Hi Stuart, I’ve reduced your post to just your own words because I was getting confused about who said what! 
Those questions are more than reasonable, and having reread what we’ve said to each other (ignoring interactions with other people), I can see how you might ask them! In fact I owe you an apology - although that was genuinely how I felt after your last post, and my reason for stopping posting, particularly the bit about talking at cross-purposes, I now don’t think it was as bad as I felt it was. I have no idea why, hormones perhaps!
As to the first question, I think you misunderstand me - I didn’t say you didn’t answer me, but that you didn’t answer what I actually said i.e. my meaning (you read your own meaning into it, which was not necessarily what I had in mind). I think I have addressed those instances already - now I’ve read back over my posts I can see that there weren’t as many as I had thought! One I haven’t responded to: in your more recent post you said that it is not loving to put an ideology before the safety of another, which of course I agree with. The way you stated it suggests (to me at least) that you believed I would disagree, whereas in fact I do not. That gives me a sensation of talking at cross-purposes even when it’s perhaps not so. (I have an online friend who calls this “agreeing violently”! 
)
As to the second question, see above. 
I suspect that part of the communication issue may be different definitions of words - one of the flaws of internet communication! What you and I understand by “pacifism” may be two different things.
Which brings me to the third question - when you talk of Jesus using harshness and whips, I equate that to “forcing” my beliefs on other people. He effectively forced those traders out of the temple. (The Bible even says he “drove” them out). So, who mentioned forcing? Well, to my mind you did, in the OP. 
To recap my position in general: I consider using harshness (and whips) to be a form of forcing, or trying to force, my beliefs on someone else (illegally, in the case of whips!). That’s not something I feel entitled to do, even though I recognise that Jesus appears to have done so. That doesn’t mean I will stay silent where harm is being done, or that I will be accommodating. But I don’t think that arguing and harsh words will help either oppressor or victim much in cases of spiritual oppression (I also wonder to what extent Jesus’ actions in the temple were effective in the long term, other than in the eyes of those who already recognised his authority i.e. his disciples? Were the traders all back the next day? I bet most of them were). That’s my position, which you will probably disagree with.
In my experience, the primary thing that will change people’s minds or habits or beliefs is actually personal experience. Personal experience led to me wrestling with theodicy for a couple of years, and ending up here still wrestling! No amount of shouting at me and harsh words would have got me here. If anything, shouting and harsh words leaves me further entrenched in my beliefs. (And there’s plenty in the Bible to support this view too). Maybe rather than aiming to be more like Jesus, we should just aim to do what we see the Father doing (as he did), and, as Pilgrim suggested, let Him deal with making us more like his Son.
