Not really countless.
Note:this is all forms of distracted driving.
Is death the only measure of right or wrong? That is the no harm no foul philosophy, shouldn’t sports adopt a similar approach and only throw a flag or blow a whistle when it leads to injury? Or, should sports protect the rules of the game and maintain a high standard.
Well, maybe it’s not the only measure, but in that case, maybe you should pick some better examples for post #351. Would you like to try again?
No thank you. The message I was trying to covey was that moral judgements are already creating laws. This was the the idea which was being argued that my faith is doing at which the responder felt was wrong for society.
So let me twist the post around and ask a question.
I am a Christian and I feel homosexuality is wrong.
I do not hate homosexuals.
I will not treat them different.
I will not gossip or talk of them any different than I talk of myself (a sinner).
Does this make me a bigot or does this forum make me the victim?
I mean this sincerely. I have a standard and you have a standard; and they are not the same. Is one right and the other wrong? Could they both be right? Could they both be wrong? Who determines who is right and who is wrong?
Which group is fighting against the rights of the other? Which side is saying the other side is sinful for loving each other?
edited to add: The thing is, if same sex couples have equal rights, you still get to keep your standards.
You make a valid point. My standards, as govern by the Bible, will not change based on the law of the land.
I don’t desire to fight or sound offensive, we just believe differently and that is what it is. I appreciate your challenges and hear them; out of respect I only ask that you reciprocate. 
That’s not Boolean logic; if those are the only three options to choose from, it’s a false trilemma since there are clearly other options. In fact, this particular one is known as Lewis’s trilemma, and the logical fallacies inherent therein have been well-hashed out.
Do you have anything to say about the revelation concerning the video you posted?
Yes, thank you. I found out later that the video was a not 100% accurate. It doesn’t change my view and communication does not require a verbal exchange, but the example I used was invalid.
The video was not 100% accurate? The video was deliberately misleading.
You say that this does not change your view-does this mean that it did not influence your view in the first place? If so, Why would you expect it to influence someone else’s?
Because it would have supported his position. It would have given it more weight.
Could you really have not figured that out on your own?
I’m sure he can speak for himself, and I wouldn’t mind knowing what evidence supports his position now, or if it is an evidence-supported position at all and not one based on faith.
That’s fair. Maybe you should have typed that instead of what you did type, as that is not what you asked.
Note the word “and” in your quote of my post. It denotes that, not only would I like an answer to the question I asked, but that I wouldn’t mind answers to an additional followup or two.
If the evidence you are referencing is in relation to abortion, wouldn’t life itself be the answer? Don’t assume the privilege of the life you assume is equally granted to those who are less vocal.
Which merely indicates the error of the LLL argument. The LLL argument is predicated on the belief that we have an accurate recording of the words of Jesus. However, if the followers of Jesus, writing 40 to 80 years after his time on earth did not correctly reproduce his actual words, then all we have is the legend of what he said as written by his followers.
Jesus may have said exactly what he is quoted as having said.
Jesus may not have said those statements which were attributed to him by others who wanted to grant him greater status.
Jesus may have been an invention, in whole or in part, by people who were looking to place a human, (or human and divine), face on beliefs that they were propagating.
In only one of those situations does the LLL argument even apply.
So it goes back to the authority on which you base your standards. I believe the Bible is an authority while others might not.
I have said my peace and I thank everyone for listening and chiming in, now I must move on.
I say a final prayer for everyone here, that God would either open their eyes if they are wrong or He would do the same for me if I am in error.
I do not claim to be infallible, but I do claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ whom I feel is. God Bless and may truth, however that is defined, be protected and honored.
Any revelations I receive will be through the acquisition of further knowledge from outside corporeal sources.
You’re absolutely wrong. The LLL argument is fatally flawed, and the introduction of a new term to it fixes it, by allowing the factually true choice to be available.
Otherward, “What’s the capital of Alaska: Nome, Seward, or Anchorage?” The question can’t be answered correctly.
C.S. Lewis derived the LLL false trilemma in order to try to deny people the ability to say, “Jesus was a wise teacher, a good man, a visionary with an admirable moral insight.” Lewis shouts this down. But he does so by falsely narrowing the choices, very specifically to leave out that form of non-theistic admiration. It’s solely goal-oriented logic-chopping, and it’s fallacious.
If you want to discuss this further, may I recommend another thread? This highjack may not be appropriate.