Cult of Dusty

[Rose]

Funny, but true...

[CWH]

Funny, but true...

Not all preachers are con men. Many non-preachers and non-Christians are also con-men. I have friends who gave up their high paying jobs such as engineers, managers, doctors, nurses to become preachers earning a meagre salary compare to what they were getting in their previous jobs. It's a calling, it's a sacrifice. They are doing an honest job and getting an honest salary. Please be fair and consider their sacrifices when you gave that statement that preachers are con-men. Many Jesus apostles were also earning good salary.... tax collectors, fishermen and yet they gave up everything they had to follow Jesus. They could have also become billionaires by raising the dead, casting out demons and curing the sick yet they were not interested in earthly riches but heavenly rewards. In the end many were martyred. Their examples and sacrifices are admirable. Would we do the same for Jesus?

Matthew 19:27Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

29And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

30But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.


May God Bless our lives.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Not all preachers are con men. Many non-preachers and non-Christians are also con-men. I have friends who gave up their high paying jobs such as engineers, managers, doctors, nurses to become preachers earning a meagre salary compare to what they were getting in their previous jobs. It's a calling, it's a sacrifice. They are doing an honest job and getting an honest salary. Please be fair and consider their sacrifices when you gave that statement that preachers are con-men. Many Jesus apostles were also earning good salary.... tax collectors, fishermen and yet they gave up everything they had to follow Jesus. They could have also become billionaires by raising the dead, casting out demons and curing the sick yet they were not interested in earthly riches but heavenly rewards. In the end many were martyred. Their examples and sacrifices are admirable. Would we do the same for Jesus?

Matthew 19:27Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

29And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

30But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.


May God Bless our lives.

Who said that "all" preachers were con-men?
Who said that there were no non-Christian con-men?
Who said that there were no people who gave up high paying jobs to be preachers?

Your response would be more interesting if it dealt with what the video actually says.

Have a great day!

[Timmy]

Hi all!
i'm bak.
.......................

Hello Richard and Rose!
You remain in these prayers, and when i think of your initials together: R&R, well you get it...Washington BTW is my favorite state.

Dusty's attitude is kix, and this BWF premere video makes me want to watch them all. At least the guys got smultz; however, his defensiveness betrays his own confidence and that claim to atheism.

How many people who truly believe something does not exist say anything about it at all, or go so far as to make a video about it?
(Who does he think he can save anyway?)

Still, this is the stuff that makes for G_d being able to change hearts...his and/or others.

There is good reason Yeshua said through His revelation to Apostle/Prophet John, " I desire that you were hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm, i will vomit you out of my mouth." (see chapt. 3)

Though his opinions are more than likely based on face-value experiences, he shows whatszup' with the aDIMance of a whole lot of manimals. It is the guilt of both defamers and faith claimers, no matter what seid of the fence these sheeple roam.

The Bible is a goldmine and it takes a whole lotta' deep digging to hit the main vein. Then again, what is of any lasting import that comes easy?
The Bible?
Boring?
Maybe because all he has found is a smidgeon or two of gold dust on the surface.
Has Dusty's own indolence pushed him to mock and scoff off scripture...oir is it just fear?
(He will--if not now, at death--see who laughs last, even as He now laughs (Ps. 37.13))

A Yiddish quote could be stated here, like "money has no eyes, and that is why it ends up in the wrong pockets" yet detailing this in relation to his comments on such would only serve to detract from the issues addressed and exhibited through his attitude: personal biase based on feelings of fear with minimal fact to support these ideations from those feelings.

People love dirty laundry especially when it comes to those who claim Thee Name yet are found out...which is greatly appreciated here more than any person reading this can even imagine. It clears the playing field. So, i'm cheering him on for bringing this con issue to the forefront.

Actually, on this train of thought, countless atheists have been met who are more civil than those who claim to be xians; but, in their critique of others, it's asked, "Just because one lays a claim to 'know' Yah, does Yah really 'know' them?"

What really tickles though?.. are all these "so-called-atheists", who can be so civil about so many things, yet when it comes to that three lettered word
--(and this has always (so far) been proven to be in revolt against only the One True G_d of the Bible: who creates and destroys both good and evil (as we concieve of it here on earth)--
whom "they claim" not to believe that He even exists, yet my how red faced and all bent out of shape they become when experessing the very issue of G_d's influence in personal affairs.

Why does someone who believes that SOMETHING does not exist get so adamant, rialed up, and defiant, if not downright nasty about something "they say" is fiat nox?
Whose lying anyway?
Their very actions betraying their own so-called beliefs,
the question is always asked, "Which one is it? Do you believe in G_d or not?"...and why out of all the multiple millions of books in the world would you read the Bible (more than once) since you do not believe it?

It is not believed here that this distain is truly for God so much as current Western exoteric post-modern existential misunderstandings promoted about G_d and what advocates call G_d's ways. These false notions are then promoted as being godly and xian, when more often than not, what they say is actually done in the name of Mammon and a form of humanism they call christianity. The false representations have carried the result of grouping friendship with God in with all the claptrap of all the religious muckety muck muck.

FOOLS!


Dusty only gives one factual no-detailed example in 5 minutes: a "Ted Haggard," apparently one of many spin-doctors whom there is no use for here and cannot be bothered to examine, though some other sheeple, like Dusty and his opposers might just do.

G_d did everything for his own plan and purpose to glorify Himself: Q.E.D.
(Go with the flow of His plan or perish. How much simpler can it be put?)

Can it be told you how many countless "hell no--heaven yes" sermons have been heard here through the y-eraz, yet reading the Bible (from originating manuscripts), there is not whatsoever any promise of going to heaven at all.

Currently, there is followed here a 26 day plan just reading Genesis to Revelation. Reading it repeatedly may not make it more true and not so clearly understood, but it does give a greater comprehensive overview every time you travel through it.

Marcionian philosophy appear to be root of alot of misunderstandings about what many falsely assume G_d to be...and then these have the audacity to promote Him as Mr. Nice Guy or some old benevolent grandfather like entity.
(Someone needs to get a grip on reality, as if G_d needs pleaders and promoters selling His(?) wares? Is He a beggar or an exhibit at a trade show convention?)

Now is thought about what Samuel Clement once wrote concerning what (xian) religions have become. Though the quote is not on hand, the import is this: what you are being taught by this religions advocates is something that was told to one person handed off to another and then to another and so on and on, changing a bit with each generational transition, until what most believe of G_d and the Bible turns out not to be worth even a brass farthing.
(This is true on both sides of the fence and not just the fault of those pious church goers.)


Dusty is thouroughly agreed with that more often than not a very huge majority of front-men calling themselves preachers and prophets and evangelists and so on are not really G_d's representatives and are actually serving themselves and/or Almighty Dollar...wait and see what happens shortly when this economy--like a snowball having rolled downhill headed for, well...is now melting in hell--vaporizes...and it definitely will do so as prevalent trends of world economies are following exacly the course of past relative historic errors.



i have not given my life up to Yeshua Ha'Maschiach because the cons may be bald-faced hypocritical liars or not.
i remain in Him and He remains in me.
i hear His voice and follow Him, not others.

Talking about what is seen today is not truly relative to what God commands in the Bible, but rather a sorrowful commentary on the fall and decline of humanity as a whole, culture following the trends of the societal religions of and from art onto philosophy onto government onto demise onto repeat.

Twenty first century perspective has made itself irrelevant to scripture and not the other way around. Which came first, the Bible or todays cultures and societies?
Which has stood virtually untainted since inception: the Tanakh (aka: O.T.) or humanity?
Which has stood the test of time: Tanakh or man's manner of re-organizing civilizations over and over again and again only to end in ruin?

Get the picture?


Dusty misconstrues alot.
(Though there are more things, here are two immediately noted issues)

1.) Reading the Bible is not what makes one understand it.
No wonder it is boring to him.

2.) God does not advocate child sacrafice, sex slavery, slavery, genocide, etc.
(These things are only stated in scripture regarding the irreversible human condition, and how God allows these things because of what occured when all humanity transgressed in Adamah. Yeshua came to change our hearts. He did not abolish any systems of government and religion. With "re-gene-ing" (regeneration), comes the change of heart and with it the change in the way people do the things we do.)

Post-modern mentality skirts the bottom line:
Believer or not, will you obey God's Law?


i see right through to the core of Dusty.
HE IS THE ONE WHO FEARS DEATH!
...and claiming to be first a christian, then turned atheist, it is clear that he himself hardly understands much of anything at all about atheism or christianity. He is a parrot of someone else.

i do not believe in the notion of G-d and i do not believe in the Bible. Here there exists a walking talking relationship with El Elyon and there is no question as whether one thing is true or not...much less He Himself. It is having an eternal daddy who leads and guides and shows what is best and what will not be done. There is no question or stupid idiot agonizations over mental affirmations many consider to be belief.
(Sure the Bible helps considerably, but reasoning about it without the instruction of his Spirit is like being sure that Lucky Charms breakfast cereal is actually the picture on the outside of the box, and what is inside the box does not even exist.)

The indolent keep on looking to the spin doctors and cons and any other notions about living life and death. In the end, we all experience the result G_d has vowed of all flesh.




As for me, concerning death, my true love and only hope in G_d's faithfulness hangs on this alone:
". . . see Jesus — made lower than the angels for a short time so that by G_d’s grace He might taste death for everyone — crowned with glory and honor because of His suffering in death. For in bringing many sons to glory, it was entirely appropriate that G_d — all things exist for Him and through Him — should make the source of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For the One who seperates onto Himself and those who are seperated onto Him all have one Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying:
"I will proclaim Your name to My brothers;
I will sing hymns to You in the congregation."
Again, "I will trust in Him."
And again, "Here I am with the children G_d gave Me."

Now since the children have flesh and blood in common, Jesus also shared in these, so that through His death He might destroy the one holding the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who were held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death. For it is clear that He does not reach out to help angels, but to help Abraham’s offspring. Therefore, He had to be like His brothers in every way, so that He could become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to G_d, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tested and has suffered, He is able to help those who are tested." (Heb. 2.9-18)





Sealed onto Him alone
and
persistently digging for more gold,

Timmy

p.s. This vid so amuses, more will be checked out, and remember, atheists have no songs, much less a hymnal.

[CWH]

[QUOTE]

Who said that "all" preachers were con-men?
Who said that there were no non-Christian con-men?
Who said that there were no people who gave up high paying jobs to be preachers?

I just want to make sure that Rose did not mean all Christian preachers are con men and that there are also con men who are non-Christians.

Your response would be more interesting if it dealt with what the video actually says.

I see the video as a fool talking nonsense. Why should I waste my time responding?

Psalms 53:1 The fool says in his heart,
'There is no God.'
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
there is no one who does good.


God Bless our days.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I just want to make sure that Rose did not mean all Christian preachers are con men and that there are also con men who are non-Christians.

Oh - well no worries there! Everyone (including Rose) knows that there are plenty of con-men in all sorts of fields. But it's important to point out Christian con-men because Christianity is based on the idea of "faith" in things that can't be proven, so Christians are more susceptible to being fooled than folks who have been taught to be skeptical.

I see the video as a fool talking nonsense. Why should I waste my time responding?

Psalms 53:1 The fool says in his heart,
'There is no God.'
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
there is no one who does good.


God Bless our days.

Really? I see him as being quite "outrageous" in his use of language and "plain talk" but I didn't notice anything "foolish." Could you be more specific? What exactly did he say that was not supported by fact?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi all!
i'm bak.
.......................

Hello Richard and Rose!
You remain in these prayers, and when i think of your initials together: R&R, well you get it...Washington BTW is my favorite state.

Hey there Timmy! Welcome back. It's good to have you here.

Dusty's attitude is kix, and this BWF premere video makes me want to watch them all. At least the guys got smultz; however, his defensiveness betrays his own confidence and that claim to atheism.

How many people who truly believe something does not exist say anything about it at all, or go so far as to make a video about it?
(Who does he think he can save anyway?)

Yeah, he's got some hutzpah, eh?

I think his outrageous attitude probably alienates a lot of folks and makes it so they can't here what he's saying ... especially his vulgar language. But then again, it's rather like a thunderclap that breaks the spell that institutional religion holds over people. Sometimes, ya gotta call it like it is.

Still, this is the stuff that makes for G_d being able to change hearts...his and/or others.

There is good reason Yeshua said through His revelation to Apostle/Prophet John, " I desire that you were hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm, i will vomit you out of my mouth." (see chapt. 3)

Though his opinions are more than likely based on face-value experiences, he shows whatszup' with the aDIMance of a whole lot of manimals. It is the guilt of both defamers and faith claimers, no matter what seid of the fence these sheeple roam.

Yeah, I really like that "hot or cold" attitude. It makes things clear. But I don't know why you think his opinions are "based on face-value experiences" - he claims to have been a Christian for 30 years. I think his sharp "attitude" comes from finding out he'd been a fool for 30 years. That would rile up anyone, wouldn't it?

The Bible is a goldmine and it takes a whole lotta' deep digging to hit the main vein. Then again, what is of any lasting import that comes easy?
The Bible?
Boring?
Maybe because all he has found is a smidgeon or two of gold dust on the surface.
Has Dusty's own indolence pushed him to mock and scoff off scripture...oir is it just fear?
(He will--if not now, at death--see who laughs last, even as He now laughs (Ps. 37.13))

Yes, the Bible can be a "gold mine" - I certainly found it to be such. But then I noticed that it contained a lot of crap that I can't abide, such as the mass murder of thousands of people for the crime of being "Midianites" (aka the in-laws of Moses) and the taking of 32,000 sexy virgins to be distributed amongst the soldiers who slaughtered their moms and dads and brothers and (used) sisters. That's the hardest thing about the Bible. The Light can blind you to the darkness it contains. Now it's a mystery to me ... and that's probably a good thing. I am moving back to my first love, which is the mystical understanding of the Bible. My faith got destroyed by Christian Fundamentalism.

A Yiddish quote could be stated here, like "money has no eyes, and that is why it ends up in the wrong pockets" yet detailing this in relation to his comments on such would only serve to detract from the issues addressed and exhibited through his attitude: personal biase based on feelings of fear with minimal fact to support these ideations from those feelings.

Minimal fact? I heard him base many claims on fact. Do you have an example to support your accusation?

People love dirty laundry especially when it comes to those who claim Thee Name yet are found out...which is greatly appreciated here more than any person reading this can even imagine. It clears the playing field. So, i'm cheering him on for bringing this con issue to the forefront.

Sounds good to me! Truth never fears the light. He obviously is expressing some heart-felt convictions.

Actually, on this train of thought, countless atheists have been met who are more civil than those who claim to be xians; but, in their critique of others, it's asked, "Just because one lays a claim to 'know' Yah, does Yah really 'know' them?"

Yah, that's well stated!

What really tickles though?.. are all these "so-called-atheists", who can be so civil about so many things, yet when it comes to that three lettered word
--(and this has always (so far) been proven to be in revolt against only the One True G_d of the Bible: who creates and destroys both good and evil (as we concieve of it here on earth)--
whom "they claim" not to believe that He even exists, yet my how red faced and all bent out of shape they become when experessing the very issue of G_d's influence in personal affairs.

I think their "red face" is triggered by the believers, not the God they claim to believe in.

And just to be clear, there are two definitions of "atheist" -

ATHEIST:

1. A person who does not have a belief in a god.
2. A person who denies that there is any god.

Definition #1 is a person who admits that they don't have all knowledge and so does not make the foolish claim that "There is no god" but rather merely states the truth that "I don't believe in any particular god, and don't know if there is a god." This is an "agnostic atheist." Definition #2 is the more strident (and unfounded) assertion that there is no god. Those kinds of atheists are foolish, I do believe.

Why does someone who believes that SOMETHING does not exist get so adamant, rialed up, and defiant, if not downright nasty about something "they say" is fiat nox?
Whose lying anyway?
Their very actions betraying their own so-called beliefs,
the question is always asked, "Which one is it? Do you believe in G_d or not?"...and why out of all the multiple millions of books in the world would you read the Bible (more than once) since you do not believe it?

Like I said, I think they are reacting to the religious humans who often make absurd claims about their god. But if they are "Athiests #2" then they are being foolish, and going beyond what they can really know.

It is not believed here that this distain is truly for God so much as current Western exoteric post-modern existential misunderstandings promoted about G_d and what advocates call G_d's ways. These false notions are then promoted as being godly and xian, when more often than not, what they say is actually done in the name of Mammon and a form of humanism they call christianity. The false representations have carried the result of grouping friendship with God in with all the claptrap of all the religious muckety muck muck.

FOOLS!

Very well stated!

Dusty only gives one factual no-detailed example in 5 minutes: a "Ted Haggard," apparently one of many spin-doctors whom there is no use for here and cannot be bothered to examine, though some other sheeple, like Dusty and his opposers might just do.

G_d did everything for his own plan and purpose to glorify Himself: Q.E.D.
(Go with the flow of His plan or perish. How much simpler can it be put?)

Huh? That's not very clear to me at all ...

Can it be told you how many countless "hell no--heaven yes" sermons have been heard here through the y-eraz, yet reading the Bible (from originating manuscripts), there is not whatsoever any promise of going to heaven at all.

Another excellent point! Most folks don't know that the Bible teaches nothing about "going to heaven" per se. And neither did Paul teach anything about going to hell! Christians have made up a mountain of doctrines not found anywhere in the Bible. Especially when it comes to eschatology. The magical stretchy 2000+ year "gap" between Dan 9:26 & 27. The re-built temple that will be re-desolated by the re-vived Roman empire. The wanna-be world leader called "Antichrist." Etc., etc., etc.

Currently, there is followed here a 26 day plan just reading Genesis to Revelation. Reading it repeatedly may not make it more true and not so clearly understood, but it does give a greater comprehensive overview every time you travel through it.

That was the great benefit I had in writing the Bible Wheel book. I got a very good overview of the whole Bible. And indeed, that's what's so cool about the Bible Wheel - you can see how all the pieces relate in a very simple and compact diagram. Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, eh?

Marcionian philosophy appear to be root of alot of misunderstandings about what many falsely assume G_d to be...and then these have the audacity to promote Him as Mr. Nice Guy or some old benevolent grandfather like entity.
(Someone needs to get a grip on reality, as if G_d needs pleaders and promoters selling His(?) wares? Is He a beggar or an exhibit at a trade show convention?)

Well, where did Marcion get his ideas about the OT God? From the OT, no? Can we blame him for being horrified by what he saw?

God certainly doesn't need any pleaders. But who says anyone is pleading for the True God? All I see is people pleading for their interpretation of the Bible.

Now is thought about what Samuel Clement once wrote concerning what (xian) religions have become. Though the quote is not on hand, the import is this: what you are being taught by this religions advocates is something that was told to one person handed off to another and then to another and so on and on, changing a bit with each generational transition, until what most believe of G_d and the Bible turns out not to be worth even a brass farthing.
(This is true on both sides of the fence and not just the fault of those pious church goers.)

I can't help but think that Mark Twain got a thing or two right!

Dusty is thouroughly agreed with that more often than not a very huge majority of front-men calling themselves preachers and prophets and evangelists and so on are not really G_d's representatives and are actually serving themselves and/or Almighty Dollar...wait and see what happens shortly when this economy--like a snowball having rolled downhill headed for, well...is now melting in hell--vaporizes...and it definitely will do so as prevalent trends of world economies are following exacly the course of past relative historic errors.

I think you got that backwards. A bad economy is great for hucksters and con-men. They always target the down and out with promises of miraculous healings. Just look at Benny Hinn. He promises to heal all those sick people and rakes in millions.

i have not given my life up to Yeshua Ha'Maschiach because the cons may be bald-faced hypocritical liars or not.
i remain in Him and He remains in me.
i hear His voice and follow Him, not others.

That's all good. But how do you know it is his voice? How do you distinguish your own imagination from the voice of God?

Talking about what is seen today is not truly relative to what God commands in the Bible, but rather a sorrowful commentary on the fall and decline of humanity as a whole, culture following the trends of the societal religions of and from art onto philosophy onto government onto demise onto repeat.

I think you got that backwards. Humanity is rising and improving greatly! Where did you ever get the idea that humanity was better one or two hundred years ago? Have you forgotten the slaves we abused? Women couldn't even vote! In every way, people have vastly improved over any time in history.

Twenty first century perspective has made itself irrelevant to scripture and not the other way around. Which came first, the Bible or todays cultures and societies?
Which has stood virtually untainted since inception: the Tanakh (aka: O.T.) or humanity?
Which has stood the test of time: Tanakh or man's manner of re-organizing civilizations over and over again and again only to end in ruin?

Get the picture?

I think you got the picture backwards. Scripture has made itself irrelevant to 21st century humanity because it contains a lot of falsehood like the creation story, demon possession, superstitious magic, etc., etc., etc.

Dusty misconstrues alot.
(Though there are more things, here are two immediately noted issues)

1.) Reading the Bible is not what makes one understand it.
No wonder it is boring to him.

2.) God does not advocate child sacrafice, sex slavery, slavery, genocide, etc.
(These things are only stated in scripture regarding the irreversible human condition, and how God allows these things because of what occured when all humanity transgressed in Adamah. Yeshua came to change our hearts. He did not abolish any systems of government and religion. With "re-gene-ing" (regeneration), comes the change of heart and with it the change in the way people do the things we do.)

I think you misconstrued Dusty.

1) He said that the Bible was boring when he was a Christian, but that it is a lot more interesting now as an atheist.

2) Your statement is false. God COMMANDED genocide and the taking of virgins and he regulated (didn't prohibit) slavery, etc.

Post-modern mentality skirts the bottom line:
Believer or not, will you obey God's Law?

So you advocate LAW over GOSPEL?

i see right through to the core of Dusty.
HE IS THE ONE WHO FEARS DEATH!
...and claiming to be first a christian, then turned atheist, it is clear that he himself hardly understands much of anything at all about atheism or christianity. He is a parrot of someone else.

Hummm ... it would be interesting if you could give the evidence that supports your opinion on this one.

i do not believe in the notion of G-d and i do not believe in the Bible. Here there exists a walking talking relationship with El Elyon and there is no question as whether one thing is true or not...much less He Himself. It is having an eternal daddy who leads and guides and shows what is best and what will not be done. There is no question or stupid idiot agonizations over mental affirmations many consider to be belief.
(Sure the Bible helps considerably, but reasoning about it without the instruction of his Spirit is like being sure that Lucky Charms breakfast cereal is actually the picture on the outside of the box, and what is inside the box does not even exist.)

Again, how do you distinguish between your own thoughts, or "higher self" or "subconscious" and what you call El Elyon?

And if you grew up in a Muslim or Hindu country, what do you think your beliefs would be?

As for me, concerning death, my true love and only hope in G_d's faithfulness hangs on this alone:
". . . see Jesus — made lower than the angels for a short time so that by G_d’s grace He might taste death for everyone — crowned with glory and honor because of His suffering in death. For in bringing many sons to glory, it was entirely appropriate that G_d — all things exist for Him and through Him — should make the source of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For the One who seperates onto Himself and those who are seperated onto Him all have one Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying:
"I will proclaim Your name to My brothers;
I will sing hymns to You in the congregation."
Again, "I will trust in Him."
And again, "Here I am with the children G_d gave Me."

That's all good. I have no problem with personal devotion. But you seem to be going beyond "personal devotion" to a worldview defined by the Bible so that your religion is a form of "Christianity" and you are shown to be a Bible believer, contrary to your assertion that you do not believe in the Bible but only "G-d."

Sealed onto Him alone
and
persistently digging for more gold,

Timmy

That's great Timmy! I'm glad you came by to share some of the gold you have found.

p.s. This vid so amuses, more will be checked out, and remember, atheists have no songs, much less a hymnal.

Ha! That's so true. I watched that linked video. It was pretty funny.

[Ps 27:1]

I forced myself to watch the whole video, but it only saddened me. I would guess that he never consumated his marriage to Jesus and thus the boredom, bitterness, and mocking. A couch potato will never know or understand what its like to run 50 - 100 miles per week and crave it, unless they have experienced it. And I know it's real because I have been at both ends of the spectrum. Even recreational runners may never experience the intense joys (for lack of better word at the moment) running has to offer because they never push through the wall(s).

[Timmy]

Hi Richard,

Sorry for the inconsistencies. Dustbin's thunder was a bit unsettling...in concern for him, not so much for the way he expressed it. He works with the capacity he posesses to make a form of informed decisions.
(We have to believe in freewill. We have no choice. He probably just wants to be different just like everyone else.)


You have raised more Q's than answers, and being pressed for time, i want to just cut this to the quick if at all possible.

From your quote of yours truly and comments, it seems the main questions tie into these issues. So, it will be asked so that a more appropriate response from these quarters can be given somewhere in the near future. Hopefully a complete response can then be forthcoming.


Here's that portions of which is mostly questioned:





Originally Posted by Timmy

Dusty misconstrues alot.
(Though there are more things, here are two immediately noted issues)

1.) Reading the Bible is not what makes one understand it.
No wonder it is boring to him.

2.) God does not advocate child sacrafice, sex slavery, slavery, genocide, etc.
(These things are only stated in scripture regarding the irreversible human condition, and how God allows these things because of what occured when all humanity transgressed in Adamah. Yeshua came to change our hearts. He did not abolish any systems of government and religion. With "re-gene-ing" (regeneration), comes the change of heart and with it the change in the way people do the things we do.)

...and then here is what you said Rich:
I think you misconstrued Dusty.

1) He said that the Bible was boring when he was a Christian, but that it is a lot more interesting now as an atheist.

2) Your statement is false. God COMMANDED genocide and the taking of virgins and he regulated (didn't prohibit) slavery, etc.


Timmy sez:
i think you might think i misconstrue dusty alot more than i really do. i think i am more guilty of misconstruing G_d's will and ways.

on 1) What does he mean that he "was" a xian? He may have followed a certain regimen that he thought made him a xian, but it doesn't sound at all--based on watching all of the cult ov dustbin's videos--like he ever was a christian. Yeshua probably never had a deep abiding relationship with him.

on 2) TOUCHE'!!!

Yes the word advocate is false, however the thought and intent explained behind it, can you really say that all that is false, and if so, how so?...doesn't the "thunder" word grab your attention to read further? (It certainly did me upon rereading the blasted rant after writing it.)... but if that word "advocate" is corrected by admitance of error, and saying something like: "what i meant to say was "take-pleasure-in", does that statement or what follows it still remain false?
(You are oh so right: i deserved that and that sentence deserves an edit, if for nothing else, to make things quite a bit more palatable than dustbin's 40+% foul mouthed vocabulary.)

Here is the issue: God is overly abundant in loving kindness and extremely gracious. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, yet the person who is too proud to thank God or glorify Him is given up to their own demise.
Why would God do anything for a person who choses to defy Him and rebel?
What obligation does God, who gives all things existence, owe at all to anything at all?

(When do we do this: give pure mercy? Maybe possibly at times for a family member or two, but how far does our mercy stretch?)
Yeshua says, "Blessd are the merciful for they shall recieve mercy...for if you do not forgive, God will not forgive you."

The world was created to operate a certain way, and no matter how one attempts to skirt the issue of their own attitude about God, whether by blaming Him for the problems men themselves have created for themselves or going on some fact finding mission to somehow think they have proven God wrong, our own inconsistencies and failing stare us in the face as proof positive that maybe there is not something wrong with God at all, but we ourselves are extremely flawed...and perhaps this very nature of taintedness affects us to look at things from a twisted stance where our own perspective(s) is/are screwed up?

If you will, please re-read the first sentence with "take-pleasure-in" replacing "advocate", and then review the short paragraph following it.




AND THEN THERE IS THIS:

Originally Posted by Timmy

Post-modern mentality skirts the bottom line:
Believer or not, will you obey God's Law?



Kind sir, you responded on this wise to the above:
So you advocate LAW over GOSPEL?

What in the world do you think the gospel is? (THAT IS THE BIGGEST QUESTION OUT OF EVERYTHING)

Without the LAW what need is there for the GOSPEL?



Hardly infallible,
Timmy


...and just an extrapolated tidbit of thought if you will consider this through the wait time until reconvening to respond appropriately:

"Interpretation is the revenge of intellect upon art. even more, it is the revenge of the intellect upon the wolrd. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world--in order to set up a shadow world of meaning."
~Susan Sontag

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Sorry for the inconsistencies. Dustbin's thunder was a bit unsettling...in concern for him, not so much for the way he expressed it. He works with the capacity he posesses to make a form of informed decisions.
(We have to believe in freewill. We have no choice. He probably just wants to be different just like everyone else.)

No problem Timmy, you didn't seem too "inconsistent" to me.

And yes, Dusty's thunder was a bit "loud' and that can be distracting. And I don't agree with his atheism - I think that is as foolish as what he is opposing. There are two kinds of atheism, one is perfectly logical (a person who does not have a belief in any particular god) while the other goes beyond reason (the assertion that there is no god).

I like your funny "we have no choice but to believe in freewill."

I think we both do and don't have "freewill" - we do in the sense that we have choice, and we don't in the sense that the choice itself is determined by many things other than our own selves. But whatever the truth, the concept of freewill is just another philosophical rat's nest of tangled words. The problem is probably generated by the intrinsic limitations of our language.

You have raised more Q's than answers, and being pressed for time, i want to just cut this to the quick if at all possible.

From your quote of yours truly and comments, it seems the main questions tie into these issues. So, it will be asked so that a more appropriate response from these quarters can be given somewhere in the near future. Hopefully a complete response can then be forthcoming.

You're doing fine, my friend.

Here's that portions of which is mostly questioned:

Originally Posted by Timmy

Dusty misconstrues alot.
(Though there are more things, here are two immediately noted issues)

1.) Reading the Bible is not what makes one understand it.
No wonder it is boring to him.

2.) God does not advocate child sacrafice, sex slavery, slavery, genocide, etc.
(These things are only stated in scripture regarding the irreversible human condition, and how God allows these things because of what occured when all humanity transgressed in Adamah. Yeshua came to change our hearts. He did not abolish any systems of government and religion. With "re-gene-ing" (regeneration), comes the change of heart and with it the change in the way people do the things we do.)

...and then here is what you said Rich:
I think you misconstrued Dusty.

1) He said that the Bible was boring when he was a Christian, but that it is a lot more interesting now as an atheist.

2) Your statement is false. God COMMANDED genocide and the taking of virgins and he regulated (didn't prohibit) slavery, etc.


Timmy sez:
i think you might think i misconstrue dusty alot more than i really do. i think i am more guilty of misconstruing G_d's will and ways.

on 1) What does he mean that he "was" a xian? He may have followed a certain regimen that he thought made him a xian, but it doesn't sound at all--based on watching all of the cult ov dustbin's videos--like he ever was a christian. Yeshua probably never had a deep abiding relationship with him.

Well Timmy, that is what Christians usually say when a Christian leaves the faith. It seems like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to me. There is absolutely no objective test to tell who does or does not have a "deep abiding relationship" with Christ so it's a meaningless criterion.

on 2) TOUCHE'!!!

Yes the word advocate is false, however the thought and intent explained behind it, can you really say that all that is false, and if so, how so?...doesn't the "thunder" word grab your attention to read further? (It certainly did me upon rereading the blasted rant after writing it.)... but if that word "advocate" is corrected by admitance of error, and saying something like: "what i meant to say was "take-pleasure-in", does that statement or what follows it still remain false?
(You are oh so right: i deserved that and that sentence deserves an edit, if for nothing else, to make things quite a bit more palatable than dustbin's 40+% foul mouthed vocabulary.)

Here is the issue: God is overly abundant in loving kindness and extremely gracious. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, yet the person who is too proud to thank God or glorify Him is given up to their own demise.
Why would God do anything for a person who choses to defy Him and rebel?
What obligation does God, who gives all things existence, owe at all to anything at all?

I was not really hanging up on the word "advocate." Your assertion that "God is overly abundant in loving kindness and extremely gracious" does not cohere with the other things the Bible teaches about God. There is no "loving kindness" in ordering genocide or the taking of 32,000 virgins to be distributed amongst the soldiers. And neither is there any mercy in the concept of eternal damnation. This is the problem of the Bible - it does not present a coherent picture of God. Yes, it says many wonderful things (God is love, God is light, his mercy endures forever) but then it directly contradicts that with things that are horrible.

You ask " Why would God do anything for a person who choses to defy Him and rebel?" ~ Your question is based on a faulty view of God as "overlord" who dominates everyone and demands "obedience." That is a Dominator Model which is the source of all the pain and bloodshed in the history of the world. It is a patriarchal view of reality that is totally erroneous in my estimation. Why would you think that God is like a human dictator giving commands and ordering eternal death for those who refuse to submit? I know that the Bible presents that view, but why do you believe it? It is the view of God in the form of a Bronze-age tribal warrior god of ignorant people.

You ask "What obligation does God, who gives all things existence, owe at all to anything at all?" ~ First, love obligates God. Second, God is responsible for everything he created. Third, why would you entertain such a question? It's like asking "Why would a Father owe anything at all to his child?"

(When do we do this: give pure mercy? Maybe possibly at times for a family member or two, but how far does our mercy stretch?)
Yeshua says, "Blessd are the merciful for they shall recieve mercy...for if you do not forgive, God will not forgive you."

I give pure mercy all the time to people I meet on the street, to friends and family members, and even to my pets. Why don't you? And more importantly, why doesn't God? Think about it! He is omnipotent and yet he doesn't even bother, as a general rule, to answer prayers. We are all on our own down here when it comes to the issues of life. God was perfectly happy to let people beg and pray and cry and plead to be healed from simple bacterial infections, but God let them suffer and die no matter how much the cried to him. Then dirty rotten atheist scientists discovered penicillin and so sinful humans saved millions of lives that God was perfectly willing to let die. Obviously, if God is real, he does not want us to believe in him or trust him to take care of us in this life. He has done everything - meaning nothing - to ensure that no one with any intelligence would believe in him or the promises in the Bible that say we should trust him to take care of us. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that God never answers prayers. I don't have that kind of knowledge. But I do know that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers, and that means, by definition, that God is unreliable, i.e. UNTRUSTWORTHY. Nobody can trust God for anything real that can be measured or "counted upon."

The world was created to operate a certain way, and no matter how one attempts to skirt the issue of their own attitude about God, whether by blaming Him for the problems men themselves have created for themselves or going on some fact finding mission to somehow think they have proven God wrong, our own inconsistencies and failing stare us in the face as proof positive that maybe there is not something wrong with God at all, but we ourselves are extremely flawed...and perhaps this very nature of taintedness affects us to look at things from a twisted stance where our own perspective(s) is/are screwed up?

Your suggestion that the problem lies in our "tainted nature" is self-defeating because then we can't know anything.

If you go that way, why not see that Christianity is a product of our tainted nature and should not be believed? That actually seems much closer to the mark, because the genocide and kidnapping of virgins sounds a lot more like "tainted humanity" that the true God.

If you will, please re-read the first sentence with "take-pleasure-in" replacing "advocate", and then review the short paragraph following it.

That doesn't really help because now we have God doing many things over and over again that he "doesn't take pleasure in." This exacerbates the problem because it emphasizes the fact that God was absolutely free to set up any kind of creation he wanted to, yet he chose to create a world dominated by murder, pain, suffering and sin. Why is God so enamored by VIOLENCE? It seems to be his solution to everything. Bad Moabites? KILL THEM ALL! Bad people in Sodom? KILL THEM ALL. Saul mistreated some Gibeonites? MAKE ISRAEL SUFFER A THREE YEAR FAMINE UNDER KING DAVID, and then COMMAND THE INNOCENT SONS OF SAUL BE MURDERED! KILL! KILL! KILL!

AND THEN THERE IS THIS:

Originally Posted by Timmy

Post-modern mentality skirts the bottom line:
Believer or not, will you obey God's Law?



Kind sir, you responded on this wise to the above:
So you advocate LAW over GOSPEL?

What in the world do you think the gospel is? (THAT IS THE BIGGEST QUESTION OUT OF EVERYTHING)

Without the LAW what need is there for the GOSPEL?

The fact that there would be no Gospel without Law does not mean that the Gospel IS Law!

Hardly infallible,
Timmy


...and just an extrapolated tidbit of thought if you will consider this through the wait time until reconvening to respond appropriately:

"Interpretation is the revenge of intellect upon art. even more, it is the revenge of the intellect upon the wolrd. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world--in order to set up a shadow world of meaning."
~Susan Sontag

Great quote from Sontag. Thanks!

Your fellow uninfallible friend,

Richard