Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@christadiaz111 I think more of them could have potentially turned to God as a source of explanation, but at the same time, it could have lead to more creative religions or ideologies.
@colelundgren No, I believe people claim to be atheist because they just plainly believe there is no God, but they still want an explanation for unexplainable occurrences in life which leads to a lot of atheists using science as an explanation.
The use of myths is to explain the unexplainable. The Greeks, Romans, and various ancient cultures used mythology to give purpose to life. They needed a reason why things happened not just that it was random chance. However, mythology is significantly random from a Christian’s point of view. Mythology explained the creation of the universe, seasons, emotions, and everyday occurrences. In more present times, myths are used in fictional historical scientific stories, like evolution. My question is, with the acceptance of mythology in the past times and the acceptance of the Big Bang Theory in modern times, do humans need the idea of a tangible beginning no matter which culture or time period?
@mmegsj fighting for something that is morally/biblically correct would be appropriate for war in my opinion
@nate1234 trying to talk out the problem is a lot more peaceful and harmless but sometimes war is necessary
In The Once and Future King, Arthur’s motto is to use “might for right. This agrees with The Goshawk, “I would rather shoot rabbits than people.” Arthur wanted as little blood shed as possible. They both seemed to have agree that less aggression is the best way to go. I believe that these two statements coincide with each other. My question is: How much blood shed was Arthur willing to take?
@mmegsj I think he still would have eventually found something else that would bring him down
@nate1234 Sir Galahad, Sir Percival, Bors, and Pellinore’s daughter find the Holy Grail I believe
Through the course of Book III, Lancelot journeys on quest after quest just to come back to him feeling as unaccepted as before. He put a mask over who he really was and limited himself to what he could’ve been, which would have been much greater in my opinion. Lancelot made his achievements define him, which isn’t necessarily bad, but should be limited to a certain point. In modern culture, we tend to use works and achievements to completely define how good we are. We think being the smartest, funniest, or coolest person will give us the joy we are looking for, but that is far from the truth. There will always be something that will eventually hold us back. As for Lancelot, being the best knight in the world wasn’t enough for him to stay forever happy because he let losing his virginity get in the way. My question is: Did Lancelot truly care about being the best knight in the world? Or just peace within himself?
@natalieolmedo I would have strongly resisted reading the book if there was no humor. The humor made The Once and Future King bearable and quite enjoyable. So no, I would have not liked the book more if it was dry and serious the whole way through.
@melodygrace For me, the most humorous part of the book is when the Questing Beast fell in love with the costume Questnig Beast. It was more of a silly, light type of humor which is the type of humor I prefer most of the time.
Humor in The Once and Future King was critical to keep your eyes open and to retain the plot. An illustration of humor in Book I would be when the knights were jousting and in cooperation, excruciatingly rode into trees. In Book II, Sir Palomides and Sir Grummore construct a costume that appears resembling the Questing Beast, which is King Pellinore’s fascination. They tell King Pellinore that they have spotted the beast and go in search for it. However, Sir Palomides and Sir Grummore’s idea soon back fires. The genuine Questing Beast appears and falls in love with the costume Questing Beast. I believe T.H. White decided to use humor to lighten up the mood and correlate with modern booklovers who don’t find lifeless stories attention-grabbing. In classical literature, humor aids the release of obscurity that can go along with a work of art from a not very positive time period or state of affairs. My question is: Does the time era affect how you associate with the humor? Or is it more of a personal matter?
@allisonkillough I believe they cared just for the fact that she was their mother and belonged to her. The effort they put into having a relationship with her was caused by the hope that maybe one day she’d open her eyes and realize how much they care for her and return the favor. Until then, they just did what they could on their end.
@rochelmgo Kay and Arthur’s relationship would be different if they were given a mother like Agravaine, Gawaine, Gaheris, and Gareth because the environment they would have grew up in would have changed the outcome of their relationship. They would have had to count on each other and work together to win their mother’s love. Kay and Arthur would more than likely have had to confide and honor each other because they wouldn’t have anyone else.
The most obvious difference between the dissimilar sets of siblings is their demeanor and interactions with and around each other. For the most part, Gawaine, Agravaine, Gaheris, and Gareth were devoted to each other. For example, Gawaine, Agravaine, Gaheris, and Gareth brought home a unicorn together to impress their mother. However, as children, Kay and Arthur remained substantially distant. Kay’s ego potentially got in the way of them having a close knit bond as children. For instance, when Arthur took the sword out of the stone to give to Kay, Kay claimed that it was he who released it from the stone which would result to Kay becoming the King of England. Furthermore, Gawaine, Agravaine, Gaheris, and Gareth were raised by their negligent mother who unquestionably had various ethical concerns. On the contrary, Kay and Arthur were raised by Sir Ector and had Merlyn who encouraged sensible teachings.
The objective of T.H. White’s process of switching back and forth between England and Orkney was to show an assorted perspective of Arthur’s kingdom and of Morgause’s kingdom because of what the ultimate outcome would be; the two kingdoms knit together when Arthur sleeps with his half-sister Morgause and ends up with a son.
My question is: If Morgause had good virtue and wasn’t Arthur’s half-sister, how would it have affected the situation? Would have sleeping together been a wise choice in that circumstance?
