The list of questions (by one Anton Thorn) we now address is of the same sort promulgated by various others (such as Allne Glenn and Hiero the Elephant) but does appear in some cases to be more intelligently formulated. Still, the questions themselves are often the same, and of the same nature, making the same false assumptions and errors in scholarship. As is our custom with such questions, we will decline to answer those concerned with topics beyond our scope.

According to your belief in Christianity, does man have the right to live for his own sake? Yes or no? Please cite references to support your answer.

Does the Bible offer any doctrine in support of man's individual rights? Yes or no? Please cite references to support your answer.

The questions, like many from modern individualists, are misplaced. The idea of individual rights is a byproduct of modern individualism, a way of thinking that has only emerged in the last hundred or so years (with the Industrian Revolution) and only in Western nations. The ancients, and most of the world today, does not speak of "individual rights" but of group obligations. Thus there is no "right" to do anything. This is not in the Bible itself since it is a given in their cultural background, but those who are interested may wish to refer particularly to Malina and Neyrey's book Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality. As a matter of course we expect critics to not be bigoted and dismiss other cultures as "backwards" etc. based on this difference.

The next question presupposes a yes to the above, so we skip to:

In Luke 19:27, Jesus is reported to have said, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (KJV). What do you as a Christian think this means?

It's very simple, really: Those who do not express their allegiance to Christ will receive punishment for their disloyalty. A question following also presupposes a yes above, so we skip to:

In Exodus 22:18, it is attributed to the Hebrew God to have said, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (A similar injunction is found in Leviticus 20:27.) This injunction is nothing short of a direct commandment to kill a human being accused of witchcraft.

No, it is a direct commandment to kill a human being convicted of witchcraft. After this more is asked that again presupposes a yes to the above (apparently someone tried to convince Thorn that the Bible teaches individual rights), so we go to:

In your opinion as a Christian, is the Bible an authority on matters of truth? Yes or no? Please cite references where possible.

Anything which is true is an authority. I consider the Bible true and therefore authoritative.

If you answered yes to question 7) above, can you please state for the record how the Bible defines truth?

The Bible does not define "truth"; it presupposes (like all documents that are not philosophical treatises) that "truth" means that which accords to what is so. The question implies an irrational demand for definition where none is needed.

Questions follow which presuppose an answer to the above we did not give. We move to:

In your opinion as a Christian, is the Bible an authority on matters of morality? Yes or no? Please cite references where possible to support your answer.

If you answered yes to question 11) above, can you please state for the record how the Bible defines morality? Please cite references to support your answer.

If you answered yes to question 11) above, but could not find a verse in the Bible that defines the concept 'morality', how do you justify your affirmative answer to 11) above, that the Bible is an authority on matters of morality, when you can provide no citation from the Bible defining the concept 'truth'? Please explain in detail.

This is little more than the same non-problem created above. It is slipped in that to be an authority on X, one must first provide a definition of X, which would be stunning news to every religious and moral text ever propounded, to say nothing of thousands upon thousands of texts on a variety of subjects that presuppose background knowledge on the part of the reader. When I wrote papers on library policy and procedure, I did not need to define what a "library" was in order to be considered an authority, and neither did my professors. This is nothing but sleight of hand.

In any event, our answer is that the Bible contains morally authoritative material, but that the grounding is in the truth of what it reports and not in that it is the Bible itself (a presuppositonal approach as fallacious as Thorn's).

The next question presupposes an answer we did not give. Then the same question set is repeated with the word justice and there is no need to repeat ourselves; the answer is the same: This is a game and nothing more. We move to:

In Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:25, Jesus is reported to have said that "the stars shall fall from heaven" immediately after the tribulation. Does this seem possible to you? If so, where will the stars fall to? The context of these passages sound like Jesus meant that the stars would fall to the earth. Does such a statement come from an omniscient divinity who knows what stars are and how enormous they are (some millions of times the size of the earth)? Please explain.

The questions' fundamentalist literalism speaks for itself. See here. The "stars" represent political entities (as on Old Glory) and did indeed "fall to earth" in 70 AD. This has zero to do with the size or nature of literal stars.

Matthew is the only Gospel to record the resurrection of an unspecified number of saints coming out of their graves upon Jesus' death on the cross and going into Jerusalem and appearing to many people there. Who were these saints? Why have we no testimony from them of their resurrection? Or why were they not inspired by God to produce their own statements testifying to this miraculous event? What happened to these saints, and why did none of the other Gospels (Mark, Luke and John) record this event, and why was Paul silent on this matter? So much emphasis of the Christian religion is placed upon the resurrection of one man, Jesus, but the resurrection of untold many is treated quite flippantly. Please explain.

See here and here. This is nothing more than a modernist golly-gosh mentality that sees a need to low-contextually repeat itself just because one's mind is blown.

Is jealousy (see Ex. 20) a rational emotion? Yes or no?

More than this follows, but the question is misplaced as it defines "jealousy" -- see comments on this passage here. It is not an "emotion" at all but a reaction.

Questions follow beyond our scope (on creationism and morality) along with yet another strawman request for definitions (this time, "purpose"). Then it is said:

Christians are often found speaking of God's purpose, yet just as often are apt to point out that they do not know what God's purpose is, that this purpose is 'beyond man's understanding and comprehension'. How, then, are such claims to be accepted as knowledge if they are not intelligible to man?

Since I do not speak this way, I decline comment. But it is further said:

Furthermore, how can an "infinite eternal perfect and immortal being" have a purpose? Purpose applies only to living beings that face the possibility of death.

More follows, but I will simply stop there, for I see no justification for the claimed application. Purpose applies to living beings that exist, period. I fail to see what facing death has to do with it, as if being turned immortal will suddenly rob me of purpose and the ability to value things.

Thorn follows with a cite of one of the usual "Bible contradiction" suspects, which we have answered previously here. Then it is said:

The essential distinction which sets Christianity apart from most other forms of supernatural primitivism is the doctrine of sacrificing the ideal to the non-ideal. According to the New Testament, Jesus was the ideal man: he was sinless, blemish-free and morally perfect; Jesus serves as the model against all believers are to measure their own holiness and obedience. But what do the stories of Jesus' crucifixion essentially demonstrate? Essentially, Jesus is depicted as the ideal being sacrificed for the sake of a non-ideal people, a people which the Bible identifies as condemned villains, guilty of sin from birth (or, arguably from biological conception), a people who are admittedly unworthy of the "ransom" that Jesus' sacrifice is said to represent. Thus, the essence of Christianity's distinction is the sacrifice of the ideal to the non-ideal. As a Christian, what is your opinion of this particular distinction? Is this an accurate summary of what sets Christianity apart from other religions? If not, why not, and what is? If you do agree that this is an accurate assessment, how would you argue that such sacrificing of the ideal to the non-ideal is morally justified? Please explain your answer.

Thorn's description is correct enough and it's hard to say what he wants beyond this. The last question presupposes that the act described is NOT morally justified, or is morally unjustified, by some view. Is it unjustified to sacrifice self for others? Are not self-sacrifices lauded in human arenas? (The "ideal vs. non-ideal" has little bearing on the matter.) Thorn answers a reply that Jesus' resurrection is more important than his death, to which we do not subscribe (though he erroneously calls what happened to Lazarus and others a "resurrection"), and then also makes some comments based on a "ransom" thesis of atonement. This does not match our own view (see here), which does not have the problem of Jesus' time dead as a matter of return (see here).

Thorn next asks for a definition of "love" in the Bible and he will find that here -- we remind the reader again that despite Thorn, there is no need for a definition to actually appear IN the Bible. This love of course is not, as Thorn notes, an "emotional response to one's values" -- it is very practical, and thus can indeed be commanded.

Thorn proceeds with more unreasonable demands for the Bible to define virtue, value, and reality. As before these are concepts presupposed by all major religious texts, and thus is like asking McDonald's to define what it means by "hamburger". Some questions follow beyond our scope (having to do with metaphysics and theistic proofs) but we do have some spot answers:

There are many religions among human populations on earth representing claims of many different gods. Each of these religions assert that their god(s) is the one true deity. How can one rationally demonstrate the existence of the god(s) of their choice while simultaneously offering arguments countering rival god-belief claims without committing oneself to contradictions or inconsistencies in the process?

There's nothing like a broad and vague generalization to get your day started, but in turn our broad answer is that Christianity in particular is an evidential faith rooted in the claim that Yahweh acted specifically in history. That's how it is different from "rival god-belief claims".

If you are a Christian, how did you come to believe the claim that God exists? Was it an argument (or series of arguments), or did you just accept the claim as truth and discover arguments to this effect at a later time? Please explain in detail as honestly as you dare.

The latter, as is inevitably unavoidable when you are taught theism from Day 1; if someone wishes to assert that this biases the results, that's just an evasion of actually dealing with the arguments and a form of genetic fallacy. I cannot think what "details" Thorn wants beyond this.

Thorn next asks one of the standard chestnuts, and then we have irrational requests yet again for definitions (of happiness and joy) that would be standard background understanding for any text. Then we have:

Is happiness an end in itself according to Christianity, or is the believer's happiness primarily a means of achieving another end beyond it?

Neither. Happiness is a byproduct, if anything, but it is not something the Bible promises at all. Thus:

According to the New Testament, believers whose 'salvation is sealed' are promised eternal happiness in a heavenly paradise. What will constitute this happiness, and how is the term to be defined and understood?

The New Testament says nothing about "eternal happiness". Perhaps if Thorn could cite verses (which he oddly does not, given his prior demands) we could comment.

If you are a Christian and you 'make it' to heaven, what will you feel if you do not find one or both of your parents there? If you make it to heaven, but your mother or your father, or both, or other close loved ones, do not make it to heaven, will you be able to enjoy complete happiness? If you know that your best friend is burning in hell forever without any chance for being 'paroled' or released, will you be able to enjoy complete happiness? If so, how would this knowledge not make a difference to your emotional life in heaven? Please explain in detail, and cite scriptural passages if and where applicable.

The first portions are irrelevant since again, there is nothing to state that "happiness" or emotional satisfaction is the goal of heaven. The question about "burning in hell" is also misdirected; see here. Thorn is addressing a popularist Christianity that exists only in the realm of exegetical fantasy.

The Bible speaks of itself as being 'inspired' by God. What does this claim exactly mean? How is it testable and verifiable?

What it means is noted here. It can be tested insofar as something inspired should not have error; but it could theoretically be errorless and uninspired. To that extent, it is a question of little relevance, as Thorn does perceive well in this question:

If the Bible is true, why would it need to be 'inspired'? Inspiration is customarily applied to fiction, such as a great novel being said to have been 'inspired' by an event or impression experienced by the author, or his admiration for a certain personality or achievement. How is the biblical use of the term 'inspired' different from that applied to works of fiction, and please explain why truth claims would require this 'inspiration'. Please offer a means of testing your explanation for soundness.

Thorn is apparently unaware that modern use of the word "inspiration" for fiction is just that -- modern. Ancient works of any type could be considered inspired. Since we do not say truth claims require inspiration, the remainder is non-answerable.

In Matthew 12:25, Jesus is reported to have said: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." (KJV) Is this an absolute principle and does this principle apply without exception?

No -- as anyone familiar with the culture of the period knows, sayings like these are proverbial and never taken as 100% absolute. Thorn further offers vague generalizations about disagreements among denominations (see here) and theologians which, not offering specific cases, cannot be specifically answered.

A question follows that presumes that we hold that "internal division is the hallmark to the falsehood of a particular doctrine or code," but we do not hold this; we move to:

In your opinion, what accounts for the tremendous doctrinal and sectarian division within Christianity? If the Bible is the source of a comprehensible and absolute doctrine, reliable in all instances and application, why are there more than 500 major denominations within Christianity, many of which differ radically from one another?

As noted in the link about, "radical" is far too strong a word, unless Thorn is absurdly including everything in the fold from Rastafarianism to Mormonism to Unity. What accounts for division in any case is the human desire to have one's own way and to baptize one's own way with mangled texts. If Thorn has any questions about specifics beyond, "Which particular interpretation is correct? How is one particular interpretation rationally verified over another?", he can select an issue to discuss and try to prove who if anyone is blowing smoke and flashing mirrors.

Thorn next rounds up the standard misuse of Luke 14:26. Then we have yet another irrational demand for definition (of a "soul" or "mind") and questions about this matter beyond our scope (though some matters are dealt with here. We move to:

According to Genesis 1:26, God is reported to have said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (KJV) In your opinion, who is being referenced here when God says 'our'? Is God a plurality of deities according to this statement, or is God speaking about a race of gods? Or is God including the host of angels allegedly standing with Him at His right hand?

This is addressed here. A Trinitarian reference is plausible (Thorn wants to know how this would occur to the ancient Hebrews; he needs to familiarize themselves with the concept of hypostases); angels, as elohim, are also plausible per the link.

Thorn next asks what the "image" of God is; see here. He also confuses "knowledge of good and evil" to mean not knowing about it; in fact the word means lack of knowledge in terms of direct experience (see details here). Several questions follow based on an incorrect understand of "image" and thus require no answer.

Thorn next posits the usual objection about slavery in the Bible (see here for a more professional treatment than Thorn's one-paragraph surface objection). Then we have some matters on free will; our view is expounded here, but Thorn objects on the false grounds of "knowledge" misdefined as noted above. Questions follow on morality that are beyond our scope; we move to:

What does it mean for God to 'reveal' knowledge to man? How is knowledge that is 'revealed' objectively testable? What are the criteria for testing knowledge claims that are alleged to have been 'revealed' from God?

Answer: The same as what it means for any person to "reveal" anything to anyone else; it is testable to whatever extent any such knowledge is testable. In some cases it involves something accessible to us; sometimes it does not. There is nothing unusual about God-revealed knowledge in this respect.

Thorn next offers yet another irrational demand for a "concise, essentialized definition of morality" in the Bible (there go the major world religions down the toilet!) and questions about moral issues beyond our scope. Several objections/questions follow based on an Augustianin notion of original sin, which we do not follow, and so do not apply to us. Then it is asked:

Paul wrote about 'men's wisdom' in contrast to 'God's wisdom'. Can you identify what Paul was referring to?

Yes, see here. This identification is made by background context; it is once again an irrational demand by a low-context reader that Paul define every term out of his high-context setting for Thorn's satisfaction.

Thorn closes with a question on consciousness beyond our scope, and so it ends: Objectivism, apparently, has little use for Biblical scholarship, if nothing else.