Evidently, you didn't read my remarks, only Eckleburg's
So, to clear up any confusion, here are all of Judith Anne's comments specific to St Paul and his epistles, as they've appeared on this thread:
Post #435:
I also find it difficult to believe that any presbyterians read the gospels. They sure do concentrate on those freaky Pauline epistles. St. Paul got a few things right, but he was likely just as loony as his protegee, Calvin.Post #441:
Before I became Catholic or even Christian, I spent a lot of time reading the Old and New Testament scriptures in various translations. Frankly, St. Paul was just plain loony in a lot of what he says, legalistic and nit-picky at times, and at other times a wild-eyed foaming visionary. The epistles made me wonder at times if he had a blood sugar problem, you know, extreme highs and lows. Now, 1 Corinthians 13 was absolutely true and beautiful, and if that were all we had of St. Paul, it had been an elegant sufficiency.Post #446:
Anyway, why would my criticism of the Pauline epistles interest you enough to comment?Post #483:
I almost cannot believe the indignation here about my comments on Paul. I have noticed whenever a Catholic will quote the Gospel of Jesus Christ, say, John 6 or something, some nutburger or Professionally Perfect Persecuting Presbyterian will counter Christ’s plain, beautiful words with some confused tortured verse out of the Pauline epistles. Well, as Paul said in one of his saner moments, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto Him, against that day.”Face it, Paul was a goofball. He’s the clearest proof anyone should need that God Almighty and His Risen Son can take any pieces of human garbage — murderers, Pharisees, etc. and make them eat their words and praise His Most Holy Name. He does not and did not make Paul perfect, however. Which is clear from Paul’s epistles, which the Presbyterians (and other anti-Catholic bigots) worship.
Post #484:
So, of course, the next post will be that if there was hope for Paul, there is hope for Judith Anne!Post #504:
In particular, I personally do not worship Paul, nor do I hang on his every word in the NT. I tend to think he was insane. However, God can do anything, use anybody.Post #510:
Yes, some of his stuff really was a problem for me. And at one point I totally rejected Christianity because I thought all Christians thought Paul was the perfect apostle.Worshipping the Pauline epistles is just daffy.
Post #515:
To me, Paul’s writing is so confused that I cannot really tell where he may or may not conflict with Church teaching. The first quote from your post above is a perfect example.Post #540:
Paul never has and never will impress me. I didn’t just skim the Bible and then ignore Paul, I read the whole thing cover to cover multiple times, and not in a rush, either.It seems that it’s sacrilege to dislike Paul, or to refuse to take him seriously. Feh, say I.
Post #548:
Does anyone here think it’s possible to bully me into like St. Paul? Or to scare me into it? I don’t like the man revealed by his writing. I do not think he was very tightly wrapped; I think he may have been insane. His level of sophistication does not impress me........I despise St. Paul. Presbyterians worship him. I prefer, above all books, the Gospels but I am not ignorant of the other books. I’m not that wild about Jeremiah either, frankly.
Post #575:
When I read the Bible, I read it as though God is talking to me, personally. The posters here seem to think that just because some words are in red ink, they are NO MORE IMPORTANT OR SIGNIFICANT than any other words in the Bible.......I am not playing any game. And I’m not going to make it pleasant or easy for anyone who wants to attack me for liking some books of the Bible more than others and NOT liking some saints, or to bully me into liking a flaming loony like St. Paul was.
I do not like St. Paul. I have never liked St. Paul. I doubt I will ever like him. God can do anything, however, and I submit myself to Him. Not to YOU.
Red ink doesn’t make “it” superior. Christ’s words when He was one of us, the Living Son of God on Earth, are superior to anything else in the Good Book. In. My. Opinion.
Post #578:
I will not insinuate that I don't like St. Paul, I will state it right out. God knows what I think. No point lying or insinuating anything.Post #580:
I don’t dismiss St. Paul. I just don’t like him. Or much of what he wrote.Post #594:
So, giving my opinion about the Pauline epistles is the same as saying God made a mistake with Paul?Let me be very very clear: GOD. DOES. NOT. MAKE. MISTAKES. I. DO. NOT. CARE. FOR. THE. PAULINE. EPISTLES. Again: God does not make mistakes. I do not care for the Pauline Epistles. I think St. Paul was not wrapped too tight. Was a few cards short of a deck. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Etc.
Stating that my dislike of Paul is the same as disrespecting God or telling God He made a mistake -- that is completely untrue. That was quite a stretch, by the way, to come up with a falsehood like that one.
Post #645:
If I do not like St. Paul, ******** cannot change my feelings or my opinion. No edict from anyone can force me to like St. Paul.Post #646 :
Please point to the verse where I stated that I dismissed 1/3 of the NT, or dismissed the Pauline Epistles.Post #650 :
I. DO. NOT. LIKE. ST. PAUL.
I. DO. NOT. LIKE. ST. PAUL.
I. DO. NOT. LIKE. ST. PAUL.
I. DO. NOT. LIKE. ST. PAUL.Post #782 :
First of all, I was responding to another poster's comment that St. Paul was very highly educated, and thus very knowledgeable. I said in response that St. Paul's level of sophistication did not impress me. So, it's possible that you have misread that comment from the beginning.Post #789:
If bigotry is the consequence of taking St. Paul literally, then I have to reassert the comment.Post #821:
Well, I am not a man. And I am not without spirit. And I accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. Some of them I do not like.
Evidently, you didn't read my remarks, only Eckleburg's
Of course I read your remarks, you authored the thread. I later read Alex's excellent post detailing about 20 of your comments on this thread confirming your accusations of Paul. I was trying to show you that you are treating an Apostle worse than you say non-Catholics treat accused priests. Your own Church says that Paul's words are "authored by God" yet you say they are "loony". Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but in this case that does not leave you any room to complain when others might have an opinion about accused priest number 5,000 (or whatever) in the U.S. alone. In a scandal this horrific, far reaching and long standing of course the benefit of the doubt will be lower in the public's eye.
Think about it. When you hear about another politician being accused of being in a sex scandal is your first inclination to defend the person until proved guilty, or is it to think "oh no, not another one"? The axiom "innocent until proved guilty" is right and proper in a court room, but it does not necessarily apply in the court of public opinion. The Catholic Church needs to PROVE it has changed before it can earn back the trust it has lost. Only then can it be reasonably asked that these priests be given any benefit of the doubt. So far, frankly I have seen very little evidence of meaningful change given even recent world headlines.