Part 1. (my eyes my eyes are sore)
So are mine.
Learner said:
Yes I agree, absolutely , the "morally acceptable", but... among people, there are differing viewpoints on morality, for example : various acceptances on abortions, or death-penalties for crimes. Its the same language and not alien, although the odd accent can slightly confuse, "in a manner of speaking". Its really just different acceptable levels each individual takes to morality.
But that is just moral disagreement. For that matter, people also disagree about, say, the age of the Earth, whether humans and mosquitoes have a common ancestor, or whether the Moon Landing happened.
Learner said:
You've set limits to the parameters. "Yes" as being "definite" and of course, will get that particular conclusion based on a morality viewpoint which is not entirely shared by everyone.
Of course. For that matter, if I say that mosquitoes and humans shared a common ancestor, that is a biology/history of life viewpoint not shared by everyone. But it is true that humans and mosquitoes share a common ancestor. And it is true that it is sometimes morally acceptable to use violence to change laws for the better. For example, it is at least sometimes morally acceptable to use violence to end slavery.
Learner said:
Having the option : Giving the alternative answer to 1. in this case "NO", seeing from the viewpoint I take, as a standard by Jesus, not as a case by case scenario, which to me, would be a tad "luke warm-ish" than anything given as objective. Reminding me of a well-known preacher, who sort of phrase it like:
"We can't just create God to fit our personal tastes or feelings, because that would be creating "false images" , a different God, just as You have shown the example of inconsistency contradicting Jesus's teachings , rightly so by that particular answer.
No, that is the wrong way to look at it. It's not about personal tastes. It's about in which cases it is acceptable to do this or that. And of course, it is a matter to be considered on a case by case basis. Purely for example, is it okay sometimes to use violence at all? Sure. For example, in self-defense. Is it acceptable to kill other people, sometimes? Sure. For example, in self-defense, or in wars, it often is morally acceptable. Is it acceptable to, say, punch other people in the face? Sometimes. For example, in a boxing match. Or if one is being attacked by robbers. And so on. Is it okay to take another person's property without authorization? Sometimes. For example, it is sometimes okay to take a bicycle to escape if one is being pursued by a lynch mob, or by an angry elephant. Is it okay to lie? Sometimes, sure. For example, it's okay sometimes for spies, or undercover police officers, or people who would be unjustly killed if they did not lie (e. g., about their Jewish ancestry), etc.
The answer "it depends on the case" is almost always the right one, when it comes to morality. The fact is that moral rules are very fined grained. If some people reject that because it sounds lukewarm or whatever, they are rejecting moral truth - it's a bad idea.
Learner said:
Jesus must be a violent and a dangerous individual when He's upset, (the usual tone often used by atheists for abuse), . Never would have thought this image rests "soley" on these verses"... I should be worried now, to find much more. I hope these men were healed after their serious life-threatening injuries! "Disciplining" childish behaviour for blaspheming in the sacred temple is my take on it .
Violence does not need to be life-threatening to be, well, violence. And
threats of violence do not need to involve any actual injuries. As for the temple, the point is that the merchants behaved in a way they considered acceptable, but Jesus did not. He assaulted them, attempting to change things violently.
In any case, given that you accept Revelation as part of God's scripture, surely there is a lot of violence, threats of violence, etc.
Learner said:
Ok , but my point was that even when people DID see amazing things they eventually, and easily got enticed by powerful attractions , to the lusts of their flesh/ hearts.
In the story, maybe. But even in the story, at least in most cases, they did not turn against Jesus. So, he would have had a good chance with the emperor and other powerful Romans, as well as the populace (again, see the example of bringing back the dead gladiators, etc.).
Learner said:
Moses and his people walked through a parted sea, witnessing a big miracle, later they forgot, putting it behind them with new gods and dazzling things.
Maybe they thought the sea just receded? In any case, a person with Jesus's powers can remind them every month or so, if needed.
Learner said:
(Sorry I'm a little slow on long posts, and its been a long day)
Okay, no problem. It's kind of difficult for me too.
