerner. I never worked for Koskinen. I left long before their time at the IRS. Daniel, here's your "chance" to show what you are up to, Daniel. Which, if any, of the 62 propositions might you be interested in discussing? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there evidence Kent was not SWAT teamed that night (as Kent frequently cites as just more over the board gov't abuse)? Obviously Jo would know if that scenario indeed occurred. Perhaps she could contact me. I'd love to hear her side.