Convert me to Christianity

My opponent states, "I think my opponent underestimates the power of faith, especially for a man like Paul. It is highly unlikely that he had suffered from guilt or the other reasons my opponent listed." It is almost certain that as a human being responsible for cruel persecution that he suffered at some point some measure of guilt. Only a tiny minority of human beings are able to commit such atrocities without some psychological damage. The point is that my opponent can not be certain that Paul's conversion was not caused by normal human psychology. " If I have a dream or some mirage of sorts that I should convert to Islam (considering I am a lifelong Christian, and my faith is stronger than most adult's) I know for sure I would never do it." My opponent can not be certain of that, indeed if my opponent endured a particularly vivid experience to that effect the rational response would be to at least consider it's truth. More importantly, my opponent can not speak for all Christians, or all religious people. People can and have converted due to such experiences, such experiences can be attributed to psychology, my opponent therefore can not cite the conversion of Paul, however out of character it must have been, to be absolute proof of the divine. " Seeing how strong Paul's faith was and how he persecuted these people shows us another picture. Paul witnessed thousands people dying, tortured and thrown in prison because of him. I doubt after seeing what he had seen that one dream had forced him to convert." His vision is described as a vivid image, an actual conversation with God, and blindness for three days following. Not a mere dream, this is consistent with a severe psychotic episode. It should also be noted that Paul, a religious man living before modern science with it's psychologists, neuro-scientists etc, would probably have taken the vision at face value. He had no reason not, whilst modern man would fear insanity, drugs or a brain tumour, Paul can be forgiven for not even thinking to question a vivid conversation with God, whilst fully awake. "Jesus being a great speaker doesn't really mean much. Was not King Herod charismatic? He certainly must have been to order the execution of every baby boy in the city of Bethlehem. Was not the Cesar charismatic? He must have been to maintain such a vast empire." I believe that my opponent has vindicated my point, the ability to inspire intense devotion, as Jesus did with the apostles, is not proof of divinity. Instead this is a ability demonstrated by Ghengis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Buddha, all non-Christian. My opponent states that, "If a man who did miracles like Jesus did and said things that Jesus did, there is no denying that the majority of the population would follow this man." However this is not what happened. He remained a minority cult figure. "There could be no revolution against the Jewish leaders because the Roman Empire was right behind them. Even though the believers were at the majority (especially after the resurrection), the top dogs still held the keys. Any uprising would get them killed by the Romans." However, had the Romans witness the miracles of Jesus, and they should have done being present at the time, they would have converted to Christianity. The Romans frequently adopted foreign Gods. The Romans indeed received religious revelation telling them to adopt the worship of Cybele, a cult that they found most odious. The sight of Jesus performing miracles would have caused them to convert, however strange their found Judaic monotheism to be. The fact they did not leads us to the conclusion that these miracles did not even occur. My opponent states "Again, Luke was a medical doctor from Rome. At this point in time, if you were Christian in Rome, you get killed. Luke was a brave man who sought the truth... How on earth would a pagan medical doctor from Rome convert to Christianity? The answer is very simple, he looked at the facts." That Luke converted at risk to his own life I won't dispute, however that simply suggests he was convinced of the truth of Christianity. Many people have converted to dangerous positions, be they atheism, Islam, communism, and some have lost their lives as a result. Why is Luke's conversion proof of Christian fact, but other similar acts are proof of nothing? With regards Constantine I do not believe that someone who claims direct support from a supreme monotheistic and jealous God, to engage in the political hedging of bets, by appeasing the trappings of other faiths. In addition my opponent asks, "Was not everything going fine under paganism?" No, by the time of Constantine the Empire was clearly in decline. Shortly before the ascent of Constantine the Empire had endured decades of internal civil war and invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org... As a parallel I draw my opponents attention to the life of Mohammad. His visions totally transformed his life, taking him from a failed merchant who tried to refuse the dictation of the Angel Gabriel, to a prophet of God, a warlord, and Empire builder. This is just as much of a transformation as that which befell Luke or Paul. Yet my opponent must surely deny it's divinity and must surely seek to explain it through either fraud or delusion. What separates Mohammad from the stories of the disciples? What of David Icke, a professional footballer, presenter, journalist, and even politician who after a few conversations with psychics and a visit to an ancient Peruvian graveyard transformed him a prophet of a new religion (or movement). It is clear that such bizarre transformation, having so many alternative explanations and not being exclusive to Christianity, can not be cited as evidence of the truth of Christianity. In conclusion I do believe that my opponent has satisfied the burden of proof, but I thank him for a good debate.