Maddie

And that's what I was asking for your source for. Because your claim differs from the typical historical sources available.

Yes, and it doesn't make sense to me.

That seems to support a top-down approach.

What are your sources for these claims?

Is there such a thing as an understanding of a spiritual experience that is not subjective?

I have no idea honestly. Ask ten Taoists get thirteen answers.

What's wrong with calisthenics?

Then why did you make a claim about the religious state of the Roman empire?

What if I really throw a monkey wrench in the system and bring up the Mormon interpretation that Jesus went to North America? 🤭😂 *Isn't one unverifiable fact as good as another? 😉 - also if you disagree with me I'm going to assume it's because you're full of hate and anger because Dao Bums psychology. 😇

I don't particularly like the machines I was just trying to answer your question if they existed.

https://rejuvafresh.com/products/body-composition-analysis-machine?variant=44045213991130¤cy=USD&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAtOmsBhCnARIsAGPa5yYOedLLdo11JVoBuKeOeNeXgVjhTjTtx5C3ZAuqMGA11j-qSUXu8k4aApkWEALw_wcB

You're not wrong LOL 😂

Yes

The vast majority of Roman citizens did not become Christians until the empire made it the official religion and then they did so because they had no choice. That is an objective historical fact that can be supported with historical documents. This is what I mean by objective. Also continuing with the definition of objective, there is no objective evidence that the Christian God exists or is real. Therefore if someone says that they believe in this God my question is what reason can you give to demonstrate that what you believe is correct or true? If no objective reason can be presented in my question is, then why do you believe it? If someone gives a completely subjective answer for believing it then that is their choice but it is not an objective answer by definition.

Surely the only reason that somebody would want facts to support what someone says is because they obviously hate the imaginary entity that the person's referring to, and not because objective truth and verifying that with sources is important.

Right? It's going about how I envisioned it going LOL

Oh right you said Dao Bums psychology, so deflecting and attacking the person when you get frustrated with the point they are making. Gotcha ;-)

Yes lets get down to the root of the problem :-)

Well thank you. I like you as well :-)

because the topic was on the effect of Jesus' teaching

You don't seem to like me very much.

It sounds like you are projecting motive on to me.

If by healthy skepticism to a claim by looking at the evidence to those claims you mean "strong resistance" then sure, but then by that definition I have "strong resistance" to belief and Sant Clause, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy.

This is "whataboutism". The topic was about Jesus' teachings being world changing, not about Buddhism. I have not found Jesus' teachings to be world changing.

I don't think the fact that there have been Buddhists that have done bad things negates the efficacy of Jesus' teachings. I'm sure this can vary from place to place and person to person, but in my experience some of the worst and most uncompassionate people I have knows often tend to be the most enthusiastic for Jesus. I live in a very evangelical Christian area, and these people seem quite hate full, and on a mass scale. Jesus' teachings did nothing to end slavery, improve women's and human rights. All of these things were secular ideas. So my point is if his teachings were really so great, why have all the advances in human rights not come from Jesus' teachings?