Reply to Is your church against celebrating Halloween and trick or treat?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Is your church against celebrating Halloween and trick or treat?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I am a Christian, but I'm not concerned about this as a Christian. I have no problem with "baptizing" useful pagan customs. I have a problem with these stories, because they fail as history. There simply isn't evidence for them, and people believe them because they show up on the History Channel between showings of Ancient Aliens.[/quote]

Translation:  I refuse to believe the scholars, including contemporaneous writings by Bede, because it disagrees with my presuppositions, and I will say they fail as history but provide no evidence of that claim, and hope no one calls me on my bullshit.[/quote]

I waited a bit to respond to this, because I needed to get to where I could lay my hands on my copy of [i]Winters in the World[/i] Eleanor Parker's excellent recent book on the Anglo Saxon year. Parker is a specialist on medieval English and Scandinavian literature at Oxford and a scholar by anyone's definition. Here's what she says about the connection between Eostre and Easter celebration:

[quote][I]t's important to recognize that even if Easter does take its name from a goddess, that only tells us about the origins of the [i]name[/i]- not the origins of the festival. The Christian festival of Easter long pre-dated the Anglo-Saxon conversion, and its essential features, including the principal behind its dating, had been established for centuries. What's more, we have no evidence of any symbols, customs, or rituals that may have been associated with Eostre in Anglo-Saxon England or anything to suggest how her festival might have been celebrated. Bede mentions "feasts," in the vaguest terms, but he probably has no idea what those might have involved. Today it's popular myth that symbols linked in modern Britain with Easter, especially eggs, hares or rabbits derive from worship of Eostre, but there's no Anglo-Saxon evidence to support that. None of these symbols were linked to Easter in the Anglo-Saxon period; eggs weren't associated with Easter in Britain until the later Middles ages, hares and rabbits not until much later still. There's nothing to suggest any continuity between the pre-conversion festival and the Anglo-Saxon Christian Easter, and the modern observance of Easter owes nothing to Anglo-Saxon paganism, with the sole exception of its English name.
[/quote] (Page 126)

She also relevant to your odd description of Bede as "contemporary":
[quote]Most likely Bede wasn't relying on personal knowledge but was using a written source for month-names and adding his own speculation about the meaning- and in some cases he may have just been guessing.[/quote] (Page 15)

She also notes with regard to the name that:
[quote]Some have gone so far as to suggest that Bede invented Esotre as a scholarly hypothesis to explain a name he didn't understand[/quote] (Page 125) (There's a citation here to "Anglo-Saxon Paganism: The Evidence of Bede" by an R.I. Page a Cambridge scholar who was an expert on Anglo-Saxon runes)

So basically, what I'm saying is that I'm satisfied that my opinions are based on scholarship, including giving Bede his proper due.[/quote]

So we agree then, that it is the origin of the name.  Great!  Kind of a stretch to suggest that is the only connection, don't ya think?

While her scholarship is impressive, the rest of her statements are unsupported by citation.  They are just statements of her opinion.  "He may have been guessing"  or "He may have invented" .  Which are ironic accusations!

As for the symbology, we know the rabbit wasn't biblical.  Leviticus 11:6 states that the hare is an unclean animal: “The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/virginity-fertility-or-just-chocolate-the-opaque-history-of-the-easter-bunny/

[/quote]

DP. It’s very surprising you claim to be in agreement with pp about the origin of the word “Easter.” She basically debunked the pagan claim that it was derived from a pagan goddess, and she used credible sources.

In particular, there’s no positive evidence that pagans ever had a goddess named Eostre, also the venerable Bede of the 8th century wasn’t contemporary or entirely reliable on many points besides this one. You’ve taken a LACK of evidence for this alleged pagan goddess and turned this into “unsupported opinion” about her nonexistence, then somehow you’ve turned this into an assertion that a. she existed, and b. pp agrees with you. Also, you keep ignoring the stronger evidence that “Easter” entered Middle English from the middle German word for dawn, “Eostarum.” Not to mention, the idea that 5-6th century Brits were created the festival, instead of the more obvious 1st and 2nd century peoples of the Middle East and Rome, is a bit insulting.

That’s quite a stretch, dontcha think?[/quote]

Dude, YOUR POST QUOTES PARKER SAYING THIS: [i]{I}t's important to recognize that [b]even if [/b]Easter does take its name from a goddess, that only tells us about the origins of the name- not the origins of the festival.[/i]

So yes, we agree that is the origin of the name.

My position is that if the name is the source it is likely the rest is sourced there also, at least until other evidence proves it isn't.  You provide [b]no evidence [/b]it wasn't,[b] no evidence[/b] of where else those symbols came, and simply "Bede prolly made it up" with [b]no evidence[/b] that is true.

It's fricking laughable.

Howzabout this:  stop gish galloping with many words that prove nothing, and show one bit of evidence that the holiday and symbology came from somewhere else.  Otherwise I claim victory and I am done with you![/quote]

Dude, you’re talking to somebody different from the person who posted what you’re quoting.

So, you repost her sentence with the words “even if” Eostre existed—I bolded it for you—and try to turn this subjective expression of uncertainty into an assertion that you and pp agree that Eostre definitely existed. That’s your first unsubstantiated leap of logic. Amazingly, second leap: you take this even further to assert that the (still very unproven) name means there must have been traditions behind it. And an implied third leap: for your claim about a link to the Christian Easter you’d that these traditions must have involved spring or the equinox or something.

“Even if” is not proof of existence. Several of us are curious if you have proof that goes beyond “even if.” Or, frankly, whether you’re just trolling with all these bizarre leaps of logic.

Trying not to laugh here….[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics