Is Marriage based upon religion?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So marriage or kinship in general is beautiful, right? I do think so, but it's based upon religion (from an Atheist which is myself). I always thought that marriage was based upon religion, even as a child. But this is my opinion, only anthropology can tell the real answer. The definition of marriage by the government is unconstitutional and/or breaks the concept of separation of Church and State. In my opinion only the churches decide who should be married and who shall be not since marriage is religious.

So I would ask you this question:
Would you discuss this NSG?

Marriage is not based upon religion, but religious marriage is based upon religious customs, doctrines, and beliefs.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So marriage or kinship in general is beautiful, right? I do think so, but it's based upon religion (from an Atheist which is myself). I always thought that marriage was based upon religion, even as a child. But this is my opinion, only anthropology can tell the real answer. The definition of marriage by the government is unconstitutional and/or breaks the concept of separation of Church and State. In my opinion only the churches decide who should be married and who shall be not since marriage is religious.

So I would ask you this question:
Would you discuss this NSG?

Marriage is not based upon religion, but religious marriage is based upon religious customs, doctrines, and beliefs.

Mhmm. I guess that what some need to understand is that religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage. There're religious marriages, but not all marriages are based on religion.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Marriage is not based upon religion, but religious marriage is based upon religious customs, doctrines, and beliefs.

Mhmm. I guess that what some need to understand is that religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage. There're religious marriages, but not all marriages are based on religion.

It frankly depends

There have been local monopolies the Church has created when it comes to marriage. Colonial Latin America was such an example where all marriage and baptism records were handled and stored by the churches in Latin America. We know that in particular New Spain had a lot of birth and marriage records.

Of course, this all ended when the independence movements happened and in the early 1900s the governments of the region sought to separate church and state.

You're right though when it comes to universal monopolies, religious people don't have it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Mhmm. I guess that what some need to understand is that religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage. There're religious marriages, but not all marriages are based on religion.

It frankly depends

There have been monopolies the Church has created when it comes to marriage. Colonial Latin America was such an example where all marriage and baptism records were handled and stored by the churches in Latin America. We know that in particular New Spain had a lot of birth and marriage records.

When it comes to Christian marriage, maybe. But secular ceremonies have been happening for as long as we've been around. Not all marriage is religious in nature.

[Menassa]

All of the tradition in the Talmud concerning legal matters pre-dates Jesus. Many of the supposed 'anti-Christian' sentiment in the Talmud also pre-dates Jesus.

If you decide to accept of the legal matters in the Talmud and Christianity here's what you lose:
The Trinity (The Talmud stresses that God is only one divine being.)
Original Sin (The Talmud does not believe the sin of Adam to be any more significant than the sin of Moses.)
A divine Messiah (The Talmud asserts that the Messiah will be a human being with no divine properties.)
Who the correct Church is. (The Talmud says that the tradition of God has and will always remain with the Jews.)
Jesus could not have been a prophet (The Talmud notes that the last prophet was Malachi.)
Sin and Atonement (The Talmud says that you do not need to believe in Jesus to be atoned from your sins.)

I don't accept all legal matters of the Talmud, especially since its oldest written form was assembled long after Christ by people with extremely anti-Christian sentiments. I'm saying that if consent by the woman was established by Jews before Christ, then I consider Christianity an extension of that law.

So basically it's a pick and choose scenario for you, whatever fits you like, and whatever fits you don't like. And in terms of the Authors of the Talmud, your claim isn't really accurate. They didn't care about the Christians one way or another, Christianity, if it is at all mentioned, isn't given any specific negative connotations and isn't even discussed in length until about the early 11th century.

[Menassa]

I highly doubt the Orthodox position in Christianity assumes that the Jewish Oral Tradition is correct.

That would be rather contradictory.

Obviously not any of it abridged by the New Covenant, which was quite a bit. But then, some things are stricter too, like divorce

Excuse me? Are you stating that the laws and rules of the Talmud are compatible with Christianity? You do realize there is a whole order of the Talmud that discusses the Holidays, produce and the land of Israel, and how the sacrifices work? Heck, one of the largest tractates in the Talmud is called Gitten which deals primarily with Divorce Law. Are you asserting that all of the Talmud is compatible with the New Covenant?

[Menassa]

Things in the Talmund that agree with you: real.
Things in the Talmund that disagree with you: propaganda.
How convenient.

I'm not saying it's real, he is. I'm just saying IF it is real, and predates Christ as he says, that doesn't really impact my perspective.

It impacts your notion that it was the Christian foundation.

[Gim]

Protestants recommend that one should marry a person with an opposite gender who is also a Protestant; however, there really seems to not be a rule on marrying. People of all religions can marry, and those who have have been fine, without punishments from God or gods.

[Constantinopolis]

Church offices are mirrored from Roman lore. Shit, even the title the Pope uses of Supreme Pontiff is from Rome's emperor worship.

Pontifex Maximus (the phrase strangely translated as "supreme pontiff") literally means "greatest bridge-builder" in Latin. It was the official title of the high priest of Rome under the Roman Republic (the person who was metaphorically "building bridges" between mortals and the gods).

Gaius Julius Caesar, during his dictatorship, appointed his young nephew Gaius Octavius to be Pontifex Maximus. After the assassination of Caesar, it was discovered that Caesar had named Octavius to be his adopted son and heir in his will. Over the following decades, Octavius - who eventually renamed himself Augustus, "the exalted one" - fought a series of wars in which he crushed all his enemies and concentrated all power in his own hands, creating the entity we call the Roman Empire and becoming its first Emperor. Throughout all this, he remained Pontifex Maximus, and after his death, the title of Pontifex Maximus passed to the next Emperor, and then the next, and so on until the 4th century.

Eventually, during the reign of the Emperor Gratian (ruled 375–383), the now-Christian Emperors abandoned the use of the title Pontifex Maximus, which had been an empty title for centuries anyway.

Centuries later, the Popes of Rome started using that title informally for themselves. This was especially prevalent during the Renaissance, when all things related to ancient Rome were cool and fashionable again.

And that's all there is to it. "Supreme Pontiff" - Pontifex Maximus - is a title that had already become meaningless before Jesus was even born, and eventually ended up used by the Popes more as a fashion statement than anything else.

More or less the same applies to practically every other aspect of Catholic ritual or terminology that mirrors ancient Roman titles and practices. These things were adopted into Christianity because of the enormous prestige of all things Roman after the fall of the Empire in the West. To be "Roman" was to be cultured, civilized, wise. It wasn't the religious aspects of ancient Rome that the Christians adopted, but rather its political ideology. All the "Roman" stuff in the Catholic Church was intended as a political statement. It was meant to say "we are the heirs of that glorious ancient Empire that ruled the world, and we, like the Empire, are the rightful sovereigns of the entire world".

The political ideology of the Roman Empire held that the Empire was the rightful government of the entire world, and people outside of the Empire were simply in defiance and rebellion against their one true sovereign.

[Constantinopolis]

Some contemporary Catholics say that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the congregation founded by Jesus, not God, but this just BS.

The Catholic Church IS one of several Churches that are the direct historical continuations of the congregation founded by Jesus. This is claimed by ALL Catholics, not just some, and it is historical fact.

Of course it doesn't look the same as the congregation founded by Jesus, but so what? The present-day United States of America is the continuation of the country founded by George Washington, but that doesn't mean that it looks the same as it did in the late 1700s. It's still the same institution, regardless. I don't look the same as I did 20 years ago, either, but I'm still the same person.

And I say this as a person who thinks that the Catholic Church is mildly heretical. They are wrong on several important points of doctrine, but they are nevertheless, without a doubt, one of several continuations of the congregation founded by Jesus.

[Gim]

Some contemporary Catholics say that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the congregation founded by Jesus, not God, but this just BS.

The Catholic Church IS one of several Churches that are the direct historical continuations of the congregation founded by Jesus. This is claimed by ALL Catholics, not just some, and it is historical fact.

Of course it doesn't look the same as the congregation founded by Jesus, but so what? The present-day United States of America is the continuation of the country founded by George Washington, but that doesn't mean that it looks the same as it did in the late 1700s. It's still the same institution, regardless. I don't look the same as I did 20 years ago, either, but I'm still the same person.

And I say this as a person who thinks that the Catholic Church is mildly heretical. They are wrong on several important points of doctrine, but they are nevertheless, without a doubt, one of several continuations of the congregation founded by Jesus.

Makes sense, since God is pretty much Jesus.

Anyway, do Catholics also think it is only right for Catholics to marry just Catholics, or are they more liberal about marriage?

[Constantinopolis]

Anyway, do Catholics also think it is only right for Catholics to marry just Catholics, or are they more liberal about marriage?

As far as I know, it is ok for a Catholic to marry any other baptized Christian, as long as the wedding ceremony is a Catholic one (because marriage is a sacrament of the Church). However, I'm not sure about Catholics marrying non-Christians.

I do know for a fact that the rules of the Orthodox Church state that you can only marry another Christian. The other Christian doesn't have to be Orthodox, but he or she does need to have been baptized with a trinitarian formula (i.e. in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit). And of course the wedding has to be an Orthodox one, because, again, marriage is a sacrament of the Church.