You don't have to believe me. I never demanded that you do. But you are avoiding my question.
You have no proof that you're telling the truth either
Oh I have more proof than you do, because I deal only with what all can see and read.
By your own criteria, your ramblings are just as much vanity as anyone else's and thus deserve the credence that such nothingness warrants.
My criteria are things humans can see and detect. Everything else is speculation. There is no vanity in what I say. I don't offer fantastic tales and denigrate others for not believing them. On the other hand, you call real things "nothingness" and fantastic things real.
And all this because you refuse to answer a simple question about Paul.
On the contrary, nobody has refused to answer your questions about Paul. That you have rejected our answers does not mean we have avoided answering them.
You state your "criteria" for believing are things people can see and detect yet you leave out those things that people everywhere and at all times have accepted. We accept certain truths even when we can not see nor detect them (with our own senses). A good example is the presence of a "soul or spirit". It is something which no medical tests have ever or could ever "detect", yet no sane person would aver that this "something" isn't real.
I always marvel at people who claim they do not have faith because, in reality, we ALL exert it every day of our lives
No you don't because by restricting it like that you are eliminating a whole body of evidence. Not very objective of you to both do that and not apparently not see that you are not being objective.
I don't offer fantastic tales and denigrate others for not believing them.
No you don't because by restricting it like that you are eliminating a whole body of evidence. Not very objective of you to both do that and not apparently not see that you are not being objective.
I don't offer fantastic tales and denigrate others for not believing them.