Free Course (Digital) - The Resurrection of Jesus – Dr. Gary Habermas @ Credo Courses

Related Stores

Credo Courses

• 1
• 2
• 3

• 

  TheDukeOfNukem on 27/02/2020 - 20:24

  I remember this guy.

  Please let the comments be as good as I remember.

  • 

    Click_It on 27/02/2020 - 20:27

    +1

    🍿 ?

    • 

      TheDukeOfNukem on 27/02/2020 - 20:27

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK-ceOgBvGY

• 

  Berek on 27/02/2020 - 20:26

  +31

  “Minimal Facts Method“

  Pretty much sums it up right there…

  • 

    Gnostikos on 27/02/2020 - 20:34

    +4

    This guy right here, Inquisitor.

  • 

    ozhunter on 27/02/2020 - 23:13

    Lol

• 

  mr fox on 27/02/2020 - 20:28

  +3

  Gross.

• 

  tromboc on 27/02/2020 - 20:30

  +14

  No strings.

  I kinda feel like signing your entire life and that of your family and finances over to a profit-seeking organisation to do their bidding for "eternity" is kinda a string, or is that just my commitment issues cropping up again…?

  If you aren't interested in Credo Courses deals you can simply hide that store from your deal feed.

  Noted, but the inclusion of said disclaimer might serve as a personal reflection on the usefulness of the content being shared in the first place. Of course just my 2c.

  All the best though, this site is after all just every man trying to make a buck off some sort of trick/hack/scam/deal in the book so I guess it kinda fits right in!

  • 

    jimbobaus on 27/02/2020 - 20:32

    +2

    I miss 2c coins… they were useful… this "deal" however is not

  • 

    ozhunter on 28/02/2020 - 02:49

    +1

    I kinda feel like signing your entire life and that of your family and finances over to a profit-seeking organisation to do their bidding for "eternity" is kinda a string

    Does this deal make you do that?

    Is that what you think Christianity is about?

    • 

      tromboc on 28/02/2020 - 20:47

      It took an 18mth full time advanced diploma in Christian ministry and biblical theology to come to that very obvious conclusion, yes.

      • 

        ozhunter on 28/02/2020 - 23:33

        -1

        I never got that impression. I mean giving and tithing is encouraged but never forced.

        I see like phone apps that ask if you want to buy the developer a coffee. If it's helped you in anyway, it's good to support it.

        • 

          tromboc on 28/02/2020 - 23:49

          +1

          @ozhunter: You are literally sacrificing a normal secular lifestyle to follow a doctrine and prescribed dogma based on the mutterings in a controversial old book. If I wasn't talking about Christianity most people would think I'm referring to a cult.

          If you want to focus on the cash, there is an expectation of 10% pre-tax straight into your local cult churches bank account. You know, because god isn't omnipotent and can't just make it appear for some reason.

          This is nothing like paying an app developer for a coffee.

          • 

            gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 00:33

            -1

            @tromboc: What is great about the normal secular lifestyle?

            • 

              tromboc on 29/02/2020 - 00:55

              +1

              @gto21: It's whatever I want.

              • 

                ozhunter on 29/02/2020 - 08:34

                @tromboc:

                It's whatever I want.

                Definitely one of the more honest answers people give and probably the main reason why many wouldn't even consider the possibility that God exists. They want to be their own god, to not be accountable to anyone.

                • 

                  tromboc on 29/02/2020 - 12:37

                  +1

                  @ozhunter: You really missed the point. Life is only ever doing what one wants. Some just live in shame of those decision because a man made book told them they should feel bad.

                  I absolutely consider the possibility that a god exists all the time. There's just no proof is all.

                  They want to be their own god, to not be accountable to anyone

                  I am accountable to myself, my wife, my daughter, my family, my friends, my employer, my society and governments, my lawmakers, my financial interests, just not a rapey priests or scammy ministers, and certainly not an invisible unproven sky fairy.

                  • 

                    gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 12:59

                    -1

                    @tromboc: A Christian doesn't have to be accountable to a rapist priest or a ministry whose doing something wrong.

                    You claim you're accountable to the government. If they commit sexual abuse and are scammy. Are you will still accountable to them?

                    • 

                      tromboc on 29/02/2020 - 21:18

                      +1

                      @gto21:

                      A Christian doesn't have to be accountable to a rapist priest or a ministry whose doing something wrong.

                      Who is accountable then? Are the Catholics not to blame for creating a space for priests to systemically rape children? Maybe it's unfair to lump another denominations problems on you, but you seem to think that as a non believer I have all the answers in the world. News flash. Nobody does, and that's the reason I'm a non believer.

                      You two keep bringing up rape and I don't know why, it doesn't help your argument. Considering the whole submit to your husband thing, I'm surprised christians aren't the most forward progressive feminists to protect themselves from litigation surrounding non consensual intercourse. If you're coerced to bang your husband just because your minister said you're his wife and it's your duty is that ok? I think it's rape. Now look at me I've gone off topic. Rape rape rape is there another topic?

                      If they commit sexual abuse and are scammy. Are you will still accountable to them?

                      Sadly, yes. Although there are checks and balances that help to stop and prevent this from happening, I am liable to the government regardless of the individual morals of those elected. You are too. Why am I explaining this, are you an adult? That's a legitimate question because this is basic stuff.

                  • 

                    gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 14:04

                    -1

                    @tromboc: You want to do what you want. The so-called secular life. If your daughter uses the same principles. And want to be a prostitute. As long as she does it legally and she is safe. Will you be proud of her?

                    • 

                      tromboc on 29/02/2020 - 21:05

                      +1

                      @gto21: If my daughter wants to be a prostitute when she grows up then I have failed her self esteem.

                      Why do I have to be a christian to think selling your body is destructive?

                      Why did you even bring that up? It is completely unrelated and you keep going for these crazy tangential slippery-slope what-ifs as though you've got me

                      And it's not a "so-called secular life" it's just what life is and was without and before religious influence. Humans predate your book by a long way.

                      • 

                        gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 23:56

                        -1

                        @tromboc: You have several measures you can take if a priest or a ministry are doing something wrong. Depending on the situation. Most of them have church discipline, you can choose to leave if not resolved and find another church or you can report them to the police.

                        I don't know how to submit turn into rape. Just sound like very bad exegesis. Children submit to their parents. Employee submits to their boss. Does that mean they are getting raped? The same author your quoting also said to love your wife like Jesus love the church. I would think raping someone will not be a loving thing to do. Like Jesus love the church means you're ready to give your life for her. We also have verses which say to submit to one another. My guess is that for you it means rape one another. Lol

                        • 

                          tromboc on 01/03/2020 - 00:02

                          +1

                          @gto21: OK I'm tapping out now. You keep trying these curve balls and what-ifs to somehow prove I'm a terrible person if I don't worship your imaginary friend, but you won't get back to my OP, which I keep trying to bring it back to. You probably don't even remember what that was.

                          This was not fun.

                          • 

                            gto21 on 01/03/2020 - 00:06

                            -1

                            @tromboc: I never said you're a terrible person.

                      • 

                        gto21 on 01/03/2020 - 00:04

                        -1

                        @tromboc: You want to do whatever you want. She can do whatever she wants.

                        If the law, government and society is the standard of morality. Since prostitution is legal in many countries. She's not doing anything wrong in your worldview.

                        If you think it's destructive and you failed her your whole worldview just falls apart.

                        I think I have nothing to add. I proved my point.

                        • 

                          tromboc on 01/03/2020 - 01:27

                          +1

                          @gto21:

                          If the law, government and society is the standard of morality. Since prostitution is legal in many countries. She's not doing anything wrong in your worldview.

                          OK I really didn't want to waste any more time with this, but you just completely extracted that from your butt hole. That has no basis in any of my comments.

          • 

            ozhunter on 29/02/2020 - 01:02

            -1

            @tromboc:

            You are literally sacrificing a normal secular lifestyle

            Well yea, it's not like you can just do anything and expect God to be happy with it. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's good.

            This is nothing like paying an app developer for a coffee.

            Donating. Not required, but freely given.

            What denomination, if you don't mind sharing.

            • 

              tromboc on 29/02/2020 - 01:41

              +1

              @ozhunter: Why do you care what your god thinks? Shouldn't you be guided by a more internal set of morals and ethics, which come from our own humanity, society and upbringing?

              Sure, "freely given" is what the brochure says. The bible constantly constantly harks on about how those who give freely sow the rewards, and those who don't, won't. The point is that a true believer earnestly wants to, but that want is driven by a learned belief from a religious teaching. There's nothing "free" about it. You're taught to want to do it, but of course the progression is slow and comfortable, so it feels… "right"

              All the denominations are different flavours of the same thing with differing levels of crazy and sexual abuse and fraud.

              • 

                gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 02:29

                -1

                @tromboc: "Shouldn't you be guided by a more internal set of morals and ethics". If everyone uses his internal set of morals and ethics. It will be someone opinion compared to another. So a rapist can do whatever he wants as long as he is guided by his sets of morals and ethics. I hope you realise your standard of morality fails.

                • 

                  tromboc on 29/02/2020 - 05:26

                  @gto21: What in the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to say if you weren't a christian you would automatically default to wanting to rape people? If not, where do you get that idea from? Humanity worked out raping people was bad long before your book turned up, and without a god to tell them. You can't claim that you or your religion had anything to do with that!

                  I hope you realise your standard of morality fails.

                  I'm doing just fine thanks.

                  In any case, according to your bible, it's the woman's fault if she's raped anyway. She put herself in that position and didn't cry out for help.

                  Don't lecture me from any point of authority on morality. As a christian you are well and truly on the back foot.

                  • 

                    gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 10:24

                    -1

                    @tromboc: You know in Hebrew the word used for rape can be also translated as lay with. So yes you will get a lecture. I know what verse you're referring and you won't last long.

                    I never said if someone is not Christian it means they will rape.

                    That not true we have study that rape according to some so-called expert is natural and apart of evolution. Not true human have figured it out. Still today it's for debate.

                    You don't have a standard of morality in your worldview. It's your opinion against the rapist opinion. It's your opinion against this expert conducting the study. Your world view can't determine what is right or wrong.

                    It's very interesting that someone who claims to study theology doesn't get it. I can understand to some degree that some people don't get it. But I expected more from you.

              • 

                ozhunter on 29/02/2020 - 04:46

                -1

                @tromboc:

                Why do you care what your god thinks? Shouldn't you be guided by a more internal set of morals and ethics, which come from our own humanity, society and upbringing?

                God > humans

                It's like your saying that even if God exists, I should just do what I think is right or what other people think is right.

                If you don't want to give, that's up to you. If you're referring to just giving in general ie. to the poor and needy, I just personally think that it's good to want to help others who are less fortunate.

                All the denominations are different flavours of the same thing with differing levels of crazy and sexual abuse and fraud.

                Atheists do this too.

                • 

                  tromboc on 29/02/2020 - 05:09

                  +2

                  @ozhunter: Who said god > humans?

                  Yes. Irrespectiveoof the existence of any higher power, you should do what is right and moral. Nothing trumps that. So much of most religions teaching is extremely bigoted and hateful, especially modern Christians.

                  I'm not getting into bible verses but the first tenth of a believers increase (income) literally belongs to god. In fact tithing is about the one thing the bible is very consistent on right throughout (funny that, the bit about giving church leaders your money made if safely through translation but nothing about gays or abortion)

                  You can't tell me you can have faith and be disobedient? Where in the bible does it say tithing is optional?

                  atheists do this too.

                  Atheists don't hide behind a God as an excuse for their atrocities, they go to jail. Don't normalise rape. Shame on you.

                  • 

                    ozhunter on 29/02/2020 - 06:01

                    -1

                    @tromboc:

                    Who said god > humans?

                    Let's just say that it's my opinion. Omnipotent diving being vs a human.

                    you should do what is right and moral

                    But what is right and moral? And why should I do that? If God doesn't exist, shouldn't I just do whatever makes me happy and for my own personal gain, regardless of who is harmed in the process?

                    but nothing about gays or abortion

                    Not sure if you're serious or not. But yea, it doesn't use those exact terms.

                    You can't tell me you can have faith and be disobedient?

                    You absolutely can. Christians aren't some perfect people. We're humans too and have human desires just like everyone else.

                    Where in the bible does it say tithing is optional?

                    This is what I think about tithing.

                    https://www.gotquestions.org/tithing-Christian.html

                    Atheists don't hide behind a God as an excuse for their atrocities, they go to jail.

                    Everyone tries to avoid jail where possible.

                    Don't normalise rape.

                    I never mentioned it at all.

                    • 

                      TheDukeOfNukem on 29/02/2020 - 07:45

                      +1

                      @ozhunter:

                      Let's just say that it's my opinion. Omnipotent diving being vs a human.

                      Lets just say that it's my opinion, human beings that are clearly actually existing vs a super powerful guy no one has ever seen and can never show any actual proof of ever having existed.

                      But what is right and moral? And why should I do that? If God doesn't exist, shouldn't I just do whatever makes me happy and for my own personal gain, regardless of who is harmed in the process?

                      If doing something that wrong and immoral makes you happy, then you're a bad person. And if you need the fear of the omnipotent cloud sitter to tell you not to do something bad, then you're a bad person with bad impulses who believes bad stories.

                      Not sure if you're serious or not. But yea, it doesn't use those exact terms.

                      Language, like our species, has evolved over time. If you're going to base your argument on semantics such as changing terminologies then you've pretty well already accepted your argument isn't that strong to begin with.

                      You absolutely can. Christians aren't some perfect people. We're humans too and have human desires just like everyone else.

                      So you're saying "human desires" are bad? Or that having them is fine so long as you don't act on them or? Why would God make you with such desires hard wired into you then? Drunk at the wheel again? Because it seems to me if it's about choice, if it's a test from God, then that would in turn mean there's a level of free will inherent with being a human, but that usually flies in the face of most of you guys' arguments too. Come to think of it, all you guys really do is argue.

                      This is what I think about tithing.

                      They didn't ask what you think about it, they asked where in the bible does it say it's optional.

                      Everyone tries to avoid jail where possible.

                      Wow really? Even the sinful gays who are just living their life they way they were made, and and, and those evil harlots who get abortions when it's a medical crisis and the mother would die at birth leaving no one to care for the child? Because I thought they were going to hell and they were just doing the best they could without harming anyone else walking the streets.

                      I never mentioned it at all.

                      Well, you brought up rape actually.

                      … we got you, tromboc

                      • 

                        ozhunter on 29/02/2020 - 08:18

                        -1

                        @TheDukeOfNukem:

                        If doing something that wrong and immoral

                        By whose standards do you consider something to be wrong and immoral?

                        Well, you brought up rape actually.

                        Could you link post the link to it?

                        If morality is simply subjective, then anyone could justify any thing they do as morally right.

                        • 

                          TheDukeOfNukem on 29/02/2020 - 09:29

                          @ozhunter:

                          By whose standards do you consider something to be wrong and immoral?

                          You can have your subjective belief systems and patterns of behaviour and go for it, but generally speaking, as with laws that are constructed and agreed to largely by entire societies, a base level of morality isn't really something super crazy to figure out. Don't hurt people who don't deserve it, don't rape people, try not to be a shithead, etc. I would say basic human decency is my moral code. Have I done stupid stuff? Yeah, of course. Do I feel bad about it? Yeah, of course. Morality. I thought it was funny when I clocked this kid in the nose for pushing me slightly in year 9, I don't now, I realize it was a dick move and the dude didn't even mean to push me into the railing. I feel like an (profanity) and I move on, you can't change how you've done stuff in the past, but you can always change your future. Basic. Human. Decency. Don't go around punching people in the nose for trivial undeserved stuff. Just like it's not unreasonable to say you shouldn't rape and murder people in a civilized society. It's not about individual standards, it's just basic decency. And to promote hatefulness and biogtry is to go against basic human decency. If you need the love of something you can't touch or see to stop you from doing something bad, then you're really just weak of character more than anything.

                          Could you link post the link to it?

                          Sorry, it was gto21, you guys are base the same, though you're at least somewhat less aggressive. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/521307#comment-8394833

                          If morality is simply subjective, then anyone could justify any thing they do as morally right.

                          That's what I'm trying to say though. We can all have spins on things and believe what we want, but basic human decency should be pretty objectively recognized.

                          • 

                            gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 10:54

                            -1

                            @TheDukeOfNukem: Law and social change. Marrying someone under 15 years old is legal in some countries and not illegal in others. It's different in every country. Law and society can't be the standard of morality. And you also since it's your opinion against another. You can't determine what's wrong or right in your worldview.

                            Your examples of abortion. Are the extreme cases. Most of the item it's not the case. It does not justify killing another human.

                            Prove for us a consistent way to determine what's right or wrong in your worldview? Law, society and yourself will all fail. What else you got to prove your point?

                            • 

                              TheDukeOfNukem on 29/02/2020 - 11:21

                              @gto21: Basic. Human. Decency.

                              First off, with abortion, what they're doing is none of your business. If they so much as got a little drunk one night, (profanity) up, and found out a few days later they were preggers, they have every right to terminate if they can't have the baby, or if they simply don't even want to have it, that's their right and none of your business. Second, on the subject, I think it's obviously awkward for situations where the father would like the child but the mother doesn't and she goes and gets it anyway, but that's a case by case and I'm not analyzing the whole thing right now, I'm only really saying it's not always as simple as just "silly girl got knocked up and canned the kid". Across the board for all abortions, it's the parent/s' decision, until that (profanity) is kicking in there, it's just some bacteria, to bring a child into the world only to pawn it off on the shit ass system we have in place for abandoned children (funnily enough, most of which have ties to religion, interesting…) where it will likely be abused and forgotten by 18 if it even makes it that far in life, when you could stop all that right now before the child is bigger than a pea, would be the real sin.

                              Since you never answer anyone's questions I'll just throw your own questions back at you and see if you'll answer them at least. Why don't you "prove for us a consistent way to determine what's right or wrong in your worldview? Law, society and yourself will all fail. What else you got to prove your point?" I'll be waiting. Oh, and since it's your post, the burden of proof falls on you, not me to disprove you, even though basic logic already has, and you've kinda just glossed over or straight avoided everyone's arguments against your uh, your… um… well I don't really know what to call all your bullshit tbh. I guess rhetoric would fit, but it's usually got a bit of thought behind it so I don't really wanna use the word here where there is none.

                              • 

                                gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 11:32

                                -1

                                @TheDukeOfNukem: You even used the word baby. Since you wrote the baby. It's not our business if one person kills another one. All that for alcohol and maybe one nightstand. That's your point correct?

                                What about the mother want baby but not the father. Will he also be able to kill the baby. Since he will be responsible for child support. Does he have a say?

                                • 

                                  TheDukeOfNukem on 29/02/2020 - 11:40

                                  @gto21: I don't even know what you're trying to say here to be honest. But yeah, I'd say baby because it makes sense and is quicker to type than saying foetus. I can call my turds in the morning 20 different things and they are still a turd. I guess if you prefer I'll stick to calling them embryos or something, wouldn't want to confuse you.

                                  Ideally in the situation of any pregnancy both parents are around and have a say, but even if they are, if they have vastly differing views, only one side can win out. If the mom wants the kid, keeps the kid, and the dad doesn't, and leaves the mom for it, and they part on fine terms, then I think there really shouldn't be anything that makes the father pay child support if it's a mutually made decision and he's not there for the child. However we are not debating the validity of child support in a million different potential cases, it was abortion, which you've, yet again, tried to steer away from. The basic point, is that terminating the child should be at the discrection of the parents and no one else. Be that just the mother, or both of them. Sometimes situations suck, sometimes there isn't always winners, but forcing someone to go through 9 months of pregnancy, only to drop kick the kid into a (profanity) system, possibly losing their job in the process or at least being forced to take a good bit of time off, not to mention the physical and mental anguish that comes with being pregnant and birthing a human, I mean, no one should be forced to do that if there's a simple option that cancels the whole thing and hurts nobody.

                                  I mean, officially, a baby ain't alive until it's out the god damn womb and the cord has been cut, until then it's just an extension of the mother. If my toe gets frostbite and it's gonna spread to the rest of me if I don't cut it off, that's no different than having an abortion, it's an extension of the initial person doing something the initial person doesn't want, and just to clarify for you so you don't try to divert again, I'm saying initial for the sake of you, they are the only person in this situation. The pregnant woman and embryo in there, are one, until such a time they are not.

                              • 

                                gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 12:41

                                -1

                                @TheDukeOfNukem: Explain how different DNA is the same person?

                                And explain what the difference make a 9-month baby in the womb not alive. But outside the womb is alive?

                            • 

                              PSEACT on 29/02/2020 - 11:23

                              @gto21: Such aggressive posturing. Why not try taking a leaf out of Dr Habermas' book?

                              • 

                                gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 11:26

                                -1

                                @PSEACT: Maybe because he is not my role model. But you can if you are a fan.

                                • 

                                  PSEACT on 29/02/2020 - 11:37

                                  @gto21: Oh I'm surprised. I notice you've posted a number of his works on this site. Just a fan then?

                                  • 

                                    TheDukeOfNukem on 29/02/2020 - 11:43

                                    +1

                                    @PSEACT: Maybe they have "bum sex" like the animals he seemed weirdly fixated on for a while there. Maybe he's an undercover "Pro Sodomiter"

                                    Tony Hawk's Pro Sodomy 2

                                    • 

                                      tromboc on 29/02/2020 - 12:41

                                      +1

                                      @TheDukeOfNukem:

                                      I can call my turds in the morning 20 different things and they are still a turd.

                                      Can I borrow this?

                                  • 

                                    gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 12:17

                                    -1

                                    @PSEACT: Not necessarily I had another post by Daniel Wallace. Which his view is quite different from mine. I still listen to his course and arguments. That does not mean I'm a fan. So posting a course does not mean I'm a fan of that person. I don't have an issue with him, I respect his work and research thats all.

• 

  pennypacker on 27/02/2020 - 20:30

  +23

  Normal price seems very expensive. It's that what Jesus had in mind?

  Remember, atheism is a non-prophet organisation.

  • 

    FlatulentFrank on 28/02/2020 - 11:25

    -1

    Atheism seems to come with an arrogance that I cannot fathom, let the people believe/not believe in whatever they want. This is a deal for a segment of the populace, who are we to judge their freedoms to practice whatever they want. Really dislike folks that continue to give Atheists a bad name

    • 

      tromboc on 29/02/2020 - 01:00

      Saying that atheists can be given a bad name is like saying that people who don't believe in Peter pan can be given a bad name. There's nothing uniting about a lack of unbased belief in any of the sky-fairies.

      • 

        FlatulentFrank on 29/02/2020 - 13:36

        -1

        I disagree but everyone's entitled to an opinion! so thanks for sharing friendo

• 

  PSEACT on 27/02/2020 - 20:35

  +6

  8 DVDs worth!!?? Who cares whats on em. Bargain

  • 

    jimbobaus on 27/02/2020 - 20:36

    +3

    Two full coaster sets :P

    • 

      PSEACT on 27/02/2020 - 20:41

      +9

      Or Frisbees with holes in the middle. Can call em Holy's

  • 

    bugman on 27/02/2020 - 22:41

    +5

    Dvds are still $299…digital files are free…this is not a bargin

    • 

      PSEACT on 27/02/2020 - 22:48

      +1

      True dat

• 

  grumpybum on 27/02/2020 - 20:35

  +5

  Is this a how-to guide for self resurrection? "Jesus did it, so can you!"

• 

  bradenpd on 27/02/2020 - 20:48

  +8

  Even free is too expensive for this.

• 

  dscott85 on 27/02/2020 - 21:01

  +3

  Thank you brother gto21. Can I get an Amen, OzBargain brothers & sisters for this most bountiful of bargains!

• 

  PSEACT on 27/02/2020 - 21:04

  +5

  Dr. Gary Habermas 'his ability to answer skeptics thoughtfully' - imagine having a conversation with that crackpot.

• 

  renaldof on 27/02/2020 - 21:18

  "Dr."
  Aaaaand I googled aaaaand it's true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Habermas

  I couldn't help but notice:
  "He has specialized in cataloging and communicating trends among scholars in the field of historical Jesus and New Testament studies.[citation needed]"

• 

  RedSky on 27/02/2020 - 21:25

  +4

  Save me jebus!

• 

  spychiatrist on 27/02/2020 - 21:26

  +3

  Sad that the first line of the deal post is to appease

  • 

    gto21 on 27/02/2020 - 22:27

    +3

    You have a point. The mods shared the link in one post. So I have it on a few deals. So I'm making an effort to help. However, I won't stop posting to appease a few people here. Since I also know we have a few who appreciate those deals.

    • 

      sharka on 28/02/2020 - 07:47

      Thanks heaps for posting this!

    • 

      TheDukeOfNukem on 28/02/2020 - 08:37

      +1

      I think you'll find it's only a "few people here" who give a toss about this to begin with, not the other way around…

      • 

        gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 09:58

        -4

        Thank you for proving my point. A few it's all it need. Furthermore, if we argue based just on numbers. Out of your last 4 deals you posted. This one have more upvote than three of them. If you want to judge only on numbers. It has more right than several of your deals.

        • 

          TheDukeOfNukem on 28/02/2020 - 12:57

          +1

          @gto21: No shit, most of what I post is local stores clearing stuff, which means it's going to be relevant to like 100 people at absolute best.

          Your belief system however, is marketed to everyone so when you get so few numbers, it is a lot more telling than my local target clearing a phone out and not getting a million likes.

          Edit: PS by numbers, you also have infinity percent more negatives to my zero.

          • 

            gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 13:03

            -1

            @TheDukeOfNukem: You keep proving my point. How about you use your own standard on you. And stop posting deal for "a few". I agree with you it's a bad argemunt that you used lol. That will affect aleast half your deals lol.

            • 

              TheDukeOfNukem on 28/02/2020 - 13:05

              +2

              @gto21: You're not targeting a few.

              If my deal has to read [Ringwood, VIC] then yours should have to read [brain dead, easily manipulated, and prone to extreme hatred and hypocrisy]

              • 

                gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 13:11

                -1

                @TheDukeOfNukem: That a lie, not all your deal are for a targeted region. What's your excuse now? Any more excuses for your fail argument?

              • 

                gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 15:04

                -1

                @TheDukeOfNukem: 2/3 Australians play video games. We have about 52.1% of Australian classify themselves Christians. You might have a larger target market.

                The standard you use on others. Your own deal will fail.

                • 

                  TheDukeOfNukem on 28/02/2020 - 17:51

                  +1

                  @gto21: What percentage of Australians live within Ringwood or it's surrounding suburbs though?

                  Judging by your sad devotion to that ancient religion, this isn't the first thing to go over your head.

                  • 

                    gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 17:57

                    -1

                    @TheDukeOfNukem: I was specific. You have deal not targeting an area in Australia. Anyone in Australia can buy it. Not all you deal is for specific area. So you do have a deal which does not meet your own standard.

                    • 

                      TheDukeOfNukem on 28/02/2020 - 18:00

                      @gto21: You were specific, yes. You specifically mentioned my last 4 deals. Two of which were for Ringwood and Croydon specifically, another one turned out to get price corrected (hence it's lower number of upvotes, specifically), and the last one was for the whole country.

                      So yeah, specifically then, going off your specifically provided specifics, half of my deals are for local area users only. So no, wrong again, Jesusboi.

                      • 

                        gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 18:09

                        -1

                        @TheDukeOfNukem: No the last 4 deal was a refutation on "a few" since that backfired. You came up with another excuse of target market. I was using another deal to refute you. So I stand correct. Your own deal will fail by using your own standard.

                        • 

                          TheDukeOfNukem on 28/02/2020 - 18:13

                          @gto21: It's not though.

                          I said only a few people on here would like this crap, not that only a few would dislike this crap.

                          You brought other deals and posts into it, saying if I only wanted to judge by numbers.

                          I explained how your market is much wider than that of the locals in my area on this site.

                          You then said "What's your excuse now? Any more excuses for your fail argument?" Well, considering I haven't had one excuse, considering I've shot down and shat all over your "arguments", if you can call them that, and considering you're likely a SadBoiTM 12 year old really into Jesus' ripped abs, I mean, I think now might be the time for me to ask you for an excuse actually.

                          Got one by any chance?

                          Edit: Also, PS, here's the actual breakdown of religions in Australia. While you guys are busy fighting over which nut of Jesus' to suck tonight (or as you'd put it, which version of Christianity you want to follow), those free thinking folk are actually the largest singular group of belief in the country, so jot that down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia

                          • 

                            gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 23:45

                            -1

                            @TheDukeOfNukem: You have post which target around 2/3 of the population. With less up vote. Your still using this bad arguement.

                            How do you get a larger group than 52% person in regards to religion and non religion? And I don't care who is the largest percentage. I only use the % to show the weakest of your argument. You don't have a point so your all over the place.

                            Another great argument. That level of argument. Let use .it against you. Talking to a 6 year old whose into video game characters abs. Well done, absolutely brilliant lol.

                            • 

                              TheDukeOfNukem on 29/02/2020 - 07:28

                              @gto21: You're just not getting it, are you?

                              Let's throw this deal away and look at both of our last ones then. Mine was tickets to a movie, at select cinemas, there was like 8 or so IIRC across the country.

                              Yours, was a free calendar, that could be shipped to anyone in the whole country.

                              Let's pretend for a second that my movie thing could be applied to two thirds of the country, which it isn't, it's really just for people close to those cinemas and who happened to be available on those select nights, it still got more than your deal, and required more effort, in that you had to go there and do something, where yours was just something shipped to your house for free.

                              And I still got more upvotes.

                              Not that internet likes mean jack shit or anything, but you brought them up, you keep bringing them up, and you just don't seem to get how you're losing here.

                              …

                              Because Christianity and Anglicanism and Catholicism and so on aren't entirely identical, so they deserve to be broken down into individual groups as such. If you want to count them all as a collective, well, you're wrong to, but then the 10.8% of people with no religion or an other religion can also be lumped into the no belief one, meaning we'd be over 40%, which in turn would make for a pretty close split. But really, if we're joining groups together, why not throw Buddhism and Hinduism in with no belief too? We'll be the No Magic Jesus CollectiveTM, add a few wildly different things together (as you have with the Catholics and Christians) and you'll be overtaken there too.

                              …

                              This is you right now.

                              You: "Hey Dylan, you dumb, your argument is dumb, here's a dumb point that make no sense"
                              Me: "No, you are dumb, here's your argument turned on it's head and used against you"
                              You: "You keep being dumb ahahahah, lolol, what other excuse you got dumbo?"
                              Me: "Well considering I just ripped you to shit you either trolling or a kid, do you have an excuse?"
                              You: "Ahaha, no, you are a kid, but a younger kid!

                              So do you have any excuse or justification or logic, or anything at this point? Or are you going to stick with your "minimal facts method" like in the OP?

                              • 

                                gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 11:24

                                -1

                                @TheDukeOfNukem: Did I write all your deals won't meet your own standard? Or did I right some of them?

                                52.1% of Australians classify themselves Christian. So you break down Christianity. However, you take "no religion", "Not stated or unclear" and "other religion" as one group. Did I get your point correct?

                                If I did understand your point can you explain how those 3 categories are entirely identical? Since "not entirely identical" is the word you used to split Christians.

                                I'll ask you a very simple question. What is the percentage of people who identify themselves as Christians. I don't want your opinion just give the number according to the study. And then take 100 less that number. Will you be able to do it? Or it's too difficult lol.

                                I'm happy you realise when losing a debate and using "you're a 12 years old" won't help you.

                                • 

                                  TheDukeOfNukem on 29/02/2020 - 11:31

                                  @gto21: Even if you want to pick and choose (which is fitting for a man of faith), you still come out the loser. Accept it.

                                  No, you did not, again. Look at the thing I sent you, look at the actual breakdown. That 52.1% is made up of multiple facets of faith, not all conforming to Christianity as any other version would have it. If you go up to a Catholic and say they're Christian, they will tell you otherwise, and yet, you're counting them as Christian again. Picking and choosing, again. Accept it.

                                  They aren't identical, that's the whole damn point! I'm saying lumping different groups in together and saying they are one, is wrong, and yet you only have a problem if I were to do it to prove how dumb it is, and not that you are yourself doing it. Picking and choosing again. You are wrong, again. Accept it.

                                  First off, not a very simple question, it's a poorly worded silly question that makes no sense being read and proves absolutely nothing, but I'll follow it anyway. Here we go. You say 52.1% of Australia identifies as Christian. Okay. You want me to "take 100 less that number". Okay. Well, I guess negative 152.1% of Australia identifies as Christian now. Is that what you wanted? Your point, as usual, made no sense. Accept it.

                                  I'm happy you're happy, I mean, I've been working all damn week and just wanna chill out and rambling on the internet chills me pretty good. So I'm definitely happy too, but uh. Two things. 1. A debate requires actual debating, you have not done that, you've diverted, rambled, and tripped on your own bullshit for a good day now. 2. Still yet to hear a single valid rebuttle to any point posed by anyone against your trash, so I mean, not only are you losing to me, you're losing in general to everyone on here. A very apt metaphor for religion in general if you ask me, out of touch, based on utter silliness, and has no idea how to defend itself against genuine criticism so it lashes out and implies all who disagree are wrong because… reasons?

                                  • 

                                    gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 11:45

                                    -1

                                    @TheDukeOfNukem: 100 - 52.1 = 51.1. It's not me putting it together. They identify themselve as Christians. Stop with your mental gymnastics. You again inconsistent in your argument.

                                    Like I said before I don't really care about the numbers. I just talked about it since what your saying does not make any sense.

                                    • 

                                      TheDukeOfNukem on 29/02/2020 - 11:46

                                      @gto21: Oh I get you now, just a poorly worded sentiment from you that made no sense… Again.

                                      Don't care about the numbers, constantly bring up numbers… Okay.

                                      • 

                                        gto21 on 29/02/2020 - 12:30

                                        -1

                                        @TheDukeOfNukem: If you claim you have a higher % of "atheist" and a smaller target market. Ofc we will need to talk about numbers.

                                        The study gave a % for Christians. I'm not the one putting it together. All your mental gymnastics does not work.

                                        Anyway not important for me. Only talked about it to show where you're wrong.

• 

  dreamscene on 27/02/2020 - 21:28

  +2

  The lord is strong with Ozbargain.

• 

  ciab on 27/02/2020 - 21:35

  +11

  If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward then, brother, that person is a piece of shit.

  • 

    ozhunter on 28/02/2020 - 02:48

    -2

    Depends on what you mean by decent.

    Are Western values better than those in the Middle East? Or are they both morally right but just different?

• 

  macmine on 27/02/2020 - 21:38

  +3

  Thanks OP for sharing, despite the comments you might receive.

  • 

    gto21 on 27/02/2020 - 22:18

    +1

    Thank you. I'm fine with the comments. A few people upvote the deal. Even if only one person downloads it and watches it. I'll keep doing it. It's worth it.

    • 

      Draupnir on 28/02/2020 - 02:51

      +13

      You keep spreading the word that homosexuals are abominations if you like. If you think you're going to be on the correct and ethical side of history, then you have my pity.

      • 

        gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 10:11

        -6

        You have atheist and agnostic who are against homosexuality. You can't even prove that you are correct in your own worldview. It will be your opinion against someone else opinion. How is history the standard for morality? You can say it's not an abomination. We even have so-called expert, which conclude that rape is a natural and biological phenomenon that is a product of human evolutionary heritage. Next rape will be normal.

        • 

          bugman on 28/02/2020 - 11:48

          +7

          @gto21: What…..for a start rape is an action that is chosen. Im guessimg your saying being being gay is a choice?? Like you chose to be straight??

          Also the agrument being gay is unnatural.. but there are plenty of examples in nature of this "abomination". For example penguins can mate for life in a same sex relationship. Does that mean there is a speacial penguin hell for these guys?? I would like to see that honestly…..

          • 

            gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 12:32

            -2

            @bugman: That what the study says: "natural and biological phenomenon that is a product of human evolutionary heritage."

            You're saying it's chosen. But we have study says it's natural. I guess you will be against rape. From your worldview. It's your opinion against their opinion. Like I said your worldview can't prove it's wrong or right. From your own camp, some will say rape is natural others will say no. The same thing applies to homosexuality. Your worldview will always fail at proving what's wrong or right.

            Regarding your last point. First, not every Christians believe animals go to heaven or hell. (I never heard animal going to hell, But I heard the argument they are redeemed). Secondly, Christianity believes we live in a fallen world which also affects animals. Thirdly, homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin. And fourthly, if you see two male dogs having bum sex. Does that mean it should be natural for you as well to do it?

            Explain the comparison. If another species kill and eat their own species. So that means it's natural for you to kill and eat other human beings? I think that comparison fails even in your worldview.

            • 

              TheDukeOfNukem on 28/02/2020 - 13:01

              +3

              @gto21:

              And fourthly, if you see two male dogs having bum sex. Does that mean it should be natural for you as well to do it?

              Quote of the day

              • 

                gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 13:04

                @TheDukeOfNukem: This is the level you get when animals are the atheist standard of morality. I thought it was a very strange arguement.

            • 

              bugman on 28/02/2020 - 13:21

              +1

              @gto21: Lol "is a product of human evolutionary" wait so now you believe in evolution??? When it suits you..

              I notice you didnt answer my choice question.

              "Two dogs have bum sex" lol so your saying that's NOT natural…Then what is it??? Someone told them to do it?? Forced them poor dogs against their will to have some bum sex. Poor dogs, lucky your sins can be forgiven..

              Now on to canible ref/dog …did you even read what i said. YOUR agrument is THAT its not nautural. WHERE did i say because its natural its a free for all?? That's a totally different discusstion..I was pointing out that it is natural…

              • 

                gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 14:13

                -1

                @bugman: For the third time. I'm not the one saying it's natural. The study mention natural and evolution. I'm not the one mentioning evolution.

                I'm still waiting how it's wrong or right in your worldview.

                Actually, we have Christians who have no problem with evolution.

                Even in your worldview, certain animals will go extinct if they don't reproduce. In your own worldview, it's not natural.

                I can show a study rape is natural. But you say human being should not do it.

                And you want to argue homosexuality is natural. However, people can do it.

                You have no consistency in your arguments. And you have no ground to determine what's right or wrong.

                I found it interesting those defending homosexuality compare it to animals behaviour. I probably won't go that far.

                People in the porn industry use animal. Male animals on top of human. As long as it's "natural" no one is forcing them, why don't you just promote that kind of bestiality as well? An animal and human having sex should not be an issue for you. Let me guess it will be natural but not free for all lol.

                • 

                  bugman on 28/02/2020 - 15:04

                  +3

                  @gto21: Wow just wow.. what are you talking about… your really love talking about bum sex for someone who thinks its a sin… i like how you have not answered one of my questions. Your arguments make no sense.

                  "Im not the one mentioning evoultion" yes you are, you used as part if your argument as proof that rape is natural…??

                  My worldview??? How are Facts my worldview.. animals as you would say it "have bum sex".. that's fact.

                  Animals will go exisnt..makes no sense. I must have missed the part where i said ALL penguins are gay boys.

                  I can show you plenty of studies that rape is not natural..your point. Im pointing out facts you are not.

                  Comparing homosexuality to animals..for a start last time i checked we are all animals. Secondly…animals also eat… Do you eat?? …dont eat anything or i might compare you to one of those sinful penguins. SO Remember dont eat or your a gay penguin.

                  Ill try again
                  Is being gay a choice??
                  Do you think its natural?

                  Wow you must watch some strange porn. I woudnt want to see your browsing history..

                  As you would put it my worldview..i dont care if you gay or straight. Why would i??
                  Why do you keep telling people that they are less than you because of who they love??

                  • 

                    gto21 on 28/02/2020 - 16:21

                    -1

                    @bugman: Let me try one more time. Quoting one study does not mean it's my opinion. I used it to prove that your argument is inconsistent. And your worldview flaws.

                    They won't extinct because not all of them are gay. You're proving my point, they will go extinct if they all turn gay. What you call natural can be the cause of the extinction of several species. I thought you worldview was about survival of species. It contradicts your own worldview. I can use your own worldview to prove it's not natural.

                    If you bring evidence that rape is not natural. It will be the opinion of someone compare to others. Since I can bring a study which says it's natural. Their no standard of morality in your worldview.

                    You keep saying I don't answer your questions. I've answered all your questions. While you keep diverting from my questions.

                    Can you answer if human and animal have sex without anyone forcing them. Will you call it natural and will you be a pro-bestiality activist as well?

                    I never said that homosexual is less than me. You don't have a point. So you're making up stuff.

• 1
• 2
• 3