Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

arcosapphire t1_j1vgi7o wrote

Reply to comment by That-Soup3492 in ELI5: Why green and red are the definitive Christmas colors? by P4rturi

That thread specifically acknowledges that the use of greenery predates the more modern customs and is the one thing that could, reasonably, be described as being of older pagan origin.

1

That-Soup3492 t1_j1vhrvs wrote

It's impossible to know. There's nothing "pagan" about decorating with greenery in the winter. It's like saying that using potpourri is pagan because ancient people used bowls of fragrant plants in their houses and temples too.

1

arcosapphire t1_j1vje88 wrote

I mean personally I think "pagan" is a wildly misapplied word, but I think people mean "it's a cultural thing from prior to the time of Christianization". So the question is basically, is the use of holly and other greenery around this time of year something that is specifically supposed to represent a biblical thing? Or is it something people were already doing and it just got coincidentally associated with Christmas due to the timing?

And I think you'd agree the latter is accurate. And that's what people are trying to get at when they say "it's a pagan thing" even though it might not be related to any religious practice.

1

That-Soup3492 t1_j1vlz5o wrote

We can say that there has been cultural continuity; that the Christmas season celebrations are obviously descendants of the feasting and drinking that was done by pre-Christian people during the darkest time of the year... because we are their descendants. Cultures rarely get immediately shorn of certain elements or immediately take them up.

The holly plant has been used by Romans, druids, Norse... people all the way back into pre-history. It was reinterpreted as a Christian decoration with Christian symbolism by Christian converts. Druids thought that holly would protect a home from natural disasters. Christians don't believe that but have used holly to represent Jesus' crown of thorns. That's just cultural evolution.

1

arcosapphire t1_j1vmeb8 wrote

What I'm saying is, that's what people mean. That's what they're getting at. They're saying it isn't a Christianity-specific thing like a nativity display is. That is unabashedly Christian.

But instead of writing two paragraphs about the meaning of cultural continuity, they use a shortcut they saw other people use: "it's really just a pagan tradition".

In Christian usage, "pagan" meant "whatever the people who aren't Christians yet are doing".

1

That-Soup3492 t1_j1vpeiy wrote

Except, they generally use it derogatorily, or as if it is some sort of "gotcha." As if the Christian symbolism is somehow inauthentic while the Druid symbolism, for example, is somehow authentic. Which is wrong. These things have evolved dozens of times and go right back to pre-history. Nobody stole it from anyone else, and no one's interpretation is inauthentic.

1

arcosapphire t1_j1vrsbo wrote

I agree with your perspective, but disagree with the assumption that the use is derogatory or a gotcha. I think it's usually used to indicate that an irreligious celebration is fine, because after all the traditions don't have their root in the religion anyway. At least, that is my viewpoint. I'm an atheist but I like celebrating Christmas as a secular holiday. Things like a Christmas tree don't feel weird because they're not Christian in origin anyway; there's no overt Christian symbolism going on. I would not ever set up a nativity scene, though; that would feel extremely weird to me because it's obviously an expression of a faith I do not have.

I believe the "gotcha" aspects are, in fact, a reaction to the "keep Christ in Christmas" people. There are people who believe that the secularization of the holiday is wrong and offensive. It's at that point that people are ready to come out swinging about how so many aspects of the celebration did not emerge from the religion itself. It's not so much a "gotcha" as an Uno reverse card. People aren't slagging on a holiday they probably enjoy themselves for being inauthentic, they're defending themselves against people who insist that the non-Christian aspects don't belong. And from what you've stated, I'm sure you agree that they do belong, because this is a cultural thing more than it is a religious one.

1