Skip to main content

How was this allowed?!? // Braylan Stringfellow

 For this blog post, I am just gonna go right into the main topic. How was the feast of fools even allowed to exist much less become establish in the 12th century. Many people died from doing some of the stuff done at this feast. Before getting into specifics, the entire thing resembled pagan rituals. Just that should have been enough to shut the thing down. The early church was not very tolerant of pagans even to the point of killing the pagans who did not convert to Christianity. In the feast of fools, certain aspects of the church were mocked, specifically church leaders and church life. People who had an opinion that was against what the church said were banished from the church. It makes no sense that the church itself would then do the same thing against itself. It is just absurd that this ritual was able to go on for four centuries like it did until it was finally shut down. Honestly, it seems a little hypocritical.

I commented on Clabo's and Haylee Lynd's post

Comments

  1. I'll admit, the same thing crossed my mind. Why was such a thing even associated with the Church?? I guess there is no way to know their exact thought processes but it still leaves us dumbfounded when we look back and see something like this. All we can do now is learn from their mistakes and prevent something like that from being initiated again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm thinking the same thing. Like how did you allow this for so long? I work at a church and being apart of/seeing all the thought and discussion that goes into everything we do from the songs we sing to what we post on social media to whatever else may be huge or small makes me really wonder why they weren't discussing this more. It should have been realized sooner that it didn't line up with the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It isn't just a little hypocritical!! Look, if we want to pursue this discussion, let us look at the history of Mardi Gras. Too uncomfortable? Then let's talk about how many churches have decided to have Super Bowl Sundays off.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...