Do you think the typical listener to a recitation of this poem would have spotted the discrepancies?

Recitation: the action of repeating something aloud from memory. Heck, I could not repeat a poem aloud by memory, unless I listen to people repeat it over and over again for maybe a couple months or years. So to answer the question “Do you think the typical listener to a recitation of this poem would have spotted the discrepancies?”. If it is not over a period of time or and catchy, then NO. I do not think that any normal human being will be able to repeat the poem, given, by memory. Given time, I guess that a person, in their correct mind, could recite the poem by memory.

 

Discrepancy means: a lack of compatibility or similarity between two or more facts. That would be depending on the listener. If the listener listens just to listen and does not catch on fast, then I do not think that the listener would spot the discrepancies. If the listener listens to learn, and if they pay attention, then they would (hopefully) spot the discrepancies.

 

Do you think the typical listener to a recitation of this poem would have spotted the discrepancies? The 1st time listening to if, they could catch some facts. If someone tells them, ‘oh this song is about this….’ then they could catch on. Otherwise, if they listen to the poem once a day, then I do not think so.

Describe the differences between Oliver’s view of military goals vs. Roland’s

Oliver’s View:

Oliver wants to defeat the opponent with as little death as possible. He wanted Roland to blow the trumpet to summon Charlemagne’s troops. Oliver sounds like he is the old and wise crackling out of him and Roland.

 

Roland’s View:

Well he sounds selfish. He did not want to summon aid, because summoning aid would of ruined his reputation. Roland sounds like the typical stubborn young person. I think that, what Roland did, yes it was selfish, could actually been more wise than dumb. There are times when you need to beat up the bully or to stand up to or against the enemy at the time being. And there are times when to be patience and wait. I do not think that Roland did not blow the trumpet because of his reputation. But because he was either trying to build a better reputation, or to prove that he and his troops could do their part and becoming a better people, or and maybe some other reasons. Otherwise he was spiteful, prideful, ignorant, stubborn, selfish, and maybe some others, including unwise. You have to hand it to him he did the thing that you might of done, if you were in his shoes (figure of speech)(if you were him).

Did this literature encourage Christians to exercise political leadership?

No, not really. It more likely stated some forms of some of the beliefs, putten in a song form. There were different forms. Literature for illiterate societies: Folk songs, liturgical Hymns, recited stories and poems, for Theaters (for entertainment) jokes, and Proverbs. Western Church literature: Liturgical hymns, stories and sermons, prayers, poetry. Some people alternated the folk songs. And then over time, the version of the song that is sung, is far from the original version of the song. Time and age could change what a person thinks, acts, speak, etc… they even could take a completely different meaning from a song than someone, because of time and age. Some songs are about sin flourishing in darkness. Some are about light conquering darkness. Some of the songs that they call hymns are about some beliefs.

 

For example: Mary, the ‘birth/earth’ mother of Jesus Christ, changed man’s grief to glory. And that she is our mediator and advocate between us and Christ, and that Christ is the mediator and advocate between us and God the Father, with Mary between us and Christ; When she bore Christ, she became Sin free; And there are some victories that Christians had made, and the hymn(s) state that the victories came to be, because of the Resurrection; And then you get hymns, saying that this person needed these people, and another person needed someone and the person who needed these people. And the list continues. (end of Examples).

 

So… “Did this literature encourage Christians to exercise political leadership?” NO (well to me anyways). Most of the hymns just stated some of their beliefs. The other hymns, told different stories, principles, and the occasionally Folk song. None of which, I have read, have/had to do anything with ‘political leadership’.

What was Augustine’s view of Christianity’s role in history?

Augustine’s view of the Christianity’s role in history was/is, to be here on earth and make life worth living for, wisdom to gain, knowledge to use, experience to experience, and many other things. And to respect God, and do his will. One huge problem with that, is that only one true form of Christianity, and there is more than one form of it. So witch one is the correct one? They more or less all claim to be the true form of Christianity. They had many wars on this. Augustine says that all Christianity has more or less the same view on things. They believe that there is a omnipotent and merciful God in Heaven, and that Jesus and the Holy Ghost and God the Father, make up the Godhead. Yes there is 3 titles/names, but one God. some Christians believe that (by the sounds of it) that God has 3 huge role to fill, with 3 slightly different personalities. If that were true, God pretty much has his hands full. SO, how does He find time to care very much about us. Other Christian faiths, believe that Jesus and the Holy Ghost and God the Father, make up the Godhead. And that Jesus Christ is our advocate, mentor, and mediator (I might of skipped a few). He will plead our case to God the Father. The Holy Ghost is our conscience, and messenger. He will tell us some things, what is right or wrong, maybe some very disturbing things that we might not take too well if it came from someone else, and will tell the leader (God) who has been naughty. God the Father, is God. He sees all, knows all. NO one could ever lie to or deceive Him. those who do, end up doing it to him/herself.

 

WARNING: do not ever try doing this, because some have died during the process. Some have done that in Paul’s day, and it was over money. The couple (married couple, not the number) who did this died IMMEDIATELY after Paul was done speaking to the Husband and then the Wife. (No harm done from the outside or inside. Just a stopped heart, and a soul departing).

How important was the doctrine of hell to the martyrs?

Well I guess, that the doctrine of Hell was important to the martyrs. I guess that is is mainly because they loved torturing their victims, breaking laws, and so on. The martyrs, probably lived their made up doctrine of that evil place. And they probably were made up of people who are careless and do not care a thing about being good natured (which mostly today is made up of), and only their selfish needs of themselves and some of their members. They probably did not care about living in a paradise of nice things like huge palaces made out of pure and shiny marble, dreams coming true, etc… but instead they enjoy a lot of death, screams for help, hauntedness, living in a place of horror with an everlasting fire and gnashing of teeth, hatred, etc. How would like to live in a place of misery, or even teach such thoughts of a place. I would not like to even think of such horror and miserable thoughts, I would much prefer to think of living in a really nice and spacious place with much feasting, with the poor, servers, loved ones, and friends (servants, waiters, waitress, etc) wearing simple and really nice clothing and enjoying themselves and laughing over jokes, riddles, good times, etc. you know, the good kind of laughter, while being care free. Apparently, the martyrs loved to think and teach doctrine of such horror and miserable places (not the dream land that I would like to think of or would of loved to live in). Also the martyrs apparently loved to be confused by wanting to be free, but also wanting to be a captive, and they also wanted to stay rebellious to their emperor/ruler at the time.

Compare Paul’s concept of God’s sovereignty in Romans 9:1-23 with Justin’s concept of God’s sovereignty in Chapter XLIII (43): RESPONSIBILITY ASSERTED

Paul taught God’s Sovereignty, while in Justin’s 1st apology it sounded/sounds like he is demanding or more like pointing fingers. Paul taught us that God could/does mold us like clay, so that we would become the person/people that he would like us to be. He (Paul) also taught us that God is the master of all things, He (God) is the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, the God of Joseph in Egypt, the God of many more (all) things. Justin told/reminded us that Father In Heaven (God)’s Prophets prophecies will/did come true. And that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that Christ will be our judge.

 

I could not write a full page of comparing Paul’s and Justin’s concept of God’s Sovereignty, more or less because they teach the same principles, and because there is little to write about.

Zeus VS Jesus Christ

Zeus:

 

Zeus behaved mostly with violence. He wanted to stay the most powerful thing and being. In other words he was greedy to keep power. He only could control the winds, throw thunder bolts, and poorly control people’s fates. Mainly because he is/was selfish, and too busy controlling people to do whatever would benefit him, and because he did not care about anyone- not even his wife(s), and because he did not know everything, and because he did not know how people thought, and whatever was their heart’s desire was. Zeus is like an upgraded version of Thor, without or less armor but with more of an anger-management issue, and had to throw thunder instead of using a hammer to do the job.

 

Jesus Christ:

 

Jesus Christ taught many things, many of the things that Jesus taught was in parables. Jesus was always helping others, he was physically here on earth putting his hands on people to heal them. Jesus came to earth not to do his will, but of his and our Father, in Heaven, will. Jesus taught us how to become a good person, or and a great leader. Jesus taught us that with God, Nothing is impossible. He showed us that he could calm a storm, through fireballs that destroyed cities, turn people into salt, make a weak person strong, deaf to hear, lame to walk, etc. He showed us that he had true power, more power than all of the Greek and Roman gods put together (that is if they existed in the 1st place), and more powerful than any and all gods of our imagination, but he did not use that power to harm us but used that power to heal the sick, lame, injured, blind, deaf, etc. Jesus was/is not more powerful than His (and our) “Father in Heaven”, that is because they were of one heart and one mind, they were/and still are like the same person in 2 separated bodies. You could not distinguish the two without the Holy Ghost.

 

Whose side would you choose? Zeus, as a poor excuse for a god, or Jesus Christ, who showed us that he and our “Father in Heaven” care about us?