WeAreTheKey

So I see this headline that says the "Pope tells Pelosi life must be protected"
and I ask myself... Why does it seem all the religious "types" (for lack of thinking of a better word) all seem ferverent about abortion and the right to live but NOT stand up against war, which is violent murder towards other human beings. Why is it accepible to kill some one when your country is arguing with another country but not acceptible to terminate a prenancy before it is a baby. Look I am in no way PRO abortion. I just dont see how one is horrendously unacceptible and one is semi acceptible..

just saying.

And yes, I realize the can of worms here with this post...but I find it important to point out the double standard for "life" when it comes to "country"v."individual" .

Religious dichotomy is not only acceptable for these people, it is necessary. To say you value life so greatly as to vehemently oppose abortion, and then turn around and say you value life so little as to vehemently support an unjust war in which 10's of thousands or 100's of thousands of people are violently murdered, is no more non-sensical than an all-loving, all-forgiving, pure and holy God who just a few chapters back was himself murdering people by the thousands and destroying whole cities and civilizations, in the name of 'justice', whatever that means.

To these people the question "what would God do?" has an infinite number of answers, depending on how they are feeling on any given day, be it holy or murderous.

In their quest to hold these two diametrically-opposed versions of God in their minds simultaneously, they're forced into a kind of moral schizophrenia, where deep, troubling confusion rules... and reason and real love are just kind of crapped on and forgotten.

True.

I think that these kinds of contradictions in "God's" personality only aides in creating strife between those who are followers of specific religions and those that do not. It invalidates in a way the positive of the religions message to those who either do not accept it, or do not understand it.
Makes people resist religion when they see "do as I say not as i do" as being more of a principle of the religion rather than the actual message behind the belief in the first place.

On a side note: it seems to me the duality of Unconditional Love and Wrath/Justice of god is just left overs from the more (for lack of a better word) primitive mindsets of the theologies of the past.. Like how all the greek/roman gods had several sides to them..for instance Athena:Goddes of Wisdom(awesome,"good") and War(bloody,cruel..unawesome) Taking the failed aspects of human..fault and placing them into the God figure does two things.. makes the Divine..more understandible to humans and gives humans essentially an excuse for their faults.. justifying them so they can be lazy and reactionary in their actions/lives..furthering the "how it was and always will be" kind of mindset.

Granted we are dualistic beings in a way by nature.. but I think this is something that can be overcome, personally and culturally if we just ..well try and work on it rather than defaulting to the flawed "norm"

One just has to decide wether they want to live in internal conflict/confusion and take both sides of god as is, or (like in the insatnce of the westbourogh baptist church for instance) take god as vengeful/hatefilled, OR the more reasonable perception IMO take god at the concept of UNCONDITIONAL LOVE and well, you have alot more to work towards, but it is a bit more sensical.

And a better model to follow in the footseps of.

I feel conflict with trying to decypher "when life starts" because.. well I dotn know... but there is one thing for certain..once it is..it isnt to be taken by the hands of humanity.. ESPECIALLY when it can be avoidable like in the instance of war.

Cause humans have been around for...ALONG time. We have made great advancements in our minds, in our bodies, in our understanding in our societies..WHY cant we let this dead dog be buried and move on to a higher plane of dealing with eachother?

On a seconday note..WTF is the deal with birthcontrol/contraceptives being seen as bad in the eyes of faith..(yes I realize that the papacy has changed their views, but other organized faiths have still to let that fist unclench) but then other medicines preventing or enhancing ones life are seen as acceptible.. I wonder how do these faiths see invirto? Is that against the rules? Cause on the hand of birthconrtol, it prevents something from happening that may or may not happen by the will of "god" but invitro essentially bypasses "god" and forces a what would have been barren couple into being able to create a child, that they would have otherwise been incapable to create.... Just curious..

I think they're against birth control for two reasons.

One: It allows for more casual sex to take place between people, by removing the consequences that might have otherwise kept them from copulating (babies), and thereby devaluing the moral fabric of society.

Two: In order for any idea/philosophy/religion to spread and become dominant, you have to ensure the reproduction and survival of believers. This is probably why Mormonism was so "polygamist" at the beginning, as it was essentially fighting an uphill battle against all of the already established religions with millions of followers. Allowing a lot of sex with a lot of people ensured the quick spread of Joseph Smith Mania!

And notice how now that Mormonism has caught on and gathered millions of followers, they are now "against" polygamy?!

Well anyway, I'm guessing that the propagation of any particular religion would cause the headmasters to frown upon birth control, fo fear of their mythology drying up.