The correct answer is Oedipus makes decisions based on the will of the gods.
Indeed, at this point in the plot, the Kingdom of Thebes has fallen to some kind of plague that pollutes the people and the fields, causing starvation. He has a prophet consult the Oracle of Apollo to see what can be done and the prophet comes back with an injunction, not a prophecy to find Laius’ killer.
Of course, Oedipus states that “finding Lauis’ murderer is self-serving” but in the sense that he is one with his people and that his people’s welfare is his own. The only unambiguous choice is that Oedipus makes decisions not based on scientific or criminal research but on his religious beliefs and these command that the will of the gods be obeyed at all times.
General Louis de Montcalm Commanded the British Attack on Quebec
Which of these colonial literature was written as part of the Great Awakening On the Death of Rev. Dr Sewall"
Which was a primary reason for the disaster at Fort Duquesne answer is The commanding general and his troops were overly confident of victory and took foolhardy chances in battle.
The "Mandate of Heaven" is an ancient Chinese philosophical concept, which originated during the Zhou Dynasty (1046-256 BCE). The Mandate determines whether an emperor of China is sufficiently virtuous to rule; if he does not fulfill his obligations as emperor, then he loses the Mandate and thus the right to be emperor.There are four principles to the Mandate:
1) Heaven grants the emperor the right to rule,
2) Since there is only one Heaven, there can only be one emperor at any given time,
3) The emperor's virtue determines his right to rule, and,
4) No one dynasty has a permanent right to rule.
Hope this helps!
Back then, Portugal had a very strong and
rigorous army. The army was fully armed with cannons and guns so they were sure
of a win if they waged war on the coastal towns. And sure, they waged war which
overawed the enemy’s navy and left the coastal town villages completely burnt
down and the inhabitants injured and others dead.
Answer:
No, the Crusades weren’t justifiable. The Arab/Muslim conquest of the region centuries earlier wasn’t justifiable either. There were no good guys or bad guys in that conflict. Both sides were wrong.
From the perspective of Jews and Samaritans, it was really just two colonial powers (Crusaders and Arabs) fighting over a land that never rightfully belonged to either of them in the first place.
Explanation:
What is important today is to understand that the unjustified reaction of the Christian community to actions in the Holy Land can be compared to the reaction of people in the Muslim world to Western dominance. So, instead of something like the Crusades was seen as an acceptance by many Muslims of terrorism. If the Christian Crusades were bad, so is the Muslim acceptance for decades of terrorism, particularly towards Israeli civilians.
