Conflicting views?

[pahl]

"Thu shalt not murder", "Turn the other cheek", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" are phrases i think everyone have heard of at one point or another, and if you are christian you should be intimately familiar with them.

These are some very basic cornerstones in the christian religion as well as other religions. But from what i can see a quite shockingly big part of people who claim to be religious do not abide by these rules. The people im talking about are people who want revenge, who believe in capital punishment, people who think that civilian casualties are acceptable in war or otherwise and those who think that stripping people of their basic rights without proof of anything is fine.
Now, im not here to argue any of these standpoints if the phrases first mentioned are not part of your belife or if you dont have a belife. But if you are a christian, does not the opinions mentioned seriously conflict with your religion?

I dont know if there is anyone who fits in to that category here, but it seems to me that there is a lot of them out in the world, if anything christians seems more agressive then non-religios persons to me, which makes no sense. Then again i might be the only one that perceive it in that manner. So what do think? Or why do think this is?

[Epistemologist]

Perhaps it's a form of utilitarianism. That is, by eliminating those conflicting views, which endanger their own moral construct with a distinct one, they can protect their own ethical system, and thus be able to live in an optimally moral way. If they allow themselves to be bogged down by opponents, then ultimately their way of life, which they see as perfect, would be eliminated, and in their view, everybody loses out.

But then, opponents to that utilitarianism might adopt a more deontological view along the lines of "waging war for peace is like fing for virginity." Often, some would say that once a group of people satisfies those utilitarian survivalistic tendencies and violate their own morals in the short-run, then they become totally unprincipled in the long-run. That might be a slippery slope fallacy though.

Some others might explain this aggressive behavior by saying that not all the followers are like that, and some a what they'd call "moral."

There are many other explanations too, but I don't really feel like going into them all now. Hope that helped though.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Can only believers respond? I'll assume that anyone with insite can.

Death penalty-Obviously conflicting, unless it is necessary to protect innocents, which wouldn't apply to modern countries.

Civilian casualties- Consequence of war, if you can accept war, you have to accept these.

Why the conflicting views? Because most Christians would rather worship Jesus than emulate him. The former is far easier and requires no effort. The latter means you have to act like--well--Jesus and that could ruin your Sunday and your career path.

Regards
S.

[loser]

Or why do think this is?

The answer is simple: HYPOCRISY!

Do as I say, not as I do.

Scripture answers it as this:

"The SPIRIT is willing, but the FLESH is weak.

Of course, you have to understand that everybody that calls himself a Christian, really isn't.

Jesus said:

Many shall say, "Lord, Lord, haven't I done {this and that} and I will say, "I NEVER knew you!"

[Kuldeep]

The phrases are said by great thinkers and it is your turn to interpret well and act logically.

These phrases simply say: Please do not be irrational!!! Do not harm others since you do not want others should harm you...as simple as that.

But, now if somebody a mighty fellow troubles you often and you use above phrase word by word and just avoid harming that mighty fellow. If you do not harm him, you have not followed the phrase well. Your not harming him is not showing your greatness but timidness. Truely following the phrase he want to harm you. So it is your moral duty that you should harm him. In this case your harming him becomes your true morale. Not harming as cowardness!!!!:)