English 2 Western Literature: Lesson 180 Essay- “Are Boccacio’s ‘Decameron’ and Chaucer’s ‘Canterbury Tales’ closer in outlook to Greek and Roman literature then they are to Hebrew, Christian, and Medieval literature?”

I think that Boccacio’s Decameron and Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales have outlooks that correlate closer to Greek and Roman literature than Hebrew, Christian, and medieval literature. In the books it is clear that Boccacio’s and Chaucer’s views had changed from the views of medieval Christians. The Black Death very likely influenced the author’s change of opinions on the five key points of their society.

One major difference between the author’s views and the views of medieval Christian society was that the authors did not portray God as sovereign. Most people that were medieval Christians always made it clear that God is sovereign. Boccacio and Chaucer attributed sovereignty to fortune, luck, or chance. Sometimes Boccacio would say that God or the stars are sovereign, but he did not take a side. This is similar to Greek and Roman views because they were not adamant that God is sovereign. Some of the characters in Chaucer’s stories said God was sovereign, but the majority of the stories did not portray God as sovereign. In the monk’s tale Fortune was portrayed as sovereign. Fortune was said to be random in her actions. Chaucer said that people who are prideful tend to be struck down more by Fortune. Chaucer said when Fortune strikes she strikes hard. Chaucer told us that you cannot trust or predict Fortune. In the physician’s tale the physician (Chaucer) said that Nature and God are sovereign. So we see that most of the time Fortune is mentioned as sovereign, but a few other times it is God, Nature, or celestial bodies that are sovereign. This is similar to Greek and Roman literature because they both say that the sovereign entity is unpredictable. A medieval Christian would say that only God is sovereign and he is predictable.

Boccacio’s and Chaucer’s stories both show that the Church and state do not have authority, because they are corrupt. The stories said that since the Church hierarchy is corrupt, it has no authority and you should not listen to it. This definitely goes against medieval Christian literature which would have said to listen to the church because Jesus gave it authority. Since it is nearly the opposite of medieval Christian literature then it correlates closer to Greek and Roman literature. Boccacio said that corrupt church officials were lazy and they were only in it for the money. Boccacio even said that perhaps men have no authority because the plague was killing people so fast. Chaucer said through the prioress character that Mary, Jesus’ mother, has authority. Chaucer said through the pardoner that the pardoner had authority from the church because he had papers saying that he was a legit approved pardoner. Chaucer also portrays the pardoner as lacking legitimate authority from God because the pardoner is not sincere in his Christian beliefs or duties. Chaucer also said that the man told a few of his friends that he was only a pardoner to extort other people’s property. Chaucer also used this story to show that the church does not have the authority to appoint pardoners, because the Church did a bad job. Both authors were trying to tell us that the Church has no authority. This is similar to Greek and Roman literature. This is almost the opposite of Hebrew, Christian, and medieval literature.

Boccacio and Chaucer do not advocate any specific set of ethical rules. This is similar to Roman and Greek literature and different from Hebrew, Christian, and medieval literature. Christians would have said that we should follow the ethical rules provided in the Bible. The authors did not give us any ethical guidelines to follow. The authors also did not give us any lists of laws that the local government should enforce. They gave off no real guidelines to reform ourselves or society. They don’t tell us how to make our world a better place. They leave everything open to personal interests and interpretations similar to how the Greek and Roman authors did. This was different from Hebrew, Christian, and medieval ideas because the Christians thought that society could be bettered if our laws were ethical to God and if we were to act in an ethical manner according to the Bible. Boccacio said that during the Black Death there were really no laws or ethical standards because it seemed that life was so short. Many people lost faith in God and ethics, because good people were dying for seemingly no reason. This would go against most medieval and Christian views that would tell you to live in a godly way no matter the circumstances. Boccacio said that law and ethics had broken down with society. In Chaucer we saw that a group of high roller ladies overcame the law to potentially save a rapist. This would go against Christian thought because most Christians think no one is above the law or God’s standards. In the rapist’s tale we see that there was no justice from society or God. This would go against medieval thought because they would think the man would have to receive justice from God and society. Greeks and Romans would say that only the society’s law should matter not God’s, so the story correlates a little bit more with the Greek or Roman view. Then in the physician’s tale a murderer is let go instead of paying justice to God and society. Chaucer and Boccacio don’t seem to care about ethics and morality which is closer to Greek and Roman views than to Hebrew, Christian, and medieval views.

Another huge way that those authors’ views were similar to Greek and Roman views is that they thought sanctions were random or determined by luck and fortune. Even though the Greeks and Romans believed in gods the Greek and Roman authors frequently said that the gods were unpredictable and that sanctions were random. This goes against Hebrew, Christian, and medieval views because they believed that God does intervene in history to enforce justice. The authors led us to believe in most of the stories that “Fortune” enforces sanctions. Since the authors portray all things to happen by chance there is no way to link causes and effects. The authors views leave people without hope because they can charge nothing due to randomness. Boccacio said holy people prayed to be spared, but were killed by the plague. This convinced other people that there is no God or that God was not listening. Boccacio and most other people around him said that there it was random and fortunate if you survived. They did not mention God. That would go against medieval Christians views before the plague because most would have thought that God would help them. People lost faith and did whatever they wanted. This broke away from medieval culture. Chaucer said nothing about God’s sanctions. Chaucer said making promises is stupid because people will abuse you break a promise, sanctions. Chaucer said through the monk that Fortune determines what happens to you, not sanctions from an evil pardoner. Basically they said sanctions in history were caused by Fortune or randomness which leans toward Greek and Roman ideas rather than Christian ideas.

Both authors provided no hope for the future or for succession, similar to Hesiod and other Greek and Roman authors. They thought that since everything is random, then no one knows if the future will be good or bad. This goes against Hebrew, Christian, and medieval views because they believed that God will be the final judge and there will be justice in or at the end of history.

In conclusion, Boccacio and Chaucer were similar to Greek and Roman authors and their views were much different than the Hebrew, Christian, and medieval views right before the Black Death. The five key points of assessing a society definitely changed when these guys wrote their books. Remember the Black Death played a large role in this change as people lost faith and hope. The authors saw Fortune as sovereign and medieval Christians saw God as sovereign. Medieval Christians thought the Church had authority and the authors did not. The authors thought ethics and morals were useless, but medieval Christians thought following the ethical guidelines in the Bible would give you a better life. The authors thought sanctions were from Fortune and unpredictable, but medieval Christians thought God’s sanctions were predictable based on ethics. The authors had little hope for the future, but medieval Christians had strong hope for progress. The Black Death completely changed people’s opinions.

English 2 Western Literature: Lesson 170 Essay- “Do you think that the old man in the Pardoner’s Tale was death?”

I do not think the old man was death. I think the old man was God in disguise or God acting through the old man. It is plausible that the old man was death, but my initial thought was that God was enforcing justice through the old man.

The main reason I believe the old man was God is because God would need to punish the other men for sinning. All three men made promises that could not physically be carried out. That was bad, but what made things worse is that the men swore oaths to God. It is a really  bad idea to take an oath in God’s name because if you break it then you took God’s name in vain. The men, in effect, broke the promise as soon as they made the promise. They broke the promise because no one can kill death because death is not a person. Breaking promises is bad enough to God, but breaking a promise you swore to Him is even worse. Since the men sinned in such a stupid way it makes sense to me that God would want to punish them. The men “vowed to God’s bones” and “by God’s dignity” to slay death before the next night. The men made an oath in God’s name that could not be carried out at all and then gave themselves only one day to do it. It seems to me that God would want to give these men some justice. After this they promised to protect each other as brothers.

Another reason I think that Chaucer may have intended for God to be the old man is because he even noted that the men were disrespecting the Trinity. Chaucer had the Pardoner say that “…they swore many grisly oaths, and Christ’s blessed body they rent to pieces…”. I think Chaucer was speaking through the Pardoner who was telling the story in the book. Even here Chaucer showed that the men disrespected God. Sometimes God punishes people in history for their sins and I think that is what happened to the men.

There was plenty of reasons for God to diss out some justice on the morons and the perfect time arose when they met the “old man”. The old man greeted them with “God be with you” and of course the morons responded like jerks by making fun of his age. The man said he would live “…as long as it is God’s will.”. The old man seemed to respect God and to me it seemed like this man was God in disguise, so that he could trick the men into killing each other. Basically the old man went on to tell the morons to look for death under a certain tree. Then they looked under the tree and found lots of gold. The men then broke the final part of their promises by killing each other to get the gold.

In conclusion, it seems that Chaucer was trying to portray the old man as God. This is because the old man or God led them down the path to justice which was death. It seems reasonable to me that God would punish them in history for all the disrespect to the Trinity. The old man seemed omniscient like God because the old man seemed to already know the morons would kill each other for the gold. If he was death personified or just a regular old man I do not think he would have known that the men would kill each other for the gold.

English 2 Western Literature: Lesson 165 Essay- “Which do you think was more gripping to read? His account of the plague or his stories?”

I think Boccacio’s stories were more gripping to read. I found them more interesting than his account of the plague because the characters would either be incredibly cunning or incredibly lucky and those two aspects made the stories more entertaining for me to read.

One reason I found the stories entertaining was because a common man would end up roasting a stuck up stupid priest in a couple of the stories. It would be funny because the priest would get mad as soon as he found out that he was played.

One of the reasons why I enjoyed the story about the pirate was because when his ship wrecked near the other ships with all the riches he happened to save himself by grabbing onto a chest with precious metals inside. Then the man went home and became rich. I enjoyed the story because when the man was sailing into the bay and the storm flipped his boat I expected him to die. Not only did he live, but he ended up striking it rich! I thought the plot twist made the story funny.

Another story that was interesting was the story of the deceptive man tricking the friars into thinking he was holy. The deceptive man acted generous and holy in public, but he spent what the friars gave him in terrible ways and the evil man did not truly believe in God. The story was written to dissuade people from trusting friars. The friars were naive enough to give stuff to an evil man, so you should not trust them. I thought the story was interesting because the Friars messed up so bad.

Another interesting story was one about a friar in the position of inquisition who was blackmailing another guy to get money. The story was interesting because the Friars were supposed to be holy and kind people, but this friar was using his position to steal money and get rich. The story also said many other Friars were just as greedy as the one described in the story. The story was trying to show that most of the Friars’ hierarchy was corrupt. Another reason why the story was interesting was because the man who was scared and paid the friar off eventually went up to the bad friar while the friar was in a group meeting and the man roasted the evil friar. I liked this part because the evil friar got punished when the man who was blackmailed embarrassed the evil friar in front of his friends.

In conclusion, I enjoyed the stories more than Boccacio’s description of the plague because the stories were unpredictable, but the plague was predictable. I knew he was just going to talk about people dying and the chaos in society so it was less interesting to me compared to the stories. The stories were full of plot twists, clever people, and fortunate events which made the stories more interesting to me. I prefer unpredictable stories to descriptions of things that I already know about.

 

English 2 Western Literature: Lesson 155 Essay- “Did these two literary documents give guidance as to how a typical Christian should live?”

I believe that both of these books provided some guidance for typical Christians to follow. Song of Roland and Little Flowers both said that God is sovereign. Both books said that obedience is very important. They both said that you should always answer to Gos first. They did not give us much information on God’s law and how we should follow it. They did not say that God would give you what you deserve on earth.

Both books made it clear that God is sovereign. They said that God is number one in all hierarchies. They said that God is in control. Since God is at the top of the hierarchy, the books said we must give Him the most respect and obedience.

Both books said that you should understand your place in the hierarchy. They said it is very important to respect and obey those above you in the hierarchy.

Both documents emphasized that obedience is one of the most important things to have. They both said that you had to obey the people above you. They said that if you are obedient people will respect you more. They said that if you are disobedient people will lose respect for you and bad things will happen to you.

Both books said that God is number one in all hierarchies. They said that God is more important than all hierarchies. Since God is above all hierarchies the books said that you should obey God and respect God before anyone else. They said that if a superior tells you to do something that would disobey God then you should not do it, since you obey God first. They said that you should respect God more than anything else. If you do not respect God the most, then you He would punish you. They said you should fulfill your duties to God before you doing anything else.

Neither of the books gave us any specific guidance on specific laws from the Bible. As you can see from what I previously wrote, the books do give general guidance on general laws and concepts of virtues from the Bible, but they do not mention specific laws. They don’t tell us how to find the law, interpret the law, who makes the law, or what the content of the is. They don’t speak about ethics very much other than respect or obedience.

In conclusion, the  book gives a typical Christian some basic guidance on how to live a good life. The books emphasized that God is sovereign so we should give Him the most respect. The books said we should know our place in our hierarchies and respect people above us. The books said that we should always be obedient to our superiors. The books said we should obey God first. The books did not tell us very much about specific laws and morals, but they did give some good general guidance to people who read the books.

English 2 Western Literature: Lesson 150 Essay – “Did the ‘Little Flowers’ provide the common man with confidence about his own life beyond the grave?”

    I think it provides at least a little hope for the common man because John said that faith in the Trinity is what gets people into heaven. The book does not mention how faith gets people to heaven insteasd of works very frequently and many times the book seems to be saying the opposite.

An example of why the Little Flowers would not give a common man confidence in his salvation is the story of the tree and spirit of life. Brother James had a vision of Jesus giving Francis the spirit of life in a cup. Then Francis gave the friars the cup and many seemingly faifthful friars tossed the cup away and went to hell. The common man may worry after hearing this because most of the friars spent their whole lives living in penance and poverty seemingly for Christ. Since the friars seemed to be holier than common men and most of the friars went to hell this does not give much hope to a common person.

As I said earlier the book does provide hope when John had the vision that said faith in Christ was the only way to be saved. This would give the common man hope because he would not have to give up all his property and live a life of prayer and contemplation to be saved. The common man would just have to have strong faith in Jesus. Ultimately I think the common man would gain some confidence in his salvation as long as he believed John’s part of the story and paid little attention to James’s vision of the friars going to hell and other weird parts of the book. The common man would have to believe that faith leads to salvation not penance, poverty, or good works.

English 2 Western Literature: Lesson 145 Essay – “If you had been listening to those stories in 1300, what would you have concluded from them is the way to gain eternal life?”

I think that I would not have concluded any ways to eternal life from these stories. St. Francis and his crew advocated the message of Christ. The message of Christ was that a person must accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior. The person had to believe that God is Jesus’s father and the Holy Spirit is what connects us with God, Jesus, and other Christians. The person would have to confess his sins and admit that he is unworthy of God’s forgiveness. I think anyone who knew the message of Christ would have known that St. Francis provided no other legitimate ways to heaven. However, I think that people who did not know the message of Christ could have assumed that good deeds, patience, humility, love, and poverty are what brought a person to heaven. Since I know the message of Jesus I do not and would not have figured out any different paths to heaven other than through Jesus. Some people may not have drawn any conclusions about how or why the Franciscans acted because in “Little Flowers” reasons for the Franciscans’ actions were almost never given. St. Francis, at best, would vaguely explain why he would do something. The book really just tells us events that happened to the Franciscans without explaining how we are supposed to be more like them. It was very vague about explaining how and why miracles happened to the Franciscans.

Ultimately the message of Little Flowers was that the way to holiness and even heaven is through good works. Good works involved making yourself the lowest of the low by being humble and poor. It seemed to me that the friars were saying that total poverty was God’s way to save us. This is not what the Bible says so I think most people and I would not have accepted or believed Francis’s “way” to heaven.

An example of how the book is bad at portraying a theme is Francis’s divine wisdom and miraculous abilities. The book tells us he had divine wisdom because he could look at seemingly insignificant signs around him and predict the future and make important decisions based on these signs. The book does not ell us how he made those decisions or why he acted the way he did. Since the book did not explain, how are we supposed to be more like Francis?

In conclusion, Little Flowers was written to persuade people to become more like St. Francis and maybe even join the Franciscan Order. The book does not offer a whole lot of information on how to become more holy or go to heaven. The only information we have from the book leads us to believe that the Franciscans participated in miracles and would go to heaven because of their good deeds not because of their faith. Faith was mentioned very little in the book. In the book we can see from conversations between God, Jesus, and the Franciscans that God would let them into heaven because of their poverty, patience, and humility. The book was trying to tell people humility and poverty are what got you into heaven. The book also said that intense prayer and self-depravation could get you into heaven. I think most people who heard these stories  would understand the theme, but I think many would not believe the theme of the book because it does not correspond with the Bible. It does not correspond with the Bible because they advocate different ways to get to heaven.

English 2 Western Literature: Lesson 140 Essay – “Do you think the typical listener to a recitation of this poem would have spotted the discrepancies?”

I think the typical listener would have spotted the discrepancies. It is very easy to see that there are parts in the book that seem illogical and contradictory. Although I believe that most of the discrepancies were problems, I do believe it was possible that all the discrepancies could have actually taken place. Basically I find it more believable that the author made a few contradictions because he was careless rather than there were no contradictions and the author left out key information.

Some examples of discrepancies wee how the number of troops would magically increase without additional reinforcements. An example of this is how Charlemagne’s forces went from 100,000 before attacking the emir’s troops to 335,000 at the end of the battle. The only way this could have been possible was if reinforcement troops traveled from France and the author left this information out. I find the second explanation highly unlikely and I think the author messed up. Another example of soldiers magically appearing was when Marsilie at first had only 20,000 remaining troops, but by the time he met with Ganelon 400,000 more had appeared. The author does not tell us where those troops came from. I think it was another mistake by the author.

    One every large discrepancy that could have changed the entire outcome of the battle was when the Muslims blew 7,000 trumpets. Charlemagne did not hear the Muslims trumpets, but he heard Roland’s single trumpet just before the remaining rearguard was wiped out. The way the whole situation played out and considering that Charlemagne’s troops were only 17 miles away from the rearguard it seems to be almost impossible that Charlemagne did not hear the 7,000 trumpets. The only way that Charlemagne’s forces could not have heard the 7,000 trumpets was if Roland’s rearguard barely heard the trumpets. This was because the rearguard and main body of Frankish troops were close together. It seems reasonable that if one of the groups heard the extremely loud noise, then the other group would have heard it as well. This seems even more likely since later in the book Charlemagne heard Roland’s single trumpet from 15-20 miles away. Now I will explain the only way that the rearguard could have heard the noise, but not Charlemagne. Point A is where the Muslims blew the trumpets, Point B is where the rearguard was when the trumpets were blown , and Point C is where the main body of Frankish troops were. We know that Point B and Point C are close because people at Point C could hear a single trumpet from Point B. This means point A would have been far enough from Point B that the trumpets were barely audible and that Point C could not have heard the trumpets at all. This above explanation seems highly unlikely to me because 7,000 trumpets is very loud and I think the three groups of fighters were all very close to each other.

    In conclusion, I think everyone who paid any attention the story would have noticed the discrepancies. I believe this because many parts of the story revolve around parts where there was discrepancy. An example is the trumpet situation. Had Charlemagne heard the Muslims’ trumpets, he and the main group of soldiers could have turned around and smoked the Muslim forces without losing many men.

English 2 Western Literature: Lesson 135 Essay – “Describe the difference between Oliver’s view of military goals vs. Roland’s.”

Oliver thought that they should alert Charlemagne that way they could easily win the conflict with the Muslims. Oliver thought that planning ahead and winning the battle were smart and honorable moves. Roland disagreed with this view. Roland thought that it would have been dishonorable to call for help. Roland said if he called for help his family would be criticized. Roland said the rearguard and his family would be accused of being cowards. Oliver thought Roland was stupid and prideful.

After losing nearly all of their men Roland decides to blow the help trumpet because they are down to only 60 men against a large Muslim army. This time Oliver objects. Roland said the only reason he was blowing the trumpet was so that Charlemagne and the others could avenge the rearguard’s deaths. Oliver said that this action would make them look like cowards since they had practically lost the battle and then called for help. Oliver said that before it would have been a good strategic move to blow the trumpet and get help before the battle began. The second time he said it was too late and blowing the trumpet would make them look like cowards. Oliver said the Muslims would finish off the rearguard and flee before Charlemagne arrives even if Roland were to blow the trumpet immediately.

Oliver tried to tell Roland the first time that there were lots of Muslims and that it would be a tough battle. Oliver reiterated that he saw about 100,000 Muslim troops riding towards them ready for battle. Oliver said it would be one of the toughest battles fought in history. Oliver again emphasized that the French were heavily outnumbered and that their troops appeared to be fresh and ready to fight. Oliver told Roland to sound the horn so that Charlemagne and the primary army would come back and that the battle would be won with ease. Roland said it would be foolish to sound the horn. He said that if he sounded the horn he would lose respect in France. Roland said that the Franks were far superior fighters compared to the Muslims and that their 20,000 troops would be victorious. Oliver continued to ask Roland to sound the horn for aid. Roland said he would not blow the trumpet because it would be a disgrace to God and the French. Roland said the French would win because they were superior fighters and they would not need back-up. Oliver asked again, but Roland said it would be a disgrace to ask for aid in killing weak Muslims. Roland said he would not dishonor his country. Roland said that even thought the Muslims outnumbered the rearguard 5 to 1, the rearguard would win. Oliver continued to point out that the odds were against them. Roland said he would not sound the trumpet because it would dishonor himself and God. After departing for battle Oliver said they would die and it was too late.

Ultimately we see that Oliver was right because the French lose almost all their men, but for some reason the Muslims retreated after hearing Roland sound the horn and after the remaining French pushed against them. Oliver died during the final push before the Muslims had retreated too far away. Before Roland blew the horn  Oliver said the Muslims would flee before the reinforcement could avenge, but Roland disagreed and blew the horn. Both of them were wrong because the Muslims ended up retreating before they finished off Roland’s troops. The only sensible reason that the Muslims could have retreated for was because they thought the reinforcements were close and that they needed to flee immediately.

English 2 Western Literature: Lesson 130 Essay – “Did this literature encourage Christians to exercise political leadership?”

Early Medieval literature did not encourage Christians to exercise political leadership. The authors of the hymns I read said that life on earth is temporary and short, so it would not be worth a Christian’s time to become a politician. The authors said we should be more concerned about ourselves than other people or the nation because we need to focus on our own ethics. They also said we should be worried about heaven more than earth.

Augustine said there is no point in pursuing a career as a politician because there will always be good people and evil people in the world. Augustine said it was best to accept the truth and continue with life. Augustine said it would not be possible for humans to have total victory and change everyone into good people, so there would be no point trying to. He said evil would never have total victory over humans in history either. He said only God would be able to sort the fruit from the leaves.

Polycarp said it was definitely not worth it to try and lead people to Christ using a political position. He said that sometimes it wasn’t even worth it to try to lead people to Christ from a one-on-one position. Polycarp said there will always be people who will hate you and want to see you fail no matter what you do. He said people will also be too stupid and stubborn to listen to you and these people would not listen to the law either. Polycarp said since people will always be deaf to your words and the words of the law, then they would not be worthy of your time. Polycarp said that a political position could also get you unwanted attention. This meant that people who did not like you would be more jealous and envious of your position and that they would have more desire to kill you.

Justin said it is not a good idea to pursue a position as a politician because you will likely lose respect for God. He said that people who begin to exercise power begin to think that power is what makes their lives good. When they start to think this way they begin to lose respect for God. Justin also pointed our that the more power you have the harder it will be to make good decisions. He also said that since you are a leader it would be even more important that you don’t sin or make mistakes because those mistakes could affect many others. Justin the martyr emphasized that once you begin to see what power can do for you, you begin to lose sight of all that God does for you. He also said God would judge people with lots of power more harshly than those who don’t have lots of power. More responsibility leads to more liability.

The early medieval authors believed in three major points. The first reason that we should not seek political power is because it would not be worth our time and that we could never completely succeed in ethical reform or political reform in history. The second reason to avoid politics is because we could become corrupted by power and people are more likely to envy you and kill you. The third reason to avoid politics is because great power and responsibility correlates to great liability in the eyes of God and men.

English 2 Western Literature: Lesson 125 – “What was Augustine’s view of Christianity’s role in history?”

Christians would be in the world for a short time. Augustine thought that Christians should live like Jesus and spread God’s word during their time on earth. Augustine related our time on earth to a short trip in rough seas. He said that after experiencing some of the rough seas on the boat God would lift us up to heaven. While we are on earth Augustine said we should do our best to endure the world’s trials and live happily.

Augustine made it clear that we should fear God more than anything else. He said we should fear God the most because He is the only being that can destroy body and soul. Augustine said that other beings can kill your body, but that they can’t kill your soul. Augustine also said that the soul is more important than the body because the soul could live forever or die forever. He said that since God could burn your soul forever you should respect and fear God the most.

Augustine said it was very important that we do not fear persecutions from evil people on earth. He said that even though these people could harm and kill our bodies they could not harm our souls. Augustine said we should value our souls more than our bodies. Augustine said we should not let persecutors affect our thinking or turn us against God. He emphasized that no matter what the evil people do to you in history you should stay strong in your faith. If you held firm in your faith then you would be able to go to heaven and history would not matter.

Augustine said that in good times on earth we are not tempted into sin by evil people. He said when we sin the soul is dead. Augustine thought that if we abandon our faith due to temptation in those good times then our soul will be dead as long as we lack faith. Augustine said we try to avoid harm to our bodies because permanent damage can be caused in some cases. He said we need our souls just as much if not more than our bodies so we should take caution to avoid injuring our souls. This means we should avoid sinning because sinning injures the soul.

Augustine said we should care about material things or our circumstances very much on earth. He said that everyone dies and that this life is short so we should focus on protecting our souls and keeping our faith strong that we could enjoy eternity in heaven. Augustine said that it is important to remember the significance of heaven and your soul throughout your life on earth that way you do not lose your soul and go to hell. Augustine said it was best not to worry about social reform on earth very much since we are just pilgrims on earth for a very short period of time.

In conclusion, Augustine thought that our time in history is short so we should not worry about material things and the ups and downs of life. He said we should endure persecution and temptation to protect our souls and so that we could go to heaven. Augustine said we should fear and respect God not men because God can burn your soul forever or let your soul live in heaven with Him forever and men can only kill your body not your soul.