I agree!
and I can’t help but agree with you here even though I feel its a slightly different issue it certianly is related to my original point so at this point allow me to drive my point and your home . perhaps if we were ‘‘more like Jesus’’ our fellow christians would almost hate us yet unbelievers [the ordinary man] would find us fasinating ! 
I believe my post said “if WE are humble…”
I said “We” because (even though we’re not really entitled to it), arrogance and puffery can still infect minds far less formidable than yours. Mine, for example. I myself struggle constantly to maintain my humility – while remaining steadfastly certain of the incontrovertible Truth of my personal revelation. It’s a difficult balance.
But we aren’t really conversing anyway, are we, Stuart? Your posts, like your self-portrait avatar, appear initially to be aggressively engaging others! But after some “reflection”, it’s really just you, focusing like Narcissus on your iconic image…in the mirror.
what would you call ‘‘conversing’’ ? never disagreeing ? as for the rest of your sentence it appears to be nothing but a personal attack !
I’m merely offering an observation - an accurate one I think, regarding your avatar, which is, I believe, you taking a photograph of yourself in the mirror. My observation is that your posts are analogous. Is that an “attack”? Well, you complain above that others take their bat and ball and leave. But if people don’t sense that opinions and ideas are actually being exchanged in good faith (my definition of conversing, in answer to your question above), and instead feel there is a monologue of bombast, they will tend to disengage. If you are consistently experiencing this behavior in others, you may want to examine your approach. Or not. But as the saying goes “if the whole world smells like…<>…check your nose.”
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.
who said I was experiencing this behaviour in others ? as for my photo, I didn’t realise it would cause anyone annoyance !nor did I think there would be a unwritten standard in avatar that one should comply with !as I said if you would prefer I could use one that would horrify everyone !- I might add that it seemed far more than a mere observation !
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!
why thank you !
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,
I’m afraid this is an example of you reading into what I have said , if you got that impression it was not intended
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.
that’s a fair point but as I see it pacifism is a distint idiology from the peace that Jesus advocated
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. true, however his act of driving them out of the temple is a different act entirely from forcing one’s beliefs on others !,would you not agree ?
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.
re-enforcing my original contention, shouldn’t we be more like Jesus ?
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
did I use harsh words ?, or have I said we should ?[or that we shouldn’t at times either ?]
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.
your assuming again !, I could imagine they most likely would have waited a week or two
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.
one final thing I feel the need to point out, and that is if I am understanding the gist of what you are saying correctly . essentually the gist is this - that none of us have the right to correct others ? is that not the gist of what you are saying ? that being the case can I point out to you that it is a form of intellectual hypocracy because you are attempting to correct me by saying none of us have the right to correct others !
love is correction, and it’s not just Jesus I see headed in this direction either but the whole gist of the biblical texts and the early followers not just the important one’s !,perhaps that’s why the said followers of GOD in effect oppose him !
Just very quickly as I’m making soup… no, that’s not what I said or meant, and I made that extremely clear in my first post. I said we were fine to correct others, but without using harsh words (a la Jesus with the Pharisees, which I think you did mention before, if not I certainly did) or physical violence. There is a massive difference between correcting someone harshly and correcting them gently, the way Paul tells us to.
And no, I don’t agree with your thoughts about him driving them out of the temple. It is forcing his beliefs on them, forcing them to comply with how he feels the Law should be interpreted. If it were a Muslim doing it to a bunch of Christians in America or the UK, we would all be up in arms (witness how people react when told that cruciform jewellery isn’t appropriate at work, in the Uk at least). We only consider it acceptable behaviour in this instance because it was Jesus doing it and we feel that he knew what he was doing and how the LAw should really be interpreted, and was therefore in the right. Whereas we consider Paul approving of Stephen’s stoning to have been wicked, even though he was doing what the law says. Which is why, as I said in my first post, I would rather err on the side of gentleness than on the side of harshness.
Also, I think those traders were all back the next day because without them, many people wouldn’t be able to make sacrifices in the temple (unless the leaders changed the system, which would take time and the will to do it). If you read up on why they were there in the first place, you’ll see what I mean.
Regarding Nottirbd’s post, I, like him (?) was under the impression that the post of yours quoted below was a complaint about people not posting in the thread because you disagreed with them. Hence his comment about you experiencing people taking their bat and ball and going home. I assume. What a lot of assumptions there are on this thread.
I just accidentally came across a possible reason why you haven’t had many contributors in this thread… see here: Eternal torment believers are nuts: video (you may have to read down a few posts before finding the bit that is much the same as this thread.)
There is a massive difference between correcting someone harshly and correcting them gently, the way Paul tells us to.
agreed but if you can’t be 100% sure then how can you be in a position to correct anyone ?and again I don’t believe I mentioned correcting someone harshly ! merely that we should be ‘‘more like Jesus’’
And no, I don’t agree with your thoughts about him driving them out of the temple. It is forcing his beliefs on them, forcing them to comply with how he feels the Law should be interpreted.
I quess putting it that way you certainly have a point !, but can’t help but wonder how this doesn’t drive home the original point of the post ! still taking into account our fallibleness ! yes we can’t be as certain as Jesus but if one can’t be certain about anything ‘‘even say 98 %’’ how can you take a stand on anything ? even morals are based on theory !
Also, I think those traders were all back the next day because without them,
I do believe that is an assumption , just as mine is but I believe his passionate rebuke would have ‘‘scared the hell out of them’’
many people wouldn’t be able to make sacrifices in the temple (unless the leaders changed the system, which would take time and the will to do it). If you read up on why they were there in the first place, you’ll see what I mean.
‘‘reading up on it’’ won’t necessarily get me to ‘‘see it your way’’
I am familiar with that post and have read the one you are referring too and while I agree with the respondant the original poster still has a valid point !, and that is this - just how does one reason with a crazy person ?
p.s. I apologize if I have gotten your responces mixed up with another thread [possibly] I will have to carefully go through the whole post again but I was sure you had at some point made a statement along the lines of - none of us can be certian and thus have no right to correct others !
I’m sure I have crossed wires regarding this conversation and another so for that ‘‘please forgive me’’ and even though I have aknowledged your above point I fail to see how it in any way diminishes my point !
one more thing that I may post afresh and that is the comment by nottirod where his concern appears to be with
whether what I post is hostile or not ! when in my opoinon the primary concern should be - whether or not what I have said
is true or false !
Dear John,
I only started reading this thread very late tonight without any idea of making a post but I was stopped right at the beginning on reading your post where you say:
“And finally, a good question to ask is whether Jesus, with his polemical and curt approach (note the height of understatement) would be banned from this forum? I for one have no doubt as to the answer.”
and I thought WOW Pilgrim with this question is again bang on target here!
And there can surely be no doubt as to your answer.
Without Christ, would this Forum exist at all? Who started it? Thanks to Who?
Is not the consistent ebb and flow of love and generous fellowship , despite all our human blips and hiccoughs, a reflection of Christ’s presence on the Forum?
So thankfully, humbly but firmly: I agree with you. There can be no doubt as to the answer to the question, if it were to be raised, dear Brother.
With affection, cheers and prayers!
Michael in Barcelona …and now to bed!
thank-you for joining in 
it’s always good to get a few more respondants , thats a rather diplomatic answer you have given but I don’t think either myself or pilgrim would disagree .point taken.