“I’d rather have people hate me with the knowledge that I tried to save them.”

Keith Green

Mark 16:15-16

Previous: Hallucination Delusion or Did Jesus rise from the dead? (1/2)

One of the theories that is still under the discussion and is considered to be the best naturalistic explanation is the hallucination hypothesis, originally proposed by David Strauss in 1835[1], today defended primarily by Gerd Lüdemann. What exactly is a hallucination? There are several terms in psychology that are similar to one another and thus might be easily confused. These are delusion, illusion, peridolia and hallucination.

Term Definition

• Delusion: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated (false belief)
• Illusion: perception of something objectively exists in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature. (E.g. peripherally seen lamp mistaken for a person)
• Peridolia: misinterpretation of a vague stimulus as something clear and distinct.[2]
• Hallucination:
  • I. perception of objects with no reality (absence of external stimuli)
  • II. Serious misperception of actual external stimuli (e.g. lamp which is directly looked at is perceived to be jumping around while talking to me)[3]

Ultimately all of the above can be defined as either individual or collective in regard of how many specimen share the same misconception.

Throughout the history there were quite many events that some considered to be genuine miracles, which others regarded as hallucinations while in fact they perfectly fit in one of the other prior definitions. Some regarded Bigfoot as a collective hallucination while it was only a collective misinterpretation of an actual animal and his footprints, which resulted in a collective delusion. Another saw a statue of Mary in Ireland in 1980’s supernaturally move back and forth, which was later very naturally clarified by the lighting conditions of the environment. This makes it a good example of illusion. At last social networks are today permeated by Peridolias as a grilled sandwich that looks like Mary[4] or resemblances of other familiar objects seen in various shapes of trees, mountains, clouds etc. While all of the above fall to some sorts of collective misconception they are far from, above defined hallucination.

The Textbook Response

As the hallucination hypothesis requires us to recognize collective hallucination (shared by two or more people) the Christian textbook response for decades was to simply say that collective hallucinations do not occur. Let us just look at some of these dismissals:

“Experiences of this kind are highly individualistic, since they spring, in part at least, from the past experiences and subconscious minds of the persons concern. One man’s hallucinations, therefore, will almost certainly differ from another’s.”[5]

“Hallucinations are linked to an individual’s subconscious and to his particular past experiences, making it very unlikely that more than two persons could have the same hallucination at the same time.”[6]

“Hallucinations are private experiences, whereas our earliest accounts report that Jesus appeared to groups as well as to individuals.”^[7]

“The problem with this theory stems from the sheer number of people (over five hundred) who must share matching hallucinations. It’s difficult to believe that just two people could have identical hallucinations. But in this case, not only must more than five hundred of them have the same hallucination; they must all hallucinate at the same time!”^[8]

Even Wiersbe’ exposition commentary took this response for granted:

“Peter saw Him and so did the disciples collectively… The 500 plus brethren all saw Him at the same time (1 Cor. 15:6), so it could not have been a hallucination or a deception.”^[9]

This approach was sufficient for a number of years, however recent studies of well documented past events point to occasions that could be defined either as collective hallucinations or objective extraordinary events[10]. O’Connell compiled them in his paper on Resurrection and Visions where he, besides other less reliable ones, lists 6 trustworthy cases: Companies of Men marching in order, Moving statue, Miraculous Eucharist and three Marian Apparitions.[11] This new insight, O’Connell suggests makes resurrection appearances seem like only another religious vision, just like those above. However to infer these were only hallucinations, he expounds, that all of them were expected, under great stress, not seen by everyone present, seen differently and occurred without a conversation. These established facts lead us to a conclusion that collective hallucinations do happen. At this point the classic Christian response is obviously not valid anymore and there is a need for more profound explanation.

Comparing Appearances with Hallucinations

If resurrection appearances are hallucinations then they must be naturally in concord with all the previous common characteristics of hallucinations(X) otherwise we cannot categorize them alike. Now let us look at these properties.

X is expected

The situations in which Jesus appears are often not filled with expectations. While Craig correctly vindicates this point by asserting that the general notion of resurrection was in Jewish context ascribed to a single event after the end of the world[12] it appears Craig’s conclusion is insufficient to fully disqualify apostles’ expectations, based on Mark 6:14-16 or 8:28.[13] Moreover, even if true, this would apply only to the initial appearance for if the word got out, all the other ones would be expected. O’Connell solves this by pointing to the probable glorious nature of all these expectations, as while the time of expectation could alter, at least some of the apostles would anticipate glorious appearance of Christ based on the traditional view of the state after resurrection[14] (Jesus in heaven or in Abraham’s bosom). However the Gospel accounts present us only non-glorious appearances. It seems there is no reason why gospel writers would hold back such a glorious experience, for if they wanted others to accept their belief in risen Messiah, they would of course conform to the classic Jewish expectations, for writing otherwise would undermine their record and predestine it for failure. Therefore it is rational to assume, what they wrote was true.[15]

X involves signs of extreme stress

We can identify with the common grief of bereaved, yet this alone is an insufficient stimulus to be considered as extreme stress. Moreover it is likely that not all of the 500 brethren were closely acquainted with Jesus. In fact several of the appearances occurred in very ordinary situations. (Trip to Emmaus[16], Disciples fishing[17]).

X is seen only by some

There is no indication that some of the disciples wouldn’t see Jesus in the same place and time while others did.

X is seen differently

There is no indication that some perceived Jesus in the same time and place differently than others.

X does not involve conversation

Virtually during every appearance Jesus spoke and during several he also involved himself in a conversation. (Lk. 24:13-31, John 20:11-18, 24-29, 21:1-23)

Altogether it appears after comparing some of the characteristics that we do not have reasons to confirm them and others utterly differ from what we would expect to see if we were dealing with a hallucination instance. Since these do not match, it would be quite arbitrary to maintain the position that resurrection appearances were hallucinatory. Beyond this line of reasoning hallucination hypothesis faces another challenges for it alone does not account for the empty tomb, broken seal, the guard units and the reaction of high priests. Moreover it simply assumes that disciples were inclined to hallucination, Peter was haunted by guilt and Paul was secretly drawn to Christianity which we have no sound reason to think whatsoever. It seems to me that hallucination hypothesis does not hold, and thus I believe it is not a significant competitive theory to the classic Christian resurrection hypothesis which can positively account for all three historically proven facts. The challenge raised by Mr. Renan was answered and while his intentions were different, his initiative might have given birth to the strongest argument for Christian faith today.

“Hands” by Monika Guttmanova

3 Basic Questions of a child: Do you like me? Will you play with me? Can I help you?

“can We help you?”

“can He help us?”

“can You help me?”

we Might have grown out of these 3 questions, and started to ask WHY ME, why not others?

SurEly there is an answer, it is hidden in you.

Why you? Do you know? Have you ever thought of yourself as being Gods hands?

What do YOU see when you look at this painting? Let us know here

Why & When did you start believing in God?

…Give it a thought!

(If you would like to share your answer underneath the article, you are more than welcome!)

“Everyone is eagle-eyed to see anothers faults and deformity.”

John Dryden

Mat. 7:1-5; 18:15-17; Jn. 7:24; 2.Tim. 4:2;

Critical Attitude

Joseph Ernest Renan (1823 – 1892)

Year 1863 gave birth to a book called “The Life of Jesus” written by a French philosopher and historian Ernest Renan who first suggested that the Bible should be subjected to the same critical methods as any other historical document. At that time this idea caused controversy and evoked rage among many Christians. In his book, Renan takes this path that ultimately leads him to make this statement: “Let us place, then, the person of Jesus at the highest summit of human greatness”[1]. He believed that the whole resurrection story was made up as a consequence of a hallucination[2] and while Jesus was “inexhaustible principle of moral regeneration”[3] and “condensed all that is good and elevated in our nature”[4] he strongly disagreed with the classic notion of his divine status: “This sublime person, who each day still presides over the destiny of the world, we may call divine … in the sense that Jesus is the one who has caused his fellow-men to make the greatest step towards the divine”[5] Today Christian scholars widely accepted this challenge proposed nearly 150 years ago and in the attempt to explain the events that took place on Easter 30 A.D. they apply the same procedures and historical criteria of authenticity as if they were investigating other ancient sources like Thucydides’ “Peloponnesian War” or the “Annals” of Tacitus.[6]

The Time Problem

While nearly 2000 years’ time span might represent a major obstacle to trust the content of a source, we must realize that this is not the crucial gap that we ought to be looking at, for “the crucial time gap is not the gap between the evidence and today; rather what’s important is the gap between the evidence and the original events that the evidence is about.” Craig continues by saying: “Good evidence doesn’t become poor evidence just because of the passage of time!” Since most of the primary sources that speak about Jesus’ life come from within 60 years of Jesus’ crucifixion while the eyewitnesses were still alive we can consider them as good sources for there was insufficient time for any historical influence to alter or erase the essential facts. In contrary, e.g. most of what we know about the major conqueror of antiquity Alexander the Great was written down by Arrian & Plutarch 400 years after his death. However these records are widely regarded as trustworthy accounts.[7]

The Three Facts

Now, based on conclusions of mainstream New Testament critics we can say today that there are three independently established facts around the person of Jesus Christ:

1. Jesus’ empty tomb
2. Jesus’ appearances alive after His death
3. The origin of the disciples’ belief in His resurrection[8]

At this point, we have this evidence that needs to be clarified and the next step is to decide which explanation of the evidence is the best explanation. There is a good number of alternative explanations that naturalists proposed in effort to disqualify the resurrection hypothesis. Here are some of the well-known ideas.

Empty Tomb (Natural) Explanations

Conspiracy (The Body-Snatcher) hypothesis (response 1, 2)

There are two main variations of this theory. First says that disciples stole the body and fabricated the resurrection story and the second that Roman or Jewish authorities stole the body to make sure no one would proclaim that Jesus rose from the dead.

Apparent Death (resuscitation or swoon) hypothesis (response)

Critics suggested that Jesus did not in fact die on the cross, but only swooned so disciples thought he was dead and they buried him alive. Later Jesus woke up and escaped from the tomb to convince His disciples of his resurrection.

Displaced Body hypothesis

Proposes that because it was late and his family tomb was close, Joseph of Arimathea placed here the body only temporarily and removed it later to the criminals’ common graveyard, which confused disciples, who finding the tomb empty thought Jesus was raised from the dead.

Dog-Ate-It hypothesis

A “dog ate my homework” parallel made its way also to one of the theories explaining Jesus’ resurrection. John Crossan[9] together with few modern skeptics simply suggested that wild dogs may have eaten the body of Jesus[10].

Occupied Tomb Explanations

Unknown tomb hypothesis

The idea which says that actually nobody knew where Jesus was buried for his body was probably cast into a common pit.

Wrong tomb hypothesis 1

Is alike the unknown tomb, only with the exception that in this case discoverers of the empty tomb went to a wrong tomb.

Copy-cat hypothesis 1 (response)

The story of Jesus’ resurrection was picked up from other, older ancient religions in which we can find similar attributes of these “saviours” as well as the substantial alikeness of the events taking place.

Legend hypothesis (response)

All the accounts for the resurrection are fraudulent and the entire story was a legendary product of the years after the Christ that piled up one small detail after another.

Spiritual resurrection hypothesis

This theory puts forwards the idea that Jesus’ body in fact remained in the tomb, but it rapidly decayed and the entire resurrection was only spiritual.

Hallucination (occupied tomb) hypothesis (response)

Here we are given an option that asserts that resurrection appearances were mere hallucinations of the disciples caused by great emotional or physical distress.

Twin hypothesis 1

Shortly, Jesus truly died on the cross, he was buried, but he had a twin that nobody knew about who came on the scene presenting himself as resurrected Jesus Christ.

Passover plot hypothesis

This seems to be a modernized combination of many of the previous theories. Here Jesus believed he was Messiah and plotted a very detailed plan that would fulfill the Old Testament prophecies which he was well acquainted with. To accomplish this plan he brought on board Joseph of Arimathea and an anonymous “young man”. He was given a drug that caused people to think he was dead, however the plot to gloriously wake up was ruined by a soldier who thrusted a spear into His side. After this Jesus’ remains were quickly taken and in attempt to save the plan the unknown “young man” pretend to be the risen Messiah.

Today we can say that most of these theories are abandoned by the majority of contemporary scholars as they do not explain the whole scope of evidence mentioned above or because after weighing various factors in assessing rival hypothesis, they come out as less convincing if possible at all.[11] Professor David Stanley asserted that “In general, most of these stories belong to sensational journalism.”[12]

NOTE: If you know about a good resource either for an alternative hypothesy or a response, please leave a comment below so it can be considered and perhaps added to the list above.

Next: Hallucination Delusion or Did Jesus rise from the dead? (2/2)

Do you share your faith with unbelievers? What are the reasons you give them for your belief in God?

…Give it a thought!

(If you would like to share your answer underneath the article, you are more than welcome!)

Partly continuing in the work my friend Matthew D. Burnett began, in his “ASK DAVID” series, I am glad to offer you more Q&A videos with Mr. David Jakobsen, who is currently a teacher on Mariager Bible College in Denmark. David’s interest is analytical philosophy, including dealing with the metaphysical and epistemological issues. He also has a website called apologetik.dk (in danish).

The Debate (1:36:00)

Questions from the audience (52:49)

For a brief opinion poll and review of this debate see my previous post.

2 x 20 min presentation (positive case goes first)
2 x 12 min rebuttal
2 x 8 min rebuttal
2 x 5 min closing statement
Break
Q&A

First one to present his positive case was Prof. Craig, who guided us through 3 reasonable ways of inferring that something might be one way rather than the other.

1. Logical argument
   1. Cosmological argument
2. Argument from the Best explanation
   1. Fine-Tuning of the universe
   2. The origin of the universe
3. Historic explanation
   1. Resurrection of Jesus Christ (and the 3 indisputable facts rooted in historic sources)
      1. The empty tomb
      2. Post-mortem appearances of Jesus
      3. Strong faith of disciples that even lead them to die for their cause

After this Prof. Kappel compared God to other mythical beings like Thor or Aphrodite in effort to show the absurdity of such reasoning. Afterwards he explained that we ought to give space to science and common sense that tells us that such creatures do not exist and even though there are areas that science cannot yet give account for, we ought to stay careful in filling them with God. He stated that he will not respond to the arguments given by Prof. Craig for we should not give them so much credit, rather he will only give reasons to show why atheism is a better option. For it is most likely impossible to show somehow with arguments that God does not exist. Quote: “Not to persuade you, but to illustrate“. Then he presented some kind of dialectical issue in which we deal with two people who come to different conclusions based on the same evidence. However they are so convinced that their explanation is the right one that they are beyond the reach of reasoning and no debate will persuade them otherwise, thus only some sort illustrations can bear meaning. At last he elaborated on the origin of belief stating, that the reason why people believe in various religions is to large degree the background in which they were born to and raised in.

Craig in his rebuttal expressed that he didn’t hear any positive arguments for the atheistic position and that in fact prof. Kappel agreed with him in saying that there is none. In his reaction he showed that the origin of belief has nothing to do with the fact whether the belief is true or false and clarified the difference between Gods transcendent being who is above the reach of our natural 5 senses and other “demigods” like Thor or Aphrodite which according to their definition we should be able to expose with our senses. Then repeated his positive case and added another argument from a best explanation – argument from consciousness, saying that the cumulative force of these arguments creates a powerful case for theism that makes it a more reasonable worldview that the atheistic alternative.

Ph.D., cand. philosophy, and cand. medicine Klemens Kappel

In the second round Kappel asked: “What is this debate about? What are you (Craig) trying to achieve? Why is proving God such an important thing?” These questions served to show his opinion that there are more important questions than this one. Afterwards he once again appealed to common sense. What was unusual was his reference to a debate he had before with a different theist who supposedly was stating false scientific information (this seemed to bear no relevance to the current debate). Then he showed the variety of religions still present, but also those which are extinct and built his case around doubting the relevance of any religion since there are so many, finishing with the question: “Why should we then consider atheism and theism equal?” Then he proposed that the burden of proof thus lies on the side of theism. At this point he finally turned to Craig’s arguments and strongly suggested that the premises on which they are built, are far more controversial than how Craig is presenting them and therefore also the conclusions they lead to are uncertain.

In his response Craig shows the relevance of the question: “Does God exist?” by explaining the sudden meaning and love that this worldview of reality brings with it and in contrary what hopelessness and desperation is carried by atheism. Here, Craig explained that in a forum like this, in a debate, a burden of proof lies on both sides. Both parties need to present a positive case for their position. He continued by saying that for a moment he did not try to avoid his obligation to build one for theism, for that is what he was doing all the way to this point. But so far it is the atheistic position that didn’t show any. This was followed by a number of examples that displayed the relevance of his arguments, while affirming the relative controversy behind them, finishing this round with a metaphor that demonstrated that the idea that the universe is uncaused is like magician that pulls a rabbit out of a hat. While in theism you still have the magician, on the atheistic standpoint you don’t even have that, which makes it the worst kind of magic we can imagine and thus metaphysically incorrect.

Ph.D in philosophy, and Dr.Theology William Lane Craig

Kappel answered with repeating the controversy behind Craig’s premises, putting them into a less certain light. In effort to give an alternative explanation to beginning of the universe he simply stated, that he does not find it irrational to believe that universe just did not have a cause. That the principles of causality work only in the world we know now, but they might not have to be in place before (whatever “before” means). This single event does in no way make everything irrational. For, while the start might have been irrational and uncaused everything that followed, works according to specific rules and laws of physics, that makes it accessible for us to rationally approach it.

In his closing statement Craig expressed that according to him we have not heard tonight any arguments for atheism and all in all while both positions are rational it appears like theism is a better explanation from the two.

On the other hand, Mr. Kappel one more time showed his disbelief in Craig’s arguments and implied that in such a situation one should not boldly keep proclaiming his conclusions, but loose his confidence and go back to first solve the controversy behind the premises.

After a traditional Danish coffee break there was almost an hour for Question & Answers, which unfortunately I will not cover in this post.

————

In summary, the entire debate turned out to be sort of a dispute between someone who was trying to point to the truth by building a case, offering best possible explanations based on sound scientific discoveries, logical and philosophical methods in strive to offer credible answers;… and a skeptic who merely questioned all that had been said, bringing in an element of doubt and uncertainty. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong in challenging ideas, it seems like this approach alone, without a trace of positive case, fails to clarify issues, but rather dims our perspective on them, keeping one without any plausible solution. In the end of the day, after speaking with several people from the audience I could feel, including myself, a subtle disappointment caused by the absent case for atheism.

For those of you who would like to see Craig’s visit in CPH for yourself click HERE for the 1h 36m long debate or here for the following 53m Q&A session.

Where YOU there? Did YOU hear & see it? Leave us a comment and let us know what is YOUR impression! Starting with a brief survey…

“The more false any man is in his religion, the more fierce and furious he is in maintaining it; the more mistaken, the more imposing.”

Benjamin Whichcote

James 1:26-27; John 14:6

What is the number one thing you do not agree with regarding Christian religion?

…Give it a thought!

(If you would like to share your answer underneath the article, you are more than welcome!)

- Bishop James Edward Lesslie Newbigin

What is Gospel?

Before entering the debate about cultural relevance and historicity of the gospel I believe it is first important to speak about what it is when we mention the word gospel. Often when we refer to the gospel, we add to it its meaning found in Greek as “the good news”. While Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary says quite neatly and explicitly that the gospel is “the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation” it is hard to find any good news in this definition alone. Thus it is only natural to ask for more, if the gospel is to “live up” to its Greek notion.

The Big Picture

Roughly, if the message is to be complete and clear we need to start by going all the way back to Genesis, showing God’s wonderful creation and the fall that happened right after which separated us from Him. We may continue by explaining God’s holiness and his hatred towards sin and then stop for a while at “the last judgment”. Now when the big picture is painted, only at this moment the entire message about Christ’s reconciling death on the cross makes sense and makes the news good. Without it, I am like a person that tells his friend that he had paid a very high speeding ticket for him. Yet, if my friend doesn’t know he had one, he will not appreciate it and will only consider me to be a fool for saying something like that. Only when I first stop and explain him the circumstances he will appreciate the good news I am about to tell him.

Jesus Christ

While we need to pay heed to the big picture it is the person of Jesus Christ who is in the very center of the gospel message. He is the one whom prophets were speaking about in the Old Testament pointing towards the future. And the one about whom the apostles in the New Testament spread the news, referring to the past. Therefore it is crucial to look at Jesus and his stay on the Earth. Above all, it is evident that He was born into a specific context and culture in a specific time and space. Into well-defined group of people with their particular language, traditions, habits and way of thinking also depended partly on the level of knowledge available to them at that moment.

Even though the thoughts he presented were for most people radically revolutionary and some of his behavior by all means surpassed the conventional demeanor we can also find many aspects or instances in which he displayed very contextual conduct. Stating the obvious he spoke the local languages, wore common clothes, had a usual profession or even engaged himself in public celebrations.  Anyway, if we could somehow observe him for a while we would quite easily be able to strictly categorize him as a lower-class craftsman from Middle East in times of late Ancient History.

The Weight of Culture

The latter of the previous two considerations affirms that the core section of the gospel is indisputably rooted in a historical context and former indicates that without a proper application there can be no gospel. In other words if our communication is not clear and complete the message we intended to communicate might be anything but gospel. Thus it is crucial to employ appropriate, contemporary means of communication that will meet recipients in their situation, in their language so they would understand the overall message we strive to get over and not focus on mere exact transfer of biblical vocabulary.

What Does it Mean for us Today?

Now when we know that the gospel was culturally embodied and that culture is inevitable part of any group of people and it influences their thought processes there are two direct outcomes we ought to adopt as church for the purpose of running effective mission work.

1. Perform justified (a.) exegesis of scriptural text in order to extract the true (b.) underlying meaning (timeless principle) of the studied text followed by (c.) hermeneutical demonstration that will offer possible application and will bring the impersonal principles close to our time-bound audience, making these truths immediate and easy to comprehend.
2. Contextualize the entire process considering the culture of a target group.
   

   Figure 1 – Exposition of biblical truths supported by contextualization.

!!! ONLY TODAY !!!

“At the heart of the story stands the cross of Christ where evil did its worst and met its match.”

John W. Wenham

Jn. 1:1; Jn. 14:6; Rom. 3:23

What does Easter mean for you? When Christians say that Jesus died for them, what exactly do they mean?

…Give it a thought!

(If you would like to share your answer underneath the article, you are more than welcome!)

“Naturalism

Naturalist: I have found the God gene!

Christian: Congratulations, I am happy for you! What does it mean?

Naturalist: It shows that your belief is merely a product of your brain and all your convictions, feelings, claimed personal experience or need for some kind of a higher meaning is just a result of the natural processes your mind tells you to react upon.

Christian: What do you mean by that? Are you saying that what I believe in is not real?

Naturalist: Exactly. Your faith is not based on truth. It is only your brain that tells you to believe in something, which might be for some reason beneficial or advantageous to assume, but after all, it’s fully irrational.

Christian: Oh, that’s odd. Cause it appears to be so true.

Naturalist: Yeah, that’s fair to say, but as we all were already telling you for decades – there is no God. It is just your brain.

Christian: Okay, then. I am just wondering, may I ask you how did you find it?

Naturalist: Well, it is not so easy to explain just like this, but perhaps in the raw - We studied brain, its individual sections, together with human genome and using thorough scientific methods of analysis that after lengthy research brought us to conclusion that this particular gene is responsible for you belief.

Christian: Is this what you believe is true?

Naturalist: Of course I do. Otherwise I wouldn’t tell you all this.

Christian: So, is this something that you came up with using your brain?

Naturalist: Naturally,…

Christian: But, then according to what you have just told me it must be irrational. Thus it is only something your brain created and your mind tells you to believe in for some beneficial or advantageous reason, but in summary it isn’t based on truth at all.

Naturalist: No, no, no,… but this is something we have a long-standing experience with that shows to be true and thus have good reasons to be convinced that there is a great deal of meaning in it.

Christian: Yeah, that’s fair to say, however all of this is just a result of your brain and the natural processes in your mind that it tells you to react upon. Isn’t that how you put?

Naturalist: Yes it is.

Christian: Hmm, as I think over it again it looks like everything what you were just telling me until now was consequently not true, right?

Naturalist: I have never thought about it this way, but I guess you are correct.

Christian: I do not mean to be rude, but why are you then telling me all these things?

Naturalist: Oh, I actually don’t know…

Christian: Anyway, thanks for the talk and I am looking forward to see you again when you’ll have something real to discuss.

Naturalist: Sure, thank you too. See you later.

Pow! There Goes A Naturalist Down

The contemporary wording of this argument was made by Alvin Plantinga a Professor of Philosophy and a well-known critic of naturalism. In addition to the above shown chain of thoughts, he offers us other reasons that reveal the compelling problem evolution together with naturalism represent in regard to our cognitive faculties, as a reliable source of information about the world, reflecting reality.

The God whom we have loved, and in
Whom we have lived, and who has been
Our Rock these twenty-two good years
With you, now bids us, with sweet tears,
To let you go: “A man shall leave
His father and his mother, cleave
Henceforth unto his wife, and be
One unashaméd flesh and free.”
This is the word of God today,
And we are happy to obey.
For God has given you a bride
Who answers every prayer we’ve cried
For over twenty years, our claim
For you, before we knew her name.

And now you ask that I should write
A poem – a risky thing, in light
Of what you know: that I am more
The preacher than the poet or
The artist. I am honored by
Your bravery, and I comply.
I do not grudge these sweet confines
Of rhyming pairs and metered lines.
They are old friends. They like it when
I bid them help me once again
To gather feelings into form
And keep them durable and warm.

And so we met in recent days,
And made the flood of love and praise
And counsel from a father’s heart
To flow within the banks of art.
Here is a portion of the stream,
My son: a sermon poem. It’s theme:
A double rule of love that shocks;
A doctrine in a paradox:

If you now aim your wife to bless,
Then love her more and love her less.

If in the coming years, by some
Strange providence of God, you come
To have the riches of this age,
And, painless, stride across the stage
Beside your wife, be sure in health
To love her, love her more than wealth.

And if your life is woven in
A hundred friendships, and you spin
A festal fabric out of all
Your sweet affections, great and small,
Be sure, no matter how it rends,
To love her, love her more than friends.

And if there comes a point when you
Are tired, and pity whispers, “Do
Yourself a favor. Come, be free;
Embrace the comforts here with me.”
Know this! Your wife surpasses these:
So love her, love her, more than ease.

And when your marriage bed is pure,
And there is not the slightest lure
Of lust for any but your wife,
And all is ecstasy in life,
A secret all of this protects:
Go love her, love her, more than sex.

And if your taste becomes refined,
And you are moved by what the mind
Of man can make, and dazzled by
His craft, remember that the “why”
Of all this work is in the heart;
So love her, love her more than art.

And if your own should someday be
The craft that critics all agree
Is worthy of a great esteem,
And sales exceed your wildest dream,
Beware the dangers of a name.
And love her, love her more than fame.

And if, to your surprise, not mine,
God calls you by some strange design
To risk your life for some great cause,
Let neither fear nor love give pause,
And when you face the gate of death,
Then love her, love her more than breath.

Yes, love her, love her, more than life;
O, love the woman called your wife.
Go love her as your earthly best.

Beyond this venture not. But, lest
Your love become a fool’s facade,
Be sure to love her less than God.

It is not wise or kind to call
An idol by sweet names, and fall,
As in humility, before
A likeness of your God. Adore
Above your best beloved on earth
The God alone who gives her worth.
And she will know in second place
That your great love is also grace,
And that your high affections now
Are flowing freely from a vow
Beneath these promises, first made
To you by God. Nor will they fade
For being rooted by the stream
Of Heaven’s Joy, which you esteem
And cherish more than breath and life,
That you may give it to your wife.

The greatest gift you give your wife
Is loving God above her life.
And thus I bid you now to bless:
Go love her more by loving less.

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

“Christ is not valued at all unless He is valued above all.“

Augustine

II Cor. 5:17; Rom. 8:1; Col. 1:28

John Piper is pastor for preaching and vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church in the Twin Cities of Minnesota. He grew up in Greenville, South Carolina, and studied at Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary (B.D.), and the University of Munich (D.theol.). For six years he taught Biblical Studies at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, and in 1980 accepted the call to serve as pastor at Bethlehem. John is the author of more than 40 books and more than 30 years of his preaching and teaching is available free at desiringGod.org. John and his wife, Noel, have four sons, one daughter, and twelve grandchildren.

“God si most glorified in me, when I am most satisfied in him. This is the motor that drives my ministry as a pastor. It affects everything I do.”

http://www.desiringgod.org/about/who-is-john-piper

Don (D. A.) Carson (b. 1946) – Reformed evangelical at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. His theology is similar to that of Wayne Grudem except on charismatic issues, where his view may be described as “open but cautious.” Carson’s tendency is to strive for balance and amicability in disputes but is uncompromising on the essentials of the faith. He is a complementarian but supports gender-neutral Bible translations. Carson’s areas of expertise include biblical theology, the historical Jesus, postmodernism, pluralism, Greek grammar, Johannine theology, Pauline theology, and questions of suffering and evil. He has written books on free will and predestination from a generally compatibilist and Calvinist persepective. He is a member of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Evangelical Theological Society, the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, and the Institute for Biblical Research. Dr. Carson and his wife, Joy, reside in Libertyville, Illinois. They have two children. In his spare time, Dr. Carson enjoys reading, hiking, and woodworking.

“Many reffer to him as to the one who wrote the commentaries about Biblical commentaries.“

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/dacarson.html

Besides these there will be Kai Soltau, Christian Wegert and M. Lohmann that will also offer us their insight and knowledge into a variety of Biblical truths.

While there are 5 simultaneous workshops on Monday between 14:30 and 15:30 only M. Reakes-Williams’: „Correctly handling the word of truth – the Christian and the Old Testament“ will be in English. All the other workshop will unfortunately makes sense only to the German speaking population. Yet it seems that besides this little trouble there needs to be no other worry for we can read in their flyer that “In addition, simultaneous translation will be offered into English and Russian for those main sessions which are held in German. Depending on demand and availability there will also be translation into other languages.”

At last, a small but obvious need is to find a hotel for yourself. While the entrance is for free, a 3 day stay in Hamburg will require a place to stay. If you have troubles finding one you can cross a square in the registration form of the flyer to ask for some possibly helpful information regarding the lodging.

For more information download the flyer (english) or visit the website Evangelium21. (only in German)
View Larger Map

William will give a lecture at Aalborg University on the topic – The Problem of Evil. There are only 150 places, so be quick to come!

Address: Kroghstræde 3, 9220 Aalborg Øst, in a big auditorium (room 1.104) from 10:00 to aprx.16.

The Problem of Evil

The problem of innocent suffering–usually called ‘the problem of evil’ by philosophers–is the most important argument against the existence of God. Dr. Craig differentiates between the emotional and intellectual problems of evil in order to help keep our thinking about this controverted subject clear. He further differentiates between internal and external versions of the intellectual problem of evil, arguing that while the former is generally thought to have been resolved, the latter remains a subject of debate. During his morning lecture Dr. Craig will set up the problem and discuss the internal version; during the afternoon lecture he shall address the external version.

18.april (Wednesday) 

Following day he will come to Copenhagen to engage in a debate with Mr. Klemens Kappel. (click to see the previous article, that shortly covered Kappel’ professional background) on the question: Does God exist? You can enjoy a Free Entry, so come and see this leading craftsman of contemporary apologetics in action for yourself!

You can also print a poster and advertise this event in your neighbourhood or join it on facebook to see who else is coming (facebook event is in danish).

Address: Rømersgade 17, 1362 Copenhagen K from 19:00 – 22:00

"Freedom" by Monika Guttmanova

“And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” – 1. Corinthians 6:11

1) “Prisoner of my thoughts” – I could have called myself that. I have lived in guilt for so long and have been a prisoner of my mind. Unable to come to God, unable to speak to Him. Jesus calls us to come to Him as we are. If we should wait until we were perfect, we would become the oldest people on this planet. What are Gods thoughts?

2) Bucket of “freedom” is not just a bucket. Headlines of this world call us to find freedom in things: if you buy, if you do, if you try… And suddenly we become slaves of our things. If we should be set free through things, how materialistic do we have to become?

What do YOU see when you look at this painting? Let us know here

Is it important (for you) to go to church? Why? / Why not?

…Give it a thought!

(If you would like to share your answer underneath the article, you are more than welcome!)

Very similar to the appeal to status is appeal to the bandwagon, however now it is not about our uniqueness but on the contrary, its about our need to belong.

Different groups of people hold various biases both positive and negative towards certain brands, products, behavior and altogether certain lifestyle. We can find these groups in all sizes. It can start already in an elementary school, when your mom adds to your lunch bag raw vegetables like broccoli or carrot, which was at least in my days highly “not cool”. But there are certain trends also on municipal or national levels. For instance in Denmark you can find a variety of groceries stores. Names (some of which you may recognize) like Rema1000, Netto, Coop, Føtex, Fakta, SuperBrugsen, SuperSpar or Kiwi fill the danish market with food for everyday and while surely you’d be able to find some diversity over these as well, majority of Danes consider two particular stores – ALDI and LIDL – to appear on the very bottom of this chart. Yet dozens of other things come into picture as well, like what you wear, what you listen to, what books do you read, what phone or computer do you own, what restaurants do you go eat to (I guess you would not invite your CEO to McDonald’s unless you have an excessively familiar working environment)  or whether you travel enough (as that is what all the people of quality do…).

If we again want to recognize this appeal in commercial slogans this time we’re looking for words like “4 out of 5 doctors recommend X” or “ten million housewives are using Y”.

Whether there is a strong aversion or popularity towards something it is not yet a proof of it’s worth or value per se and while these commercials, public opinions and biases of our friends can carry some truth, until this point we haven’t heard a single good reason why should we use X or Y, or not go shopping to ALDI or LIDL, besides keeping up with others. (I personally shopped in ALDI and LIDL and I was more than satisfied with both prices and quality of their products)

As usually I would again like to point out that bandwagons are not wrong in themselves. They can point to a large number of customers truly satisfied with a high-quality product (or vice versa), but they can also be just an outcome of a mere good advertising, publicity and salesmanship of a merchandise that is perfectly average, while there is something else out there that is way better and cheaper.

As long as people are on the Earth so will be the need to belong and we should be wise in determining when is the right time to be fully reasonable, use our logic and determine what is the best possible solution regardless of what others may think; and on the other hand, when should we intentionally overlook the smart way in order to achieve something greater or avoid unnecessary troubles. (I am thankful for the healthy upbringing I got, yet at times I wonder whether those few extra nutrition were worth some of the painful comments I received from my classmates)

• Aldi and Lidl beat M&S for shopper satisfaction with low-priced offers for cash-strapped customers (dailymail.co.uk) / Yes, maybe I promote them a little bit

““If you can’t feed a hundred people, then feed just one.”"

Mother Teresa

I Peter 3:8; Pr. 19:17; I Jn. 3:17