tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25813063961235809442024-02-19T09:54:24.128-05:00Company Loves MiseryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-34763055000502714422014-05-06T14:41:00.005-04:002014-05-06T14:41:50.790-04:00The Sovereignty of God According to Paul the Apostle and Justin the Martyr
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b> Compare Paul's concept of God's
sovereignty in Romans 9:1-23 with Justin's concept of God's
sovereignty in Chapter XLIII: RESPONSIBILITY ASSERTED</b></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"> Justin's
concept of God's sovereignty in Chapter 43 of his First Apology
differs greatly from Paul's Biblical account. Justin takes a very
un-Biblical approach in claiming that man has the ability to choose
whether to be good or evil, which directly contradicts what Paul
writes in Roman 9:17-18, "'F</span>or this very purpose I have
raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may
be declared in all the earth.' Therefore He has mercy on whom He
wills, and whom He wills He hardens." The Bible declares that,
because all men exist to proclaim God's glory, God has supreme
sovereignty over all of them. Justin the Martyr says the opposite,
claiming that man has the ability to reject God's authority in this
area of his life – meaning God is not sovereign at all, if this
were the case. In essence, Justin paints a picture of a God who is
not sovereign over His own creation, and Paul writes of God as He
Himself declares Him to be.</div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-42555493900215497222014-04-03T12:09:00.000-04:002014-04-03T12:09:08.493-04:00Misconceptions About the Crusades, and the Speech of Pope Urban II
<b>What are some common misconceptions about the Crusades, and
why are they incorrect?</b><br />
The Crusades are a well-known piece if Western history, although
there are many misconceptions today about what they actually were and
what caused them. A popular one claims that they were an unprovoked,
unwarranted attack on Muslim nations. The reality was that the
Christians and the Muslims had had peace with one another for many
years until a more warlike group of Muslims, the Turks, conquered the
Muslim lands. These new conquerors were not as peaceful or tolerant
of Christian pilgrims as the old Muslims had been. They began
assaulting ancient cities in Asia Minor such as Ephesus, Antioch and
Nicaea that were important to the Catholics of the West. The
Byzantine emperor of the time, Alexios I Komnenos, sent word to
then-pope Urban II to beg for help against the Muslim invaders.<br />
Another common misconception is that the Catholic crusaders were
second- or third-born sons of nobles who were not likely to inherit
any land from their fathers, and so set off to Muslim countries to
conquer and bring back wealth. Recent research shows that this is not
actually true; most of the crusaders were actually first-born nobles
with plenty of wealth already. A long and costly trip such as a
crusade, where victory was not guaranteed and many men and resources
would be lost, was not a good idea to attempt if one was simply
looking for wealth. Most crusaders returned home poorer than when
they had left, if they returned at all.<br />
A third popular misconception concerning the Crusades is that the
Christians' attacks angered the Muslims so much that they were an
indirect cause of modern-day terrorism on Western countries. This
would be sound reasoning, save that for the Muslims, the Crusades
were a tiny blip of their history that were barely even worth
mentioning. The Crusades did not have any lasting effect on Muslim
history; indeed with the majority of Muslims, for hundreds of years
the Crusades were nearly forgotten.<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<b>Based on the different versions of Pope Urban II's speech,
discuss the main themes in the Pope's remarks</b>.<br />
Although there is no official record of what Pope Urban II said
in his speech, various people who heard or heard about the speech
have written it down in their own versions, so from them we can glean
an idea of what the pope's words were. A major theme of his speech
seemed to be a charge to punish the Turks, whose atrocities towards
Christians Pope Urban listed in graphic detail. This part of the
speech appeared designed to incite the crowd to anger, being "filled"
as it were with the righteous anger of God.<br />
But that wasn't the only part of Urban's speech; in fact, most of
the sources do not even record it as the longest part. Much more of
the pope's words were directed towards encouraging peaceful Christian
behavior in kindness towards one another. The pope called out the
knights and men-at-arms of the day, saying that they had become
plunderers and murderers, using their strength to oppress the weak in
contrast to their oaths as knights. Urban rebuked them for this
abominable behavior and charged them to turn their energies towards
reclaiming the Holy Land. Meanwhile he encouraged those left at home
– the elderly and the infirm, women, children and clergymen – to
remain at peace with one another and support the crusaders with
prayer. Urban was equally occupied with sending soldiers on Crusades
and with keeping a holy peace at home.<br />
Although we have no way of knowing exactly what Urban said, we do
know the reaction he received: Upon hearing the words of the pope,
the crowd cried out, "It is the will of God! It is the will of
God!"<br />
The pope was so moved by this outcry that he closed his speech by
saying, "Let this then be your war-cry in combats, because this
word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the
enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is
the will of God! It is the will of God!"Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-47933335591382881542014-04-02T11:57:00.004-04:002014-04-02T11:57:44.822-04:00The Great Schism, Sacraments and Indulgences
<b>What was the Great Schism? What factors brought it on?</b><br />
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
The Great Schism was a division
between the East and West Christian Churches that occurred because of
differences in how they worshiped and lived out their faith. Because
of the geographical distance between the two major churches (the
Western Church based in Rome and the Eastern Church based in
Constantinople), such differences were hard to work out, and each
church felt that its example should be the one followed by the
majority of Christians. The Great Schism found its beginning when a
man of the Eastern Church, named Michael Cerularius, began shutting
down churches in the East that worshiped in the Western way. The Pope
in the West sent men to try and reason with Celarius, whose refusal
to negotiate led the Pope to excommunicate him from the Church. Until
that point Christians from both the East and West Churches had seen
themselves as one brethren, different in some aspects but united
under the same God. Now tensions only escalated between the two
Churches, with aggressions on both sides that ultimately led to the
Churches separating themselves from each other once and for all. Even
today, the Catholic Church in the West and the Orthodox Church in the
East do not see themselves as one Christian brethren.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /><br />
</div>
<b>What are the sacraments?</b><br />
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
According to Roman Catholic religion,
the sacraments are "sensible revelations of insensible grace,"
meaning that they are visible and audible signs of God's nonphysical
grace of salvation in a believer. The Roman Catholic Church holds
that every sacrament relates to a particular significant event in the
life of each believer. The Sacrament of Baptism signifies the washing
away of the stain of Original Sin, while the Sacrament of Penance
signifies the removal of every successive sin confessed to a priest.
The Sacrament of Holy Communion signifies the sacrifice of God's Son
on the cross, and the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or anointing the
sick, signifies the washing away of sins in the very old or ill. The
sacraments are meant to follow Catholics from their birth to their
death; an entire lifetime of signs of God's grace.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /><br />
</div>
<b>What is an indulgence?</b><br />
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
An indulgence is an
often-misunderstood piece of Catholic doctrine introduced in the
Early Middle Ages. The widest belief about indulgences is that they
are bought by people who want their sins forgiven; therefore, an
indulgence is the forgiveness of sins bought with money. This is not,
however, what the Catholic Church teaches. To them, one's Original
Sin is already washed away at baptism, and every mortal sin
thereafter is confessed to a priest, who then gives the sinner
penance to wash away these new sins. As long as Catholics are
faithful in confessing their sins, the Catholic Church teaches, they
are forgiven as a matter of course. No one has to purchase with money
what they can get for free in a confessional. Indulgences, then, do
not relate to actual sins but to time spent in Purgatory. According
to the Catholic Church, if a person dies or is killed before they can
complete their next confession of sins, their soul – burdened with
unforgiven sins – goes to Purgatory to do penance for those
unconfessed sins and wait. Indulgences are granted to shorten the
length of a soul's stay in Purgatory, thus quickening their trip to
heaven. While indulgences could indeed be bought for money, most
indulgences were granted for free to those that the Church deemed
worthy. Indulgences could also be acquired for someone already dead,
whose friends or family worried that their soul might be in
Purgatory, as a kind of last favor to those loved ones who are
deceased.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-65490376319717263912014-01-28T16:25:00.001-05:002014-01-28T16:25:44.820-05:00Christian Life From Pliny to Constantine<b> What was Christian life like between the famous letter of
Pliny until the reign of Constantine?</b><br />
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
Christian life between Pliny's letter
and the reign of Constantine was a constant stream of persecution,
but the level of persecution through the ages fluctuated from the
barely noticeable to the highly dangerous. Pliny's letter to the
Emperor Trajan inquired about the empire's legal stance on
Christians, how they were to be found, and what kind of punishment
they should receive. Trajan's response told Pliny that Christians
ought not to be sought out, but if their practices happened to be
observed, then Christianity was punishable by death – meaning that
the empire had adopted a sort of "don't ask, don't tell"
policy regarding Christianity.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
Later emperors, however, were not so
relaxed in their persecutions. There were several emperors, such as
the military-appointed Diocletian and the famously mad Nero, who
actively sought out Christians and had them tortured and killed for
their faith. Diocletian's persecution, which lasted from 303AD to
305AD, became known as the Great Persecution. But even in times of
relative peace Christians had to live in a state of constant
vigilance, because even when Christians were not actively being
sought out for their faith, Christianity was still officially a
crime. Christian persecution finally came to an end with the reign of
the Emperor Constantine, who believed that he had been told in a
dream to carry a cross, the symbol of Christianity, into battle. His
victory on the battlefield convinced him that Christianity was the
true religion, and his subsequent baptism put an end to the
persecutions of Christians throughout the empire.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-70255210044388312782014-01-27T13:28:00.000-05:002014-01-27T13:28:38.527-05:00Cicero's Rhetoric
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b> How important was the rhetorical
context of Cicero's orations: his listeners' fear of Catiline's
conspiracy and army?</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"> Cicero's
rhetoric was his major advantage in his case against Catiline.
Cicero, who was equipped with very little real proof, had to rely on
his skill with words and rhetoric in order to ensure the success of
his case against Catiline. Cicero was a master of rhetoric. With it
he was able to stir the emotions of his listeners to fear Catiline
and his army; without it he would not have got very far in trying to
put a stop to Catiline's conspiracy. The rhetorical context of
Cicero's orations was possibly the most important and effective
factor in his arguments against Catiline.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-36167930586296673082014-01-23T16:27:00.003-05:002014-01-23T16:27:47.354-05:00Cicero's Writings Against Catiline
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b> If you had been Catiline, what
would you have said to undermine Cicero's case?</b></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Cicero's case
against Catiline was primarily based on intimidation. Cicero employed
many tactics to discredit Catiline which involved descriptions of
Catiline's despicable behavior, loose morals, and selfish ideals in
order to paint a picture of Catiline that was unfavorable at best and
loathsome at worst. Cicero approached the matter this way because, in
his case, he presents very little real proof. What he was trying to
accomplish was the destruction of Catiline's character and
reputation, because he knew that his concrete evidence was very slim.
If I had been Catiline, I would have attempted to undermine Cicero's
case by demanding he back up his accusations with proof before the
Senate, which of course Cicero would have been unable to do. If I
could prove by Cicero's lack of proof that I was innocent of his
accusations, then Cicero's case would have very little real weight.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-28544417669131228252014-01-23T16:26:00.001-05:002014-01-23T16:26:19.521-05:00Christian Teachings vs. Religions of the Past
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b> How would you compare the teachings
of Christianity to the values cherished by earlier civilizations
(particularly the Greeks, and the values expressed in Homer's works)?
Conversely, can you see anything in common between Christianity and
some of the great ancient thinkers we have discussed?</b></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Christianity is
interesting in its teachings because it was one of the very first
religions that taught of a single, all-powerful God (as stated
clearly in John 1:1-5), whereas most religions before it had been
founded on ideas of many gods, each of whom had power over only a
handful of aspects of life. The Greek pantheon is an excellent
example of this, containing such familiar gods of myth as Apollo (god
of the sun), Athena (goddess of wisdom, war, and homemaking), and
Zeus (king of the gods). This is the most obvious difference between
the teachings of Christianity and the religions of earlier
civilizations: the belief in one all-powerful God rather than many
lesser gods.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Another
significant difference is the attitudes of the deities themselves.
The Greeks believed in gods that were rather childish in their
behavior; they were selfish, easily angered, and prone to scheming
against each other and the humans they were meant to rule over.
Christianity teaches that God is wise, all-knowing, just and fair,
and does not give in to the temper-tantrum-like outbreaks that
characterized the Greek pantheon.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
There are
similarities between Christianity and older religions and beliefs,
because Christian teachings embody all that humans value as good and
virtuous thinking and behavior. Honesty, love, kindness and charity,
as well as many other positive values, are encouraged by both
Christianity and several older religions. But while most older
religions required strict obedience to a ritualistic set of laws in
order to be "right" with one's gods, Christianity teaches
that one only has to be saved and made clean by the grace of God –
no sacrifices, rituals, or ceremonial laws to keep.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
While
similarities between Christianity and older belief systems do exist,
I feel that the differences are greater, because there has never been
a religion like Christianity since its founding with the birth of
Jesus Christ, and there was never one before (save the religion of
the Jews, which shared the same teachings and values of Christianity
but with more ceremonies and rituals – all of which were made
obsolete after the birth of Jesus Christ fulfilled the coming of the
Messiah for the Jews).</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-63245435632188381462014-01-21T16:48:00.003-05:002014-01-21T16:48:46.192-05:00Ethical Cause and Effect in Both Works and Days and The Eumenides
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b> How does the view of ethical cause
and effect in history in <i>Works and Days</i> compare with the
furies' view in <i>The Eumenides</i>?</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Works
and Days</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
by Hesiod provides an interesting comparison to Aeschylus' </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Eumenides</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
since both works of literature deal with many of the same themes of
revenge, honesty, hard work, and ethics. </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Works
and Days</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
attempts to teach the reader what actions will lead to a good life
(as well as what actions will lead to a poor and unhappy life).
</span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Eumenides</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
although it uses much the same concept, is more focused and candid in
its warnings of a bad life rather than promises of a good.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> In
</span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Works and Days</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
Hesiod admits that it is morally permissible to take revenge on
someone if they have wronged you. </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Eumenides</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
agrees with this idea, as two major characters of the play use
revenge to get back at those who have wronged them. Clytemnestra's
husband sacrifices their daughter, so in revenge Clytemnestra commits
adultery with another man and later kills her husband. Her son
Orestes, once he finds out what his mother has done, takes revenge on
her by killing her. </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Eumenides</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
deals with which revenge was correct. According to the Furies, who
play a major part in </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Eumenides</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
it was Clytemnestra's, and they spend most of the play trying to get
Orestes punished for his revenge against his mother.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Honesty
is dealt with in both </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Works
and Days</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
and </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Eumenides</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
Hesiod believes that being honest is one of the actions that will
result in a good and happy life. Morally speaking, being honest is
the right thing to do under any circumstance, and this is illustrated
in </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Eumenides</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
when Orestes decides to be honest in the face of the Furies'
condemnation about why he killed his mother.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Hard
work is also an important part of both pieces of literature. Hesiod
points out, through many different examples, how hard work will pay
off and lead to a good and happy life. Hard work, he says, will make
one comfortable at the very least and may even lead to wealth, if
applied correctly. He gives ideas on how to apply the principles of
hard work to one's life, explaining in detail how to make the most of
one's resources and labor. Hard work certainly paid off for the
Furies in </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Eumenides</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
Although their primary goal – which was to have Orestes punished
for the murder of his mother – was not achieved, they succeeded in
becoming revered gods of Athens, an outcome which the city had
offered to them as a sort of compromise.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Works
and Days</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
and </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The Eumenides</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
are filled with many such similarities and contrasts. They are
fascinating complements to each other, and of course, they are
outstanding works of literature in their own right.</span></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-54799667701421337532014-01-21T16:11:00.001-05:002014-01-21T16:16:24.158-05:00Seneca's Letters to Lucilius and the Ara Pacis Augustae
<b>According to Seneca, what is man's unique good? How should a
good man conduct himself?</b><br />
Seneca wrote in his <i>Letters to Lucilius</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
that he believes man's unique good to be reason, the power to think
and to judge. None of the animals or other creatures of earth possess
this capability, and for Seneca, that makes it man's defining
characteristic and thus his unique good. Seneca writes that a good
man must always behave according to reason; a good man must act with
honor at all times and must be willing to do things that might be
displeasing to him for honor's sake. Seneca believes that reason
leads to virtue; thus, a good man is one whose defining
characteristic of reason has led him to conduct his life with virtue.</span><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<b>Read further about one of the Roman works of art you studied,
and in about 125 words discuss the additional details you find out.</b><br />
<b> </b>The Ara Pacis Augustae (which translates to "Altar of
the Augustan Peace), commonly known as the Ara Pacis, is a work of
Roman art that was commissioned by the Senate in 13 BC to honor
Augustus's military victories, which had brought peace to the Roman
public. It was dedicated to the Roman goddess of Peace and the altar
served as the location of many sacrifices to Peace. It served as a
kind of monument to Roman civil religion, which involved paying
homage Rome and her leaders rather than the mythic Greek gods that
Rome had also adopted. The walls of the Ara Pacis are decorated with
highly detailed relief work, depicting various scenes of Roman peace
and prosperity which the altar was meant to commemorate.<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-36660935060673021872014-01-20T13:48:00.003-05:002014-01-20T13:48:40.529-05:00The Augustan Settlement and Virgil's Aeneid
<b> What was the Augustan Settlement? </b>
<br />
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
The Augustan Settlement was
Augustus's way of presenting the idea to the public that under his
rule, the Roman Republic was being restored and that there was no
single absolute ruler, even though that's precisely what Augustus
himself wanted to be. Under the Augustan Settlement, Augustus
received ultimate control over a certain number of territories, which
were known as "imperial provinces" and whose regional
governors were chosen by Augustus himself. In order to maintain the
balance, Augustus also had several "senatorial provinces,"
whose governors were appointed by lot every year. Augustus reserved
the right to appoint military tribunes and tax collectors, declare
war, and make treaties, in exchange for which he restored power to
traditional magistracies and reinstated consular elections. Rome
remained primarily under Augustus's power, but he managed it in such
a way that, for the Roman public, it seemed as if the Republic of old
had indeed made a comeback.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /><br />
</div>
<b> What is the basic story of </b><i><b>The Aeneid</b></i><b>?
Why do you think this great literary work has also been called an
exercise in political propaganda?</b><br />
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<i>The Aeneid</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
is an epic tale written by Virgil about a man named Aeneas, a citizen
of Troy. </span><i>The Aeneid</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
focuses on Aeneas's life after the destruction of Troy by the Greeks
in </span><i>The Iliad</i><span style="font-style: normal;">. Aeneas
then goes on to found the city of Rome, which eventually becomes a
great empire that subjugates the Greeks. Although Virgil during his
lifetime did not think that </span><i>The Aeneid</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
was worthy of being read (and in fact wished it destroyed after his
death), Emperor Augustus ordered the work published because he felt
that it was a useful piece of political propaganda. </span><i>The
Aeneid</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> casts Rome in a positive
light, especially its main character Aeneas, who is a figure very
similar to Augustus himself. </span><i>The Aeneid</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
was meant to make its audience sympathetic to Rome and particularly
to Rome's emperor.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-63457023036563084192014-01-20T13:47:00.000-05:002014-01-20T13:49:18.299-05:00The Struggle of the Orders and Tiberius Gracchus<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b> What specific changes occurred in
Roman society as a result of the Struggle of the Orders?</b><br />
The
Struggle of the Orders was a significant time in Roman history, when
society was divided into two major classes: the Plebeians and the
Patricians. Patricians were powerful and wealthy and controlled
Rome's political scene, while Plebeians were the "servant"
class, and the freedoms they were afforded were few and
insignificant. There was no shifting between the classes: in order to
be a Patrician, you had to be born a Patrician. No matter how hard
the Plebeians tried to lobby for their freedoms and rights, the
Patricians were only ever concerned with their own affairs over their
servants'. The only things that the Plebeians truly owned with which
they could effectively rebel were their own bodies – because the
lower class greatly outnumbered the upper, the Plebeians decided to
peaceably leave Rome altogether, depriving the entire upper class of
their servants and subjects.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Having proven that they did indeed
have some sway over the Patricians, who immediately begged for them
to return, the Plebeians went back to Rome with a new resolve to
change the way they were being treated. Because of this peaceful
struggle, some things in Roman society were changed for the
Plebeians: Intermarriage between the classes was allowed for the
first time, allowing one to enter a class he had not been born into,
the practice of enslaving those who owed you debts was abolished, and
by the year 342 BC a Plebeian was actually made a Roman consul.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b> Why did Tiberius
Gracchus attract so much suspicion from the Roman Senate? </b></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Tiberius Gracchus was a Roman tribune
who was fond of doing things the wrong way, meaning that he would do
things the way he deemed would be most efficient instead of sticking
to traditional means. The first notable instance of this occurred
when the soldiers of the Roman military were returning from the Punic
Wars, only to find their land ravaged by the struggles of the war.
Desperate not to starve, many of these soldiers sold off their land,
expecting to find jobs in the cities – not realizing that most of
the jobs they would have done were already being done by slaves.
Faced with this new joblessness, the veterans tried to re-enlist in
the army, only to be told that they could not enlist since they had
no land. Rome was left with a lot of poor, hungry, jobless veterans
who had nowhere to go and nothing to do. Tiberius Gracchus sought to
change this by taking land from wealthy individuals whom he deemed
did not need it, and distributing it among the veterans. Not only
would the soldiers now have land to work, but their possession of
land would make them eligible to join the military again, thus
swelling Rome's army with thousands of men who were grateful and
indebted to Tiberius Gracchus.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But instead of going to the Senate
with this proposal, as was the traditional route, Tiberius Gracchus
went directly to the Concilium Plebis, a move which angered the
Senate so much that even when the Concilium Plebis voted to pass the
proposal, the Senate refused to fund it. Cut short of funds, it
looked as if the plan would have to be dropped – except soon
afterward, the kingdom of Pergamum was passed into the control of
Rome when its king died. Tiberius Gracchus now decided to tax
Pergamum directly in order to fund his project, which made the senate
even angrier because he – as a tribune – had no legal power to
levy taxes. Tiberius Gracchus's fellow tribune, Marcus Octavius, on a
prompt from the Senate, finally decided to veto the project – which
only made Tiberius Gracchus see him as an obstacle to be removed.
Soon afterward Marcus Octavius was deposed as tribune by Tiberius
Gracchus's deciding vote, leaving the path clear for Tiberius's
Gracchus's plans.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The final blow came when Tiberius
Gracchus ran for a second term as tribune in order to see his plan
carried out, a move which was forbidden by Roman law. The Senate was
now fed up with him and the trouble he was causing them. At last, at
a political meeting with the tribune, the Senate witnessed Tiberius
Gracchus make a gesture which they interpreted as calling for a crown
– when in reality he had merely been communicating to his friends
that he thought he was in danger by gesturing to his head, but the
irate Senate did not see it that way. They broke the legs off chairs
and beat Tiberius Gracchus to death with them.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-57054242220859361502013-11-25T00:43:00.003-05:002013-11-25T00:43:32.835-05:00Ancient Liberty and Alexander's Horse
<div align="LEFT">
<b>What is the difference between the liberty of the
ancients and the liberty of the moderns? What would moderns find
lacking in ancient liberty?</b></div>
<div align="LEFT">
The ancient view of liberty, that is, the idea of
liberty that was prevalent in Greek city-states (most notable Athens)
paints a very different picture of liberty than the one that we as
modern individuals hold today. In fact, one could say that the
ancient Greeks had an idea that is fundamentally opposed to our own
ideas on what it means to be free.</div>
<div align="LEFT">
For the ancient Greeks of Athens, freedom and liberty
were synonymous with government and community, as in "The
freedom of the city to make decisions about its running for itself,
and the freedom of the citizens to participate in the city's
decisions." Every male citizen of Athens was allowed to play a
direct part in the government, allowing every citizen to help rule
the community. This was the Greeks' idea of freedom – city-state
autonomy, run by the people.</div>
<div align="LEFT">
Our idea of freedom, however, is much different. We
believe that every individual has inalienable rights, rights that
cannot be taken away by any man or government, and our freedom allows
us to do essentially as we please without infringing upon others'
rights and freedoms. Our liberty is focused on the individual, while
the Greeks' liberty was focused on the community – to the point
where a citizen could even be banished from the city, guiltless of
any crime, as long as enough citizens with their idea of community
freedom decided he was too much of a problem to keep around and voted
him out: "The good of the one for the good of the many."</div>
<div align="LEFT">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT">
<b>Plutarch tells about an important episode in
Alexander's life. What characteristics is it intended to show?</b></div>
<div align="LEFT">
<b> </b>Plutarch tells a story about a young Alexander, son of
Philip of Macedonia, watching a horse be trained by his father's men,
who are unsuccessful even after many attempts to break it. Finally,
when Philip's men had given up on the horse and the king had decided
to sell it, Alexander stepped up to ask his father if he could try
breaking it. Naturally Philip was displeased with Alexander's
request, thinking that his son was being arrogant by not heeding the
example of his elders, who had all failed to break the horse.
Alexander insisted, however, and was given the chance to try training
the horse.</div>
<div align="LEFT">
To everyone's astonishment, Alexander succeeded.
Philip was amazed and, Plutarch says, told his son to "Seek
another kingdom, my son, that may be worthy of thy abilities; for
Macedonia is too small for thee."</div>
<div align="LEFT">
Plutarch uses this story to illustrate Alexander's
independence and bravery in standing up to his father, which are both
important parts of his character that eventually help shape his
conquest of the known world.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-17100458288851169562013-11-23T00:26:00.002-05:002013-11-23T00:26:26.146-05:00Greek Art and Religion<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_14.130.14.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_14.130.14.jpg" width="254" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>Choose a piece of Greek art and describe what it is and when it is dated, along with what period it is from and what the characteristics are of that period, and how this piece represents those characteristics.</b>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
The piece I have chosen to research is from the second half of
the 8<sup>th</sup> century BC, also known as the Late Geometric
Period. It is a grave marker in the form of a large vase, which were
common for that era. Depicted on the vase is a funerary procession,
perhaps of the deceased person whose grave this vase would mark; it's
possible to identify figures representing the deceased's wife and
child, who along with other relatives have come to mourn and pay
their respects. This piece is identifiable as being from the
Geometric Period, noted for its shapes and designs (which are
geometrical, as the period's name implies), because of the way the
figures on the vase are rendered: people are shown in clear-cut
profile (the deceased is painted on his side to provide clarity), and
every detail is painted with an eye for geometric pattern and design
that are characteristic for the Geometric Period.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
___</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>How does ancient Greek religion resemble or differ from the
religion of the Hebrews?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> </b>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Greek religion is very different from Hebrew religion, the most
notable difference of course being the pantheon of Greek gods and
goddesses, whereas in Hebrew religion there is only one God. The
Greek religion in its time was much more characteristic of other
religions across the world; the Hebrew religion, on the other hand,
was the only religion like it at the time. Other difference between
the beliefs of the Greeks and the Hebrews involved how their gods
acted and were to be treated. Greeks believed that their gods were
petty and childish, like superpowered human beings as opposed to
omnipotent, omnipresent beings. Therefore Greeks believed that (and
told myths to the effect that) Greek gods could be thwarted if one
was clever or strong enough, and Greek mythology is littered with
stories about humans thwarting their small-minded gods. Hebrew
religion, of course, was very different. Hebrews believed that their
God was omnipotent and omnipresent, and that thwarting Him was
impossible – but the Hebrew God was not petty or childish. He did
not spend His time on pointless wars with other gods or with humans,
as the Greek gods were wont to do, because He was and is perfect.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-86079622580511695032013-11-11T11:45:00.003-05:002013-11-11T11:45:35.414-05:00The View of the Biblical Materials on the Role of Ethics in the Development of History<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Biblical ethics
have played a large part in the history of man since the very
beginning of time, starting with God's first commands to Adam and Eve
in the Garden of Eden, and then influencing other major events like
the receiving of the Ten Commandments by Moses, which eventually
turned into the Mosaic Law of the Hebrews. But even cultures and
peoples who do not recognize God as their sovereign, the ethics
outlined in the Bible have contributed heavily to the way they view
ethics and morality in general. Most cultures, for instance, have
laws against stealing and killing, both of which are things that God
has commanded us not to do in the Ten Commandments. Those who do not
follow God will often still give food to the hungry or homes to the
poor, and kindness in some degree to those worse off than yourself is
a distinctly human trait that you would expect to find in most people
that you meet. All of this has been influenced by biblical ethics;
whether most people realize it or not, the Bible and God's Word have
played an important part in the development of the world since the
very beginning of time.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-80312138781328874102013-11-11T11:45:00.002-05:002013-11-11T11:49:28.383-05:00The Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War<span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b> Describe the circumstances leading to the Persian Wars. Were they significant events in Western history?</b></span><br />
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"> </span>
The seeds were planted for the Persian
Wars when Athens had sent ambassadors to the Persian rulers, hoping
to make the rising power of Persia a non-threat to the city-state of
Athens. Persian officials were open to this kind of relationship with
Athens as long as Athens provided them with "token of water and
earth" – which the Athenian ambassadors agreed to, not knowing
the significance of what they had just done. For the Persians, tokens
of water and earth meant that Athens was declaring Persia superior to
Athens, essentially giving up Athenian freedom under the control of
the Persians. By the time the Athenian ambassadors realized what they
had done, it was too late. Persia continued to grow as a world power,
and eventually all of the Greek city-states felt threatened enough to
want to fight back. They asked Athens for help, and Athens agreed –
which led to a furious reaction from the Persians, who believed that
Athens was breaking her vows to Persia made with the tokens of water
and earth. Athens, however, couldn't care less, and together with the
other Greek city-states the Persian Wars were fought. Greece won
against all odds, defeating the vastly greater Persian empire thanks
to the courage and determination of her city-states. Had they not
won, Greece and Greek culture could have been wiped out entirely and
changed the whole course of history that followed.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<b>Why was the Peloponnesian War fought?</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<b> </b>The Peloponnesian War was a civil war
in Greece that took place after their victory over the Persians. It
was a war which resulted from Athens' growing power following the
Persian defeat, a power which made many of the other city-states
uneasy. Athens had organized the Greek city-states into an alliance
called the Peloponnesian League for the purpose of defending Greece
against powerful enemies, such as the Persians. In the League's early
days, the other city-states were content with this arrangement, and
they were also content to send tributes to Athens in order for Athens
to build up a powerful navy to defend against conquering forces. But
it wasn't long before the city-states began to realize that most of
the money was not being used to build ships but was instead being
used to beautify Athens herself, a fact which made one city-state
eventually decide to leave the Peloponnesian League – and then
Athens retaliated. Once the city-states realized that Athens was no
longer in the business of protecting Greece from outsiders, they saw
no reason to obey her any more, and the war with Athens began – the
Peloponnesian War.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-37839415731995949782013-11-11T10:43:00.001-05:002013-11-11T10:43:10.532-05:00 The Relationship Between Ethics and Sanctions in Proverbs 1-7<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Proverbs Chapter 1 verses 8-9 say, "My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck." As far as sanctions go in the Old Testament, this one is clearly positive, with such language as "an ornament of grace unto thy head and chains about thy neck" illustrating just how positive it is. Ornaments worn on the head and chains around the neck were symbols of status and wealth in the Old Testament world; to be adorned with such jewelry told the world that you were somebody important or well-off. In this proverb, a son (which could be applied to any child) is admonished to listen and abide by his parents' instructions, because if he did then good things would befall him, as opposed to evil ones. An ornament for the head and chains for the neck: positive sanctions that relate directly to the biblical ethics of heeding one's parents.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Proverbs Chapter 6 verses 9-11 say, "How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man." This is an example of a negative sanction – misfortune befalling those who do not hold to the ethics of God's Word. The person illustrated in this proverb is depicted as sleeping – specifically a person too lazy to work, too lazy to pick himself up out of his rest and do as he ought. Poverty sneaks up on him when he does not expected, and our lazy man becomes a poor one as well. This is a negative sanctions: evil happening to those who do not pay heed to the ethics of the Old Testament.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-85633794533635155582013-11-11T10:40:00.002-05:002013-11-11T10:40:49.742-05:00Aristotelian Liberals and Spartan Society
<b> How have libertarians, or "Aristotelian liberals,"
argued for liberty on the basis of Aristotle's ideas?</b><br />
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
Although we have no record of
Aristotle ever saying or writing anything that directly relates to
the libertarian (or "Aristotelian liberal") worldview, and
despite the fact that for a long time historians assumed that
Aristotle did not believe in libertarian values, arguments have been
brought up and considered that Aristotle was, in fact,
libertarian-minded. Aristotle's worldview was founded on the belief
that happiness is achieved through virtue, and that virtue must be
taught in the early years of life but will eventually become a habit
that we fall into when faced with any life situation at all.
Aristotelian liberals have begun to spread the idea that this
worldview illustrates how libertarian Aristotle's thinking actually
was, based on the argument that while a man practicing virtue still
benefits society, if he is practicing virtue only because he is being
threatened with a gun to his head, it is not true virtue because he
did not choose to do this himself. Aristotle assumed that all men
would practice virtue because it was primarily good for <span style="font-style: normal;">themselves
(not to mention to the rest of society), and so a man coerced into
virtuous behavior isn't virtuous at all. It has to be his own
decision to be virtuous; himself, and no "higher power" in
the form of a government or watchdog. Because of this argument,
Aristotelian liberals make a very good case that Aristotle did have
libertarian ideas.</span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<br /><br />
</div>
<b>What was Spartan society like?</b><br />
Spartan society was cruel and hard on its citizens, a warrior
society based off the need to have a strong military force to control
the vast populations of slaves (called "helots") that the
Spartans possessed for labor. Every citizen, make or female, was
required to participate and serve the state of Sparta for as long as
they lived. Men were trained by separating boys from their families
at age seven and taking them away to training camps, where they spent
the next thirteen years of their lives being trained and serving in
the military. Camp life was hard for these boys. Allowed hardly any
clothes and only a single cloak to keep them warm, they suffered
trying to stave off the cold and their bitter hunger, for they were
only allowed a small amount of food to eat. Stealing was expected of
these boys; they were not punished unless they got caught, and if
they were caught then punishment was severe. At age 30 men were
allowed to return home and marry, and although they could live with
their families, all Spartan soldiers were required to eat their meals
in a common mess hall in order to reinforce the idea that their
fellow soldiers were their real family.<br />
Girls were also trained in fighting and fitness, being allowed to
stay at home with their mothers but also taking part in sports and
physical instruction. Childbirth was considered every woman's battle,
and a woman who died in childbirth was honored on the same level as a
man who died fighting for Sparta. Spartan government was divided into
four parts: two kings, a council of elders, a group of five officials
known as ephors, and an assembly composed of every Spartan man over
the age of 30.<br />
Although Spartan society was hard on its citizens, it was
effective at producing one of the best trained, most dedicated
society of soldiers that the world has ever seen.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-76568139106070616262013-10-16T20:47:00.003-04:002013-10-16T20:47:54.179-04:00Reasons Given in the Psalms For Long-Term Optimism
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The Psalms offer
many reasons for long term optimism – optimism for the future, even
if everything around you now seems dark and your fortune looks grim.
God's promises in the Psalms are our reason for long-term optimism.
In the Book of Psalms, David (and many other psalmists) sing praises
to God in spite of their difficulties, because they have reason to
put their faith in Him and they rejoice at his promises to them. The
greatest of God's promises is the guarantee of life after death, an
eternity in heaven with Him. This is a great promise indeed, but it
will only come to pass after our deaths, which must inspire us to
keep our faith and hope in Him until then.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
A fantastic example
of the long-term optimist is David, who time and time again came up
against his enemies, both enemies of the flesh and enemies of his own
sin, and time and time again he finished all of these trials with a
song of praise to God, in whom he had put his faith and trust. David
relied upon God to bear him through his hardest times, and God did
not abandon his servant. God never abandons those who put their faith
and hope in Him, and this is why we are to have long-term optimism.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-3478320750882370172013-10-16T20:46:00.003-04:002013-10-16T20:46:59.673-04:00Socrates and Plato
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><b>What
was the disagreement Socrates had with the Sophists?</b></span></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> Around
the time when Socrates was a philosopher in Ancient Greece, there was
a school of philosophical thought which called itself the Sophists.
Socrates had made it his life's mission to discount the Sophists and
their arguments, primarily because he believed the worldview that
they taught was twisted and corruptive. The Sophists were a type of
school specializing in rhetoric and the art of persuasive argument,
which was a highly prized skill in the mob-democracy government of
Athens at the time. The Sophists did not, however, teach persuasive
argument </span><i>for the right or truth</i><span style="font-style: normal;">;
instead, they taught how to argue any case from any point and make it
sound reasonable, no matter how wrong or untruthful it may be.</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%;">
The Sophists were some of the world's first most famous cynics,
teaching that there was no such thing as an ultimate "Good",
and that all laws and rules of society were mere convention: for
example, laws against murder and theft being in place only because a
society will run better in an atmosphere without murder or theft.
This was the basis upon which Socrates disagreed with the Sophists.
He (along with most of Athens) believed the Sophists were corrupting
Athenian youth and diluting basic morals, and so Socrates made it
part of his life's work to discredit this party.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%;">
<br /><br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<b>What was Plato's point in his
allegory of the cave?</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
In Plato's
<i>Republic</i><span style="font-style: normal;">, in which he stages
a dialogue held between characters in order to get his own views
across, he explains his idea of the Forms. Essentially, Plato
believed that for every object that exists, a perfect "essence"
of that object must also exist on an immaterial plane, and that is
how we recognize every object by its nature – for instance, we
recognize every chair as a chair, no matter what kind or style of
chair it is, because there exists a perfect Form of a chair,
encompassing all that it is which makes a chair a chair.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> Plato's
allegory of the cave was meant to illustrate his idea of Forms. In
the cave, he says, is seated a row of people, who are all chained
facing the cave wall, their heads bound in place so they can only
look at the wall. Behind them there is a great fire and objects
moving in front of the fire, casting shadows upon the wall. Because
the people can only see the wall and the shadows that are cast upon
it, they begin to name the shadows they see. "That is a book,"
they say, looking at the shadow of a book as it crosses the wall.
Because the person has never seen a real book, they do not know that
it is only a shadow of a book that they are seeing, and that the real
book is actually in front of the fire that burns behind the chained
people.</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
This
is Plato's idea of Forms. The objects moving in front of the fire, he
says, are the Forms – perfect essences of things that exist in the
world, but we cannot see them no matter how hard we try because our
heads are chained by the ability of our eyes to only see material
things. The shadows dancing across the wall that the chained people
must face represent the physical things in our world – but in
Plato's work, these are only shadows of the perfect Forms.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-36646027642755407132013-10-16T20:45:00.001-04:002013-10-16T20:45:25.509-04:00The Significance of Historical Sanctions in the Psalms<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0.49in;">
Historical sanctions are a very important concept in the Psalms.
They act as both a promise and an assurance – the assurance that
God will punish evildoers, and spare no mercy for the wicked. A
concept like that must have had great significance in the days of the
Jews in Israel, and that still holds true today. The sanctions are a
promise by God to keep His people safe from those who would do evil
to them. For those who know that they have a future life in heaven
with God, this ought to be very comforting indeed! For those who do
not have that assurance, the sanctions can serve as a motivator – a
guarantee of what will happen to them if they continue to practice
wickedness.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Historical
sanctions are rife within the Psalms. David, whom many recognize as
the primary Psalmist, constantly cried out to God for help against
His enemies who wish to do His servant David harm. David relied
utterly on God's protection under His sanctions, and God answered
David's prayers for help and protection. God always answers the
prayers of those who have faith in Him, and His sanctions are a
promise for those He has chosen to be His people.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-48950723790322680922013-10-04T12:15:00.004-04:002013-10-04T12:15:50.989-04:00Homer's Odyssey: Odysseus and the Cyclops<div class="first-line-indent" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0in;">
<b>Read Homer's description of the Cyclopes (plural) in Book 9 of
</b><i><b>The Odyssey</b></i><b>. Would you describe them as having
a civilization? Why or why not? </b>
</div>
<div class="first-line-indent" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0in;">
The Cyclopes described in Book 9 of <i>The Odyssey</i> were a
monstrous people that lived together on an island where Odysseus and
his men landed. Although the Cyclopes lived together on one island,
they cannot really be described as having a proper civilization. They
were shepherds, and each Cyclops kept largely to himself, not
bothering with his neighbors. There was no central government – no
government at all, except for the self-governing practiced by each
Cyclops. The Cyclopes, though they lived together and practiced the
same occupation, had no real civilization, according to <i>The
Odyssey</i>.</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
___</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>What
happens between the Cyclops and Odysseus and his men? How does the
story end? </b>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
When Odysseus and his men are first trapped by Polyphemus, the
Cyclops, Odysseus tries being reasonable – bargaining to let the
men go. Polyphemus refuses, and just to punctuate his refusal, he
kills and eats two of Odysseus's men. Then Odysseus begins to scheme.
Knowing that Polyphemus will never let them go willingly, he has some
of his men fetch a great quantity of wine from their ships for
Polyphemus to drink. While Polyphemus is getting drunk on Odysseus's
wine, the Greek hero has meanwhile been sharpening a great stake,
which he heats to a red-hot point in Polyphemus's cookfire. While
this is happening, a drunken Polyphemus asks for Odysseus's name,
saying he will give him a gift if he answers. Odysseus replies by
telling the Cyclops his name is "Noman", or "Nobody",
and Polyphemus tells "Nobody" that his gift is that he will
be eaten last of all. Then the Cyclops falls into a drunken sleep.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
While Polyphemus is asleep, Odysseus drives the fire-hardened stake
into the Cyclops' one eye, blinding him instantly and driving him
awake with pain. Polyphemus's neighbors hear his shrieks and call out
to find out what is the matter, but when Polyphemus shouts that
"Nobody" is hurting him, his fellow Cyclopes decide that it
must be divine punishment and advise Polyphemus to pray. Meanwhile,
Odysseus has been working on his escape plan. He ties his men into
the thick wool on the undersides of Polyphemus's sheep, and ties
himself underneath the ram of the flock, so that when the Cyclops
lets the beasts out to graze then the men will be free. As Odysseus
planned, Polyphemus lets his sheep out to graze, and the men with
them. But the Cyclops suspects that all might not be well. Unable to
see, he feels the backs of each of his sheep as they leave the cave
in case there are men riding atop them. But Odysseus's cleverness
pays off as Polyphemus doesn't think to check the beasts' undersides,
and the men go free.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-81366520118517795542013-09-25T10:49:00.001-04:002013-09-25T10:49:13.062-04:00The Importance of Ethics and God's Sanctions During Noah's Flood
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Ethics and the
sanctions of God play a major role throughout the entire Bible, and
one place where this is shown particularly clearly is in the story of
Noah and the Flood. The Bible teaches that mankind had fallen into a
state of total depravity, and that in all the world there was
literally only one man and his family who found favor in God's sight
– Noah. God's justice could not allow the majority of sinful man to
go unpunished, and yet in His mercy He decided to let one man and his
family be saved. The Flood was God's way of wiping clean the slate,
so to speak – and yet, afterward He promised to Noah that He would
never again destroy all the world as He had just done. Sin was
destroyed for the most part, and yet there was mercy, too. God's
attitude towards sin is one of absolute intolerance, and so when He
is depicted showing mercy in the Bible, He appears more holy and
glorious because of it. Noah recognized this when the Flood was over
that God had saved him and his family because of His righteousness,
not the other way around. The reason ethics and God's sanctions play
such an important part in the Bible's story of man is because man is
flawed and God is perfect, and it is only through God's grace and
mercy that man is saved – like Noah and the Flood.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-724960830992798732013-09-24T12:18:00.001-04:002013-09-24T12:18:20.164-04:00Hector of Troy and the History of Minoan Crete
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<b>In book 6 of <em>The Iliad</em>, what do we learn about Hector? What kind of man is he? Why does he fight?</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
In book six of <i>The Iliad</i><span style="font-style: normal;">,
Hector is the prince of Troy, the hero of the Trojans much as
Achilles is the hero of the Greeks. He is a warrior, a husband, and a
father. Before he enters the war in book six, his wife begs him not
to go – but Hector tells her that he, as a warrior, cannot shy away
from battle. He tells her that his greatest pain would be if Troy
lost the war and his wife and child were taken captive by the Greeks.
He tells her that he would rather die fighting than see that fate
come to pass. From this, we can tell that Hector is a man of honor
and immense bravery, who will lay down his own life in an instant for
those whom he loves. He fights not just for Troy, but for his family.</span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;">
___</div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;">
<b>Write a summary of the history of Minoan Crete.</b></div>
<div style="font-style: normal; line-height: 200%;">
Minoan Crete has a
rich and fascinating history, one that was not even discovered until
about a hundred years ago. There have been inhabitants on the island
of Crete since as early as 7000 BC, but it was not until the Bronze
Age began in 2700 BC that Minoan civilization truly began to develop,
with tradesmen and artisans taking on a greater social and economic
role than in centuries past. After the pre-Bronze Age Prepalatial
period, when farming and agriculture were the Minoans' primary
support, came the Protopalatial period when Crete's first palaces
were built. These great structures may have been for people such as
kings or other ruling classes to live in; however, it is more likely
that they served as massive complexes where the center of all life on
Crete took place, with rooms for trade and storage inside them as
well as rooms for living in. The Protopalatial period of Minoan
history came to and end around 1700 BC, when the great palaces were
destroyed – either by an invading force, perhaps from nearby
Anatolia, or a natural disaster such as an earthquake or a volcano.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> Next
came the Neopalatial period shortly after this destruction took
place. The Minoan people began to rebuild almost instantly, creating
even larger and more intricate palaces than before, with a different
building structure that would hold up better against earthquakes –
which suggests that perhaps it </span><i>was</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
an earthquake that had destroyed their palaces before. It was during
this period that Minoan civilization reached its height. Artifacts
showing examples of Minoan artwork from all over the world suggest
that the Minoans were extensive traders, and had a trade network
stretching over much of the known world at the time. Yet in 1450 BC
another disaster struck, this time one that crippled Minoan
civilization more than the previous one had. The Minoans carried on
during the Postpalatial period until about 1420 BC, when Crete was
invaded by Mycenaean Greeks and their palaces occupied. The
Mycenaeans, though controlling Minoan government and economy, largely
left their culture and art alone, and so Minoan civilization lasted
until about 1200 BC, when suddenly it crumbled – probably because
of a natural catastrophe, the cause of which is still debated among
historians today.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-56949032175362192522013-09-18T11:33:00.000-04:002013-09-18T11:33:27.472-04:00The Elements of Hierarchy In the Garden of Eden
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Genesis chapters
1-3 deal with many things, not least of which are the elements of
hierarchy in the early days of Creation. When God created man, He
gave him a task to do – naming all of the animals – and when he
had finished, God gave him a helper "meet" or fit for him:
the woman, whom God created out of the man's rib. In the original
perfect Creation, Adam and Eve worked together tending to the Garden
of Eden and following God's commands. Prior to the Fall, this was a
perfect arrangement – the man as the head of the family, the woman
as his fit and equal helper, and both man and woman glorifying God in
their work.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
After the Fall,
this arrangement changed. When God decreed the punishments of Adam,
Eve and the serpent, the roles were fundamentally the same and yet
were no longer perfect. Adam was still head of his family, but his
relationship to God had been corrupted because of his sin, as had his
relationship to his wife. Eve was decreed that "your desire
shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Genesis
3:16) – her position in the family was the same, but corrupted;
likewise her own relationship to God was no longer as pure as it had
been. Finally the serpent, who had tempted Adam and Eve to sin, was
cursed for all his days. God said, "I will put enmity between
you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he will bruise
your head, and you will bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15) The
serpent's position was to be one of utter destruction, below Adam and
Eve, and he would eventually be destroyed by the "seed" of
Eve – Jesus Christ.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2581306396123580944.post-22392635769298920162013-09-16T15:51:00.003-04:002013-09-18T11:33:42.243-04:00Important Events In Hebrew History From Abraham to Moses<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
From Abraham to Moses, there were many important events which all
affected Hebrew history in some way. Hebrew history is in fact
typically thought to have begun at the time when God commanded
Abraham, the head of a very large household in the Mesopotamian city
of Ur, to take his family and his property and move to the land which
God would show him. Abraham and his wife had never had any children,
despite their being almost a hundred years old, yet God promised to
them that they would be the beginning of a great and numerous people
– a promise which was fulfilled in the birth of their son, Isaac.
Abraham trusted God implicitly, and when God commanded him to
sacrifice Isaac as a show of his faith, Abraham began to do so
without question. At the last minute God stayed Abraham's hand from
killing his son and provided a perfect ram as sacrifice instead.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
Isaac was married to Rebekah, a woman whom Abraham had chosen for
him as a suitable wife because she came from Abraham's relatives,
people who also worshiped the true God. Together Isaac and Rebekah
had two sons, Esau and Jacob. Although Esau was the elder son, Jacob
tricked his brother into selling Jacob his birthright in exchange for
a meal. Esau didn't think much of this "bargain," but Jacob
took it very seriously and when Isaac their father lay dying he, with
the help of his mother Rebekah, tricked Isaac into giving Jacob the
blessing of the oldest son. Fearing Esau's wrath, Jacob fled to
Rebekah's brother Laban, for whom he worked for seven years without
wage in exchange for the hand of Laban's daughter, Rachel. When the
seven years were up, Jacob married whom he thought was Rachel, his
beloved – but when the ceremony was completed and the veil was
lifted, Jacob realized that he had been tricked into marrying
Rachel's older sister Leah instead! Jacob was furious, but agreed to
work another seven years without pay, again for Rachel's hand.
Finally at the end of fourteen years' unpaid labor, Jacob married the
woman he loved, and he took his family and left Laban. On the road
with his household and property, Jacob met his brother Esau – and,
after so many years, they finally made peace. Jacob also wrestled
with an angel of the Lord, who rechristened him Israel, and called
him the father of a great nation.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
Jacob had ten sons with Leah and two sons with Rachel. Because Jacob
loved Rachel more than Leah, her two sons were Jacob's favorite out
of all his twelve sons. Jacob and Rachel's son Joseph was the one
whom Jacob loved best, and this was obvious to all of Joseph's
brothers, who became very angry and jealous of their father's
preference. Finally in retaliation they sold their brother Joseph
into slavery and told Jacob that he had been devoured by wild beasts.
Joseph, meanwhile, had become a servant of a high-ranking general of
Egypt named Potiphar, who eventually came to trust Joseph enough to
make him manager over all of Potiphar's property. After a while,
however, Joseph was accused of a crime he did not commit, and he was
thrown into prison. In prison with the cup-bearer and the baker of
the Pharaoh of Egypt, Joseph's God-given talent for
dream-interpretation – a skill which was highly prized in the
ancient world – brought him to the attention of Pharaoh himself,
whose dream Joseph interpreted and predicted a long famine coming for
all of Egypt. Pharaoh then made Joseph the ruler of all Egypt, second
only to Pharaoh himself, in order to prepare for the famine which
Joseph had predicted from Pharaoh's dream. When the famine hit, Egypt
became the most well-stocked nation in the ancient world, leading
peoples from all over to come to Egypt to buy food. Among those who
came were Joseph's own brothers, who did not recognize this
high-ranked, powerful Egyptian as the brother they had sold into
slavery all those years ago. Joseph revealed himself to his brothers
and forgave them for what they had done, and then invited them and
their families to come to Egypt to live.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
After many generations, the Hebrew people had become very numerous
in the land of Egypt. Joseph and the Pharaoh he had served were both
long dead, and the new Pharaoh did not like the Hebrews and was
afraid of the threat their numbers posed. Because of this, he put the
Hebrews into slavery, and later ordered all Hebrew male children
under a year old to be killed, allowing only the females to live.
Amidst this infanticide one child was born to Hebrew parents, who hid
him from Pharaoh's men for as long as they could, until at last the
boy's mother put him into a basket and set him afloat in the Nile,
where he was eventually found and adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter,
who called him Moses. Moses grew up as a privileged young Egyptian,
while his people the Hebrews were still being oppressed under
Pharaoh's regime. One day Moses happened upon an Egyptian overseer
who was beating a Hebrew worker. Moses was so furious that he killed
the Egyptian, and was forced to flee Egypt, having finally accepted
his heritage as a Hebrew man. Moses was later commanded by God that
he was to lead the Hebrews out of slavery and show them to the
Promised Land – the land of Canaan, where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and
Joseph had once lived. Pharaoh refused to set the Hebrews free when
Moses asked, and in fact even increased their workload, which did not
make Moses very popular among the Hebrews. But God sent a number of
plagues upon Egypt every time Pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews go,
until – after a plague that killed every firstborn son of Egyptian
households – Pharaoh agreed. The Hebrews were on their way out of
Egypt when Pharaoh changed his mind and sent an army to fetch the
Hebrews back, cornering them between the army and the Red Sea. But
God used Moses to perform a miracle: parting the waters of the Red
Sea down the middle, providing a path of dry land for the Hebrews to
walk on. The Hebrews made it safely across to the other side, with
Pharaoh's army following, when the Red Sea crashed back into place
and drowned the entire army.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
Moses led the people with God's help all the way to the Promised
Land, a journey which – thanks to disbelieving, disobedient and
dissatisfied Hebrews – lasted forty years, during which time God
gave the people the Ten Commandments and a system of laws to live by.
Moses was not to enter the Promised Land because of his earlier
disobedience to God, but he led the people all the way there, and was
personally buried by God when he died. Then the Hebrew people at long
last entered the land of their forefathers.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0