This was posted 5 years 4 months 17 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Free Digital Audio Course "The Resurrection of Jesus" by Dr. Gary Habermas (Normal Price USD $99) @ Credo Courses

13439
Free Digital Audio Course "The Resurrection of Jesus" by Dr. Gary Habermas (Normal Price USD $99) @ Credo Courses
Go to Deal
gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 02:31 credocourses.com (641 clicks)
Last edited 02/12/2018 - 02:35

Merry Christmas from Credo Courses - Normal Price USD $99, Free for Limited Time.

If you aren't interested in Credo Courses deals you can simply hide that store from your deal feed. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/wiki/help:faq_beginner?#how_can…

Dr. Gary Habermas is Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy at Liberty University. Dr. Habermas is the most respected scholar of the resurrection of Jesus in America and in this class he teaches you everything he’s learned.

Gary Habermas, the world’s leading expert on the resurrection of Christ, has created an entire course just for you!

There is no more important event in human history than the Resurrection of Christ. This event not only evidences God’s intervention and love into the human condition, it tells the world that Christ is Lord.

The great thing about the resurrection of Christ is that it is not something God asks believers to accept with blind faith. This is an event that happened in human history with hundreds of historic details that people are called to examine to gain confidence in their faith in Christ.

That is why this 30-session Credo Course is focused solely on the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. There is not a more important event for Christians to know inside and out. The historicity of the resurrection is sure to tame any skeptic (outside and within).

Full Session List

The Importance of the Resurrection of Jesus
A Priori Objections (Part 1)
A Priori Objections (Part 2)
Principles of Historiography
Methodology: How Do We Use Historiography in Apologetics
Approaching Scripture
Minimal Facts Method
Preaching before Completion of the New Testament
Naturalistic Theories: Alternative Explanations for the Resurrection
Naturalistic Theory 1: The Disciples Stole the Body
Naturalistic Theory 2: Someone Else Stole the Body
Naturalistic Theory 3: The Swoon Theory
Naturalistic Theory 4: The Hallucination Theory
Naturalistic Theory 5: The Copycat Theory
Supernatural Alternative Theories
Categorical Problems with Naturalistic Theories
Understanding the Mind of a Skeptic
Changing the Skeptical Mindset of the Naturalist (Part 1)
Changing the Skeptical Mindset of the Naturalist (Part 2)
Evidence for the Death of Jesus
Evidence for the Appearances of Jesus
Evidence for the Empty Tomb
Constructing a Historical Timeline
Apologetics: Building a Bridge from Miracles to Christianity
Apologetics: Establishing a Connection between the Resurrection and the Existence of God
Who Did Jesus Think He Was? Establishing the Deity of Christ
Grounding Theology (Part 1)
Grounding Theology (Part 2)
Grounding Christian Practice: Application Based on the Resurrection
The Resurrection of Jesus

Education

Related Stores

Credo Courses
Credo Courses

closed Comments

                      • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 18:18
                        +2

                        @[Deactivated]: I gave you the reference, if you don't want to learn I can't help you. You don't have to listen, you don't have to learn. Stay as you are not knowing history.

                        • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 18:20

                          @gto21: Right. History. Must be like "proof".

                          • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 18:38

                            @[Deactivated]: Wow, ok buddy. You're right, let us not consider historical evidence as proof LMAO. Have a nice Sunday friend, I'm not going to waste my time anymore, not worth it.

                            • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 18:40

                              @gto21: This the same level of "proof" as before?

                          • gto21 on 07/12/2018 - 09:21

                            @[Deactivated]: It's lecture 3 start at 13 min. https://www.credocourses.com/product/science-and-the-bible-a…. If you claim history is not proof. You will reject any historical evidence. Or will find another excuse. In summary, you already made up your mind. So no point talking to you.

        • Duff5000 on 02/12/2018 - 19:03

          Biblical cosmology is clearly that of a flat earth though. Many verses talk about that.

          Even if they later accepter it was spherical they still maintained it was fixed and couldn't be moved (geocentrists). The universe rotates around the fixed earth.

          • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 19:08
            +1

            @Duff5000: Have you heard of literalism and symbolism? Biblical cosmology is clear of a flat earth based on mostly by non-Christians exegesis lol.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 02/12/2018 - 17:47

        I for one have read the Bible and several Christian religious books, the Quran and some of the Torah. I don't think anyone needs to know more than the basics to dismiss the validity of their claims

        I can't comment on the others, but for the case of the Christian Bible, one only needs to read the first few lines.

        Part of the problem is that, based on the one's I've met, most Christians haven't actually read the Christian Bible. Instead they take religious instruction from professional (paid) religious leaders who choose specific segments to read and they even guide their interpretation of them! It doesn't help that most copies of the Christian Bible are written in a confusing tone.

        And any ethical concerns with these practices are supposedly mitigated by praying to the Christian God for him to speak through the professional (paid) religious leader.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 17:53

          And any ethical concerns with these practices are supposedly mitigated by praying to the Christian God for him to speak through the professional (paid) religious leader.

          The cornerstone of any surviving modern religion. This must have been the game changer of the industry, the means to self referral and simultaneous monetisation.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 02/12/2018 - 18:02

            @[Deactivated]: Who knows how many religions have existed in human history? Only the most virulent of them have survived natural selection.

            • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 18:17

              @Scrooge McDuck: However many, many share common lore. Women created after men, original sin initiated by women, deity self sacrifice to protect mortals, redemption/reincarnation, great flood with two survivors…

              Would make for convincing argument except it tends to stir the notion of blasphemy or may raise doubt when people correlate trade routes to the birth of a new religion with a recognizable tale.

      • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 02:38

        As a well-informed philosophical atheist, I don't appreciate your use (or rather misuse) of the word "fallacy" as synonymous as "fantasy." Fallacy has a very very different meaning my friend. No religion or UFOs or what have you can be a fallacy…only arguments…critical thinking 101.

        I dismiss religion as an atheist. I don't think it's "akin" or anaological to force smart people to believe in a flat earth. That's a very weak analogy…You seriously think that religious and atheists don't need to know more than the "basics" (however you've stipulated that term) to invalidate religious claims? Are you THAT confident? Have you actually "invalidated" any of their claims, using sound and cogent logic? I'd like to see what your logically structured arguments were. It's not always easy (some are much easier than others e.g. the bread and wine being the actual body and blood of Jesus, or that god is not omnibenevolent; but some are trickier e.g. that there could be a 'god' of some sort (but a very different to Jesus as god), or that natural laws of physics are not static but dynamic which can be 'exceeded' ('miracle' discourses).

        "Greater being(s) that cannot be proven" - you do realize that religious folks have deductively proven deities (using deductive metaphysics)? They've got proofs (not scientific evidence, but more like mathematical logical proofs) for their gods. This doesn't mean that gods exist but they have proofs which as atheists we need to respect. e.g. Aquinas' 5 proofs for the existence of god. They're very good and valid arguments, I just think he's wrong.

        "One only needs to study these texts" lol, tshow, what texts are you referring to? Stop being so vague made.

        "I for one have read the Bible and several Christian religious books" - lol please name those books. I've read a lot as well and I can tell you which ones are the better ones to use as ammunition for us atheists to dispute their claims, e.g. Prof Brendan Byrnes commentary on the 4 Gospels; or some of the saint's mystical experiences like john of the cross or gertrude or faustina. Now go through each of those sentence by sentence and see how much shit you can pile up lol and then give it back to the Christians. there's tons. but you gotta do it in a rational and considerate manner. but you really gotta know your logic 101, 201, 301, and your history, metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology, and the relevant theology that you are disputing about (there's quite a few…I wish there was none but hey, we're rational creatures).

        It's actually not fair to lay all the burden of proof onto the religious believers to prove to us atheists that their god(s) exist. We also need to prove to them that god(s) don't exist. the burden of proof should be equal. so often we demand so much from them that they should prove to us always, but the truth is, no, it's gotta be on an even playing field. they believe in their god(s), we believe in our non-god. the default or status quo during medieval times use to be that atheists had the burden of proof to prove that there was no god(s), but it's been reversed since around the 1800s. I think it needs to be reversed just mildly again so that it's 50/50. we (dis)prove to them, they (dis)prove to us; they (dis)prove to us, we (dis)prove to them.

        • [Deactivated] on 03/12/2018 - 09:31

          And how's your strategy of disproving religion to the religious going?

          We also need to prove to them that god(s) don't exist. the burden of proof should be equal.

          This is where our ideas diverge. Burden of proof is always on the party that claims something exists.

          • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 16:13
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: No it isn't actually. In the legal context yes most likely, but in the philosophical context no, it isn't. Legal applications and philosophical arguments are very different.

            The holder of the burden of proof to justify or substantiate a claim is typically the one who makes the claim, when it challenges a perceived status quo. Now, in ancient and medieval periods, atheism was not the status quo, it was in the minority by far. Atheists in that context had the burden of proof because they made a 'negative' claim or an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. You can prove a negative (a pseudologic) because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in maths and science. A 'negative' claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim.

            In this case, an evidence of absence argument would be the way to fulfill the burden of proof (for a negative claim).
            You also can't shift the burden of proof (for either theists or atheists), based on the informal fallacy of argument from ignorance (assuming that a claim is 100% true because it has not yet been falsified, or assuming that a claim is 100% false coz it hasn't been proven true yet). That's why theism and atheism are belief systems and not knowledge/fact systems.

            • [Deactivated] on 03/12/2018 - 16:18

              @yoke2018:

              Legal applications and philosophical arguments are very different.

              How about scientific? Claiming something exists surely merits scientific examination.

              • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 16:26
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: Of course. Your point?

              • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 16:31
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: The burden has been shown, from genetics, to history, to anthropology, archaeology, etc.

                And what about atheism's attempts to scientifically examine the falsity or non-existence of a resurrection? I don't think we've done a strong enough attempt to come up with new evidence that strengthens the claim to the contrary. Seems like we do more "nope, that evidence is wrong, nope you're wrong again, nup" but it should be us saying, "well how about these new explanations x, y, z" and then the Christians can be like "nope, that's wrong, nup incorrect".
                It seems like atheists have been the critics sitting in the commentary box or comfortable arm chairs much more so than christians/religious have been. The atheistic communities/societies that existed over the millennia could have held their ground and given cumulative evidence from the get go that proved the non-existence of supernatural phenomena. But the christians/religious have been a more united community of making such cumulative claims.

                • [Deactivated] on 03/12/2018 - 17:36

                  @yoke2018:

                  It seems like atheists have been the critics sitting in the commentary box or comfortable arm chairs much more so than christians/religious have been.

                  The need for proof of existence doesn't diminish just because someone else is running like a headless chicken looking for evidence.

                  The rest of your comment just circles back to the only argument you have - the need to show evidence of non-existence. Regardless of how eloquently and grammatically accurately you phrase your argument, it isn't a scientific one.

                  I doubt you are actually an atheist. You're agnostic if not actually religious.

                  • yoke2018 on 04/12/2018 - 01:48

                    @[Deactivated]: The responsibility of carrying a burden of proof isn't restricted to scientific proofs, if so then we'd be doubting everyday situations and looking for evidence to affirm our hypotheses, e.g. whether every new bus driver is trustworthy. In atheistic/theistic discussions, proofs are usually philosophical. In philosophy, one can carry the burden of proving that something doesn't actually exist. He/she can challenge the status quo of Christian belief (the major belief system in the world). Holding a burden of proof isn't a bad thing; it's simply unjust in my opinion to make all the religious peeps do all the proving. They have a lot of work to do, and sometimes as atheists it's not challenging enough to just dispute all the positive proofs that the religious peeps throw. It's actually pretty fun to initiate the development of proofs to show that a lot of the Christian and Islamic and Jewish and Hindu etc etc etc beliefs are implausible. Do you see where I'm coming from?

                    • [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 08:00
                      -1

                      @yoke2018: How we define what a worthy busdriver is and what we define as existence are incomparable.

                      proofs are usually philosophical.

                      That's why some people are religious. They've no idea what proof is.

                      • yoke2018 on 06/12/2018 - 21:27

                        @[Deactivated]: The example of a bus driver was to clarify the limitations of scientific 'proofs' for the existence of something (in this case the absolute trustworthiness—competency, safety, efficiency etc—of the driver to get from A to B) because it has to be demonstrable. Don't get me wrong, as a behaviourist I rely on science everyday; it's one of the best ways to know something, but it's proofs are uncommon, difficult to conduct, and cannot directly address metaphysical—literally beyond science—concerns. A scientific or philosophical proof or any proofs for that matter don't absolutely confirm that something exists or doesn't exist, it merely makes the affirmative/negative claim reasonable.

                        I think that this is a good intro his Giles' 1953 article 'Proofs in Philosophy' available on JSTOR. (although you need an active membership, in which case I can send to you directly if you message me).

                        "Philosophers do not provide proofs any more than tennis ­players score goals. Tennis-players do not try in vain to score goals. Nor do philosophers try in vain to provide proofs; they are not inefficient or tentative provers. Goals do not belong to tennis, nor proofs to philosophy.
                        Certainly some philosophers are also mathematicians, like Descartes, Leibniz and Frege. Some philosophers are also Formal Logicians, like Aristotle, Frege and Russell. Philo­sophers may prove theorems in mathematics and Formal Logic, just as tennis-players may score goals in the winter. But the strengths and weaknesses of Aristotle or Frege in discussing philosophical points are distinct from their strengths and weaknesses in proving theorems in Formal Logic or in mathematics. There could he persons, who were superior to Aristotle in proving theorems in Formal Logic, whom we should still rank below Aristotle as philosophers.
                        But to say that philosophers do not prove or even try to prove things sounds over-violent in two ways. (1) First, some philosophers, like Spinoza, have deliberately tried to do for certain philosophical matters what Euclid did for geo­metrical matters. Attempted proofs of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul bespatter the chronicles of philosophy from Plato to 1953 (at the time of publication)."

                        If the above mentioned philosophers sound new to you then I'd endeavour to read about them and their words in places such as Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy or SparkNotes or whatever, they are renowned for the work that they did, the and many philosophical 'problems' they explored lol.

                    • gto21 on 04/12/2018 - 08:05

                      @yoke2018: This guy in another comment ask a question for on history. And later say history is not proof. So your can show historical evidence, he will reject all of them. Your going to waste your time.

                      • [Deactivated] on 06/12/2018 - 21:59

                        @gto21: And this guy thinks proof is showing someone the way to the library's theology section and claiming proof is in there. After all, you've provided "all the resources."

                        This guy is you btw. Just in case you needed me to reference that.

    • John on 03/12/2018 - 03:33

      You have my respect yoke2018. I’m a Christian but I’m not going to dis people who choose to be atheist, because I know if I do then I have to be knowledgeable enough to argue about it and most importantly be respectful about it. In the same way I wish that most atheist would too and sadly I see many comments here that are just out to disrespect others instead of dilligently discuss about it.

      Its the same when people start talking about critical issues that are on the rise these days. Sadly one side are usually always taking the “hateful” approach instead of allowing an open, knowledgeable and respectful conversation. At the end of the day we can’t all believe in the same thing, but we all can learn to respect differences in our choices.

      Anyway its been an enjoyable read. And particularly enjoyed seeing how you can stay respectful yet critical about it. Thanks!

  • spuderump on 02/12/2018 - 11:19

    Is this endorsed by Lawrence Krauss at all?

    • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 11:23
      +1

      It would be endorsed by Prof Dan Dennett, a professor in PHILOSOPHY and not in physics.

  • eggboi on 02/12/2018 - 11:31
    +12

    Not a bargain. The bible is free and if you need help understanding it you can go to church for free. Conspiracy theories involving people dying and being resurrected 2000 years ago shouldn’t be taking up valuable space on the front page of Ozbargain.

    • cheapo999 on 02/12/2018 - 12:51

      Actually it is lot worse. If this is just a story I do not mind. I like conspiracy theories:D. However this course is about how to defend a faith if attacked. It is the same category with guide book that justifying suicide bomber.

      • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 13:30
        +4

        Umm, right, except you are taught to 'defend the faith' with arguments and evidence, reason and logic and not semtex and C4. srsly dude….

        • cheapo999 on 02/12/2018 - 13:34

          The Crusades wars used lots of logics and arguments :D

          • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 13:37

            @cheapo999: And arrows to the knee……

          • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 13:46
            +6

            @cheapo999: Not everything the crusades did was right. However, if you value your freedom today, its thanks to the crusaders as well. Christians are allowed to defend their lands. In the Crusades, Christians took back their lands that were stolen from them. If it was not for the Christians and the Crusades, many would be dead, forced to convert to another religion or a second-class citizen. If it was not for the crusade history would have been so different. Pagans and atheists would be dead or forced to convert. Pagans and atheists won't even be allowed to live as a second-class citizen. Without the Crusades, the world would be very different today. I can condemn some actions by the Crusaders. But thank them to fight the invaders. They changed history.

          • Elite on 02/12/2018 - 16:38
            +1

            @cheapo999: & this is worth a listen "The Real History of The Crusades" https://youtu.be/ztos_j0-_04

    • defecat0r on 02/12/2018 - 16:29
      +2

      The bible is free and if you need help understanding it you can go to church for free.

      Sir, you have clearly never entered a church! They will be guilting the weak out of 10% of their PRE-TAX income faster than you can say "hail Satan".

      • Scrooge McDuck on 02/12/2018 - 17:54
        +2

        The wealthy and naïve elderly are their favourite targets. Christianity is quite a vicious scam.

  • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 11:32
    +6

    I listen to a lot the audiobooks of Christian, Jewish, Islam and all other non-sensical religions/spiritualities authored by professors of philosophy, religion, history, literature, and physics to understand their (rational but nonsensical) viewpoints in order to rationally and knowledgebly dispute them. They will never listen to our disagreements otherwise. Gotta be on the same page/wavelength for any meaningful discussions to happen. A lot of Christians have become athletes for this very reason. Do you “atheists” here get it? You can’t just express your disagreement by being smart alecs; you’ve got to engage in depth with the content. I love listening to these audiobooks but I find them so silly and I cringe so many times also about what they actually believe in.
    The thing is, as an atheist, I GET why they believe that—and that is very important as a first step to argue why they are wrong without resorting to the informal fallacy of ad hominems

    • CanadaAye on 02/12/2018 - 12:47
      +2

      Engaging in a "meaningful discussion" with someone who believes in something diametrically opposed will only serve to make them more staunch in their existing position. They'll also probably conclude that you're a jerk for putting so much effort into trying to change their mind. Even if you fully understand the reason for their beliefs they won't understand yours, or your need to convince them to change their mind.

      It's your time though, so do what you want with it. And quit trying to force your definition of atheism.

      • pifts on 02/12/2018 - 13:13
        +2

        Not really. What makes people more “staunch in their existing position” are contexts of group think where how right I feel about my point is how many upvotes my neg-vote gets. Bonus points for not engaging in any logic or substance, but on assertion and group identity lol.

        Just take a look at American politics.

      • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 03:03

        Quite the reverse actually. My experience with religious peeps is that because I listen, understand, and actually appreciate what and why they believe (usually is very personal), they are much more willing to listen to my disbelief / non-belief and all the reasons for it.
        After studying some clinical counselling and psychology, I've realised that my approach is aligned well with Professor William Miller's Motivational Interviewing skills (he's a world leading drug addiction specialist/pioneer for change), especially on the idea of: if you listen to one side of the coin in someone's conversation (i.e. all the reasons why they should keep using drugs [or in our case, all the reasons why their religion is right/true/good], then he/she is much much more willing to talk about the other side of the coin automatically (I.e. reasons for why they should stop using drugs automatically [and in our case, all the reasons why atheism can be true, can be good, and can be right]). It's not manipulation, but listening and talking — a dialogue or conversation.
        Atheism has become pretty aggressive at times (religion obviously has too but I give a poo less about religious peeps than genuine atheists — I give a whole damn poo less about lazy, stubborn, and complacent "religious" and "atheists" alike), that I've started to label myself as an "informed" and considerate atheist, and all too often they seem to respect and understand that. It's like I'm a different type of breed. I use to be aggressive but I've had no success in changing people's minds. With this approach I've actually gained religious friends who I can agree to disagree with (it gets awkward when lifestyle issues like sex before marriage, abortion, same sex marriage, cohabitation, swearing, etc come up). I just don't see the reason for hate. And as a practitioner of mindfulness (not as a buddhist but neuroscientifically), to relate kindly toward self and others just makes more sense — this is what us atheists also do, we're good people.

    • Duff5000 on 03/12/2018 - 01:23
      +1

      A lot of Christians have become athletes for this very reason.

      I doubt that

      :)

      • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 03:04

        lmfao, e.g. I met this Jamaican guy called Bolt once, he was once a stanch Christian.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 11:37
    +3

    I used to be involved in the Church of Higgs Boson , gave it up after I discovered they didn't have mass.
    Jesus saves! No thanks (should of invested in housing)
    I'm negging this as the church and religion has misled the community into believing in a mythological being, part invisible sky god and part subterranean pan look alike.

    • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 11:53
      +1

      Lol.
      You actually don’t know what the specific points Prof Habermus makes, so you can’t make those conclusions regarding this specific course. Argue the premises not the other stuff. Atheist Prof Peter Singer does a marvellous job of this, and avoids ALL forms of personal attacks (as hominems) and strawman fallacies, and us atheists should model after him.

    • PJC on 02/12/2018 - 13:32

      *should have invested in housing

      • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 16:31
        +2

        Thanks, I should have (😀) had more English classes at school.
        I had far to much religious education though, I can tell you the books of the Bible and that eating rock badgers is sinful.

        I did learn to stay away from the trash that is being peddalled in this post.

        Joseph Campbell Forever!!!

        • PJC on 02/12/2018 - 21:06

          *being peddled in this post

          • gto21 on 02/12/2018 - 21:46
            +1

            @PJC: Are You; A Gramar Police?

            • PJC on 02/12/2018 - 23:16
              +1

              @gto21: *A Grammar Police

  • R.R.P on 02/12/2018 - 11:51
    -3

    Negging because the Neg is my personal religion and the bible doesn't reflect what I believe in.

  • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 11:57
    +3

    I would neg this is it was $100, but for free and delivered by distinguished research professor in PHILOSOPHY, how could could you not think that this was a bargain. It’s a complete bargain even if the content is disagreeable (obviously) but you gotta know the ideas before you can disprove the ideas, otherwise how can the atheist community actually grow in intelligence and competence in defending our own beliefs?

    • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 12:50
      +3

      If it was an audio course by David Icke on his theories about lizard people would it still be a bargain?

      Some beliefs aren’t worth even considering. We have limited neurons in our brain, so let’s save them for things that are actually real.

      • EightImmortals on 02/12/2018 - 12:54
        +1

        Like the Kardashians and cooking shows? :)

        If some one wants to post a free course on lizard people I would totally check that stuff out. And even though I might not be convinced by the evidence or arguments I would still object to anyone who tried to have that post banned as you are taking away my freedom of choice and my opportunity to learn something about a topic I don't much about. :)

      • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 03:18

        neuroplasticity my friend ;)

    • belongsinforums on 02/12/2018 - 13:40

      You mean lack of belief? If you don't believe in the force, what are you called?

      • Scrooge McDuck on 02/12/2018 - 14:56

        Sensible.

        • belongsinforums on 02/12/2018 - 15:15

          Think of the men. Not just the men, the women and the children, too.

  • gentlecrack on 02/12/2018 - 12:05
    +6

    You need to up your game OP. We need a better price than this. $10 cashback may be?

  • dynaflow on 02/12/2018 - 12:09
    -1

    Another American good 'ol boy preaching the word as he sees it…and the only Doctor is one of medicine,not philosophy.

    • yoke2018 on 02/12/2018 - 12:15
      +2

      You’re joking me right about the last point? Do you realise that you use philosophy every day? The fact that you believe what you just wrote is philosophy.
      Plus, Doctor of Philosphy is a PhD my friend, so you’ve got it so so wrong. Next time you read or watch anything about outer space, make sure that it’s done by a journalist and not an astrophysicist with a Doctor of Philosophy in Physics.

    • pensionday on 02/12/2018 - 12:35

      Dynaflow: that's the most ignorant statement. Go read about bachelors degree vs doctorates. Then read what a medical doctor studied. Then learn about honorary doctorates. SMH.

  • auMouth on 02/12/2018 - 12:09
    +5

    How many times is this going to be listed? Neg.

  • mubd1234 on 02/12/2018 - 12:27
    +2

    This kind of religious material is usually free anyway (although these outfits usually do expect you to donate to them), so not a bargain.

  • sli on 02/12/2018 - 12:31
    +5

    Thanks op

  • keyboardandco on 02/12/2018 - 12:47

    Someone have a bow and arrow?

  • Joey Jo Jo on 02/12/2018 - 12:58
    +5

    The original scifi zombie and superpower saga. Lol I wonder if in 2000 years people will think Marvel and DC Universe was legit real?

    • Noobist45 on 02/12/2018 - 13:22

      Anything is possible. I'd worship Wonder Woman any day of the week.
      +I have to neg this deal because of my narrow view on life. I come here for the bargains and as someone already said this stuff is free anyway.

      • Joey Jo Jo on 02/12/2018 - 15:05

        The Spice Girls got some serious exhausting worship out of me in the late 90s. My future descendants goddesses

    • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 14:17

      L Ron Hubbard, great sci-fi. Wonder how a course in Dianetics would go down on Oz B

    • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 03:22

      You do realize that a lot of pop culture material got their sources and inspirations from religious ideas (but obviously expanded on it)? A lot came from Shakespeare (a genius), and he got a lot of it from religious sources.

      • Joey Jo Jo on 03/12/2018 - 04:28
        +1

        Fantasy story tellers influencing other fantasy story tellers. Makes sense.

  • billy77 on 02/12/2018 - 13:00

    Neg only because I find it funny

  • Benicio on 02/12/2018 - 13:37
    +1

    Minimal Facts Method
    Chapter titles say it all really.

    • yoke2018 on 03/12/2018 - 03:23

      Do you actually know what this refers to? Could you please explain? I'd like to know what it actually means. As atheists, we need to be able to teach using good pedagogy and not micro- and/or macro-aggression.

  • belongsinforums on 02/12/2018 - 13:39
    +3

    Going to post free mlm scheme sessions if this is allowed

  • ensanguined on 02/12/2018 - 13:41
    +3

    Good deal, thanks.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 13:50
    +3

    Promoting this kind of magical thinking is exactly what the world doesn't need more of; it's no different to selling a course about the Jedi but insisting it's all factual and historically accurate.

  • twjr on 02/12/2018 - 14:02
    +5

    I'm not sure this should be tagged as educational. I've got no problem with the objective teaching and understanding of religion. In fact, because of the conflicts it causes at an individual and societal level, I think understanding religion is critical to progressing our society. However, and without reading the course, I doubt this fits the bill and almost certainly draws a conclusion first and interprets evidence to fit that conclusion.

    Also, I'm not sure why deals on Christian education seem to get a free pass on here. I doubt that similar deals for Islamic, Hindu, Pastafarian or Rastafarian teachings would be met with the same tolerance.

    Also also, why not adult deals? If age restrictions, why alcohol deals? If due to moral objections, why deals like this one?

  • Entropy Sky on 02/12/2018 - 14:10
    +1

    Left for dead had a better plot than this.

    And better review too.

  • Jjason on 02/12/2018 - 14:15
    +2

    How do I hide ALL religious “stuff” from my feed?

  • charedblack on 02/12/2018 - 14:18
    +1

    When will the mods stop being scared of these religious nupmties and ban this stuff from Ozbargain?

    • tryagain on 03/12/2018 - 00:03
      +1

      Maybe if they become Marxists, North Korea has the kind of rules you seek.

  • cheapo999 on 02/12/2018 - 14:20
    +1

    Interesting why these so called miracles happened a lot thousands and hundreds years ago, where there was no internet, socmeds, lot less scientists, many superstitions, less scrutinies…you get my drift.

    I guess the word 'hoax' not invented yet.

  • Godric on 02/12/2018 - 14:21
    +2

    Odin > Jesus in a 1v1

  • xmail on 02/12/2018 - 14:24
    +1

    Negging because clearly isn't welcomed by this community

    • tryagain on 03/12/2018 - 00:04
      +2

      Based on about three times as many plus votes than negs?

      • xmail on 03/12/2018 - 11:56
        +1

        Based on near infinitely more neg votes than plus votes than the average post.

        • tryagain on 03/12/2018 - 12:12

          Could just be that it triggers those who are intolerant, ahh maybe that's the community you were referring too. Basically, less than 0.002% of users who have logged in since this deal was posted have felt the need to neg it, that's a minute amount and could in no way be seriously taken as representative.

  • starburstyellow on 02/12/2018 - 14:29

    Is this where Denzel plays a dad trying to get his son to play basketball?

  • apey2000 on 02/12/2018 - 14:30
    +3

    lol… spamming religion on OzBargain. Seen it all now..

  • Wizard on 02/12/2018 - 14:34
    +1

    Please don't posts scams on here.

  • defecat0r on 02/12/2018 - 14:41
    -4

    Negging as I can't in good conscience support the propagation of lies.

    Christians: it is time to pull your head out of the sand and consider ALL of the evidence. So far you have read ONLY the bible of your Christian god and surrounded yourself with a community that parrots the same cherry-picked rubbish from your 'sacred text' while ignoring all the lies, contradictions and morally abhorrent teachings. Your book is NO DIFFERENT to the 'sacred' books of any other mono-theistic religion - you all claim to solely have the answer; you all claim to know your god is the right god through personal revelation. You are NOT unique in this.

    This free audio "Course" is more biased trash that will further you down a path of ignorance.

    You have put your hands over your eyes and fingers in your ears when confronted with scientific argument explaining our origins. It's time to stop, think rationally and see the myth for what it is.

    CHRISTIANS, WAKE UP! You will find that people in your life will be surprisingly understanding when you admit that you have been wrong all these years and are now prepared to listen to reason. Good luck!

  • DimeDetective on 02/12/2018 - 14:46
    +2

    Fkcng lag took 3 days to Respawn

  • twocsies on 02/12/2018 - 15:16

    These courses are full of fabrications and errors. http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/06/dan-wallaces-cred…

    • Alzori on 02/12/2018 - 15:40
      +1

      Does that apply to this author too? Any course like this should be viewed critically no matter the source, but I would be interested to know if there's a lot wrong specifically with Dr Habermas's works.

  • dryandra on 02/12/2018 - 15:25

    More positive votes than negative, JESUS LIVES.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 16:22
      +1

      JESUS SAVES! Ronaldo scores on the rebound.

  • Broden on 02/12/2018 - 15:27
    +4

    These comments are disgusting. What's with all the unwarranted hate towards Christianity? Would it get the same amount of negs for a buddhist, hindu or muslim audiobook? Or is it because your parents made you go to church a few times and you always hated it and need to let out your repressed frustrations here?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join