Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

remove state-sponsored marriage, leave religious marriage as a purely religious affair

YES! At least in Germany we only have marriages as a state thing because Bismarck tried to push back the Catholic Church.

@Divorce: I think the Church doesn't really concern itself with who you legally married - they just care about who you married religiously.

[WealthyRadish]

I had a short conversation with my mother over the phone a few days ago where for some reason the Roman Empire came up, and she said she didn't like the Romans. Knowing her, I knew it was because modern American televangilism has taught her to hate catholics (as opposed to other reasons to hate Rome, like the whole empire built on slavery and constant war thing), so I mentioned that without the Roman Empire, Jesus the man wouldn't have ever existed. We didn't talk much longer, she just replied with "You don't know that!".

Which brings up an interesting question I think, which is how differently things would've turned out with only incredibly small differences in history. Obviously if Rome had never taken Judea, like if they lost one of the Punic wars or something, then that would be such a huge change that the individuals born in that province would all be (at least genetically) much different, even ignoring that there would be little reason for an apocalyptic Jewish sect to gain any popularity. But even if things had turned out largely the same, and whoever Jesus' father was had spent an extra two seconds tying his sandals on his way to see the mother whenever he was conceived, I think it would be highly unlikely for the resulting Jesus to be genetically similar enough to our reality's Jesus for Christianity to have the religion ever form around him, or experience enough success to move out of Judea into the Empire. The effects of a different wayward spermlette's genetic contribution compounded over a lifetime would be huge, and his life would've likely been as obscure and unmemorable as everyone else who's lived and died without accidentally starting a world religion.

That's why I think if Christians are going to look for miracles with any kind of rationality, it should be a miracle of statistics and unlikelihoods, only acceptable with a blind faith in fate among what we now understand is an incredibly random and volatile reality. But if they've gotten that far, the growing burden of doubt from the countless other contradictions should already be enough to discard it.

[Phmcw]

I had a short conversation with my mother over the phone a few days ago where for some reason the Roman Empire came up, and she said she didn't like the Romans. Knowing her, I knew it was because modern American televangilism has taught her to hate catholics (as opposed to other reasons to hate Rome, like the whole empire built on slavery and constant war thing), so I mentioned that without the Roman Empire, Jesus the man wouldn't have ever existed. We didn't talk much longer, she just replied with "You don't know that!".

I'm not sure about any of this :

First there is no good reasons to hate Rome. They were no worst than their neighboors and did great things. They are pretty much the basis of our entire civilisation.

Second peoples are religious, and monotheism is just more efficient than polytheism. It's simpler to explain and make peoples more fanatic since they are adoring a perfect omnipotent god which in turn make expansion easyer. So there would have been someone, somewhere who would have invented evangelism and it would have spread like wildfire anyway.

[Neonivek]

First there is no good reasons to hate Rome. They were no worst than their neighboors and did great things.

Your allowed to Hate Rome... there is more then enough there to.

Just because someone doesn't go "What? they were one of the civilizations responsible for our adoption of the alphabet and many inventions meaning that we owe our entire civilization to them" doesn't give a autofix.

But let me see... reasons to hate Rome... Sexism, Homophobia, Slaughter, Decadence, Slave Slaughter, Improper treatment of slaves at several instances, Religious intolerance (but not always, there were periods of religious tolerance), pedophilia...

Enough for you?

I don't Hate Rome (though I often thing they are often overglorified with people skimping across their darker aspects because that would interfere with Glorious Rome's image), but honestly to say there isn't enough there for someone to dislike Rome is like saying there isn't enough there for people to hate the USA, Canada, or the UN. I do dislike when people harp on things that are just not modern (Chronological snobbery) but still.

As well there being worse doesn't provide excuses.

I do kind of wish the Mongols could get their due... but their image of just being mindless hoards is too ingrained in our society.

[WealthyRadish]

First there is no good reasons to hate Rome. They were no worst than their neighboors and did great things. They are pretty much the basis of our entire civilisation.

I more or less agree, though I would agree with Neonivek in saying that the conception people have of Rome is pretty incomplete and glosses over their more negative aspects. The point really is that she hates Catholicism, and used that as her justification for also viewing Rome negatively.

Second peoples are religious, and monotheism is just more efficient than polytheism. It's simpler to explain and make peoples more fanatic since they are adoring a perfect omnipotent god which in turn make expansion easyer. So there would have been someone, somewhere who would have invented evangelism and it would have spread like wildfire anyway.

Again, I pretty much agree. But would it have been Christianity, or even an Abrahamic religion? Would it have emerged during the life of the Roman Empire, allowing it to spread as far as it did? There were tons of small cults moving around the ancient world, shifting in and out of popularity, and I don't think Christianity as it existed during the life of Jesus would've been more significant than those without the modifications by Paul and others. It could've been another 5 centuries before all the circumstances came together to create a new world religion. That's more what I meant, is just how unlikely the whole thing is, and how the outcomes could've been very different with only incredibly minor differences.

[Baffler]

remove state-sponsored marriage, leave religious marriage as a purely religious affair

YES! At least in Germany we only have marriages as a state thing because Bismarck tried to push back the Catholic Church.

@Divorce: I think the Church doesn't really concern itself with who you legally married - they just care about who you married religiously.

I agree with this, but I also think that marriage shouldn't matter for tax purposes anyway unless there are dependents involved.

[Frumple]

Naaah, I can actually understand the state's reason for allowing non-dependent-producing marriages, at least in the US. Joint filing also means joint and several, which means if either partner drops the ball re: taxes, the state can go after the other one for the cost. Gov'ment likes that, and it's one of the reasons (dependents being one of the other ones) that joint filing gets such advantageous rates. Tax office is more likely to get their money, one way or another.

[LordBucket]

remove state-sponsored marriage, leave religious marriage as a purely religious affair

I would like to offer a +1 to this. It solves a lot of problems.

Never really made sense to me to go to the government for permission to be involved with someone, anyway.

[LordSlowpoke]

I do kind of wish the Mongols could get their due... but their image of just being mindless hoards is too ingrained in our society.

the entire fucking middle east

[Orange Wizard]

remove state-sponsored marriage, leave religious marriage as a purely religious affair

LSP gets all of my +1s here.

[Graknorke]

remove state-sponsored marriage, leave religious marriage as a purely religious affair

I would like to offer a +1 to this. It solves a lot of problems.

Never really made sense to me to go to the government for permission to be involved with someone, anyway.

but tax exemptions

[Helgoland]

Abolish them. Give people tax breaks for having children instead.

[Remuthra]

Abolish them. Give people tax breaks for having children instead.

That encourages population growth.

[Graknorke]

Abolish them. Give people tax breaks for having children instead.

That encourages population growth.

The government likes population growth. The alternative is a large elderly population and that sucks to have to deal with.

[Remuthra]

Abolish them. Give people tax breaks for having children instead.

That encourages population growth.

The government likes population growth. The alternative is a large elderly population and that sucks to have to deal with.

A declining population is better than population growth in excess of available resources.