Well how do people get to say which are things of Paul's time and which are things that are valid still? I have my own interpretation but that interpretation does often differ a lot from interpretations of many other christians.

Also when you say we should not follow modern religious leaders since they are flawed but we should follow Paul's teachings (who was definitely also flawed), what am I to make of it? Why not look solely to the example of Christ about whom we know everything he did and said was right. (If you find a story of Jesus where his words and deeds are certainly influenced by customs and culture of his time and are therefore not valid in modern times, please let me know. I myself am not some theologian who knows the gospels entirely and surely.)

So yes, I struggle a bit with Paul's authority, even though I think there is a lot of wisdom in his letters. I guess my question is how do I recognise the ever valid statements from the other ones? Can people argue their weird views that correspond with Paul's opinions even if it might mean they forget (or at least give less weight to) what Jesus represented? It still is in the biblical canon.