Sonic Pineapple

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

Sure. Even granting that a specific religious framework can't be 100% proven, the moral and legal capital Christianity provided (objective dignity, natural law, sanctity concepts) has been demonstrably better at grounding stable, non-arbitrary morality than secular preference or 'no victim = fine' has managed on its own.

The hypothetical shows the secular side often fails at the edges. We can debate proof all day - but the practical track record favors the religious-derived framework.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

@anima76 @drachynolublu @ShitlibSupreme You literally called the theist reply 'braindead circular' in the post before this. Pointing out that labeling it circular doesn't fix secular grounding isn't a strawman - it's responding to what you actually said.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

@salmon13528 @Balls473045 @aquavitae96 I can read fine. You explicitly said the “more important question” was whether Egyptians had a similar code and if Christians “copied and repackaged their work.” That’s a clear pivot from what shaped Western law today.

Now your ad homing because you're clearly wrong.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

Calling it circular doesn't solve the secular problem. The theist move tries to root morality in God's nature rather than arbitrary whim. Secularism still has to ground 'why is this wrong' without that external standard - and 'no victim + my preference' often fails the hypothetical.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

@dannycantalk It’s like saying the laws of logic or mathematics are “just God’s subjective preferences.” They’re not.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

No - it's not a "lie." Western law and rights emerged from a specific moral framework (Christian ethics + reason) that produced real institutions protecting liberty, not just control. Canon law, Magna Carta, natural rights thinking delivered due process, limits on power, and human dignity far better than pure power politics or ancient theocracies.

Whether God exists is relevant because the content of the morality matters. A fictional authority might keep order, but the Christian-rooted one built the freest, most prosperous societies. History shows the difference.

What "lie" do you think produced the rule of law and abolition of slavery?

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

That's shifting the goalposts. The question is what shaped the law we have in the West. The direct answer is Christian ethics: canon law became the template for secular Europe, churchmen like Archbishop Langton drove Magna Carta with biblical principles of justice, and thinkers like Aquinas grounded rights in natural law + reason.

Similar moral intuitions show up across cultures (Egypt, Babylon, etc.) because they're basic to human flourishing and observable reality - not proof of copying. Christianity adapted and transmitted the version that formed Western institutions. No historical evidence of direct Egyptian "repackaging" into our legal tradition.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

Exactly - shifting to 'which God/religion' concedes we need a transcendent framework over pure preference. Religious views can ground morality externally (God's nature or natural law).

Secularism ultimately reduces to subjective preference or consensus, which the hypothetical shows is weak at the edges. That's the asymmetry.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

Even if you trace distant parallels to Egypt (or Babylon), the direct shapers of Western law were Christian: Langton & canon lawyers built Magna Carta on biblical principles; the Church’s canon law became the template for Europe’s secular systems; Aquinas integrated natural law with Scripture into rights thinking.

Egyptian Maat stayed in its context. Christianity adapted and transmitted the moral core that actually formed our institutions. Similarities ≠ causation for our specific system.

Name one major Western legal principle that came straight from Egypt rather than through the Christian West.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

Shifting to 'which religion/God is true' already concedes the need for a transcendent framework over pure secular preference. The hypothetical (and roadkill examples) shows the latter often reduces to subjective 'no victim = ok.'

Even as a non-Christian, I see Christianity's massive influence on our moral law and culture as superior capital to secular subjectivism. Picking the right one is hard, but that doesn't make starting from zero better.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

@salmon13528 @Balls473045 @aquavitae96 Literally not made up. Objective reality.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

Agree on enforcement - government backs it up either way.

But 'religious command is just subjective feeling' misses the point. It claims objective transcendent authority (from God/Scripture), not 'my personal vibe.' Varied interpretation or human failure doesn't disprove that any more than bad scientists disprove physics.

For non-Christians, it still had massive cultural/legal influence as the foundation of much of our moral law. The hypothetical tests whether purely secular preference holds without that borrowed capital.

It often doesn't.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

You claim “the law that we have.” That law was directly shaped by Christian ethics: canon law fed into secular systems, Aquinas’ natural law grounded universal rights, and biblical morality (dignity of the person, rule of law) influenced Magna Carta, common law, and modern human rights.

Egyptian Maat parallels are interesting background, but Christianity is the direct transmitter and adapter into the West. Earlier laws don’t change that.

You’re being evasive. You and I both know Western law is based on a basic Christian moral framework.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

@salmon13528 @aquavitae96 So the law that's built on Christian morality?

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

@paleochristcon

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

The meme is spot on. Leftist-style: 'Disgust/natural law = same as religious command, why the difference?'

No. One is subjective feeling that gets overridden. The other claims objective divine authority.

Your find/replace doesn't create equivalence - it just dodges why secular 'morals' fail the hypothetical.

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

@sacoladeratos @hayasaka_aryan Ok bro

[Sonic Pineapple @Daeladras]

@Kintakus What if there was no chance of disease? It was tested. 100% safe.