The gate remains sealed after almost 500 years just ask God said it would. If you break open the gate you prove Christianity wrong but again the gate is still sealed an so is my faith.
Dear Sir: If I didn't know any better, I would think you were being arrogant. So, I have more in common with unbelievers, even though I *do* believe? *IF* my pastor actually talked about Sinai? These attacks and assumptions, just because I don't brow-beat and persecute people for not accepting evidence of historical occurences as evidence of G-d's existence? Are you always so nasty when someone else has a valid point? Did you ever consider the Biblical verse about the revelation of the Holy Spirit being the only way one becomes a believer? That one can't be saved until G-d reveals Himself to them? Have you considered that the reason one can't be saved and believe in G-d until then is because it isn't a natural conclusion to draw from logic? Mr. Campbell, I'd advise you to be mighty careful in making such gross assumptions, mistaking historical evidence as absolute proof of G-d. This is the reason people go to war and shed blood, because they're so grossly misinformed about what absolute evidence is. If you were to take your findings to court, you wouldn't have enough evidence to prove His Existence or Involvement beyond a shadow of a doubt. Thus... You've proven nothing. I'm not going to argue this point anymore, because as I said, there are historical accounts of other religions as well. The verified historical accounts are NOT ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE of G-d's Existence. So go on, and discourage more people, and portray Christians as irrational tyrants. I'm sure this is exactly what the L-rd wants you to do.
Your point was not valid because it was based on mis-information. As I stated, there was more then a burnt mountain top to be considered. And the Bible states that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. And when there is evidence to back up the Word of God, that evidence can be used by the Holy Spirit. One mans account was when he learned about the prophecy of the East Gate, that evidence led him down a road, which resulted in his discovery of Jesus Christ. The Red Sea crossing site is no mistake. And it is a shame when there is strong evidence that would lead others to the truth, only to have a person who is claiming to be a Christian discourage them of that truth. Believe me, there are a number of scientist now confirming this site as the actually place where God split the Red Sea. With the weight of science on the side of the Christian faith for once, it's a shame to see a Christian saying it's not so, and saying it without any evidence to back up your statement. And if you have no evidence for your statements I don't blame you for not wanting to argue. And I can tell you another thing, the only ones who will be discourged, are the one's who don't want to believe the Bible anyway. I might add on that point, that Bible states, that will be most people. And the people who are really irrational, are the one's who get on these post, and try to make their case, with no evidence. And I'm not sure who you think went to war because of lack of evidence, but I hope you were not talking about the Jews, because that land belongs to them. It was given to them by God. http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm
Well many from your background for years laught at the story, and said how foolish people were for believing in such things. Yet it now appears the story did happen. Which only makes those who laught at it, the foolish ones. Now that they can't laught at it anymore, they have decided to play the game pick and choose. Now you are forced to believe some parts, but you will dismiss other parts of the story. This only reveals to me, how truly desperate you are, not to believe in the Bible. That's why God said, "they would rather believe in a lie, rather than the truth." The story is true, you just don't want to believe it, because it might lead you down that road, that will lead you to God.
I think you may have us confused with other people, or completely misunderstand our point of view. None of us has said that the bible is completely made up. We know that the time period existed. Am I doing something wrong when I read a Dean Koontz book set in Los Angeles where they are driving SUV's and flying in airplanes, but still realize it is a fictional book? Stories can include real places and people and things and events, they can include morals and lessons, even predictions and assumptions of events that may happen in the future. Doesn't mean the entirety of the story was ment to be taken literally. I was raised baptist and went to a baptist school from elementary school up and have heard literally ALL of your arguments a million times before by all kinds of speakers and preachers and self-labeled doctors. This leads me to believe that you are just repeating misingofmation about "unbelievers" that you have been told from similar people to whom I mentioned above. But these people have it all wrong, and you will never be able to successfully reach out to us if you can't even wrap your mind around why we don't believe. Spitting out rheoric created by other people who have no clue about the "unbeliever" point of view is not going to win us over, it is going to repel us because you so obviously misunderstand, and make no effort to have any understanding. It's laughable, really...
No, they have discovered at the Mountain, the 12 columns placed there for the 12 tribes of Israel, the stone altar at the mountains base, the ash pits where they burned offerings, the mountains boundry markers, the 30 foot split rock of Horeb which was struck by Moses to give the Children of Israel water, and they have located near the top of the Mountain the cave of Josha, and not to forget, the Granit top of the mountain scorched black. Everything the Bible said was there, they have found. Which means the story, found in the Bible, was not a fabrication. http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/153/ http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt_sinai_found.htm
No, I think what you are trying to say is that the Bible was not completely made up, only certain parts of the Bible are fabrications. Which if were true, would mean you could not really believe any of it. Yet everything I have researched leads me to the conclusion, that it's all true. For if there were fabrications in it, they would be obvious by now. The more the Book is researched, the more findings are coming to light, that verifies it's truth. I'm not hear to try and figure out what you don't believe, I'm hear to speak the truth, of what is being discovered. Noah preach for over 100 years, and never got one man to turn his heart to God. I can do no worse. I might mention, I know God. I have heard His voice, I have stood at the approaches of Heaven. I know the God of the Bible, and He is the truth. Laugh if you will, but the day will come when the laughing will stop, and we will all stand before Him. The Bible states. "It is a fearful thing, to fall into the hands of the living God." We all make are choices in this world.
Oh, gee, really? It's not like my family is of Jewish decent or anything, right? You know, the reason I use "G-d" and "L-rd"? Likewise, you assume we haven't been over to Israel to see these things for ourselves. Indeed, there are many more historical artifacts, all of which give evidence to strenghten faith, not evidence to impose on unbelievers. Stop right there. That historical evidence "can be used by the Holy Spirit." Can you prove the Holy Spirit's existence to an objective observer? No? Then you're argument is useless in regards to "proving" G-d's existence to the unbeliever (one who has not been reborn of the Spirit, and thus, experienced it for themselves). Nope. All wrong. It's a great story of salvation by faith, certainly. However, it is the faith that the Holy Spirit imparted to the man that inspired him to go down that road and accept Christ as his savior. This "evidence" you speak of is evidence in regards to being reborn of the Spirit. It is not the solid, absolute, provable evidence we speak of when we speak of evidence in the real world. Nope. The real shame is people who would impose circumstantial evidence as absolute evidence. The escape route you speak of is a natural occurence. I, along with the rest of the people of my culture, believe that G-d provided this to us in our time of need. But again, G-d's involvement cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The belief of G-d's involvement is solely dependent on the blind faith you so despise. Oh boy! *claps hands with glee* The Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance (look it up, if you don't know what this is. Ask Jeeves or something. These elementary concepts aren't worth my time to explain to someone who doesn't listen anyway). I am not the one making the claim that historical artifacts = absolute proof of G-d's existance. Thus, it is not my responsibility to prove my position. It is your responsibility to prove your claim. With credible, objective, non-partisan sources, of course. Hee Hee Hee!!! I don't need evidence - I'm not the one making the claim. No wonder Libby's doing so well in his debate against you. You should never have taken on such an intelligent opponent when your debate skills are so weak. Now I understand why some other people didn't want you representing the Christians. Your form depends on fallacious arguments and pompous assumptions. BTW, sorry, I was respectful in all of my posts but the previous one, and that is because you resorted the Ad Hominem fallacy (personal attacks in attempt to discredit my point) rather than directly address the issue I presented. I'm quite disappointed. I thought you would be better than this. I obviously overestimated your capabilities. LOL! Have you ever thought that people might be discouraged by the way you so blatantly pervert Christianity to be a tool of domination? It seems to me that you are in this for the sake of being "correct," not because of your concern for your unsaved brothers and sisters. If you were, you would certainly show more compassion for their extremely valid concerns. You've got no business witnessing if you have become numb to the valid objections of the unbeliever. You make it difficult for the rest of the Christians *who actually care about other people and are not concerned with being the person who is "right" to win the hearts of our friends by utilizing fallacious, ignorant arguments that don't stand up to the testing process of critical thinking. LMAO! Oh, you mean people such as yourself? You are the one making the claim, you are the one who has to prove the claim with valid, objective, non-partisan sources. Wow! Are you so uneducated that I must provide a man twice my age with information regarding the perversion of the Christian faith to justify selfish gains? *smacks forehead* Who the hell decided that you were fit to debate a guy as smart as Libertine in the first place? You may start with searches on these subjects... Constantine and the legalization of Christianity for the purpose of declaring war to "reclaim the land for the faithful." Even the Catholic Church has apologized for the wrongness of this activity, almost 1500 years later. And how about the Crucades and the Inquisition? Do you believe that our Prince of Peace, Yeshua, or Jesus the Christ as far as you're concerned, ordained such activity? In reference to the Land of Israel, I would never want MY PEOPLE to give up their land, yet I don't feel that their selfishness is necessary. Of any culture that still exists (only by G-d's Grace), Jews should be the first to sympathize and fight against oppression based on inherited culture and personal beliefs. Yet the Holocaust survivors employ tactics very reminicient of those that reduced our population by an average of 72%. http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/jewvicts.html Sharing the land does not mean throwing the alleged dogs the two scraps of land we aren't concerned about. They aren't even free there though. As the woman at the well protested to Christ Himself, even the dogs have the right to be fed from the table scraps. In closing, Mr. Campbell, if you can prove that these historical artifacts are absolute proof of G-d's Involvement/Existance with credible, objective sources, I will bow to your supremacy, which is what I know you desire anyways. It certainly isn't to witness the Love of Christ, because you'd form your arguments differently if this were your true motive. If you had absolute evidence of G-d's existence, we would not be having this discussion. You would be a millionaire, on tour with your verified conclusive evidence. No one could object to your findings. And no one could argue about the "correct religion" because it would have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. So, my dear Mr. Campbell, if you're hiding some absolute conclusive evidence of G-d's existence or involvement in the history of the Jews, I'm sure we're all anxious to see it for ourselves. Present it to a University or an objective science agency to see if it stands up to the rigorous tests of this world. If it does not, your credibility suffers, because you've perverted the evidence for faith-building trying to pass it off as evidence for your stance that G-d is an absolute truth. These kinds of sources simply will not do. How about a university, news agency, or some other objective source? Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. I look forward to being entertained by your response. BTW, before you make yourself look like even more of a fool, you better find some reasonable people to vouch for your "fruits" before you attempt to insult mine. My "fruit" hasn't been spoiled by hate or misrepresented in an attempt to "prove myself" to others. I do have people in this forum who (Christian and not) are my friends, and they *will* vouch for my dedication to peace and love for them and Jesus. Be very careful, Mr. Campbell. Good luck.
Campbell- Do you believe the Civil War actually happened? Do you believe that Atlanta was actually burned to the ground? Do you believe that war was between the States? Do you believe that brothers fought brothers? Now, Because you believe this... it was actually recorded as history in "Gone With The Wind". So, according to your logic we should believe: Rhett Butler existed. Scarlett O'Hara existed. Rhett told Scarlett- "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Now, surely some people in the South went through something similar to this, but just because some things may or may not exist in some book or movie, doesn't equal that all the fantastic drama existed in the same reality as well. Now, I haven't read all of your posts here, but from what I gather this is similar to what you are arguing.
That was a pretty good analogy, Libby. Actually, really good. Mine was dumb, I was thinking about some made up story about Amelia Earheart I read when I was 12. The writer claimed to be a friend, and claimed something very similar to her story happened in real life, but another friend said she took a lot of artistic license with the story she wrote. We'll never know for sure. Same idea: Real people/occurances can be used in made-up stories that can't be proven or disproven, because they play along with the theme of that era. The only references we have are written records or word of mouth, which is similar to a game of "telephone." The last person may hear a totally different message than the first made up. It's funny, I was thinking about this concept earlier. It's kinda unrelated, but it's strange that I should think about it again in a different regard. MY PEOPLE (sorry if this seems obnoxious, but someone here doesn't seem to understand that I don't need Jewish culture explained to me by someone who's prolly a Gentile) had a system of communication that consisted of men on mountain tops passing messages down the line. What happens if only one man decides to skip out on his duties for only one night? The results could be devestating! Without that one man, the rest of the line doesn't get the message, even though they diligently wait for it. They finally tire and fall asleep to be slaughtered in their beds, because "only one man" fouled up on his duties and failed to relay the message of the impending enemy attack. Certain individuals make accepting Christ seem about as attractive as a trip to the morgue. Thus, they slack on their duties to Him, and either DO NOT pass the message on down the line, or deliberately CHANGE the message to legitimize condescending the unsaved. To serve Him and His People (both saved, and not saved yet) is my joy, my honor, and my blessing. It isn't a burden to befriend people of different ideology, regardless of what some Bible-beating psycho believes. Saved or not, it isn't something I am embarassed by. Why should I be ashamed of my friends? I'll take my good Samaritans any day over the Pompous Pharisees. Hey, at least people like me, even if we don't see eye to eye. I'm a nice girl, usually. It takes an especially far-gone douchebag to get this firebrand fired up. For the first time ever in the entire history of the Christianity forum, someone has succeeded in seriously pissing me off. This should prove interesting.