Ben Joiner's Blog

  Under the Flavian Conspiracy theory, Christianity was invented by the Flavian emperors (Vespasian, Titus, & Domitian 69 - 96 AD).  They supposedly did this as a way to control people by inventing a false religion. Emperors are well known for creating religious movements as a way of controlling people, but  this was primarily a matter of declaring an emperor to be a god. For example, Domitian had Titus declared a god. But this worked within paganism.  Augustus was said to be secretly fathered by Apollo while his mother was at the temple.  The imperial cult boasted temples across the empire.  Cities without a statue of Augustus were rare.   A primary problem with the Flavian Conspiracy is that Christianity is subversive of Roman morality.  While it is not openly rebellious, it is harmful to Roman values in other ways.  Christians would not make sacrifices to pagan gods or praise the genius (divine right to rule) of the emperor.  T...

  In past years, I've heard some say that hypocritical and even disbelieving ministers should not be criticized since they carry on a public ministry that preaches the correct thing. These preachers do this to avoid scrutiny while gathering a small group of disbelievers, but play the role of a godly minister on a larger scale. What is truly amazing is that they cite the Apostle Paul in support! They refer to Philippians 1:15-18. Here, Paul rejoices that people are coming to salvation through some jealous preachers that really just want to end Paul’s ministry. And so people told me that we should just keep our mouths shut since the good outweighs the bad. In fact, we should just rejoice that people are being saved like Paul did! This level of confusion and irrationality is truly fascinating to me. I’m honestly trying to understand it. How is it that you miss the obvious? You are seeing the Bible only as something people read. After all, that is all it has...

Fideism is the idea that Christians should believe in Jesus work of salvation without any evidence or proof.  A passage that is often cited in support of this is from Jn 20.  Thomas refuses to believe until he personally touches and sees the risen Jesus.  He sees Jesus and believes without touching.   Then Jesus says, " Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."    This is taken by many in churches to mean that one should believe in Jesus without any proof or evidence whatsoever (Fideism).  And points exactly like this are often made by atheists as well.  I find that Atheists are not so much former Christians who were abused by the church.  I'm sure that has happened many times.  But my experience has been that Atheists were simply taught incorrect things at church.  And they reject the faith based on what it is not instead of what it actually is.  In the case of the doubting Thomas passage, the strongest ...

 In recent years, the topic of Christian Nationalism has emerged as, well, popular and much discussed.  A big part of the debate is what Christian Nationalism even is.  But more importantly, there is the big question of whether Christians should want to make the Bible the foundation of the law of the United States.  Should we make it against the law to skip church?  Should there be a fine?  If you say no, then how about abortion?  Should abortion be outlawed purely because of religious motivations?  Until recently, homosexual practice was technically illegal in many areas due to sodomy laws.  Although perhaps not really enforced, should Christians work to bring such laws back?  Doesn't the Bible condemn such activities as sinful? Sometimes, it troubles me how many controversies are actually philosophical in nature.  People can argue about many things.  And as arguments continue, they go to more and more foundational disagreemen...

 Pietism is a school of thought that originated in Lutheran Christianity in Germany of the 1600's.  It emphasizes obeying God's commands and Biblical Doctrines.  But in my own experience, I've seen a unique Pietist approach to Apologetics.  More than once, I've heard the same self contradictory thinking.     In more than one way, they essentially say that apologetics is a bad thing.  Then they say that we simply need to see the evidence of the Gospel changing lives.  There are a few problems here.  Out of one side of their mouths, they argue that the Gospel doesn't need evidence to support it.  Then, in the same breath, they lay out evidence to support the truth of the Gospel.  But a bigger problem is that the evidence isn't all that good.  Think of how this logic works. p1)Christianity makes people become good c)Therefore Christianity is true     There are problems galore here. 1)Many young people claim morality...

 Jewish prophecy has an odd quality.  I'd often noticed it when reading parts of the Bible, especially Daniel.  It always confused me.  I didn't understand what this was until I got an apologetics book by a Jew.  The book was intended to persuade Jews to convert to Christianity. So there are two basic types of prophecy in the Bible.  This I had long known.  Normal prophecy is when God tells someone something to tell to other people.  The prophet has been sent by God with a message.  Typological prophecy is when something happens that is similar to what happens later.  For example, Paul calls Adam a type of Christ.  Here there is no direct message from God.  Instead the events occur normally and God providentially oversees that they are also foretelling future events.  God inspires someone to write about these events for a purpose of that time.  But all along there is an additional prophetic message for the future....

It's a well known phrase in our language.  A person claims to be a woman trapped in a man's body.  This statement entails some unavoidable implied statements.   First)  It implies that the essential self is the soul.  It's not the body.  It's that which, as Christians believe, survives death.  "You are not your body."  Even if one is an atheist that doesn't believe in souls and the afterlife, it still implies the mental self is the essential self.  Other things that are true about your body are not essential to you.  You can grow taller and still be yourself. Second)It also implies that the gender is part of the essential self.  For, I will quickly agree that the mental self is the essential self.  I am a Christian.  But all of your mental properties cannot be essential to you.  Your mental properties can change and you will still be you.  You can learn things you didn't know.  You can forget things you...