• expired

FREE Video Course "Christian Apologetics 101" Dr. Doug Groothuis @ Credo Courses

3018

Free Video Normally $199.99, Audio also free for now on this course and a few others.

Dr. Douglas Groothuis is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. This class covers arguments for the Christian worldview while critiquing non-Christian accounts of reality.

Description
This course consists of 30 sessions each around 25-30 minutes in length covering all major aspects of the field of Christian Apologetics. There are also 800+ on-screen slides throughout the course to make it easier to pause and take notes.

The length of these lectures makes them perfect for a wide range of application:

Seminary and university courses
Personal study
Small-group study
Homeschool classes
With hundreds-of-millions of followers across the globe, Christianity has, for centuries, stood at the forefront of intellectual thought. Recently, however, many have begun to question the Christian Worldview. The faith of many has been shaken by the perceived divide between faith and science.

Should Christians be worried that their beliefs don’t measure up in an age of modernity?

The Course: List of Lectures
Introduction to Apologetics
The Biblical Basis for Apologetics
Logic, Methodology, and Worldview Analysis
Apologetical Limits and the Christian Worldview
Objections to Christianity
Truth: Defined and Defended (Part 1)
Truth: Defined and Defended (Part 2)
The Search for and Significance of Truth
The Place of Prudence in Apologetics
Objections to Natural Theology
The Ontological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Design Argument
Darwin and Intelligent Design (Part 1)
Darwin and Intelligent Design (Part 2)
The Moral Argument
The Religious Experience Argument
The Uniqueness of Humanity
Deposed Royalty: Pascal’s Anthropological Argument
Jesus and History
Claims and Credentials of Jesus
The Incarnation of Jesus
The Resurrection of Jesus (Part 1)
The Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)
The Problem of Religious Pluralism
The Problem of Islam
The Problem of Evil
The Problem of Hell
Apologetics and the Old Testament
Taking It to the Streets

The Scholar: Dr. Douglas Groothuis
Dr. Douglas Groothuis Teaches Christian Apologetics

In this course, Dr. Douglas Groothuis presents a compelling case for Christianity and a case against non-Christian worldviews.

Dr. Groothuis is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary in Colorado and the author of numerous books including Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.

We’re not sure which he loves more, theology or jazz. Dr. Groothuis is a connoisseur of both.

Rather than sit on the sidelines, Groothuis encourages his students to take what they’ve learned and jump into the marketplace of ideas. In the last lecture of this course “Taking It to the Streets” (which is more than a song by the Doobie Brothers), Dr. Groothuis gives examples and advice for very practical ways believers can apply what they’ve learned.

Related Stores

Credo Courses
Credo Courses

closed Comments

        • +2 votes

          @gto21:

          But you ask me what was before an intelligent being is not meaningless?

          Well, yes. That is how an argument works. You show that an assumption produces an illogical conclusion, and so the assumption is wrong. Do you know anything about logic? Maybe did mathematics proofs in school?

          Clearly I do not believe in such a thing (that it there is no evidence of the being. you cannot disprove it, Russell's teapot and all that).

        •  

          @manic: if you have premises which are true thus the conclusion is unavoidable.

      •  

        So everything is created from nothing that what most people who believe in big bang believes

        No, not nothing. And this is why it's important to read - all matter came from a super-dense state, before the explosion.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

      • +2 votes

        scientist make new discoveries, changes theories in science and so on.

        That's the main differences in science vs religion.

        Science does not have a heirarchy of authority, only a heirarchy of evidence. Anyone can make scientific claims but they can be debunked. If a claim has been found to be false, it is then viewed as false. Religion doesn't change because it does not care about evidence as long as an authority figure keeps insisting that they have their own "truth".

        It's a scientific impossibility to create from nothing.

        False. It is practically imposibble but you cannot exclude the possibility just because it is improbable. That isn't science. That's religion.

        I'm not much into science if I'm correct evolution is a theory, not a law.

        See point above. It is not a law because it cannot be accertained that it isnt impossibile that the model is infallible.

        And no one has ever proved a species have changed to another.

        There has been observation of subspecies changing. See hybrid animals and microorganism for examples. See above for reason why we haven't proven full species evolution. (Because we haven't recorded history long enough hence cannot prove beyond absolute doubt).

        The bible is not a science book. However, you have history in it.

        The Bible has history in it. Archeological history. The stories can be dated to a certain time period. It doesn't prove the events actually took place. Just because there are millions of copies of Bible's in circulation doesn't mean that there is consistency in the story. It is still one origin and it doesn't verify events.

        • -1 vote

          prove me wrong. Create something out of nothing for me. With empty hands create something for me? Or get the best scientist in the world to create something out of nothing in a lab?

          You can always check the historical and archeological evidence to see if a religion has a strong worldview.

          We have more historical evidence for the bible than anything else in history. If we dismiss the evidence for the Bible, we don't know anything in history. We can forget everything that we think we know of history. Over 24000 manuscript nothing else in history comes close. + the archeological evidence.

        • +4 votes

          @gto21:

          prove me wrong. Create something out of nothing for me

          That's the lamest approach possible. You can apply that to anything to prove a point. "You can't go the moon. Go make a rocket and get to the moon." I have religious friends but even they'd facepalm at your debate.

          We have more historical evidence for the bible than anything else in history. If we dismiss the evidence for the Bible, we don't know anything in history. We can forget everything that we think we know of history.

          The history of no history is not history. You can't have a vanishing dude as proof of God because there is a lack of a body if said dude.

          There is however, history of inaccurate claims but of course that's all figurative like your examples with four corners.

        •  

          @tshow: We have a lot of evidence we can go to the moon and build rockets. I'm even saying get the best scientist, get how many you want. Get all the condition necessary, even if you have an unlimited budget. You won't be able to create something out of nothing. Whereas, if we have all this the best scientist and so on, we can go to the moon and build rockets. If we can't trust historical and archeological evidence for Christianity, we probably don't know much about history. Since the evidence for Christianity during the same time period exceed everything else. I know religion a few centuries later with better "technology" and have control of the lands unlike the beginning of Chrisitianity. Which does not have a strong worldview as Christianity.

        • +3 votes

          @gto21:
          Before man actually got to the moon, in fact, long after men have stepped on the moon, many believe it is impossible.

          You keep insisting that proof here and now is required, further compelling me to believe you are completely unfamiliar with scientific process.

          You keep mentioning "worldview" and "scientifically impossible". You are free to create caveats and qualifiers for your faith to make sense.

          You've made sufficient remarks to indicate nothing can change your mind. Fair enough, that is to be expected of anyone religious.

        •  

          @tshow: We always have evidence we can move from point A to point B. Maybe we did not have the technology to go at a certain speed or distance. However, we never had any evidence we can create something out of nothing. In my opinion and some scientist, it won't happen. You also have your belief, some atheist/ agnostic and so on regardless of what you say they won't change their mind. I'm happy to have a conversation with anyone who is open-minded. And we can agree to disagree. I'm not here to convince anyone if someone is interested in the course good. If someone wants to have a respectable conversion, I'm ok with that even if we disagree.

        • +2 votes

          @gto21:
          You can change me mind.

          Provide me with evidence. I'll change my mind.

          Provide me with a picture and tell me what I should see, I'll call BS.

          It is not that I disagree with your choice to be religious, I disagree that you know what evidence/science actually is.

        •  

          @tshow: About two years ago, I was an agnostic. I started looking for arguments for and against the existence of God. I thought its more reasonable to believe in God than not. You can do research and watch debates among scientist. The second thing I did is look for what religion have the best historical and archeological evidence to support their claims. Based on everything we know, I believe Christianity is more likely to be true compared to everything else. Can I prove it 100%? no. Can I be mistaken? yes. Do I believe this is more likely to be the truth compare to others (even atheism)? Yes. You don't gain any advantage of being a Christian if its false. If Christianity is false, being an atheist, for example, is a lot more advantageous. I will have more "freedom" to do want I want.

        • +4 votes

          @gto21:
          On the heirarchy of evidence, a debate is not even in consideration.

          Being agnostic means subscribing to the argument from ignorance.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

          If you believe that being a Christian affords you less freedom, then you are right, you lose your ability to think.

          If you're implying losing the ability to be virtuous, then you're morally bankrupt. I am an aethiest and I am accountable for all my actions without the need for an imaginary judge. I am sufficiently sentient to perceive right and wrong.

        •  

          @tshow: By less freedom, I mean living more sinful life (I'm not saying I'm sinless). I can do whatever sin I want, many are legal. Is rape right or wrong?

        • -1 vote

          @tshow:

          sorry tshow you are really deceived and I can demonstrate it by asking if you know abortion kills a human life….

        • +6 votes

          @gto21:
          If you don't think you can answer if rape is right or wrong without religion, you have issues.

        • +3 votes

          @gto21:

          Is rape right or wrong?

          grabs popcorn

          please, enlighten me on your science v religious argument with this one…

        • +1 vote

          @thelastnoob:
          If you say I'm deceived, it must be true since we can't proove otherwise.

          Your demonstration is completely irrelevant to your accusation of deception. False equivalency is a religious favourite after all.

          Your question is a loaded one.

          kills a human life…

          You've already made the assumption it's alive so by default, aborting a life is killing. You've answered your own question.

        • -4 votes

          @tshow: you wrote you can "perceive right and wrong" a rapist thinks to rape its right. He gains pleasure out of it. It's his opinion against yours. You don't have a standard of morality in your worldview. You don't have right or wrong in your worldview. It's just the opinion of someone. And someone else can disagree. Everyone can have their own perception of what is wrong or right.

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:
          I do have a standard of morality in my "worldview".

          At least we establish you don't. Hope that religious thing works out for you. If it doesn't, I'm keeping my tenderloins far from you.

        •  

          @tshow:

          show are you claiming an unborn baby is not alive? can you please clarify your position on abortion without obfuscation?

          my point is you think you can determine morals yet I am unsure if you condone abortion which is a terrible thing majority of the time if not all.

          thats where I am claiming you are deceived

        • +2 votes

          @thelastnoob:
          I didn't claim an unborn baby is alive/not alive. Your confusion does not mean I'm obfuscating.

          A baby by definition is alive. Born or unborn.

          Since you've asked a loaded question again, last try? Really trying to gauge if you're capable of actually asking a question without bias. It's the foundation of science.

        • -1 vote

          @tshow: It's just your opinion against his opinion. Whereas in my worldview we have a standard of morality. Even the Law and Government changes it can't be a standard of morality. What is pedophilia today was not a few years/decades ago. The definition of pedophilia is different between different countries and culture. Ancient times 12/13 years old were allowed to get married. Until today many countries under 15 can be married. Every country can have their own moral law and call it good. Whereas people in another country will call it pedophilia. And those people in ancient times and different countries are doing it legally.

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:
          That's a messed up "worldview".

          You believe you're held to higher accountability because you have an imaginary friend.

          I'd hate to find out who you are once that imagination starts to get a little hazy.

        •  

          @tshow: prove to me murder is wrong in your worldview. You have murders who don't feel any remorse. In their perception it's right. In my worldview, I can tell you murder is wrong. Whereas in your worldview it's just your opinion against someone else. You don't have morality without God. "Right and wrong" do not really exist in your worldview.

        • +2 votes

          @gto21:

          Another misrepresentation.

          Deciding murder is wrong doesn't require religion. Nor does it require opinion.

          You can study the pain in the world, and decide that increasing it is a bad idea. You can study societies and discover that allowing indiscriminate murder means there is no safety in a community and requires increased waste of resources on escalating violence to secure your own safety, thereby precipitating a situation in which everyone ends up dead because resources are squandered. You can study game theory and read about mutually assured destruction and other classic problems in game theory that show that there are situations in which cooperation is advantageous to all.

        •  

          @gto21:

          in your everyone's worldview opinion it's just your opinion against someone else. You I don't have morality without God. "Right and wrong" do not really exist in your my worldview.

          FTFY

      •  

        Your ignorance is epic.

        Read about virtual particles. Something from nothing. All around you. Every single moment of your existence.

        •  

          First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

        • +2 votes

          @gto21:

          The first law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to an open system, and doesn't account for quantum effects.

          We don't know the exact conditions at the time of the Big Bang, so we don't know that it's a closed system.

          Now let's talk about virtual particles. Even when the sum total of the system is still zero, a pair of particles can momentarily appear.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

          You don't want to play this game with me. You clearly know just enough science to be dangerous and have never learnt to challenge the boundaries of your knowledge. Did you even bother to look up what I wrote before you regurgitated whatever you picked up in science class or some science documentary?

          Skepticism doesn't just mean irrational disbelief and rubbishing ideas you don't find intuitive. It means opening your eyes and ears, listening to and understanding what is being said and THEN demanding proof.

          And let me just be clear that while I do have a science qualification, compared to a working scientist who is an expert in the field my knowledge is pitiful.

        •  

          @syousef: The big bang is an open system since we know the universe is expanding. All I see in your message is a lot of "I don't know" and when I ask for evidence you can't provide them. Science cannot prove or disprove God (for now). You even have Christians who agree with Big bang and evolution, those are not evidence against God. Both views have a level of uncertainty. You can be mistaken, I can be mistaken. Both of us can't prove our point 100%. I believe the best conclusion is God exists. However, why I believe in Christianity is also based on historical and archeological evidence. You have historian who can determine with a level of certainty what happened in the past. All thing considered (science, history, archeology) that what I believe is the most plausible explanation.

        •  

          @gto21:

          Okay now Cosmology I have studied. And your first sentence is just rubbish. The big bang is not a "system". I think you mean the universe. It is pretty clear you don't understand what an open system means in the context of cosmology vs thermodynamics.

          You may only see "I don't know" in my answers, but I can't make up for your lack of comprehension if years of education have failed you.

          I did not claim that science can prove or disprove god. I did not say that the Big Bang or Evolution were evidence against god. I did however state that your lack of understanding makes your questions child like and that if you're going to criticise a theory you need to understand it. If your religion requires you not to believe in things that have been proven it is dangerous. If you want a detailed explanation of why I'd recommend "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan.

          Your belief that Christianity is based on historical and archaeological evidence is not well founded. There may have existed figures and events that some of the legends are based on, but there is no solid evidence for the bible as historical fact.

          I am quite open to real evidence and will readily change my mind and thank you for it. But it has to be real evidence! Not made up nonsense based on half understood year 7 science class axioms and documentaries, legends and works of fiction, or gibberish that can disproven at the drop of a hat.

        •  

          @syousef: Like I said Evolution and big bang won't actually disprove the existence of God. Let say I have 7-year knowledge or whatever, no PHD in science ever provided evidence for evolution a cell becoming an animal, a species becoming another species, or have ever created anything out of nothing in a lab. You have over 24000 manuscript evidence. From Christian, non-Christian, biblical and non-biblical. That exceeds by far other stuff we have we have in history. We have historical evidence for Exodus, although there some argument on the dates it happened. Recently we found the seal of Isaiah. Just to name a few. If its based on evidence, everyone would be a Christians. But people reject evidence.

        • +3 votes

          @gto21:

          Let say I have 7-year knowledge or whatever,

          your current arguments would support this theory

        • +2 votes

          @gto21:

          Please point to where I said Evolution and Big Bang disprove god. You can't because I didn't. That's called a straw man argument.

          And another straw man that you keep repeating now so many times I want to bang my head on a wall. No credible science degree teaches that a single celled organism suddenly becomes another species. For the love of Pete I will repeat one more time. STOP GETTING YOUR IDEAS OF EVOLUTION FROM COMIC BOOKS AND SUPERHERO MOVIES. Speciation isn't a single step transformation or even a single offspring transformation. It takes MANY MANY generations

          Some of the evidence we have for the small steps is overwhelming. We have observed
          - viruses like HIV mutating into new strains. We've done observed the differences in the DNA.
          - mutation in fruit flies
          - a fossil record full of the different steps in the evolution.
          - chickens that grow "dinosaur" teeth when their genes are manipulated

          That's off the top of my head. There is an absolute avalanche of evidence that specialists are much more familiar with than I.

          And I find myself repeating again. Physicists DO observe virtual particles in the lab. I have provided you with a link. You have just refused to bother looking at what I've given you and keep repeating the same thing.

          Are you really just going to keep wasting my time repeating the same straw men again and again? You've become tiresome to talk to. A thing doesn't become true because you keep repeating it.

          You will not find a mainstream historian that tells you that the bible is literally true. There are many better documented events in history so your claims are just made up and unsubstantiated nonsense. People reject evidence because it doesn't meet the standards of scientific rigour. If you show me something and tells me it proves something and it doesn't of course I'm going to reject it. If there was solid evidence it would be taught in history class alongside other material. There would be a whole topic on the bible in every history class that would take up the bulk of the presentation. It is not because what you claim is evidence is nothing of the sort.

        • -2 votes

          @SBOB: your missing the point. I don't care who is smarter. You can have all the PHD scientist in the world, with all the finance required. And yet none will be able to prove me wrong. You can say 7-years old knowledge. And yet no one will be able to show a cell becoming an animal. Not one will be able to show a species becoming another species, no one will be able to produce something out of nothing. Get your best scientist, I will ask the same question and they won't be able to prove evolution or nothing created everything. Just theories. You keep complaining but did not bring anything to this conversation or the other comment you made.

        • +3 votes

          @gto21:

          When you don't know the right questions to ask, the fact that you "can't be proven wrong" is irrelevant.

          You REPEATEDLY state that your understanding of evolution is "a cell becoming an animal". I keep telling you this isn't how evolution works. I even explained how it does work, and you refuse to take that on board. That is called WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

          "Not one will be able to show a species becoming another species," This has been shown, over many generations. You haven't considered the evidence. You refuse to. That is called WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

          You're dead right. No one can beat someone who refuses to understand.

          You clearly don't understand the word theory either. A theory is well proven. A conjecture or hypothesis is what you mean. But your half understood year 7 science won't allow you to learn AT ALL.

        • -1 vote

          @syousef: Exactly I don't know why you're arguing about evolution and big bang. Even if you were right it won't disprove God. After many many generations in other words you can't prove it it's just a theory. Once you can show a species become another species that will be evidence. Do you have nothing right? Do you have any cell being an animal? Your so-called link, science say energy can't be created and destroyed. Can your scientist create something out of nothing in a lab? I don't think so. You have many historians which will tell you about the accuracy of the bible. Historical aspect. And I'm talking about liberal scholars, agnostic scholars, mainstream historian. They won't accept the supernatural but the will agree on many historical facts. You make a claim "many better-documented events in history" name on better-recorded event in the 1st century than the crucifixion of Jesus. Please don't divert again, And answer the question.

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          And yet no one will be able to show a cell becoming an animal. Not one will be able to show a species becoming another species,

          thats not how evolution works, thats not how any of this works

          and 'show you'… you know the timeframes for the evolution you're talking about arent 'come back next week' right?

          Evolution is the product of variation within a population that just happens to be good enough to have an advantage in the environment its in

          eg. example of short term evolution include moths which changed their colouring to adapt to soot covered trees in the wake of industrialisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution) , microbes becoming resistance to certain drugs is another

          i'll happily show you a cell becoming an animal.
          I have just set aside a single cell, please leave this thread and come back in about a 100 million years and i'll show you

        • -1 vote

          @SBOB: Ok then you don't have any evidence to support your claim. Get back to me when you can show the evidence. For now its a theory. A theory is not a fact. Have a good night. :)

        • +2 votes

          @gto21:

          Just keep repeating it and it's true huh? I DID NOT STATE THAT I WOULD ATTEMPT TO DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. You are being intellectually dishonest and completely immoral to keep implying that I have.

          Please look up the word "theory" in the dictionary. Saying "It's just a theory" is tantamount to saying "My education sucks and I should be able to get a full refund".

          You keep asking me to prove X-Men is real. This science fiction does not get evolutionary science right. Stop repeating your drivel about single celled animals magically transforming into new creatures. There is no scientific theory that says this will happen. None. Nada. Zip. I wouldn't try to prove it any more than I would try to prove you are Superman or Batman.

          The only answer to your question is that you are asking a question that makes no sense. You keep asking me the same question but won't answer any of mine. Why isn't bible study part of history class? You cant' even tell me which parts are historical and which parts are supernatural without arbitrarily choosing to suit yourself.

        • -1 vote

          @syousef: why you keep arguing for something you can't prove. You're speaking as if its a fact. It's not a fact. That what people think its happening. No one can prove it. Its called Theory of Evolution for a reason its not even the Law of evolution. Good night, I'm losing my time with you since you have zero evidence

        • +1 vote

          @gto21:

          You don't know the difference between a Theory and a Law either.

          A Law refers to something that is proven scientific idea that can be expressed as a mathematical equation. Like the Laws of motion, the Law of Gravitation. Newton's Gravitation is still a law even though it has its limitations and a more complete description is available in General Relativity. But GR is hard, Newtonian Mechanics is not and can be used as a satisfactory explanation.

          A Theory is also proven but is a description of how something works. It may include many parts including laws.

          A fact is something you most certainly don't understand. A fact is a conjecture that has been proven to be true.

          The irony of you repeating the same drivel again and again despite me having shown it as such than going home and taking your bat and ball is priceless. I already told you I can't prove anything to someone who repeats falsehoods, asks for comic book science fiction to be proven as fact and refuses to learn. You already won that one. I have repeatedly conceded that I can't pry you from your wilful ignorance.

        •  

          @syousef: You want to believe in things that you have zero evidence that fine but stop talking as if its a fact when you can't prove it. My conversation with you, I can't see you have shown me anything to make me believe its a fact. Which you seem to believe is a fact. Base on what you said to me the chance of being real is like 0%. I'm sure we have some great mind who will be able to be more convincing than you. I don't think I will learn anything from you. If anything you make me doubt evolution and big bang even more. Highly unlike to happen based on your inability to bring a piece of evidence. Its weird people believe its a fact when they can't even prove it. We have more knowledgeable people than you who will accept they can be wrong. The common people believe its a fact and argue all day about it whereas scientists admit they might be wrong. Anyone thinking critically won't just accept what they say as a fact. Scientist can come up with a new theory tomorrow and you will just accept what they say without them showing you evidence for it. It was a decent conversation. But like I said I won't learn anything from you when it comes to science. So no point keep wasting my time with you. This conversation is over.

    • -3 votes

      when the Bible uses such figures of speech as “the four corners of the Earth” it asserts that the Earth is a square! Imposing such wooden literalism on even modern parlance would make all of us Flat Earthers as well!

      I suggest you listen to or read my Defenders lectures (Series 2, Section 9) on Creation and Evolution, parts 9-12. There I discuss ancient creation stories such as ancient Egyptian creation myths and ask whether ancient peoples understood these literally. I think it’s evident that they did not. These accounts are often metaphorical or symbolic, and ancient people would have been quite surprised if one of these modern literalists were to confront them with the claim, ”So you believe that the world literally ____________ (fill in the blank) ?”. In order to appreciate this point just take a look at the artistic illustrations in Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden, In the Beginning… We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2012) of what a literalistic understanding of such myths would involve. I doubt that any ancient Israelite believed, for example, that if he traveled far enough north he would eventually come to some gigantic pillar supporting the dome of the sky.

      The burden of proof, then, lies upon these literalists to justify their assumption that such ancient literature was intended by its original authors and readers to be understood literally.

      This post and other resources are available on Dr. William Lane Craig's website: www.reasonablefaith.org

      •  

        when the Bible uses such figures of speech as “the four corners of the Earth” it asserts that the Earth is a square!

        It does not compute! A planar object with four corners is a quadrilateral. A square is a quadrilateral. A quadrilateral is not necessarily a square.

        •  

          The point was it's not literal. You missed the point of the whole argument.

        •  

          @gto21: I am certain that I missed the argument because the above debate did not interest me one iota. But the statement written by you and quoted by me is logically flawed. Other than this one statement I have no idea what you people were arguing about and I am not about to join the debate.

  • +4 votes

    As this is OzBargain; shouldn't we judge it purely based on whether or not this is a bargain?

    • +1 vote

      All i can say is that, Guns

    •  

      I was expecting a lot of negative comment and downvote because it's on religion and Christianity. What's interesting many ozbagainer order things they don't need. People who need them miss because of those people. And are very happy to own things they never will never used in their home. But I thought I'll post it anyway if it's useful to just one person I'm happy. Its worth it.

    • +1 vote

      It can also be judged on the value and quality of the product….

      • +2 votes

        Absolutely it can be! Free things can be bad bargains if they are bad value or quality; totally agree here.
        But assuming that every piece of christian teaching is bad quality is just showing terrible ignorance.
        I can't see very much valid reasoning for the neg posts; except for blind dismissal. If they knew something about the quality of the teaching then they would be completely qualified to neg.
        That's the way I see this anyway… I'm still new-ish to OzBargain.

    •  

      Even free, it's not worth it.

  • +5 votes

    Bahahahah why is this even on here lmao

    • +3 votes

      Purely for entertainment purposes, like all other fiction items

    • +4 votes

      It's free! I have seen worse deals on here.

  • +4 votes

    Not a bargain, should be paid to watch it.

  •  

    This is a bargain, but not something for everyone. Flame war comments are not useful.

    • +4 votes

      Is it? Go look at youtube, and tell me what the market price is for religious lectures.

      •  

        Its illegal to have this one youtube. Some people also prefer certain lecturers. I'm watching a series from the same website on "Textual Criticism" I don't know any course on youtube which as have some much details. I have not seen any as good on youtube.

      •  

        @maniac
        you can say the exact same for any course such as photography et al
        so logically your argument is not sound and hypocritical if you have not negged other deals under this criteia

        • +1 vote

          People are not quite so evangelical, to spread their photographic wisdom for free.
          I admit, I'm not a youtube fan, and prefer to learn from the written word.

        • +3 votes

          @manic: you have a lot of other free courses on ozbargain. Pretty much every week/fortnight. I subscribe to some which were bad quality but zero downvotes. The vast majority of downvotes are people who dislike Christianity and/or religions. I knew it before posting, but I don't care. If its useful for one person, I'm happy.

        •  

          @manic:

          try using the search bar in youtube and come back and try to tell me there is not thousands of videos and thousands of hours of photography lessons and tutorials

    • +8 votes

      username checks out

      • -3 votes

        haha so does yours since you probably don't know of the widespread fraud and the many atheists have spread these lies due to ignorance

        • +5 votes

          @gto21:
          In what sense? Each cell has a parent cell. There was no Adam and Eve.
          Are you talking about abiogenesis? The emergence of life from the primordial soup?

          Given that there is no one definition of life, or cell, even if you had a time machine you could not point to one clump of organic molecules and say that was the first life.

        • +5 votes

          @thelastnoob:

          While individual organisms have limited lifespans, our genes live on. Given that we share complex genes with distantly related life-forms, we know the genes are very old. They can persist over geological timeframes.

          While Dawkins may be famous in the lay world as an atheist speaker and author, his real achievements are as a professor of evolutionary biology. He came to fame with "The selfish gene". (A poorly chosen title in hindsight)

  • +3 votes

    Brainwashing shouldn't be allowed at OzBargain.

  • +1 vote

    Free is still too expensive for this.

  • +1 vote

    As my father would say, "Which bias is the best bias to be biased by?"

    • +2 votes

      Slave has to pick a master?

      Better to weigh the evidence and form your own opinion. I know critical thinking, science and looking at the credibility of your sources is an unpopular notion today. But I don't know a better way.

  •  

    Downvoted.

    I believe the content should remain published.

    I believe the content is not worth $0 and we should be paid to be sold into this "worldview".

    •  

      @ tshow payments are guaranteed either way