3 ms·

ChatGPT is wrong a lot. I love AI, but it still in its early stages. Also, I think we're going back even before the time of all of the current major religions.

by proc0 3y ago

ChatGPT is wrong a lot. I love AI, but it still in its early stages. Also, I think we're going back even before the time of all of the current major religions. During those times religion was different, and the line between religion, culture and government were much blurrier. Romans would definitely have religious beliefs, but probably didn't see it as a separate institution. So I would be surprised if the marriage rituals of the Romans were completely empty of any religious symbolism or traditions. Same with Greeks and Babylon. Religion was much more embedded in the identity of every individual, as being secular is a relatively new "option" in society.

orwin 3y ago
According to Peter Berresford Ellis, for Celts, marriages were a legal agreement before being even an economic one, and wasn't supervised by any gods. Multiple marriage type existed, depending on who brought most to the house, whose house was used for the union... Marriage weren't all monogamous, it us unclear what kind of relationship it brought, but it's very clear that it wasn't a religious affair,but a legal one. Romans and Greeks probably had rite concerning the marriage in city state and big cities, but the majority of Roman estates did not have priests.
- proc0 3y ago
  I would question the line between government, society, and religion back in that time. I don't think people were secular, with myths and superstitions being an integral part of how people lived (no source here, but I'm pretty sure secular societies are fairly new). It wouldn't be much different than how people today might not be going to church every Sunday but they still get married in a church with a priest. Maybe there weren't priests but people might had certain beliefs and myths associated with marriage that drove their incentive to carry out the ritual. Without these shared beliefs, it's hard to for me to imagine people just got married because they were consciously trying to increase the population.
  - orwin 3y ago
    Bear it mind that Celt marriage wasn't necessarily about increasing the population, they weren't monogamous. It was about sharing and dividing ownership. They were merchants (mostly), women could be richer and earn more than the man they married, and one type of marriage handled that case (because the divorce was handled differently depending on who owned/earned the most). Marriage might have been about reproduction in civilization with huge gender gap, but for Celts it do seems it wasn't. Just look at causes for divorce in Celtic law, disrespect is clearly more represented than fertility. Maybe it was due to the polygamous nature, idk. Celt priests were druids and did not left a lot. Druidism was an oral, masculine tradition, handled birth and death, as well as medecine. They might have been involved, but we can't know, because they left no texts. The laws we found however were quite clear about administrating a marriage, and did not require the presence of a druid. I'm not sure Celt gods can represent civil aspect like greco-roman gods did (justice, city, household). At most they were fertility and healing, but like I said, marriages weren't about fertility (they even had concubinage contracts, for how children outside marriage will receive resources).
    - proc0 3y ago
      Sure, interesting. I guess it may come down to what the majority of civilizations did in regards to marriage, and maybe it's a toss up. If we limit it to the West, then its more clear that current traditions originate with monotheistic practices.
      - orwin 3y ago
        Only because Celtic tradition were eradicated. Early witch hunts probably ended the last remnants of our Celt heritage, and those happened after marriage was taken over by priests in the early middle age, at least in France. The non-merchand role a celt woman with money could have was teacher, arms teacher (weirdly, we have text about that, probably because it was rare enough to be written about) or healer. That last tradition probably survived longer than druidism in my area (it is also linked to being a midwife, which was a part of life that Christian priests ignored), and was the initial target of witch hunts. (Also, poisoning people, and especially rapists, would be something Celts women would have been very happy to do, considering Boudicca's reaction to her daughters' rape)

by proc0 3y ago

orwin 3y ago

According to Peter Berresford Ellis, for Celts, marriages were a legal agreement before being even an economic one, and wasn't supervised by any gods. Multiple marriage type existed, depending on who brought most to the house, whose house was used for the union... Marriage weren't all monogamous, it us unclear what kind of relationship it brought, but it's very clear that it wasn't a religious affair,but a legal one. Romans and Greeks probably had rite concerning the marriage in city state and big cities, but the majority of Roman estates did not have priests.

proc0 3y ago
I would question the line between government, society, and religion back in that time. I don't think people were secular, with myths and superstitions being an integral part of how people lived (no source here, but I'm pretty sure secular societies are fairly new). It wouldn't be much different than how people today might not be going to church every Sunday but they still get married in a church with a priest. Maybe there weren't priests but people might had certain beliefs and myths associated with marriage that drove their incentive to carry out the ritual. Without these shared beliefs, it's hard to for me to imagine people just got married because they were consciously trying to increase the population.
- orwin 3y ago
  Bear it mind that Celt marriage wasn't necessarily about increasing the population, they weren't monogamous. It was about sharing and dividing ownership. They were merchants (mostly), women could be richer and earn more than the man they married, and one type of marriage handled that case (because the divorce was handled differently depending on who owned/earned the most). Marriage might have been about reproduction in civilization with huge gender gap, but for Celts it do seems it wasn't. Just look at causes for divorce in Celtic law, disrespect is clearly more represented than fertility. Maybe it was due to the polygamous nature, idk. Celt priests were druids and did not left a lot. Druidism was an oral, masculine tradition, handled birth and death, as well as medecine. They might have been involved, but we can't know, because they left no texts. The laws we found however were quite clear about administrating a marriage, and did not require the presence of a druid. I'm not sure Celt gods can represent civil aspect like greco-roman gods did (justice, city, household). At most they were fertility and healing, but like I said, marriages weren't about fertility (they even had concubinage contracts, for how children outside marriage will receive resources).
  - proc0 3y ago
    Sure, interesting. I guess it may come down to what the majority of civilizations did in regards to marriage, and maybe it's a toss up. If we limit it to the West, then its more clear that current traditions originate with monotheistic practices.
    - orwin 3y ago
      Only because Celtic tradition were eradicated. Early witch hunts probably ended the last remnants of our Celt heritage, and those happened after marriage was taken over by priests in the early middle age, at least in France. The non-merchand role a celt woman with money could have was teacher, arms teacher (weirdly, we have text about that, probably because it was rare enough to be written about) or healer. That last tradition probably survived longer than druidism in my area (it is also linked to being a midwife, which was a part of life that Christian priests ignored), and was the initial target of witch hunts. (Also, poisoning people, and especially rapists, would be something Celts women would have been very happy to do, considering Boudicca's reaction to her daughters' rape)