• expired

Free CSB + Apologetics Study Bible for Students (Normally $39.98) @ Logos

2379

Logos is the best Bible study software!

Logos empowers anybody with a hunger for God to find and share life-changing biblical truth.

You get a digital library of trusted titles—at a fraction of the print price.
You save time with study tools that look stuff up for you.
You don’t have to be a scholar to use it—even though scholars love it!

CSB + Apologetics Study Bible for Students was $39 now free
Add a Second Book for $0.99 - The New Testament: Its Background and Message
Add a Third Book for $1.99 - Old Testament Survey, 2nd ed.
Add a Fourth Book for $2.99 - Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology
All usually $20-40 each
Also many more freebies and deals at the moment.

In Christ,

Ricky

Related Stores

Logos Bible Study Platform
Logos Bible Study Platform

closed Comments

  • +16

    🤢

    • +1

      why?

    • +16

      I prefer to get my stories from Jk Rowling

      • +10

        She's not cool anymore; she's a trans-exclusionary feminist. The left have turned on her.

        • A perfect demonstration as to why there's no such group of people as "the left"…

    • +13

      I'm sensing you might not have a "hunger for God"?!

      • +3

        My stomach is doing the talking about God for me

        • I love you just mention god so people up vote without realizing what you're saying hehe.

  • +6

    Seems to be targeted to "graduates"….. Wouldn't taking advantage of this as a non graduate be frowned upon in the eyes of your god?

    • Edit: Title has been amended since post.

      • +3

        Plus, Logos has officially advised on their forums: "2020 hasn't gone the way any of us expected. And for graduating students, this year has been especially rough. To brighten a challenging year and say congratulations, we're giving you this free gift. We wish you the best as you enter this next stage of life.

        Not graduating this year? That's OK — you're free to take advantage of this offer or send it to someone who is."

    • +1

      Although this discount offer is called "Gifts for 2020 Graduates", the discount automatically applies to everyone using the Logos store to buy these titles. There doesn't currently seem to be any way to buy these titles at their normal price on the Logos store, whether you use this link or not.

  • +12

    hunger for God

    Nom nom!

  • +102

    Christians - apologies for all the stupid, mean and vicious comments that appear every time a deal comes up for you.

    Everyone else - just move it if the deal ain't for you.

    • +31

      If the world hates you, just know it hated me first
      -Jesus

      • +7

        Was there no hate in the world before Jesus?

        • +3

          Nope.

          • -3

            @Troymdon: Do you know of another time where by one man took the worst possible death to himself free willingly? Your answer must have evidence that suprasses the Bible's recount of the crucifixion, good luck.

            • +13

              @rix86: The Bible is regarded as reliable evidence now?

              • -2

                @banana365: Guess some people think so! (Not Me)

              • +8

                @banana365: Even non-Christians scholars/historians use the bible as historical evidence. You know that right?

                • +9

                  @gto21: Let's change the above to "use very selected parts of the bible as historical evidence". Pretty sure they don't use all of it as evidence.

                  • +4

                    @PCAviator: It depends on the scholars and what you're referring.

                    For example, you have scholars who specialise in the NT. So they won't make any claim on the OT. And vice verse. Some specialise just for a time period. So I don't expect them to affirm areas they did not study.
                    Unlike the scholars on ozbargain.

                    Some specialise in archaeological evidence others in textual criticism and so on.

                    So I doubt you have many experts in every areas and topic.

                • +2

                  @gto21: Do you mean, historical evidence from the King James era? Weren't he and his council the last ones to totally change it? Not that it matters, it was only ever a means of social control for the masses. Poor ignorant buggers.

                  • +1

                    @poohduck: Don't get me wrong, you can have a historian telling you, for example, Jesus never existed. The vast majority of historian thinks he is nuts to make such a claim. You can always find an extreme view. Historial evidence from the King James era will be considered as another piece of crap. You have manuscript evidence which predates the King James era. You have archeological evidence that pre-dates King James era. That's a very weird claim. Study from renown scholars not some weirdos. You call people ignorant if you speak to non-christian scholars/historian they will mock that claim and not take it seriously. I won't be surprised they won't even bother replying to such nonsense. To give you the benefit of doubt I don't think you meant everything date from the king James era. I hope I'm not giving you more credit than you deserve.

                    • -2

                      @gto21:

                      you can have a historian telling you, for example, Jesus never existed.

                      You won't find any professor of history saying that though..

                      • +2

                        @haru: You have Robert Price who makes that claim. It's probably a source of revenue to sell books by making a ridiculous claim.

                        The vast majority will historian/scholars will not take this claim seriously. But I'll never say never since we can find a few weirdos.

                        Most historian/scholars will tell you it's one of the most certain facts of history. Across the boards from Christians and non-Christians.

                      • +3

                        @haru: It's such a ridiculous claim that even agnostic and atheist scholars change Robert Price on this issue.

                • -1

                  @gto21: No they don't. Don't lie. Historians know there were no Jewish slaves in Egypt. They also know King Herod didn't order the killing of children. He was also already dead when the bible makes the claims. - it's almost like the people writing the story, decades later, just added in character they heard about… and there's many, many, many more examples. No historian out side of "christian historians" claim the bible is "historical evidence".

                  • +2

                    @Jjason: I don't have to lie. Maybe that's what you have to do.

                    Bart Ehrman is not a Christian. He still confirms that Jesus existed. And the crucifixion is one of the most certain fact in history. That's just two examples. Scholars/historian use both biblical and non-biblical sources from Christians and non-Christians.

                    From your response, I can tell you don't know what you're talking about.

                    Bart Ehrman is not a friend of Christianity. He usually attacks it and gains money by selling his books.

                    Why do you guys like to pontificate? Your comment is not based on fact. But on your issue that you don't want it to be true.

                    Non-Christian like Bart Ehrman accepts some historical events that happened in the bible.

                    You have an issue that you don't want it to be true. Their nothing I can do about it.

                    You can bury your head in sand. That's your choice.

                  • +1

                    @Jjason: Interestingly Bart Ehrman a non-christian scholar address a similar objection it's made up stories decades later. Referring to the gospel.

                    https://youtu.be/gKpRYLAH4h0

                    You can start at @1:33 if you want.

                    He could even use the external source from non-biblical and non-Christians. But he did not even feel the need to use it to defend the historicity of the gospel. This show how much weight the bible can have for scholars and historians.

                    • -1

                      @gto21: Again, the bible isn't classed as "Historical Evidence" like you claim. It's a historical document, with real places and names, but it's not "Historical Evidence" of it's claims. The same way in the Harry Potter books, London is a real place, and there probably is someone out there called harry potter. But it's NOT evidence of it's claims of witches and warlocks.

                      How can it be "evidence" when it's wrong?! I like how you just totally ignored my points showing the bible isn't a "evidence" of it's claims and is factually and historically WRONG. Wait, do you think man was literally made from dust and a woman from a rib bone?! Really? And it's "evidence" because what, it says so? Well then, we absolutely have nothing to say to each other. Arguing with a "true believer" is like arguing Star Wars fanbois. They can't be reasoned with because it's part of their identity.

                      • +2

                        @Jjason: You claiming that I lied. Indicate a few things:

                        1) You have no idea what you're talking about.

                        2) You're going to reject everything since you already made up your mind.

                        3) It's probably the tactic you will use on others.

                        You think I'm a liar. You will assume I'm always lying. You're not going to believe anything I say anyway.

                        And you're right, I'm not interested in engaging with someone who doesn't know the basic right. I rather listen to scholars and historians.

                        Most non-Christians scholars seem to respect the bible more than the layman.

                        And that was just an example, I can quote many more non-Christian historians. But no point. You will only waste my time.

                        Clear evidence you misrepresent non-Christians scholars. And you won't accept you were wrong.

                        • @gto21: AGAIN! You haven't addressed ANYTHING I've said. Classic christian apologetic! YOU'RE THE ONE who claimed the Bible is "Historical evidence". I've given you examples how it's FACTUALLY wrong, and you can't even be intellectually honest and agree you're wrong. This is the issue I have with people like you. It doesn't matter how much we show you are wrong, you NEED to believe so you go find obscure irrelevant people to try and argue back, while expecting US to be intellectually honest in return. You people always try to make it a one way street.

                          You like Youtube videos and non-christian scholars, here, watch this video. Make sure you watch it before replying to me: https://youtu.be/O5AordEPtok

                          Now then, Richard Carrier, A PEER-REVIEWED historian. This means other respected historians pre-read and contribute to editing his research before publication. MOST authors that write about Jesus ARE NOT.

                          He has a PhD in ancient history, most biblical scholars have no actual qualifications in history. They are mostly theologians.

                          They all agree that there was a historical Jesus, but this is about all they agree on. On every other aspect of Jesus supposed life they fight like cats and dogs. They have never been able to produce a single, agreed picture of who he was, or what he did. To quote Robert M. Price:

                          "The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time."
                          

                          That is not the case with other historical figures. How many different accounts of Hannibal, or Socrates do historians claim?

                          The fact is that much of biblical scholarship is a joke, allowing standards of 'evidence' that are unacceptable in other areas of historical research. The whole field is based on dubious 'facts' much inflated by wishful thinking and built on the quicksand of self-interest with a shared self-delusion masquerading as 'consensus.' A classic instance of the coders' maximum, "garbage in = garbage out"!

                          Biblical archeology used to be just as lacking in rigor with mostly Christian clergy running around the Middle East with a trowel in one hand which they used to 'prove' the Bible in their other hand, but in recent decades trained archaeologists have entered the field and disproved much of the OT. Biblical scholarship is beginning to experience the same shake up as more qualified historians from other fields like Carrier begin reviewing the evidence more critically and with less religious fervor.

                          Go read and learn: https://www.richardcarrier.info/

                          Clear evidence you misrepresent non-Christians scholars.

                          Mate, I haven't misrepresent ANYTHING. There were NO Jewish slaves in Egypt building the Pyramids! "Jews didn't even exists at the time of their building" - Amihai Mazar, professor at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. As I said, King Herod was already dead before the birth of Jesus and he didn't order the killing of the first born. This is HISTORICAL FACT. And that's just two examples! All you're doing to replying back saying "nahh someone else said something different" like that is suppose to mean anything?! Go, read, learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great And again: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191

                          I bet your reply doesn't address any of my points…

                          • +1

                            @Jjason: You brought up Richard Carrier. You also claim no non-christian historian view the bible as historical evidence. The same Richard Carrier calls Bart Ehrman a HISTORIAN 😅🤣😂.

                            What will you do now throw Richard Carrier under the bus? 😂 Maybe he is not that great after all? 🤣 Is Richard Carrier wrong to call him a historian? Maybe you layman can educate Richard Carrier that Bart is not a historian 😆.

                            Even using Richard Carrier was a strawman argument. Since the reason, I brought up Bart Ehrman because you did not know a historian can view the bible as historical evidence. But I'm happy your strawment argument backfires on you 😆.

                            The reason I focus on the topic is that you are a layman who can't keep up with the basic stuff. You are not knowledgeable enough to talk about it.

                            If I have to address every single mistake. I will end up writing a few essays. Because you making mistakes after mistakes.

                            Matthew 7:6 tell us not to waste time with people who are not worth it. So I rather concentrate on one topic. It's enough to prove you have zero knowledge on the subject. Since you don't know the basic. I did one to expose your lack of knowledge on the topic.

                            You keep arguing even that you're completely wrong. Why would I waste more time on other topics.

                            And you said I'm a liar. So you will reject everything I say. It will be a waste of my time discussing another topic. I don't have to waste my time on another topic. When the layman will reject any explanation. Instead, thank me for educating a layman like you on one topic. I was gracious, when many would ignore you completely because of your lack of knowledge.

                            The problem with many polemicists on ozbargian. They have zero knowledge on some topic but likes to pontificate. They think what they have to say is always important to a theist. And they hate when a theist thinks they are a waste of time. 😂

                            I mentioned issues with some of his books. It's even in his appendix. He mentions it when his books contradict scholarship. That does not mean everything is false. Read his appendix. You're reading what I wrote before and use it to pretend you know what you're talking about. You also mentioned Robert Price. You just learn that named as well thanks to another comment I made. You're learning by reading my comments and a few google search. Sadly you google search lead you to someone I can use to bury your first argument.

                            Spending so much time on one topic. And the layman still can't get it right. It must be a joke.

                          • +1

                            @Jjason: You also wrote: "Now then, Richard Carrier, A PEER-REVIEWED historian. This means other respected historians pre-read and contribute to editing his research before publication. MOST authors that write about Jesus ARE NOT."

                            That's another example of you reading what I wrote. And try to use it to pretend you know what you're talking about.

                            I was referring to some his books to the general public. It's good I was not specific enough. Since this is showing clear evidence you are desperate to impress. However, it's laughable.

                            He also writes scholarly books.

                            Bart Ehrman - "Carrier seems to expect Did Jesus Exist to be a work of scholarship written for scholars in the academy and with extensive engagement with scholarship, rather than what it is, a popular book written for a broad audience. There is a big difference. I write both kinds of books. My scholarly books would never be mistaken for books that would be read by a wide, general public. But Carrier indicates that the inadequacy of Did Jesus Exist can be seen by comparing it to two of his own recent books, which, he tells us, pay more attention to detail, embrace a more diverse range of scholarship, and have many more footnotes.
                            I did not write this book for scholars. I wrote if for lay people who are interested in a broad, interesting, and very important question. Did Jesus really exist? I was not arguing the case for scholars, because scholars already know the answer to that question. I was explaining to the non-scholar why scholars think about what they do. A non-scholarly book tries to explain things in simple terms, and to do so without the clutter of detail that you would find in a work of scholarship. The book should not be faulted for that. If I had wanted to convince scholars (I’m not sure whom I would then be writing for, in that case) I would have written a different kind of book"

                          • +1

                            @Jjason: You claim biblical scholarship is nonsense. And yet claim we can trust other work because they are peer-reviewed. Many Christian works are peer-reviewed. So we can't always trust peer-reviewed or you just have a double standard.

                          • +1

                            @Jjason: "They all agree that there was a historical Jesus, but this is about all they agree on"

                            That's not even true. Robert Price and Richard Carrier made arguments he did not exist.

                            1) It proves again you have no idea what you're talking about.

                            2) It shows your using scholars who have such an extreme view. You were not even aware that those views exist.

                            3) your not even familiar with some of the works of the scholars you're quoting.

                            Even Richard Carrier admits many scholars don't take him seriously. Sadly he blames other people for his nonsense.

                            Richard Carrier has a very extreme view on some topics. Only a brainwash person with a lot of faith will believe every nonsense he says.

                            It's so ridiculous, that I feel sorry for you.

                            Even if I was an atheist or agnostic I won't have such extreme views.

                            You want to believe in that nonsense. Nothing I can do about it. It's your choice. You don't have to waste my time with your poor scholarship and lack of knowledge.

                            Every time you write something it proves you are a layman.

                            • @gto21: You're literally ignoring peer-viewed historians and archeologists, your only reply is "I think they're extreme" "you're brainwashed" "you're a layman".

                              You STILL have not addressed my points. WHAT A SURPRISE!

                              YOU claimed the bible is "Historical fact" I've shown you two examples that you are WONG. Instead of being intellectual honest and admitting you're wrong, your only answer is to try and attack me and the historians and archeologists. You have nothing but smugness of your own ignorance.

                              You people are pathetic. The BIBLE IS NOT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. Get over it.

                              Every time you write something it proves you are a layman.

                              And yet I'm right! I'd rather be a correct layman than a smug intellectually dishonest, WILLFULLY ignorant apologetic kook!

                              This is why Christianity is dying in the west, people KNOW you're spinning BS. But you're too stuck up your pompous ass to realize. I do understand why, it would must be really difficult and too life changing to admit your private school education and degree in fan fiction has been pointless and worthless. The world is moving on, and you're still yelling at an empty building.

                          • +1

                            @Jjason: I quote Bart Ehrman to show you don't know what you're talking about that no non-Christian historian takes the bible as historical evidence. So don't twist the reason why I quote him. Since I can use other scholars to prove my point on other stuff.

                            • @gto21: You're SO FULL of it.

                              He studied the bible at the Moody Bible Institute, he has a Ph.D and M.Div from Princeton THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. He has no qualifications in Ancient History, he's a BIBLE SCHOLAR (I've already told you about bible scholars). Richard Carrier has a B.A in History, M.A in Ancient History and Phd.D in Ancient History. He's a Historian!

                              You're just so intellectually dishonest, it's staggering. You people are all the same.

                              So not only is he NOT a Historian, Bart is also an Atheist! How can you try to quote someone who is a bible scholar who himself knows the Bible isn't historical fact! If he was claiming the bible was "Historical evidence" he wouldn't be a blooming Atheist!

                              You're so dishonest, so smug.

                              Hilarious!

                              • @Jjason: Richard Carrier the man you spend so much time praising. Call Erhman a historian and scholar. Even that they criticize each other works. Your hero said. I told you will have to throw Richard Carrier under the bus.

                                You quote Robert Price he is also a new testament.

                                Bart Ehrman is mostly known for textual criticism. But listening to you we might think he is mostly known for being a great theologian.

                              • -1

                                @Jjason: Lol, that's the point of quoting him. You said no non-christian use the bible as historical evidence. That was the whole point of me quoting an atheist lol. And sharing a video about him talking about it. Lol. You can't even keep up with the conversation. You are all over the map. It's too much for you. You can't handle it 🤣.

                                Here the summary since your struggling.

                                Jason: no non-christian historian use the bible as historical evidence.
                                Gto21:Bart Ehrman
                                Jjason: B.Ehrman is not a scholar, unlike Richard Carrier.
                                Gto21: R.Carrier calls him a scholar and a historian
                                Jjason: @#%$&#&*"' haha Bart Erhman is an atheist.
                                Gto21: yeah exactly thats the point!!! 😁😆😅🤣

                              • @Jjason: The main reason he is not a Christian is because of the problem of evil. You obviously did not know that. You can thank me again to educate you.

                                But that does not mean he disregards everything in the bible. Unlike you layman.

                                For instance, as a historian, he won't believe in a miracle like resurrection. But he believes the disciple believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. Even as a secular historian he can't deny some truth. Unlike the layman, he won't reject everything.

                              • @Jjason: I have a few quotes from Richard Carrier. Now it's the second time I will use him against you. This time it will end your polemicist career.

                                Richard Carrier was asked about a book by Joseph Atwill.

                                Here what he said about Joseph Atwill:
                                1 Doubtful with his mental health
                                2 I think he kind of lost it
                                3 He is delusional or something like that
                                4 Clearly not being rational

                                The best part he admits many scholars view his works similar to Joseph Atwill.

                                He said many scholars think that he promotes something similar to Joseph Atwill. So it's difficult for him to be taken seriously. This is preventing him from getting much attention from the academic community.

                                HE THINKS THE MAN IS CRAZY. AND ADMIT MANY SCHOLARS BELIEVES THEIR WORK ARE SIMILAR. Bahahahahahaha

                                Man, this is so embarrassing for you.

                                • @gto21: Mate, you're still ignoring my points. STILL. After a whole week, you still can't bring yourself to even address the two points I made about YOUR claim the bible is "historical evidence".

                                  All you're doing is trying to attack a PEER-REVIEW HISTORIAN I mentioned. I don't give a crap about Richard Carrier, he's not even the Historian I have in mind when I said, There where no Jewish slaves building pyramids and Kind Herod was already dead by the time of Jesus's birth. Because absolutely no archeologist or historian says it did happen, ONLY YOU and a bunch of other fanatical Christians. I couldn't even being to list ALL of the world wide historians and archeologists!

                                  Every reply, all you do is IGNORE my points and attack ONE person, who I didn't EVEN QUOTE, but used AS AN EXAMPLE as ONE of thousands of historians that say the same thing. I was hoping you'd have the courage to at least read his blog to learn a thing or two. But you can't even do that. Mate, the guy could be mad as a hatter, if what he is saying is correct, it changes nothing!

                                  You have said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING these past days, of relevance, interest or intelligent. A gentle breeze blowing on my cheek hits harder that you, because you have nothing except your willful ignorance wrapped in a blanket of smugness. You're intellectually nothing.

                                  My very first post to you, I called you a liar. And absolutely nothing you're said or done has disproved that.

                                  I've come to a realization! You're not just a liar, you're much, much worse. You're an anti-intellectual.

                                  You're not stupid, you can read and write. You're not ignorant, you know the bible is mainly myths and stories. You're Willfully Ignorant. You GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to avoid facts, to gain knowledge, and to be intellectually honest. You're an anti-intellectual hiding behind a mask. You dishonor whatever education institution you come from and dishonor whatever institution you currently work for. If you had any self realization, you'd feel shame. But you don't, so you won't.

                                  From now on, when ever I talk to another Christian, Hindu and Islamic fanatic like you, I will call them out straight away for what you people are. Anti-intellectuals. At least ONE of us has gained some insight in this conversation.

                                  Go back to your Harry Potter books mate, live in your little crooked house, with the windows and doors walled up from outside knowledge. You're pathetic and this conversation is done. You got your ass handed to you by a "layman" but you're too far up your own ass to see that. But hey, lets leave these comments up for future others to judge.

                                  • @Jjason: Based on your hero Richard Carrier words, Harry Potter is probably better than his scholarly works.

                                    You spend time to praise Richard Carrier. One message I sent and you throw him under the bus. That's because you're not familiar with his work. A google search to impress on ozbargain will not help you. You will end up embarrassing yourself.

                                    You don't give a crap about Richard Carrier. Because when I presented the facts, the facts silenced you on this topic.

                                    Richard Carrier also calls it myths. And also admits scholars don't take him seriously. He has a hard time being accepted by the academic community. Like they don't take him seriously. I don't take you seriously.

                                    You already said I'm a liar before I gave an answer. You prove my point. It's a waste of time talking to you. You will reject everything because you already made up your mind. Why you want to do all that for nothing.

                                    I choose one point to embarrass you. And it worked.

                                    I don't believe you're worth it. That's why I choose only one point. You're not even worth that one point. But sometimes we have to do it.

                                    Proverb 26:5.

                                    But I'm not going to waste a lot of time with you. I won't waste my time giving you something you will not accept and reject.

                                    Matthew 7:6.

                                    I show you, one scholar that you praise. He admits many scholars don't take him seriously. You can keep following this kind of scholarship if you want.

                                    Proverb 26:11

                                    Don't worry too much about others. Don't worry about them judging. That was your downfall. You spend too much time trying to impress others. While you lack knowledge. Everyone can google search like you. You will only achieve the opposite. The only person who will be impressed by you. Are people who know even less than you. And you don't know much. Don't be too flattered if they think you're doing good. 😂

                                    • @gto21: Why would I care what an Anti-Intellectual has to say?!
                                      Ewww!!

                                      • @Jjason: You've asked me questions. If you don't care don't ask. That's not a smart thing to say after you asked questions. 😆

            • +9

              @rix86: There are a whole bunch of Buddhist monks who have self-immolated and been captured on camera. That's pretty good evidence.

            • +5

              @rix86: Not sure I understand your question, but Socrates, Seneca the Younger, Cato the Younger, all embraced death calmly and with aforethought. Throughout history I am sure there are many more examples of those who embraced death based on principles.

              • @seb: embracing death, and embracing the afterlife, are two very different things.

                • +4

                  @letslogin: So then it was no sacrifice at all since He was simply embracing the afterlife?

                  My point was that you asked a rhetorical question but didn't support it with follow-up. "Do you know of another time where by one man took the worst possible death to himself free willingly?"

              • @seb: No matter who it was or what they believed; it won't change reality. Or maybe it will if you believe quantum physics, which seems quite probable.

              • +3

                @seb: "Not sure I understand your question, but Socrates, Seneca the Younger, Cato the Younger, all embraced death calmly and with aforethought. Throughout history I am sure there are many more examples of those who embraced death based on principles."

                This is the most under rated comment.

            • +2

              @rix86: 911 - There were a bunch of them.. all martyrs … all in the name of God.. albeit a different God.

              • @maddoglee: "all in the name of God.. albeit a different God."

                Actually it's the same God. Muslims, Christians and Jews all believe in the same God (Allah is just Arabic for God, Yahweh is Hebrew for God), they just have different versions of the events surrounded His story.

            • @rix86: Who exactly forced Jesus to die ? Why couldnt he or god just forgive ? WHo exactly forced them to do the torture thing ?

              • +2

                @HelloNorfolkIsland: Heres some emotions that humanity can't explain.

                The cross is the only place geographically in history where these 4 things emerged at once.

                love: for God so loved the world he gave is only son that whosoever believeth in him should have eternal life. John 3:16

                forgiveness: even though we are full of sin, we have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. Jesus said on the cross "father forgive them for they know not what they are doing".

                Evil: the worst possible death us humans have recorded on a single man. The torture of our human evil hurled onto a righteous man/God.

                Justice : God's justice being effectuated. Resulting in a means for us sinners to have access to God's glory.

                Not all will get this I understand, and I will be mocked but that's fine, all so one person who reads this can come to Christ then it's worth all the mocking.

                Take care and show love to all people of all religions, especially atheist, for we have a greater duty in Christ to love. Some of my best friends are atheist and I love them dearly.

            • +1

              @rix86: Iron Man did it in the Avengers Endgame

            • +5

              @rix86: This is by far the most stupid story in the Bible - and given it's packed full of them, it's quite an achievement!

              Jesus is not a "random man". He's supposedly some kind of bizarre God creature sent to Earth to sacrifice himself, to himself, to convince himself to forgive humans - i.e. the flawed creatures he himself messed up.

              Putting aside the absurdity of the whole thing in general, given he knew he would be going back to heaven - a place far better than Earth - how could it possibly be described as a sacrifice? It's an upgrade if anything…

              • @callum9999: That's a great question, and one that I struggled with.

                Simply put, you're right he didn't need to come down here to this terrible place.

                But according to the gospel of Jesus Christ, He did.

                The risk is high if you're wrong, and if you believe in Him, the risk is low if He is right.

                It's only eternity in either heaven or hell that's all. Make your decision, then live die peacefully my friend.

                You have been told.

              • @callum9999: Everything you said in that sentence was wrong - Mark Hamil

    • +2

      Is that an example of apologetics?

    • Well said.

    • -1

      I agree there shouldn't be this much nastiness about. However, I also don't think it was very nice when commenters were nasty with the same sex marriage issue, many of which were religious…

    • I'm sure if it was a Scientology post, people would be equally as respectful?

      They are both religions, both with their failings.

      • I think one is more of a cult than a religion, the key difference being are the teachings free? and are you free to leave but remain an adherent?

        • Drinking the blood and eating the body of Christ every Sunday?

          You're right, definitely cult-like behaviour there.

          • @krushgroove: That is not a requirement to be Christian. Just as the tens of millions of deaths at the hands of Atheists such as Stalin, Mao and Hitler has nothing to do with Athiesm.

  • +14

    If you like interactive fiction, here is another deal: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/544312

  • +34

    Apologetics. Is this saying sorry for all the institutional sexual abuse and coverups?

    • +23

      Imagine believing that all Christians support sexual abuse of any kind in any scenario.

      • +6

        Silliness, right? It's obvious that it's mostly only church leaders who like support that sort of thing.

        • Well, no. Those church leaders are only there because of their followers. It's like our political leaders - as bad as they are, we want them or they wouldn't be there. We get what we want, sadly. They truly represent us, just as church leaders represent the majority of their members. Conservative politics and power go with religion; they depend on each other. The church to keep the masses content with their miserable lot in life and allow the few powerful and wealthy to remain as they are or grow even more so; conservative politics to keep any form of socialism at bay. It's a fundamental tenet of socialism that religion is simply a way of maintaining inequality.

          • @poohduck: No, apologetics doesn't mean "apology". It comes from the Greek word "apologia". It means to give a reasoned defence. If you are looking for serious answers to criticisms that you might have about the Christian faith, some great resources are:
            https://carm.org/objections-and-answers
            https://www.rzim.org/

            And while Christianity has some difficulties with its worldview, if any atheist or agnostic is honest, they'll also recognise they have serious problems with their own worldview (e.g. meaning and purpose to life are delusions, if we have come from a random cosmic accident). There are a lot more listed here:
            https://carm.org/atheism

            • +3

              @WalletFullOfMoths: I was replying to dm01 - the comment immediately above mine. But, it's quite narrow to assume that an atheist or agnostic believes any particular thing such as "meaning and purpose to life are delusions, if we have come from a random cosmic accident". I certainly don't - I'm actually pretty open minded and believe anything is possible. I don't have to have the answer. I know it isn't the bible though - I can see that that was written by mostly ignorant men of their times - control freaks.

        • +1

          Imagine believing that most church leaders support sexual abuse

      • +1

        Imagine tithing to an organization that uses your donations to cover up the rape of children and on top of that, getting triggered when people accuse you of being complicit! Better send more hopes and prayers!

      • It's worse than that. It's the moderates that give power to the churches that commit these crimes. Like a lady I know, good lady normally, but defended a pedo priest in court, even after the police found the photos he'd been taken for years of naked children. When you back a pedo "because jesus" - you're no better than the pedo.

    • Evil human beings that used religions to cause harm To others so philosophically The blame should go to those humans not religions . Would anyone blame the video games if that person influenced by video games and used the video games ideology to commit harm to others?

      • Why doesn't that hold up for racism? Shouldn't hate racism, should hate racists.

        • Because being a non-christian is not a race.

      • Unless evil human beings created religions…that seems logical doesn't it?

    • No it's saying your illogical if you cant accept God.

    • Pure proselytism this offer. No apologies here. They keep the same teachings behind closed doors…

    • Do you even understand the meaning of the word "apologetics"

  • +93

    I'm an atheist, but I don't feel the need to rip on anyone that isn't.

    • +10

      Amen brother/sister

    • +3

      <sarcasm> How DO you sleep at night? </sarcasm>

    • +8

      What if this were a book instructing people how to proselytize atheism to unsuspecting Christians? What if someone inspired by this book brainwashed your daughter into becoming an atheist, that'd be a bloody outrage, having to deal with a atheist daughter the rest of your life and her weird atheist husband/atheist church.

Login or Join to leave a comment