(1) What were the causes and consequences of the Spanish revolt that occurred after Charles left to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor? When Charles was crowned king of Spain, he left Spain a little while later to be crowned the Holy Roman Emperor. While he was away, there was a revolt in Spain. The people who revolted appointed a new ruler, Queen Joanna, Charles’ own mother. About a year later, the Comuneros were defeated at the Battle of Villalar and the Comuneros were crushed, ending the revolt and the Comuneros leaders were executed.

(2) What were the causes of the Dutch revolt? What was the “demonstration effect”? According to The Memory, “The Dutch Revolt or Eighty Years’ War was a series of battles fought in the Netherlands between 1568 and 1648 which began when part of the Habsburg Empire resisted the, in their eyes, unjust rule of the Spanish King Philip II.” The results of the Dutch revolt were economic, political, and religious ones, but it was the religious problems that really got the revolt fired up. The “demonstration effect” is when people saw what other nations do, and try to implicate that into their own nation. The Dutch Republic was very successful at the time, and other countries tried to replicate that into their own countries.

(3) Who were the contenting parties in the French wars of religion? What was the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre? What was the Edict of Nantes? According to Lumen, “The French Wars of Religion (1562–98) is the name of a period of fighting between French Catholics and Protestants (Huguenots).” The Catholics really did not like the Huguenots, so they tried everything they could to try to get the Huguenots to either convert to Catholicism, or to leave/die. Eventually they asked the king if they could just go kill a bunch of Huguenots in a city. Since the king was like stressed out at this point, the king agreed. This killing ended up being named the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. Hundreds of Huguenots died that day. Eventually, the Edict of Nantes was signed, ending the dispute between Catholics and Protestants.

(4) Describe the religious policy of Elizabeth I. Some people thought that she had no religion because of her attracted to parts of Catholicism while part of a different religion. She even changed her religion when she became queen in order to create a stable and peaceful nation. She kept changing her religion, so I am not sure that she had a permanent religion.

Now, I do not know if I am supposed to speak for or against this proposition, so I am just going to give both sides of the story.

Online education is bad for society because it puts classroom teachers out of work. This is actually kind of true. If online education and schoolwork (like the Ron Paul Curriculum) put classroom teachers out of business, then they will not have a job, and they will not get money to raise themselves with. People need money to survive. Also, some classroom teachers love to just be with the students, and if they go out of a job, then that would effect both the teacher and the students.

Online education is bad for society because it puts classroom teachers out of work. There is also a good side to this too. If the teacher is fired or just gone, then the teacher is free to find another set of work that might be a better opportunity for them than teaching. Also, online education can be better for the student. The student can look through millions of topics and continue at their own rate. And online education is cheaper and more reliable than classroom teaching. I use the Ron Paul Curriculum and this online education is amazing. I can get up in the morning, feed my animals, and turn on the computer and do my homework. Most kids who go to a private or public school have to walk there, and they have to get up at like seven in the morning. I can get up at nine in the morning.

I have nothing against schools or online education. I just give my opinion, like in this essay.

How was the English Reformation different from the German Reformation? There were several different ways in which these two reformations were different. One of the differences is they differed in doctrine, but the main difference is motivation. The German Reformation’s motivation was belief mainly, while the motivation of the English Reformation was mainly politics.

What do we learn about St. Francis Xavier’s missionary work in the letter you read for lesson 13? This letter was written by St. Francis Xavier and was named the letter from India, to the Society of Jesus at Rome. It is in this letter that we find out that St. Francis wanted to travel the world, and teach others about Jesus. Well, he got to do this. He even got the chance to evangelize in Japan. He was trying to get to China to share the Gospel, but died before he could.

What kind of impression are you left with by the Spiritual Exercises? Why is Ignatius concerned about careless discussion of faith and good works? According to Wikipedia, “The Spiritual Exercises, composed 1522–1524, are a set of Christian meditations, contemplations, and prayers written by Ignatius of Loyola, a 16th-century Spanish priest, theologian, and founder of the Society of Jesus.” The Spiritual Exercises were ultimately designed to undermine the Protestant belief. These Exercises were meant to counter the Protestant views, and the Protestant’s views in the 1500’s were based on faith. So, Ignatius puts an emphasis on works rather than faith.

According to Wikipedia, “Sir Thomas More, venerated in the Catholic Church as Saint Thomas More, was an English lawyer, judge, social philosopher, author, statesman, and noted Renaissance humanist. He also served Henry VIII as Lord High Chancellor of England from October 1529 to May 1532.” He wrote the book Utopia in the year 1516.

According to Wikipedia, “Utopia is a work of fiction and socio-political satire by Thomas More, written in Latin and published in 1516. The book is a frame narrative primarily depicting a fictional island society and its religious, social and political customs.” The book was later written in English in the year 1551.

Utopia is the word used to describe an imaginary, perfect world. Thomas More was the first person ever to write of a Utopia. According to the British Library, “More’s book imagines a complex, self-contained community set on an island, in which people share a common culture and way of life.” The overall theme of the book is the ideal nature of a Utopian society. According to PressBooks, “In Utopia, there is no greed, corruption, or power struggles due to the fact that there is no money or private property.” The concept of a Utopia is an ideal commonwealth whose inhabitants exist under seemingly perfect conditions. According to BBC Culture, “More’s Utopia is the creation of a well-meaning member of the upper classes with a plan, rather than the live-for-the-moment dream of a peasant or worker. In Utopia, private property is abolished. “There is nothing within the houses that is private or any man’s own,” writes More.”

This book, Utopia, identifies a world traveler. This traveler is quite sensible, as we see in this book. This traveler insists on himself seeing what works, and what does not work. He insists on the punishment fitting the crime. The traveler also says that if thieves had a job, they would not be thieves. People would not steal if they could work. He says that there really is no sin. There is just deprivation. The traveler also gets into an argument with the narrator later it the book. The traveler blames all evil on private property and makes a case for a centralised Utopian society, while the narrator says that the people need economic insensitive or they will not work. Basically the traveler is making a case for the centrally planned society, and the narrator is making a case for the decentralised society. After this, the narrator continues to describe Utopia. He describes Utopia as a place where there is no wealth, gold, silver, jewels, money, they have no value. He also says that there is a limited number of families in a city, and a limited number of people in one family. Also, no one even cares for fashion, there is no greed, and there are few conflicts. He even says that food and meals are free, since there is no such thing as money.

Why does More present the traveler as a sensible reformer early in Book I, but not later? The answer is that the majority of beliefs in the book would not be accepted by the majority. This is kind of like a tactic to help bring readers into the book, by first presenting the ideas that the traveler believed that was more believable at first, and then bringing in more radical ideas.

Martin Luther was a professor, author, hymnwriter, German priest, and theologian. According to Wikipedia, “A former Augustinian friar, he is best known as the seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation and the namesake of Lutheranism. Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507.”

\Martin Luther wrote On the Freedom of a Christian in the year 1520. According to Wikipedia, “On the Freedom of a Christian, sometimes also called “A Treatise on Christian Liberty”, was the third of Martin Luther’s major reforming treatises of 1520″. The three main points of this treatise are “bondage”, “freedom”, and “love”.

Bondage: God created use in his own image, and so therefore we are perfect, right? Wrong! We are slaves to sin, in bondage to sin. This results in the breakdown of communities, and in evil. When we do not believe in the Bible, or Jesus dying for us, then we tend to try to find other ways to earn Gods love and get our way into Heaven. When people think “I want to get this” or “I want to do that”, they think that they will be happy, but in in doing this, they risk turning others into objects meant to serve their needs. Basically, the bondage to sin results in terrible things.

Freedom: The good news is that God’s response to sin is healing and reconciliation and not punishment. Our sin is Christ’s, and Christ’s “goodness” is our “goodness”. This is called the “happy exchange” by Luther.

Love: According to Living Lutheran, “Love begets love. It’s impossible for true faith not to yield abundant fruits of love because it is by faith that we awaken to God’s abundant love for us in Christ—and love wants to love…. Love is the fruit of faith. Love is the mark of the true Christian.”

Explain Calvin’s main points in the selection you read from the Institutes of the Christian Religion. How does Calvin answer those who say predestination makes God into a being who dispenses justice unequally? According to Wikipedia, “John Calvin was a French theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation.” He wrote the book the Institutes of the Christian Religion. According to Wikipedia, “Institutes of the Christian Religion is John Calvin’s seminal work of systematic theology. Regarded as one of the most influential works of Protestant theology, it was published in Latin in 1536 and in his native French language in 1541, with the definitive editions appearing in 1559 and in 1560.”

Basically Calvin’s main points on this book is salvation of man through faith alone, and nothing else. Also, for the sake of consistency and maintaining that God judges indiscriminately, he believed that God chose from the beginning who will go to Heaven, and who will go to Hell.

#1, Sovereignty: Sovereignty means to have supreme power and overall authority. If you are sovereign, that basically means that you have overall authority over a specific place or thing. For example, I am sovereign over my books. Another on is, God is the Supreme Sovereign over the whole universe. Now, I used the term Supreme Sovereign because he is number one in the universe. Now, how does sovereignty fit into family government? One example is the dad is sovereign over the household, or the mom is sovereign over her stuff. There are a lot of examples of sovereignty in family government.

#2, Hierarchy: Another word for hierarchy is authority. A hierarchy is basically a system or organization in which people are ranked above others, and those people are ranked above others, etc. An example of this is my Trail Life troop. This is kind of like Boy Scouts, but different in a lot of ways. We have a hierarchy of First Officer, then Second Officer, then Quartermaster, then Junior Patrol Leaders, etc. In family government, the dad is above the mom, the mom is above the kids, etc. So you can see that hierarchy is present in pretty much every family government.

#3, Law: Laws are a system of rules established by a specific group or organization and are seen as regulating the actions of its members. Laws are everywhere in the world and govern almost every aspect of life. Every single type of government has at least some rules. There are lots of laws in a family government. Some common ones are “Do your chores”, “Do your homework”, etc. Some governments use people to enforce the laws. Family government may have the dad or the mom enforcing their rules, while other types of governments may use police officers to enforce the laws.

#4, Sanctions: Sanctions are basically ‘what I get if I obey the laws of the government’. Sanctions can be either good or bad. For some governments if you break the law you have to go to jail, or pay a fine, etc. But, if you obey the law, really nothing ever happens. But in family government, if you break the rules, you might have to get a spanking, get grounded, sent to bed with no dinner, etc. However, if you obey the rules, you may be able to go to a friend’s house, play your video games, earn some candy, etc.

#5, Succession: According to Google, succession is “the action or process of inheriting a title, office, property, etc.” So basically, succession means to be ‘ranked up’ in a government or something. In several governments, people get ‘ranked up’ all the time. In family government, a child might be ‘ranked up’ to dad when he gets married and has a child of his own, and the father becomes ‘ranked up’ to grandfather, and the grandfather becomes ‘ranked up’ to great-grandfather, etc. Succession also means to inherit something, like some old tools, or you might inherit a piece of property that someone had.

According to Wikipedia, “Martin Luther OSA was a German priest, theologian, author, hymnwriter, and professor. A former Augustinian friar, he is best known as the seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation and the namesake of Lutheranism. Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507.” He was born on November 10, 1483 in Eisleben, Germany, and died on February 18, 1546 in Eisleben Germany. Some people say that he was one of the most influential figures in the history of Christianity, and I believe them.

An interesting story about Martin Luther. One day, he was I think taking a walk, and he was caught in this huge storm, and he did not think that he would make it out alive. So he prayed to St. Anne saying that if he survived this, he promised that he would become a monk. Now, in these days it was thought that if you prayed to a dead, great Saint, that the Saint would bring the matter to God and God would decide what to do. In this case, it was St. Anne that Luther prayed to. Well, he did survive the storm and fulfilled his promise to St. Anne and became a monk.

Martin Luther wrote a series of arguments against the institution of indulgences within the church called the 95 Theses. Now, Luther was completely opposed to the selling of indulgences (paying the Church to have your sins forgiven) and he officially claimed that the pope was as well opposed to the idea of selling indulgences. He claimed that the Hierarchy of the Church was corrupt for not intervening in the talk of the indulgence salesmen, but also that the pope had no idea what was going on and had no idea of the misconduct that was occurring, therefore he is innocent. Luther claimed that he was trying to save the pope from slander, but really, it was Luther that was slandering the pope! Here’s how. Starting from theses 82, Luther raises a series of embarrassing rhetorical questions about the pope. These questions make the pope look like not a nice guy. It is evident that apparently, Luther was not trying to save the pope from slander, but it was Luther that was slandering the pope. He is basically accusing the pope of the same things that he accused the Church Hierarchy of. He says that the pope is more interested in money than in saving souls, and where does he get this money? The indulgences, paying the church to have your sins forgiven. The pope does not care about saving people (even though he is really not saving anybody because the people are basically buying their way into heaven, and it does not work that way) as long as he gets money from the indulgences.

Apparently, Luther thought that the Church Hierarchy and the pope were both corrupt. Now, you may be thinking, “Well, if Luther knew that the pope was corrupt as well as the Church Hierarchy, then why did he try to make it seem like the pope was innocent?” Good question, and the answer is that he tried to make the pope seem innocent at first so that his arguments would not seem so defiant and radical.

Overall, I think that Luther believed that Pope Leo X knew what the indulgence salesmen were saying.

How would you describe the condition of the Catholic Church on the eve of the Protestant Reformation? According to History, the Protestant Reformation was “the 16th-century religious, political, intellectual and cultural upheaval that splintered Catholic Europe, setting in place the structures and beliefs that would define the continent in the modern era.”

During this time there was a rise in High Masses, literary works being published, people listening to famous preachers, and pilgrimages. But, some of the things that these people did were not all good. During this time, the wars were savage, there were executions which were not uncommon, and people would be tortured for months and then killed.

The conditions in the Church itself was worse. Church members were preforming immoral conduct, they collected money from the public, and there was a lot of clerical ignorance because there were no seminaries to teach the preachers.

Above all, the Church was in desperate need for a reform, but it was not until the sixteenth century that reformation would at last arrive.

What were the Ninety-Five Theses about? What was the basic message of Luther’s complaint? According to Wikipedia, “The Ninety-five Theses or Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences is a list of propositions for an academic disputation written in 1517 by Martin Luther, professor of moral theology at the University of Wittenberg, at the time controlled by the Electorate of Saxony.” Basically, the message he was trying to get across is that, according to History, “In his theses, Luther condemned the excesses and corruption of the Roman Catholic Church, especially the papal practice of asking payment—called “indulgences”—for the forgiveness of sins.” I am just going to say, paying for forgiveness for your sins is so dumb. Why pay for it when you can just do it for free? I think that this is one of the reasons that Luther was so against indulgences.

Is the family a legitimate form of government? Let us begin with the question “What is a legitimate form of government?” According to Dictionary.com, a legitimate form of government is “A government generally acknowledged as being in control of a nation and deserving formal recognition, which is symbolized by the exchange of diplomats between that government and the governments of other countries.” Basically, a legitimate form of government is a government being in control of a specific nation or area. According to Wikipedia, a government is “the system or group of people governing an organized community, generally a state.” What I think a government is, is that it is a group of people hired by the state to protect the state. People that can be part of the government could be the police, the president, etc.

So, is the family a legitimate form of government? If a legitimate form of government is a government being in control of a specific nation or area, I would say that yes, a family is a legitimate form of government. A family is a legitimate form of government because the family is in control of each other, it is in control of the place they live in, and they are in control of all the things that the family owns. Now, the family is a very small type of legitimate government, but it is a form of legitimate government. Usually, this type of government has the father in control of everyone else, he is the “boss” of the house and everyone in it. The mother comes next, and then the kids (if there are any).

In this English 2 course, I have been learning about western literature for the past one hundred and eighty days! In this course, the western literature I have been learning about are specific literary books, like Boccaccio’s Decameron and Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, literature from a specific civilization, like Greek literature and Roman literature and Hebrew literature, literature from a specific religion, like Christian literature, and literature from a specific time period, like medieval literature.

Boccaccio’s Decameron: The Decameron, according to Wikipedia, is “subtitled Prince Galehaut and sometimes nicknamed l’Umana commedia, is a collection of short stories by the 14th-century Italian author Giovanni Boccaccio. The book is structured as a frame story containing 100 tales told by a group of seven young women and three young men; they shelter in a secluded villa just outside Florence in order to escape the Black Death, which was afflicting the city.” This book was written in 1353. Is was a piece of Renaissance literature, and it was very popular at the time. This tale tells of ten people who fled their home because of the Black Death and searched for a new home. They found an old abandoned castle to live in and in order to keep themselves entertained, they told each other stories. These stories are the basis of the book.

Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales: According to Wikipedia, “The Canterbury Tales is a collection of twenty-four stories that runs to over 17,000 lines written in Middle English by Geoffrey Chaucer between 1387 and 1400. It is widely regarded as Chaucer’s magnum opus.” One of these stories, the Pardoner’s Tale, I wrote an essay on earlier in the English 2 course if you want to check it out.

Greek literature: According to Wikipedia, “Greek literature dates back from the ancient Greek literature, beginning in 800 BC, to the modern Greek literature of today. Ancient Greek literature was written in an Ancient Greek dialect, literature ranges from the oldest surviving written works until works from approximately the fifth century AD.” Among the Greek literature we see the epic poems The Iliad and The Odyssey. These poems were written by Homer. Two other works are Theogony and Works and Days, both of these written by Hesiod.

Roman literature: According to the World History Encyclopedia, “The Roman Empire and its predecessor the Roman Republic produced an abundance of celebrated literature; poetry, comedies, dramas, histories, and philosophical tracts; the Romans avoided tragedies. Much of it survives to this day.” Some Roman works are The Rise of Rome by Livy, On the Nature of the Universe by Lucretius, and Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

Hebrew literature: According to Wikipedia, “Hebrew literature consists of ancient, medieval, and modern writings in the Hebrew language. It is one of the primary forms of Jewish literature, though there have been cases of literature written in Hebrew by non-Jews… Works of rabbinic literature were more often written in Hebrew, including: Torah commentaries by Abraham ibn Ezra, Rashi and others; codifications of Jewish law, such as Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, the Arba’ah Turim, and the Shulchan Aruch; and works of Musar literature (didactic ethical literature) such as Bahya ibn Paquda’s Chovot ha-Levavot (The Duties of the Heart).”

Christian literature: According to Wikipedia, “Christian literature is the literary aspect of Christian media, and it constitutes a huge body of extremely varied writing.” Some amazing examples of Christian literature are Christian books. Here are some great examples: The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, The Confessions of St. Augustine by St. Augustine and John K. Ryan, and Knowing God by J.I. Packer. Some of these books were written not long ago, but Christian literature is Christian literature, no matter how old it is.

Medieval literature: According to Wikipedia, “Medieval literature is a broad subject, encompassing essentially all written works available in Europe and beyond during the Middle Ages. The literature of this time was composed of religious writings as well as secular works.” Some Medieval literature is The Divine Comedy by Dante, Travels by Marco Polo, and The Mabinogion by Anonymous.

The Greeks were polytheistic, which means that they thought that their lives were controlled by their Greek gods. The Olympian gods, household gods, gods of the city, all of them. However, the Greek gods did not always agree. There were usually conflicts between the Gods, and ultimately, man was just another ‘chess piece on a chessboard’. The Roman worldview was based on Greece’s worldview, however, the Roman gods tended to be politically-based. But again, men were just another ‘chess piece on a chessboard’. The Hebrews worldview was based upon the Biblical Old Testament. They believed in one sovereign God as the Creator of everything. The Christian literature was mostly concurrent with Roman literature in the course. The authors of Christian literature supported the sovereignty of God in contrast to the Roman gods. Medieval literature also recognized God’s complete sovereignty. It gave special importance to hierarchical obedience.

Are Boccaccio’s Decameron and Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales closer in outlook to Greek and Roman literature than they are to Hebrew, Christian, and medieval literature?

Boccaccio’s Decameron and Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales are both written after the Black Death (According to Wikipedia, “The Black Death was a bubonic plague pandemic occurring in Western Eurasia and North Africa from 1346 to 1353. It is the most fatal pandemic recorded in human history, causing the death of 75–200 million people, peaking in Europe from 1347 to 1351.”) and showed just how radically Europe changed. Europe was completely change because of the Black Death. In the stories, when the Black Death hit, many people were part of the Catholic Church and began to lose faith in the Church and even gave up on life itself. Many people tried their best to keep their distance from the plague, but nothing helped.

Both of these works showed not a single trace nor sign of a sovereign God, but instead they actually attacked the corrupt hierarchies of the Church and also the state. These books reflected the loss of hope in people. Basically, the Church lost its influence in people and eternal succession was barely mentioned in these two stories.

So, I would say that this is closer to Greek and Roman literature, although you can say otherwise.