If not religious, why do you celebrate Easter? - Page 4

[wytchywoman]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Wow. Do you not find it offensive when Christians talk this way about other religions?

FWIW, an egg or rabbit is as good a symbol of resurrection to a Christian as it is of renewal to a pagan. It isn't like paganism somehow has a copyright on the natural world. And it isn't only a custom of Celtic origin either.

The only flaw I see in your argument is that these rituals are pagan history. That's been proven by historians. The bible doesn't say anything about decorating christmas trees or dyeing easter eggs. These traditions have been practiced long before the romans set foot on the british isles and started the practice of compensatory christianity. I'm not saying that the egg can't be a good representation of the resurrection of christ, I'm sure it is, only that these traditions predate organized religion, and it does offer evidence of cultural appropriation.

[KimL]

we celebrate the plight of bunnies!

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by wytchywoman

The only flaw I see in your argument is that these rituals are pagan history. That's been proven by historians. The bible doesn't say anything about decorating christmas trees or dyeing easter eggs. These traditions have been practiced long before the romans set foot on the british isles and started the practice of compensatory christianity. I'm not saying that the egg can't be a good representation of the resurrection of christ, I'm sure it is, only that these traditions predate organized religion, and it does offer evidence of cultural appropriation.

Well, I am not sure that I would say that British pre-Christian religion was not "organized", and again, eggs as a Christian symbol do not necessarily originate in Western Europe. The Eastern Church has its own traditions related to eggs.

But more generally what I objected to was the rather condescending tone about how "how those silly Christians think Jesus could be connected to bunnies - don't thy know it is really from religion/culture X". Christianity has never had a problem historically with adapting a good symbol that spoke to people in a way that was helpful to them in understanding it's message. Neither do most other religions, or artists or writers for that matter.

[ecoteat]

Yesterday as we hosted a brunch party and egg hunt with a bunch of pagan and/or generally non-christian friends, we talked a lot about how Easter is as much a cultural celebration as a religious one in our society. We all feel that celebrating the earth's rhythms is important and especially in our climate in Maine, Easter is a better day to celebrate spring than the equinox, since we are usually very much still having winter when that rolls around. Yesterday was I think the best Easter celebration I've ever taken part in--the celebration of nature was MUCH truer than the quasi-celebrations of the resurrection (but mostly of sugar) my family had when I was a kid.

[green betty]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Wow. Do you not find it offensive when Christians talk this way about other religions?

FWIW, an egg or rabbit is as good a symbol of resurrection to a Christian as it is of renewal to a pagan. It isn't like paganism somehow has a copyright on the natural world. And it isn't only a custom of Celtic origin either.

Would you like to provide an example of another religion incorporating a Christian tradition into their faith in a way that minimizes its Christian roots? I'm hard pressed to think of one. I see it going the other way all the time, though--there's not a Christmas that goes by that I don't read at least a couple (horribly factually inaccurate, pagan-denying) letters to the editor explaining why Christmas trees are actually a completely Christian tradition. I see you also live in NS, so perhaps you've also read them.

And while I have no problem with Christians enjoying Celtic traditions (if they're honest about/honor their roots) or celebrating Spring in conjunction with pagan festivities, I also think it's a bit of a leap to frame an egg or a rabbit as a symbol of resurrection. Fertility, renewal, birth, life, absolutely--but resurrection? That egg or rabbit has never existed before. So they could not return to life. You may argue that the earth is being resurrected... but the earth was dormant, NOT dead. See the difference?

[Chicky2]

Originally Posted by green betty

And while I have no problem with Christians enjoying Celtic traditions (if they're honest about/honor their roots) or celebrating Spring in conjunction with pagan festivities, I also think it's a bit of a leap to frame an egg or a rabbit as a symbol of resurrection. Fertility, renewal, birth, life, absolutely--but resurrection? That egg or rabbit has never existed before. So they could not return to life. You may argue that the earth is being resurrected... but the earth was dormant, NOT dead. See the difference?

Good post.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by green betty

And while I have no problem with Christians enjoying Celtic traditions (if they're honest about/honor their roots) or celebrating Spring in conjunction with pagan festivities,

The thing I hear Christians saying over and over is that easter (and christmas) are some how *just theirs* and that they are celebrating the *real meaning.* They often seem offended that my family (and others like us) have egg hunts and decorate trees and such.

So fine by me if Christians want to include all the fun pagan stuff in their holidays, but they really need to lighten up about having a monoply over marking the changing of the seasons. They don't own these cultural traditions.

[GoBecGo]

Christianity is a proselytising religion, it historically has ALWAYS used symbols sympathetic to existing beliefs to convert groups. That is the nature of Christianity, and Christians are not "to blame" for that particular aspect of it's development and arguably shouldn't have to apologise for it (i'm an atheist personally).

FWIW i have an MA in Celtic Civilisation from the University of Glasgow and i would be interested to hear about pre-Roman written evidence of the symbols used in local religions in Celtic Britain, because those societies were pre-literate and their oral histories were passed down unreliably and often coloured/tainted by those who eventually wrote about them (usually monks, the only people who could write, or after literally 1000 years of misremembering). Ancient celtic peoples did not write anything which has survived (and very likely simply did not write anything at all). There is thus no evidence they enjoyed eggs at the spring equinox nor celebrated trees at the winter solstice, because there is no evidence full stop. All one can reliably say looking at historical evidence about druids is that they existed. Everything else about them eludes us, stolen from view by the shifting sands of history.

Oh, and we celebrate Easter because i like to cook a big lamb dinner for friends, and we all love chocolate

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by green betty

Would you like to provide an example of another religion incorporating a Christian tradition into their faith in a way that minimizes its Christian roots? I'm hard pressed to think of one. I see it going the other way all the time, though--there's not a Christmas that goes by that I don't read at least a couple (horribly factually inaccurate, pagan-denying) letters to the editor explaining why Christmas trees are actually a completely Christian tradition. I see you also live in NS, so perhaps you've also read them.

And while I have no problem with Christians enjoying Celtic traditions (if they're honest about/honor their roots) or celebrating Spring in conjunction with pagan festivities, I also think it's a bit of a leap to frame an egg or a rabbit as a symbol of resurrection. Fertility, renewal, birth, life, absolutely--but resurrection? That egg or rabbit has never existed before. So they could not return to life. You may argue that the earth is being resurrected... but the earth was dormant, NOT dead. See the difference?

You want me to give an example of a religious practice which has its roots in another religion or culture, but denies that that is true?

I don't know, though I would be surprised if that hasn't happened historically - the beginnings of many traditions are lost.

But that isn't really to the point. Silly letters to the editor are unfortunate, but such people simply know little about the history of Christianity, and can't really be said to represent it. Christianity as a whole does not deny that it uses the symbols that it finds wherever it goes. It doesn't deny that is uses the language of pagan Greek philosophy, or art forms it has encountered in other cultures. It has always done so openly.

You could also make a pretty good argument in the case of the Celts, among others, that they themselves brought their practices and symbols into Christianity. The Christianization of Britain was not what anyone would describe as a forced conversion, or even something that seemed to generate a lot of conflict. So much so that stories had to be invented many years later by monks to make the whole thing more exciting. When people convert they almost always add their own customs and arts into the new religion.

[wytchywoman]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

The Christianization of Britain was not what anyone would describe as a forced conversion, or even something that seemed to generate a lot of conflict. So much so that stories had to be invented many years later by monks to make the whole thing more exciting. When people convert they almost always add their own customs and arts into the new religion.

I'm not sure I believe that. From all the accounts I've read about ( and I will try to find some sources to site for you) the roman invasion forced people to chose between conversion or death. I can't think of any other greater force than that of a death threat. Upon looking up some stuff I thought I had read, I also read ( and remembered) that temples were often converted into churches or the churches were placed on top of sacred sites. While that may not be deadly force, that's a really crappy thing to do. I also think we need to keep in mind that history is written by the winners, and there have been more than a few accounts of force that HAVE been witnessed and documented throughout time regarding christian conversion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_chr.htm
http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Christianization

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by wytchywoman

I'm not sure I believe that. From all the accounts I've read about ( and I will try to find some sources to site for you) the roman invasion forced people to chose between conversion or death. I can't think of any other greater force than that of a death threat. Upon looking up some stuff I thought I had read, I also read ( and remembered) that temples were often converted into churches or the churches were placed on top of sacred sites. While that may not be deadly force, that's a really crappy thing to do. I also think we need to keep in mind that history is written by the winners, and there have been more than a few accounts of force that HAVE been witnessed and documented throughout time regarding christian conversion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_chr.htm
http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Christianization

The Roman invaders weren't Christian for the most part and were not trying to convert the people there to Christianity. The first real foray into Britain by the Romans was under Claudius, who made Christianity illegal. It is very common for religious sites to be reused as religions change.

Most of the accounts of religious violence in the conversion of Britain were written much later, by monks who were trying to make the stories of the missionary saints, like Patrick, more exciting and dramatic. They aren't really considered that reliable, and there is little evidence that there was much hostility between non-Christians and the missionaries. They seem to have existed side by side fairly peaceably and the change in belief happened over time.