Ben, I was just reading some more responses in the Coocoo bird thread, and I came across your response to Mary Kay.
Something must be done! Something must be done to solve this problem of people continually thinking that God can break a promise yet be honest. That I agree with, but I'm not sure what just yet. If you ask me, that is a continuing source of lots of problems.
No, I agree that invading other people's religious space and forcing opinions on them or pushing them out of their space is disrespectful. What I think is that your arguments against Paul have both a strength and a flaw. The strength is "Evil has happened, so cut off its head and let the body die," but the weakness is you are relying upon an argument "after this, therefore because of this." Its usually quoted in Latin 'Ergo hoc propter hoc' (I think). In doing so you seem to be retooling or re-purposing Judaism or its approach to evil, not that I'm an expert but that's how it appears.
One of the great things your prophets have said is Isaiah 42:3, which I will quote though I have an imperfect knowledge of it. "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out." This is talking about the servant of the L_RD trying to preserve good things by through slow effort extracting bad things out, and I personally think this represents a huge chunk of thought that has influenced Jewish theology and its various approaches to issues down through the centuries. Probably not this particular verse but this idea of not breaking a bruised reed is the reason that Jewish people have not attacked Paul with any regularity over the last two millenniums. Your focus is on long suffering and preserving what good you find, therefore you have excepted that in Paul's case "after this, therefore because of this" is insufficient reason to totally destroy him. You say "After all, perhaps something good is coming from his ministry? What if by destroying Paul we would be destroying something good along with him?" So until now you have let him be, for the most part. So the strength of your argument is that, Yes, Paul may be causing a lot of problems even if it is because he is misunderstood; but the weakness is that you are upturning centuries of policy by pretty much all rabbinic Jews everywhere. What is going to happen next once you have obliterated Paul? Are you also going to do away with psychologists since they try to preserve worthless souls of men that have gone astray? What about other flawed religions that have some negative component?
I think that if you want to more actively oppose Paul, you are going to have to take a tip from Maccoby. If you remove Paul violently, can you patch the hole that it will leave?
You discount the timing of Ben's dialogue. With respect to Paul, there is a time for the tares to be pulled out by the roots, and that time is the "end of the age". (Mt 13:38-40) Now, no one knows the day or the hour of the end, but the signs seem somewhat evident. Paul has to be yanked out by the roots eventually, it is just a matter of timing.
The "harlot", the Roman church, also has to be devoured (Rev 17:16), which seems to be starting in the fact that Italy is now going to tax the church. The other 10 former Roman colonies will probably start to tax the church in short order.
As Yeshua said in Rev 18:4, the elect need to flee Babylon in short order, or "receive of her plagues". Paul is one of the pillars of the Roman church, who is a current stand in, and daughter, for Babylon the Great.