"But the Bible tells how to know real Christians--and that's by their love."
Where does the Bible tell us this?

"And the apex of love is to give your own life for another, as Jesus did."
When did this happen? Darth Vader gave his life to save his son; that makes sense and seems to be a true expression of love against all odds. Jesus was supposedly arrested for being a rabble-rouser and crucified. What "other" whose head was on the chopping block did he take the place of?
This is where the whole basis of Christianity causes me such consternation. If you claim that he was an actual person who voluntarily gave his life to save all of humanity, what was he saving us from? The wrath of God? The evil Archons? Both of these possibilities are claimed in different parts of the New Testament. Why did either of these two entities require a human sacrifice to appease their anger? Especially -- in the ortodox understanding of the story -- the human sacrifice of his own son? Does it really make sense to you that your loving and all powerful God needed to create a son to travel to earth, hang out for 30 or so years, then start teaching a new version of God's covenant to replace the old, worn out version, and then give himself as a human sacrifice at the altar of those evil dirty Romans and those evil dirty Jews in order to redeem humanity from some non-specific sin of which we're guilty and from which only a human (or superhuman) sacrifice can save our souls before the end of days which is right around the corner... or in a few generations... or at some non-specific time in the future.

Has none of this ever caused you to at least question the possible legitimacy of all of this? You've accused me in the past of working from pre-conceived notions and not opening myself to the understanding that comes with faith in your God. These are the pre-conceived notions of Christianity that, once I started examining them, made no logical sense to me. It is because of these logical inconsistencies that I started examining the early history of Christianity so closely and began to discover the plethora of inconsistencies throughout the scriptures and the received history, and the dearth of actual evidence for the historicity of any of it.

"Where does the Bible tell us this?"

I can't speak for Mujus, but he probably meant either John 13:34-35 or I John 3:11-23 or I John 2:9-11 or I John 4:13-20. Less explicitly but in the same vein, there is I Cor. 13 and the several passages that say that "Love your neighbor" is the sum of the whole law.

But you're a NT scholar, so I assume the question was merely rhetorical.

OK, well, I guess it technically qualifies as "Bible Reading" so...

Operation Elohim is underway--

Genesis is done and read--onto Exodus I go (though to be fair, I already had read and knew most or all of the plot points in it...I was just utterly bored half the time, I have to say, just very repetitive, but then, I ge that the book's supposed to be a sort of foundational lead-in, so we'll see if we can pick things up literarily from here...I still find most of it abhorrent--some more so than I actually remembered--and I don't believe a word of it, but on we go...

I'm looking at the Bible as a foundational literary text, and NOT as something "holy" and untouchable here--

After all, I didn't go into "Hamlet" thinking "Wow, this is 'Hamlet,' I'd better be inspired by this, heck, I simply must be, it's 'Hamlet!'"
That's the wrong way to approach any text--
If it inspires you, it should inspire you "naturally" and on it's own merits, not reputation.
I liked Hamlet, and was and am inspired by Shakespeare (not religiously, but still...)
However, Leo Tolstoy found Shakespeare crap...
And this is the man who wrote "War in Peace," so as much as I disagree...
There's some weight to that.

So yes--I get it's a religious, holy book...

But as it never was my religion--even as a Jewish-raised kid I was pretty agnostic and we never really emphasized religion too much at home, a lot of talk about God, and all that, but nothing to make the Orthodox Jews among us see me as a kindred spirit--so I'm treating it like I would The Odyssey or any other text.

I WILL ask a question, though, Bible readers--

WHY are these long, tedious lists necessary, ESPECIALLY when it's of a group of people never seen again?

I mean, "He begat Him begat Him Begat Him..." or giving all the sons...

I get that this is supposed to be partly oral tradition and somewhat tribal early on, but in actually writing this down...especially in translating it...no one thought to leave that on the cutting room floor?

I mean, I've criticized editing--or to be more precise, compiling--in the Bible's structure, but still...

If it's "God's Word"...

God really cares if I knew who gave birth two who and who and who and who when I hardly if ever see them again and it's just a list of names and ages?

VERY irritating, and not good writing, long and redundant and tedious, horrible writing...

Almost as bad as mine. ;)

Anyway, tomorrow--er, "today," at 1am--into Exodus I go.)

I certainly agree you should not determine beforehand to be, or not to be, impressed with it.

How many pastors have to make these vile kinds of statements before a trend is recognized? How many people do they have to kill or conquer? When will Christians *ever* take responsibility for their actions?

"It was Simon Peter, Putin, not Simon the Zealot. FWIW."

Fantastic, Peter, the original fedayeen.

I disagree, obiwan. If I go into Hamlet and I don't get it, then I ask myself, "hey, this is Hamlet! Everyone with any sense in their heads thinks it's the best thing ever! What is wrong with me?" Not, "what is wrong with this text?"

I really think you are approaching this with the wrong attitude. You want the Bible to prove itself to you. I sense you are reading it because you want to check that box off, so you can say you did it, and then afterwards you can say that it failed. It's going to remain unapproachable to you because you don't really want to hear what it has to say.

And Tolstoy only hated Shakespeare because Shakespeare was better than him, and didn't fit his holy worldview. Shakespeare exalted the human, and there was no real requirement for God in his works. For Tolstoy, this was unbearable. When it came to Shakespeare, Tolstoy was a crank.

Obiwan is right about how to approach the text. No prior respect is due to any text. If everyone else thinks it's the best thing ever, it will naturally make him curious and probably make him try reading it several times, but that's all. On the other hand, not getting it and then asking irrelevant questions like those above will just make you look childish, Obiwan.

In answer to your question, surely you can understand that for most people, until our recent individualistic age, one's forebears were of utmost importance. One's genealogy was a defining part of who you are. Many tribes and peoples could list their ancestors back for many generations. This is still an important and interesting endeavor. I've researched my own family history for the past 200 years, as best I've been able, and it gives me a satisfying sense of who I am, and an appreciation for those who came to the US and who worked to put me where I am today. And it's simply fascinating.

Why should such a thing be in a "holy book"? Is it just a relic of tribalism? Perhaps it is there to remind us that no man is an island, that we all come from somewhere, and to not be too impressed with ourselves. I didn't get here on my own, sui generis. My ancestors shaped the world I inherit. Also, the Old Testament, and especially Genesis, has a huge focus on the maintenance of tradition and of the covenant. Those things are/were passed down in families. How else could they be? Genesis is obsessed with the importance of the transmission of the covenant and of the tradition of the Fathers. Whether you want to define that as a religious tradition, or as some other tradition, this is an important principle. Maintaining a culture, a civilization, requires the continual renewal of that culture or civilization in each new generation.

Plus 1 Player.

I honestly don't understand how anyone can get bored reading Genesis, although yes, the genealogies of people we don't know can get tedious. But this book has the creation story, the temptation and fall, the promise of a future savior (Adam and Eve's seed), the flood and Noah's ark, and so much more.

In fact, I'm inspired to post two Bible readings today: the next chapter of Luke as well as the first chapter of Genesis, right here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=1&t=NLT#1
My favorite verse is 27: So God created human beings [fn3] in his own image.
In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Semck, thanks and plus 1 for naming the logical fallacy.

Today's Bible reading is Luke Chapter 10, which ends with an emphasis on spiritual things rather than the mundane chores of daily life.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=10&v=1&t=NLT#1
38 As Jesus and the disciples continued on their way to Jerusalem, they came to a certain village where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. 39 Her sister, Mary, sat at the Lord’s feet, listening to what he taught. 40 But Martha was distracted by the big dinner she was preparing. She came to Jesus and said, “Lord, doesn’t it seem unfair to you that my sister just sits here while I do all the work? Tell her to come and help me.”
41 But the Lord said to her, “My dear Martha, you are worried and upset over all these details! 42 There is only one thing worth being concerned about. Mary has discovered it, and it will not be taken away from her.”

Nope, you can never get bored reading Genesis here: http://www.bricktestament.com/genesis/index.html

"So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

The above is perhaps my largest impediment to understanding the fate of our species from a Biblical standpoint. If man is made in God's image, from whence comes the inborn flaw that leads to the fall? One could argue that it arises from an expression of free will brought about partially through deception, but as a creation of God (canonically speaking), man cannot have free will without it having been given to him upon being created (since nothing happens without God having knowledge of it), and man cannot facilitate the fall without the means and capacity to do so, both of which are provided to him either directly (the capacity, provided genetically) or indirectly (the means, through the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). Mujus, you've said before (I think) that God gave us something expecting nothing in return. If that is the case, why is man faulted for exercising his free will in a fashion that happens to run contrary to God's will, and furthermore, how can Eve in particular be faulted for her submissive and impressionable nature, since it was given to her? If man were truly made in God's image, the capacity to sin would not be present, since God is incapable, canonically, of wrongdoing, and if it is meant to be present as a prerequisite to using free will, then man cannot and should not justifiably suffer if he does sin and if God wants nothing from him (the same could be said regarding Satan).

Mario, that's such a fundamental point, and one that causes a lot of people to stumble over it. My belief is that God valued free will so much that he built in the possibility of a bad choice, even knowing in advance which way Adam and Eve would go, and even knowing what it would cost in terms of the cross and ages of human suffering. That's awful hard to wrap my brain around, but there it is. It's even harder when we realize that Lucifer, Satan, was created by God too, and chose to rebel based on pride.

The benefit of all of this is free will, unconditional (and undeserved) love, and a close and sincere relationship with the most awesome person in eternity.

So I guess he knows what he's doing. But it's hard for my 2 and a half pounds of brain matter to fathom, that's for sure.

@ Sylvanus

I think one of us misunderstood the entire premise of the argument. Sure Christians have interpreted Scrpiture in a militaristic fashion, and I have the same argument against their interpretation that I have against Putin's. The commands are simply not there. I've never said that Christians haven't been militaristic at times, that's a whole different argument and more a matter of history than Scripture. I've said Jesus wasn't trying to establish "a programme for World domination" as Putin put it earlier.

@Putin
I’m not reading the Bible at all? I think rather I’m reading more of it than you would wish. I did read the verse you cited and the very next verse after it. You imagine Jesus as you said preparing “To battle to authorities, for they had planned an insurrection around Passover when Galileans flocked to Jerusalem, from which the temple incident was one part (and this incident you say he doesn't hurt anybody, yet he ran in with a whip, and is widely depicted in paintings with a clenched fist.”
Yet the very next verse says:
“The disciples said, ‘See, Lord, here are two swords.’
‘That’s enough!’ he replied.” (Luke 22:37-38)
That was some insurrection there. Yeah he ran some people out of the Temple and may have had a whip although it doesn’t say he actually hit anyone with it. So this “violent” guy is preparing an insurrection with two swords, a whip, and a clenched fist? That just doesn’t sound plausible at all. I mean it could be a miracle, but it would have succeeded then. He didn’t even punish Simon for lopping off an ear as you said, “But Jesus answered, ‘No more of this!’ And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.” (Luke22:51) Then tells Simon not to “live by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

So Jesus isn't really violent with anyone. He rebukes his servant for being violent & heals the damage done to the man attacked. When he does lose it all he does is run some people out of a courtyard, with no real evidence that he hurt any of them. When he says "go get a sword", his disciples say "Hey, we've got two here!" We can guess as you said which two had them, and he says "Okay, yeah, that's enough".

From all of this we get a violent man trying to take over the world?

It's just not plausible at all.

Can someone address why Jesus's closest allies were Sicarii terrorists and why he told them to sell their belongings to buy swords? Or are just going to get the refrain of 'turn the other cheek'?

Also, just to point out, in the gospel of Mark Jesus doesn't rebuke Simon Peter at all.

"Also, just to point out, in the gospel of Mark Jesus doesn't rebuke Simon Peter at all."

I'm curious what the point of this line of argument is, Putin. Is it that He really didn't rebuke Peter, and that's because He wanted a militaristic movement? If so, then why did the disciples edit the other gospel to make it non-militaristic? Wouldn't that be counter-productive in trying to recruit a militaristic movement? Is the suggestion that the apostles were morons who were trying to be militaristic but were bad at planning? Or is it that they were morons who were trying NOT to be militaristic but were bad at planning? What exactly is your hypothesis about what the actual plan was and how it was implemented, so that we can compare it with history and analyze it? You can't respond to vague insinuation, because there's no content there.

Putin you're beginning to sound like Sean Hannity in his tirades against Obama. So , the problem you see here is that two disciples were militaristic. One is so well thought of in Christian circles that Dante' depicts Satan chewing on his head at the bottom level of the Inferno. The other was rebuked in most of the accounts. It is hard to find the argument that "in the gospel of Mark Jesus doesn't rebuke Simon Peter at all." compelling because it is present in Matthew and Luke. As semck says though it is hard to respond to vague insinuations. He was hanging out with the wrong crowd is kind of weak one, since it was exactly the kind of thing that the Pharisees and Saducees criticized him for. Yes, he did hang out with the wrong crowd, that was the whole idea. That does not make him violent any more than going to a Earth, Wind, and Fire concert makes me black. It's insinuating guilt by association. I think this is your cue to say something like "So what? People do it to me all the time in this forum"?

I do like Earth. Wind, and Fire. I'm not black. And I don't think you can actually be "guilty" of being black, if anybody was going to go there. lol.

So his devoted followers who he entrusted with spreading his supposed message of peace were violent criminals, but that doesn't mean anything, and all you have to say for it is to glibly dismiss it as Sean Hannity-esq guilt-by-association? Jesus personally recruited these people to implement his agenda. Why would he trust violent criminals with spreading his alleged message of pacifism and love? And you say my narrative doesn't make sense?

You claim there was no plot for the Christians to take over the world, yet the people closest to Jesus were extraordinarily violent according to historical sources, causing trouble in every city they went and challenging the governors for power. You dismiss every violent passage out of hand, and midrash it into something else that fits your peace narrative and completely ignore the historical record.

"So , the problem you see here is that two disciples were militaristic."

Are you now going to claim that Peter is not well thought of? He is perhaps the most revered apostle of them all, and he's the guy who cut off the priest's servant's ear. His 'peaceful' apostles openly asked Jesus if they should ask for fire from heaven to annihilate anybody who got in their way.