for me there isnt really anything like a freethinker. u either wanna follow one set of ideas or u wanna follow some parts of a vast set of ideas. science and reason cannot show me how to live life yah it can tell how life is. i really dun buy this freethinker thing. i just think its another word coined by humans who basically are trying to figure out what they are and they dont sit in one particular set of ideas. so now we have the cult of freethinkers. they are like bar hoppers to me. they dun wanna drink in one bar they wanna have drinks in all the bars. or maybe they are just confused atheists. comments will be appreciated.

Freethinkers. Ironically, you labeled yourself as one in your post about Hinduism when you said that the Vedas taught you to question everything. There is a reason that people 'barhop' from one set of ideas to another. In each set of ideas, they find something that they simply can not believe in, either because they do not want to believe it is true, or because somewhere deep down they KNOW it isn't true. There is nothing wrong at all with saying that no one has all the answers. There is nothing wrong at all with saying that not everything that the scientific, religious, historical, or philosophical schools of thought is true. A big part of the human experience is the quest for truth. It can not, and will not, ever be found in one place.

well the vedas thought me to question everything but i dont think that really makes me a free thinker. atleast i dun think so. freethinker from what i have experienced is someone who doesnt want to be labelled in any of the currently existing identities. honestly thats what it is. i for one am very comfortable being a hindu and indian and still accepting all the other ideas. while the people who label themselves as freethinkers almost have to give up all their current affiliations or identities to just be a freethinker. and if thats what a freethinker is than i woudnt qualify as one.

well the vedas thought me to question everything but i dont think that really makes me a free thinker. atleast i dun think so. freethinker from what i have experienced is someone who doesnt want to be labelled in any of the currently existing identities. honestly thats what it is. i for one am very comfortable being a hindu and indian and still accepting all the other ideas. while the people who label themselves as freethinkers almost have to give up all their current affiliations or identities to just be a freethinker. and if thats what a freethinker is than i woudnt qualify as one.-I'm a Caucasian South Eastern American of European decent that was raised as a Jehovah's Witness Christian. That is not who I am, that is my ethnicity, geographical origin, ancestry, and the religious affiliation that I was raised with. -I am still comfortable being a white southerner with German and English ancestors that is heavily influenced by Christianity. That does not mean that I am not free to consider religion/history/philosophy/science/humanity from every possible angle without reservation, taking what I find to be true and discarding the fluff and nonsense while still retaining who I am. And perhaps, just perhaps, the trait of not accepting a label will be what makes the previously indiscoverable things discoverable. An atheist will never discover god because they are not willing to look, and a Theist will never discover the absence of god because they are not willing to look. Besides, once you start labeling yourself you find yourself in the untenable position of having to argue for ideas that you might not necessarily agree with just because you are put on the defensive by someone who sees the label and assumes that you believe as the stereotypical member of that group. -When I first joined here, I said that I had been raised Christian, and believed that a vast majority of the bible is true. I still do and I am not ashamed of it. But immediately there was a round of questioning that basically made me feel as if I were being forced to defend even the aspects of Christianity that I might not agree with simply by virtue of the fact that I was raised Christian and was I investigating how much of the bible was true, and how much was not, trying to find what was and was not historically accurate and all that. -This is in no way meant as offensive to anyone here, so please don't take it that way. I enjoyed the Q&A and learned a lot from it.


> When I first joined here, I said that I had been raised Christian, and believed that a vast majority of the bible is true. I still do and I am not ashamed of it.-I'd like to compare notes about belief in the Bible. As a Jew I know only the OT well, having read Mark in the NT. I know that Israeli archeologists have worked to prove the historical facts in the Torah, and have found the City of David outside the walls of the Old City of Jeruselem. I've walked that dig. i understand that the walls of Jericho have been unearthed in recent years. So much of the history is true. But things like Jonah in the whale, or Job; just stories that make a point. For the NT I'd like to hear what you accept as true, if you do accept portions of it as true history.

I'd like to compare notes about belief in the Bible. As a Jew I know only the OT well, having read Mark in the NT. I know that Israeli archeologists have worked to prove the historical facts in the Torah, and have found the City of David outside the walls of the Old City of Jeruselem. I've walked that dig. i understand that the walls of Jericho have been unearthed in recent years. So much of the history is true. But things like Jonah in the whale, or Job; just stories that make a point. For the NT I'd like to hear what you accept as true, if you do accept portions of it as true history.-I actually think that much of the NT could be read as literal truth. It is fairly cut and dry as to when it is speaking in terms of a parable and when it is speaking historically. Bear in mind that I am not getting into whether or not Jesus was divine, or whether Mary's conception was immaculate. But we know for certain that the people and places described there are real. There was a document discussed in detail in "The Bible Code" that correlates to much of the NT, including, names, places, details of events, etc. And while their are certain variations, I do not doubt that much could be accounted for as a difference of perspective, as when 3 people view the same car accident and each gives a different accounting. -That a man named Jesus live, I do not doubt. That he was a good, wise, and righteous person is not really in doubt for me. Did he bring people back from the dead, cure the sick, etc. I don't know. I personally have a couple of contrasting views on that topic. First, I do believe it is possible for one person to cure another person, at least to some extent. There are too many unrelated reports, from different areas and cultures, amounting to the same thing for me to dismiss it out of hand. -There are also other things talked about there that strike a chord deep in me. The concept of "If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains", for one, and the incident where both Jesus and Peter walked on water. (I find it interesting that many people forget that Peter did that as well.) Both of these events parallel several more esoteric teachings regarding the power of belief, or more accurately the power of 'Knowing', which basically amount to "The only limitations of human accomplishment are limitations that we place on ourselves by virtue of doubting our own innate abilities."-There are also other parallels to older, more esoteric teachings, and even some hints that Jesus was teaching his followers deeper 'mysteries' than what he was teaching the layman. The rising of Lazarus and Jesus after three days in the ground(three days dead) are both seeped in esoteric philosophy, and have little if anything to do with coming back from physical death instead referring to a spiritual enlightenment. -Another key thing that is often overlooked is in Timothy(or maybe it was 2 Timothy) it says "All scriptures are inspired of God and beneficial.." And the important not here is that it does not say the Bible, the OT, the NT, the Koran, the Cabala, the Vedas, or any other specific text, but that they are ALL inspired of God and beneficial. -I do know that the Catholic church has tried to cover up things that would be detrimental to them, such as the Gnostic Gospels and the Apocrypha which all more-or-less state that a Church is unnecessary. -If you want to get into specific details though, please be a tad more specific in your question. But I would ask that you please focus the questions on the Bible text and not a specific religion. I don't really care about nor pander to the various religious groups, and am in fact quite thoroughly disgusted with them.

"And perhaps, just perhaps, the trait of not accepting a label will be what makes the previously indiscoverable things discoverable."-I dont think that if you accept a label you are in anyway stopping yourself from discovering any aspects of life.atleast it hasnt stopped me.-"Besides, once you start labeling yourself you find yourself in the untenable position of having to argue for ideas that you might not necessarily agree with just because you are put on the defensive by someone who sees the label and assumes that you believe as the stereotypical member of that group."-"When I first joined here, I said that I had been raised Christian, and believed that a vast majority of the bible is true. I still do and I am not ashamed of it. But immediately there was a round of questioning that basically made me feel as if I were being forced to defend even the aspects of Christianity that I might not agree with simply by virtue of the fact that I was raised Christian and was I investigating how much of the bible was true, and how much was not, trying to find what was and was not historically accurate and all that.-This is in no way meant as offensive to anyone here, so please don't take it that way. I enjoyed the Q&A and learned a lot from it."-Now if you are calling yourself a freethinker isn't that labeling yourself too. my point is that when someone who calls himself a freethinker on the basis that he doesn't want to label himself is totally inaccurate because his basic quest does come from the human need for an identity. so for me freethinkers are also a group of people who are looking for an identity. -For me belonging to certain group or ethnicity certainly does not mean you have to defend or believe every little word or thing that the group believes in. I mean if you read some of my posts I was discussing my own struggle in terms to understanding re incarnation and all the aspects of my own cultural identity. but i dont have any problems with the hindu label. -you can always question everything in life and still remain in the same set up. what i find interesting is that if, and i am actually asking people here because i got confused on the so called freethinkers forums. if the freethinker assumption is based on that, if you question a set of ideas when you are a part of it, it is not possible as it restricts you and hence to be a freethinker you have to renounce all current identities.????-this is what i wanna know. i want to improve my views on that because i got really confused in all freethinker forums. all of them were of the view to accept others thoughts you have renounce your current labels which i tend to disagree.

Tony (B_M) has found some of his views under attack, and was "forced to defend even the aspects of Christianity that I might not agree with".-I think most of us do this at times, and it can be very instructive because we're forced to look at everything from different sides. Although I'm unable to believe in a Universal Intelligence that either sprang from nothing or has been around for ever, I also find myself emphasizing the astonishing complexity of life when an atheist tries to convince me it's all happened by chance. This means that simultaneously there can't be a designer, but there has to be a designer ... which makes David very concerned at the state of my fence-sitting rump! One of the negative sides of my agnosticism is that I tend to pick holes but am unable to fill the gaps myself. This, I know, has caused offence, and we've lost some valuable contributors because of it. You have said that your own arguments are not meant to be offensive, and I can assure you they aren't. I don't want to seem offensive either, but the purpose of the forum is to discuss viewpoints, and that inevitably means disagreements. -As far as free thinking is concerned, the concept is very similar to that of free will. None of us can escape certain influences that are beyond our control ... even if it's only the culture we were born into. A dictionary definition of a free thinker is: "Somebody who refuses to accept established views or teachings, especially on religion, and forms opinions as a result of independent inquiry" (Encarta). The logical objection to this is that all sorts of people will claim to have formed their opinions as a result of independent inquiry, but once the opinion is formed, how free is their thinking? One might also ask, in view of all the unconscious influences, just how independent any inquiries can be. I don't think we should worry too much about terms like "free thinking". All we can do is keep looking for answers, be open to new information from whatever source, and if we have formed an opinion, be prepared to change it if it no longer holds up to scrutiny.

I agree with you totally. In fact the thing that has bothered me so much is when people especially the religious variety feel that religion should not be challenged. That is something that I am against. I say question everything.

I agree with you totally. In fact the thing that has bothered me so much is when people especially the religious variety feel that religion should not be challenged. That is something that I am against. I say question everything.-Right on!!


> I actually think that much of the NT could be read as literal truth. It is fairly cut and dry as to when it is speaking in terms of a parable and when it is speaking historically. Bear in mind that I am not getting into whether or not Jesus was divine, or whether Mary's conception was immaculate. -> That a man named Jesus live, I do not doubt. That he was a good, wise, and righteous person is not really in doubt for me. Did he bring people back from the dead, cure the sick, etc. I don't know. I personally have a couple of contrasting views on that topic. First, I do believe it is possible for one person to cure another person, at least to some extent. There are too many unrelated reports, from different areas and cultures, amounting to the same thing for me to dismiss it out of hand. 
> 
> There are also other parallels to older, more esoteric teachings, and even some hints that Jesus was teaching his followers deeper 'mysteries' than what he was teaching the layman. The rising of Lazarus and Jesus after three days in the ground(three days dead) are both seeped in esoteric philosophy, and have little if anything to do with coming back from physical death instead referring to a spiritual enlightenment. 
> 
> Another key thing that is often overlooked is in Timothy(or maybe it was 2 Timothy) it says "All scriptures are inspired of God and beneficial.." And the important not here is that it does not say the Bible, the OT, the NT, the Koran, the Cabala, the Vedas, or any other specific text, but that they are ALL inspired of God and beneficial. -Thank you for these explanations. You obviously develop a large amount of philosophy of life from the NT, and certainly there is much historical fact.
> 
> If you want to get into specific details though, please be a tad more specific in your question. But I would ask that you please focus the questions on the Bible text and not a specific religion. I don't really care about nor pander to the various religious groups, and am in fact quite thoroughly disgusted with them.-Your last paragraph indicates some degree of irritation in my questioning. I meant in no way to be annoying. My background in the NT is essentially gospel related, and I am appreciative of your explanations of the value you receive from all of the NT. I constantly struggle with the prejudical reasoning I have: the Gospels were written from heresay 60-80 years after the fact. The one contemporaneous comment about a living Jesus in Josephus' writings appears to be a forgery. Like you I have always felt that a Jesus-like person lived and taught. But immaculate conception with a virgin sounds like a miraculous fairy tale invented to convert non-believers to a religion of Jesus, because his teachings alone weren't converting the non-believers. But his teachings are marvelous, and I try to live as he suggested in his life. Thank you for showing me a glimpse of the values in the NT, beyond the Gospels, from which my prejudice has blocked me.

If you want to get into specific details though, please be a tad more specific in your question. But I would ask that you please focus the questions on the Bible text and not a specific religion. I don't really care about nor pander to the various religious groups, and am in fact quite thoroughly disgusted with them.
> 
> Your last paragraph indicates some degree of irritation in my questioning. I meant in no way to be annoying. My background in the NT is essentially gospel related, and I am appreciative of your explanations of the value you receive from all of the NT. I constantly struggle with the prejudical reasoning I have: the Gospels were written from heresay 60-80 years after the fact. The one contemporaneous comment about a living Jesus in Josephus' writings appears to be a forgery. Like you I have always felt that a Jesus-like person lived and taught. But immaculate conception with a virgin sounds like a miraculous fairy tale invented to convert non-believers to a religion of Jesus, because his teachings alone weren't converting the non-believers. But his teachings are marvelous, and I try to live as he suggested in his life. Thank you for showing me a glimpse of the values in the NT, beyond the Gospels, from which my prejudice has blocked me.-
I am not annoyed with your questioning. I just don't want to get involved in trying to defend ideals like the Trinity, immaculate conception, and prophecies and such again. They are too subjective and some of them I disagree with and don't want to feel the need to argue for them regardless of my personal views. There is also the fact that there are simply too many 'branch' religions for any one person to be able to even remotely keep up with all the disparate and often minute differences between them that are often not based on the actual text of the bible, but on some other political, moral, or philosophical grounds. My interest is in the Bible, and other religious texts, not in the various bickering groups that sprang up from them.

In 19th century England "freethinker" meant one prepared to go against the dominant religious orthodoxy.-"The Freethinker" magazine has been "the voice of atheism since 1881"-http://freethinker.co.uk/-
There's lots of good arguments to show that Jesus never existed:-http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/-and very little evidence that he did.-Of course a lot of the NT consists of nice stories and parables, 
just as do the tales of King Arthur or Robin Hood or William Tell.

--
GPJ

In 19th century England "freethinker" meant one prepared to go against the dominant religious orthodoxy.
> 
> "The Freethinker" magazine has been "the voice of atheism since 1881"
> 
> http://freethinker.co.uk/
> 
> 
> There's lots of good arguments to show that Jesus never existed:
> 
> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
> 
> and very little evidence that he did.
> 
> Of course a lot of the NT consists of nice stories and parables, 
> just as do the tales of King Arthur or Robin Hood or William Tell.-Thank you, George, for this post. I found it very educational and I appreciate it.

You mean no evidence like:-Tacitus (56-117AD) a senator and Roman historian wrote in his Annals rather deogatively about the Christians and specifically about Jesus as the Christ ('Christus'):
>"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."-or-Josephus (37-100AD) was a Jewish historian (not a Roman), but, like Paul, had Roman Citizenship. There has been some controversy regarding Josephus' inclusion of this passage, mostly by sceptics and atheists wanting to 'disprove' the existence of Christ, as some sceptics claimed it was 'added' later. However, these claims have been categorically discredited by Roman scholars, as so many ancient copies of Josephus' works exist and textual criticism and the style of Latin used corrroborates Josephus' writing of this passage. In his Antiquities he wrote:
>"About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."-or-Suetonius (69-140AD) wrote of riots that broke out as a result of Romans attacking Christians, who were then expelled from Rome by the Emperor Claudius:
>"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome".-or-Thallus wrote a history of the Trojan War and wrote of the earthquake that hit the area of Judaea as Jesus died - exactly as recorded in the gospels at the same time:
>"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down."-or-Celsus (Greek: Κέλσος) was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity. He is known for his literary work, The True Word (Account, Doctrine or Discourse) (Λόγος Ἀληθής), preserved by Origen. This work is the earliest known comprehensive attack on Christianity.
Celsus explained that Jesus came from a Jewish village in the Holy Land. Jesus' mother was a poor Jewish girl. This girl's husband, who was a carpenter by trade, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera (i.32)]. She gave birth to the bastard Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return made himself out to be a god. Celsus confirmed the Historicity of Jesus but not the Virgin birth. Celsus also confirmed what the Talmud said about Jesus.[1]-There are many such references, including a recently discovered one that concerns James, the disciple, and is being translated by Robert Eisenman. By his books if you want a good, detailed criticism of historical Christ. All of this has no bearing on questions of his divinity or any other such, but there is quite a bit of evidence that the man actually existed.

As a caveat to this, it would be exceedingly strange for a person who only spent 3 years in the public eye to produce a wealth of documentation supporting his existence. The fact that he is mentioned at all in supporting documentation is a bit astonishing in and of itself, particularly when you consider that the vast majority of the population at the time could not read or write, nor was there any reliable and fast method of transmitting information across vast distances.


> Celsus (Greek: Κέλσος) was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity. He is known for his literary work, The True Word (Account, Doctrine or Discourse) (Λόγος Ἀληθής), preserved by Origen. This work is the earliest known comprehensive attack on Christianity.
> Celsus explained that Jesus came from a Jewish village in the Holy Land. Jesus' mother was a poor Jewish girl. This girl's husband, who was a carpenter by trade, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera (i.32)]. She gave birth to the bastard Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return made himself out to be a god. Celsus confirmed the Historicity of Jesus but not the Virgin birth. Celsus also confirmed what the Talmud said about Jesus.[1]
> 
What did the Talmud say about Jesus?

lol I didn't follow the link to read the reference, my apologies. I will see if I can find my way back to the site and follow up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

The reference cited states: "The Talmud contains stories that some scholars have concluded are references to Jesus, regarded as the messiah of Christianity." -In other words there are no actual references to Jesus in the Talmud.-There is a page on the jesusneverexisted site that covers the Josephus and Tacitus quotes in considerable detail:-http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html-I find the arguments convincing.-[Edit: I took out a line where I was confusing Talmud and Torah!]

--
GPJ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud-Interesting, but I am not impressed. Lots of conjecture. Christians have always tried to impose their theology into the older OT and of course would try it in the Talmud commentaries. Lots of talk, no proof.

The reference cited states: "The Talmud contains stories that some scholars have concluded are references to Jesus, regarded as the messiah of Christianity." 
> 
> In other words there are no actual references to Jesus in the Talmud.-Thank you, George. Exactly my reasoning. The Christian faith is based on written documentation (Gospels) from 60-80 years after the crucifiction. Did Jesus (Josuah ben Joseph) really exist as a single person? I kind of think so, but on closer inspection, can't be sure. Because the documentation has to be taken on faith, Christians scramble for any shred of evidence they can imagine is present in Jewish teachings. I have a Catholic priest as a cousin. I enjoy his services, and he enjoys his religion, and I enjoy him. Do I debate with him his basic beliefs? Of course not. Each person of faith should be allowed to believe as they wish without attack. I have a strange faith in my beliefs, which I have developed for myself. I cannot be changed.

Thank you, George. Exactly my reasoning. The Christian faith is based on written documentation (Gospels) from 60-80 years after the crucifiction. Did Jesus (Josuah ben Joseph) really exist as a single person? I kind of think so, but on closer inspection, can't be sure. Because the documentation has to be taken on faith, Christians scramble for any shred of evidence they can imagine is present in Jewish teachings. I have a Catholic priest as a cousin. I enjoy his services, and he enjoys his religion, and I enjoy him. Do I debate with him his basic beliefs? Of course not. Each person of faith should be allowed to believe as they wish without attack. I have a strange faith in my beliefs, which I have developed for myself. I cannot be changed.-If this is the standard of proof then we must throw out a whole lot of what we know about history. Anyone that we do not have bones for must not have existed, regardless of how many references in what would be considered a generally contemporary period archaeologically. Including anyone referenced in the Talmud, Torah, Upanishads, Vedas, or any other ancient text. By those standards, very little of what we know of history can be real.

I would recommend that you read the New Testament Code series of books by Robert Eisenman. He is perhaps the leading expert on that time period, and is a staunch Jew, so there is no worries about him trying to fluff up the NT to be a holy book. Even he recognizes that Jesus was in fact a real historical figure, regardless of whether or not he admits to any belief in his divine nature. He also does a most excellent job at going over the NT with a fine tooth archaeological comb, filling in a lot of the surrounding political issues that were going on at the time and bring the actual history recorded in the NT to light, free of any mystical connection.


> If this is the standard of proof then we must throw out a whole lot of what we know about history. Anyone that we do not have bones for must not have existed, regardless of how many references in what would be considered a generally contemporary period archaeologically. Including anyone referenced in the Talmud, Torah, Upanishads, Vedas, or any other ancient text. By those standards, very little of what we know of history can be real.-I think you misread George and I. The 'references' you favor in the Torah and Talmud are inferences by folks who wish to prove Jesus. Inferences are not proof. Much of history is inferred, alot is real, some is not.

I would recommend that you read the New Testament Code series of books by Robert Eisenman. He is perhaps the leading expert on that time period, and is a staunch Jew, so there is no worries about him trying to fluff up the NT to be a holy book. Even he recognizes that Jesus was in fact a real historical figure, regardless of whether or not he admits to any belief in his divine nature. He also does a most excellent job at going over the NT with a fine tooth archaeological comb, filling in a lot of the surrounding political issues that were going on at the time and bring the actual history recorded in the NT to light, free of any mystical connection.-I'll have to look into that.

B_M: "I would recommend that you read the New Testament Code series of books by Robert Eisenman." ... "Even he recognizes that Jesus was in fact a real historical figure".-This does not appear to be the interpretation of Eisenman's book by several reviewers. His earlier book about "James the brother of Jesus" is cited on this page of the jesusneverexisted website:-http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html-"When we remove Christian interpolation from the "Jamesian" reference in Josephus, it becomes clear that James was the brother, not of a non-existent 'Jesus Christ', but of Jesus bar Damneus, high priest briefly in the year 63."

--
GPJ

B_M: "I would recommend that you read the New Testament Code series of books by Robert Eisenman." ... "Even he recognizes that Jesus was in fact a real historical figure".
> 
> This does not appear to be the interpretation of Eisenman's book by several reviewers. His earlier book about "James the brother of Jesus" is cited on this page of the jesusneverexisted website:
> 
> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html
> 
> "When we remove Christian interpolation from the "Jamesian" reference in Josephus, it becomes clear that James was the brother, not of a non-existent 'Jesus Christ', but of Jesus bar Damneus, high priest briefly in the year 63."-Tony: If you are agnostic, why is it so important to you that Jesus was real. What the NT teaches are marvelous rules to live by. To me that is the important part.

Partially because I am the type of guy that likes to root for the underdog, and right now he is under a lot of fire as a historical figure, much less anything more. And partially because I feel a need to be certain as to whether or not he was real, as it is a major turning point in human history, and deserves to be treated with respect rather than idealogical bigotry.


> > If this is the standard of proof then we must throw out a whole lot of what we know about history. Anyone that we do not have bones for must not have existed, regardless of how many references in what would be considered a generally contemporary period archaeologically. Including anyone referenced in the Talmud, Torah, Upanishads, Vedas, or any other ancient text. By those standards, very little of what we know of history can be real.
> 
> I think you misread George and I. The 'references' you favor in the Torah and Talmud are inferences by folks who wish to prove Jesus. Inferences are not proof. Much of history is inferred, alot is real, some is not.-And I get sent references from a website called "Jesus Never Existed"... The 'references' you favor are inferences by people who wish to disprove Jesus. Inferences are not proof. -
Just to make sure the standards of proof for either case are the same...

Partially because I am the type of guy that likes to root for the underdog, and right now he is under a lot of fire as a historical figure, much less anything more. And partially because I feel a need to be certain as to whether or not he was real, as it is a major turning point in human history, and deserves to be treated with respect rather than idealogical bigotry.-The teachings deserve the respect. The NT is powerful in that regard. Ideological bigotry has no place in the considerations. Thanks for your explanation of your position. It just didn't seem consistent.

History of the term 'freethinker' is in order. The term was coined during the enlightenment to separate thinkers who did not adhere to church dogma or religious imperialism. The term has been around for almost 500yrs, and is still used in its original context: free from religious. dogma--though not always immune to dogmatic thinking. Though adopted by modern atheism, you can be a religious freethinker if you don't blindly accept the dogma of your religion.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Traditionally we learn somethings, but as a conscious people we should try to find out true. Most of wise people agree that everything is controlled by supreme power. So we should believe on God.