History is replete with abandoned religions. At some point the Abrahamic religions will go the same way.What I think is important is that the church doesn't crumble away with it.
With what? A country being more religious does not corollate with it being more successful or having a higher standards of living. Even within the US the most religious states are not the most successful but are dead last by any measure of success.That is my opinion though no individual should be compelled to believe, nations who promote God will be blessed.
So you would not stand up for your own convictions. You would not try and talk someone out of something you know is wrong.I'd obviously ask her for her reasons. What has she based her decisions on? How did she come to this conclusion? I certainly wouldn't say 'you are objectively wrong' because, as I keep saying, there are no objective moral acts.
Like maybe in another 5783 years?History is replete with abandoned religions. At some point the Abrahamic religions will go the same way.
Like maybe in another 5783 years?
That’s actually not that long. After all, the Sumerian King List shows us the Sumerian religion was around for well over 100,000 years before the highest god, Enlil, decided to destroy the world with a flood because humans had become too noisy.Like maybe in another 5783 years?
Yeah but whether you want to go by Al Gore or the Bible, we probably won't be around nearly that long.That’s actually not that long. After all, the Sumerian King List shows us the Sumerian religion was around for well over 100,000 years before the highest god, Enlil, decided to destroy the world with a flood because humans had become too noisy.
Here's a good way to prevent a lot of unwanted pregnancies; don't fornicate.
I’m optimistic that humans will continue in some way, even if we have adapt to environmental changes.Yeah but whether you want to go by Al Gore or the Bible, we probably won't be around nearly that long.
Of course I would. But as I said, we'd have to agree on the facts of the matter so I'd want to know what she'd based her decision on. I can't change her mind without knowing that.So you would not stand up for your own convictions. You would not try and talk someone out of something you know is wrong.
Apart from a risk to the mothers life what other reason could possibly justify taking a life. If the same person wanted to kill the baby the day after it was born you would not be asking what they based their decision on. It would just be wrong no matter what and we would say no and try to stop them.Of course I would. But as I said, we'd have to agree on the facts of the matter so I'd want to know what she'd based her decision on. I can't change her mind without knowing that.
Yes, I would. Presumably she has a reason. Me saying simply 'it's wrong', just as you would, doesn't cut it. I need to know why she wants to do it so I can tell her why I think she is wrong.Apart from a risk to the mothers life what other reason could possibly justify taking a life. If the same person wanted to kill the baby the day after it was born you would not be asking what they based their decision on.
I understand trying to educate people about why something is wrong can help people understand the reasoning behind why something is wrong I have kids' and work in social welfare. So after you explain to them why it is wrong and they still want to kill their baby what then.Yes, I would. Presumably she has a reason. Me saying simply 'it's wrong', just as you would, doesn't cut it. I need to know why she wants to do it so I can tell her why I think she is wrong.
You seem to not understand this. It's not enough to say 'My way is right'. You have to show the other person why they are wrong. To do that you have to know why they are doing it. This principle holds whatever the moral problem, however simple the answer seems to be to you.
We're reaching a point where the questions are becoming nonsensical. What do you mean 'what would you do?' I do exactly the same as you or any other sane person would do. I'd stop her.I understand trying to educate people about why something is wrong can help people understand the reasoning behind why something is wrong I have kids' and work in social welfare. So after you explain to them why it is wrong and they still want to kill their baby what then.
OK I am just trying to understand where your coming from. I don't think its a nonsensical because some people think its wrong to stop a women even at that late stage. In fact as far as I understand some States allow late term abortions. In the US 2 states allow abortion up to 6 weeks, 4 States have no limits and the rest allow abortions from 20 to 26 weeks.We're reaching a point where the questions are becoming nonsensical. What do you mean 'what would you do?' I do exactly the same as you or any other sane person would do. I'd stop her.