Seriously, what is YOUR evidence other than a book put together by the Catholic church (there's a trustworthy organization), half of whose pages are of extremely uncertain origin, full of 2000 year old promises that have not been kept?
“Your evidence seems to be the writing of Paul.”
And the writing about him. Is there any other evidence than that?
“He wrote God spoke to him,”
Luke wrote that God spoke to Paul.
“so you decide that of course that must be true.”
Do you have even a scrap of evidence to the contrary?
“After all, he SAID so.”
Luke said so.
“Do you accept Mohammed’s similar claim based on similar evidence? No, of course not.”
Again, to correct you, I do indeed believe an other worldly voice spoke to Muhammad. I just don’t believe it was God. So, yes, I believe Muhammad was telling the truth when he said someone essentially channeled through him. I just don’t see it as being God and that isn’t what he claimed anyway. You probably know no more about Islam than you do Christianity.
“Do you think Bernadette Soubirous was visited by the Virgin Mary? Probably not.”
Actually, I do believe it. Again, I have no reason to not believe it.
“Do you believe all the saints of the Catholic faith who claim Jesus has spoken to them?”
How many is that even? Seriously, you’re making a lot of assumptions here - all apparently to avoid the complete lack of evidence for your beliefs.
“If you’re Catholic, you might, if not, probably not. Do you believe Joseph Smith Jr, founder of the Latter Day Saints?”
Believe what about him?
“Seriously, what is YOUR evidence other than a book put together by the Catholic church (there’s a trustworthy organization), half of whose pages are of extremely uncertain origin, full of 2000 year old promises that have not been kept?”
That’s your prejudice talking. That’s not a rational argument in the least.
Just admit it: you have no evidence for your prejudice against Paul.
(Ball’s in YOUR court; Vlad!)
I’m going to step back from any particular religious view and speak to your rejection of all.
I think you are limiting yourself to a common episthemological box - one where what we can know is limited to two spheres: sense experience and reason logic.
It’s the modern way after all. :)
Yet everyone, you included knows - or acts as if they know - things beyond the the ability of sense and reason/logic.
We can call what is known in this area religious, many do so. It transcends - but does not violate - sense and reason.
So, you too have religious views in this sense. I think it likely you haven’t examined them or where they might come from.