Barbara Stanfield Essays - Religion, Bible, Commandments

Barbara Stanfield American Literature Argumentative Paper Contradictions in Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason Thomas Paine wrote The Age of Reason in 1784. In it he included his views on the religions known throughout the world. For this, he was ridiculed and despised by many in society. Thomas Paine once said that a sermon he heard at the age of eight impressed him with the cruelty inherent in Christianity and made him a rebel forever. It is my opinion that, because of this, he lived the rest of his life never to actually study the Bible or Christianity. Because he "was a rebel forever" to the Christian religion, he was compelled to write of it in the 11th chapter of his book The Age of Reason, and quite inaccurately at that. I believe that Thomas Paine did not know enough of the Bible to speak against it; and in this paper, I plan to expose the contradictions in Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason when compared to the Bible and evidence proving that the Bible is accurate. The contradictions most important are Paine's assumption that the stories of the bible are all hearsay and also his claim that Christianity is the worship of a man rather than an omnipotent God. First, let us prove that the Bible is an incredibly accurate source of history. It is a fact that over 25,000 sites have been discovered that have connection to the Old Testament period. Not only have these discoveries provided external confirmation to hundreds of scriptural assertions, but also, not one archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference. The Bible is the only religious book in which the people and places contained in it are verified by history and archaeology. Discovered in 1947 at Qumran the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the reliability of the biblical text. These scrolls, dating from 3rd century B.C. to 1st century A.D., are the earliest copies of Old Testament books. Their predicated and fulfilled prophecies provide evidence for the divine origin of the Bible. Going back to the excerpt from The Age of Reason, Paine says that the Bible and the stories contained in it are all hearsay. "When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph or Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence." What I think that he failed to do was research before he wrote. Everything about the birth of Christ was prophesied hundreds of years before it actually happened. The evidence of Jesus' life is that he was seen by over 500 known witnesses; an empty tomb; Jesus' disciples would not change their story in the face of execution. Even small details of Christ's life were prophesied hundreds of years before his birth. The virgin conception was prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 in which Isaiah says, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel," and was fulfilled in the book of Matthew in the first chapter, approximately 750 years later. The birth of Christ at Bethlehem was predicted in Micah 5:2 and was fulfilled in Luke 2:4-11. The miracles performed by Jesus were prophesied in Isaiah 53:5-6 and were fulfilled in Matthew 9:35. Jesus' miracles were performed in the open and served to validate his claims. Jesus h ealed the sick, gave sight to the blind, fed thousands of people from a handful of food, demonstrated power over nature and even raised the dead. No first century eyewitness ever denied Jesus' ability to do miracles. Christ's being crucified with thieves was predicted in Isaiah 53:12 and accounted for by an eyewitness in Luke 23:33. The prophecy that Jesus' side would be pierced during his crucifixion was written in Zechariah 12:10 and fulfilled by John, a

The Schlieffen Plan and World War One

The Schlieffen Plan and World War One As the crisis which began World War One was developing from assassination, through calls of revenge round to paranoid imperial competition, Germany found itself facing the possibility of attacks from east and west at the same time. They had feared this for years, and their solution, which was soon put into action with German declarations of war against both France and Russia, was the Schlieffen Plan. Changing Heads of German Strategy In 1891, Count Alfred von Schlieffen became German Chief of Staff. He had succeeded the wholly successful General Hellmuth von Moltke, who together with Bismarck had won a series of short wars and created the new German Empire. Moltke feared a great European war might result if Russia and France allied against the new Germany, and decided to counter it by defending in the west against France, and attacking in the east to make small territorial gains from Russia. Bismarck aimed to prevent the international situation from ever reaching that point, by trying hard to keep France and Russia separated. However, Bismarck died, and Germanys diplomacy collapsed. Schlieffen was soon faced with the encirclement Germany feared when Russia and France allied, and he decided to draw up a new plan, one which would seek a decisive German victory on both fronts. The Schlieffen Plan The result was the Schlieffen Plan. This involved a rapid mobilization, and the bulk of the entire German army attacking through the western lowlands into northern France, where they would sweep round and attack Paris from behind its defences. France was assumed to be planning – and making – an attack into Alsace-Lorraine (which was accurate), and prone to surrendering if Paris fell (possibly not accurate). This entire operation was expected to take six weeks, at which point the war in the west would be won and Germany would then use its advanced railway system to move its army back to the east to meet the slowly mobilizing Russians. Russia could not be knocked out first, because their army could withdraw for miles deep into Russia if necessary. Despite this being a gamble of the highest order, it was the only real plan Germany had. It was fed by the vast paranoia in Germany that there had to be a reckoning between the German and Russian empires, a battle which should t ake place sooner, while Russia was relatively weak, and not later, when Russia might have modern railways, guns and more troops. There was, however, one major problem. The ‘plan’ was not operational, and wasn’t even really a plan, more a memorandum briefly describing a vague concept. Indeed, Schlieffen may even have written it just to persuade the government to increase the army, rather than believing it would ever be used. As a result their were problems: the plan required munitions in excess of what the German army had at that point, although they were developed in time for the war. It also required more troops on hand to attack than could be moved through the roads and railways of France. This problem was not solved, and the plan sat there, seemingly ready to use in the event of the great crisis people were expecting. Moltke Modifies the Plan Moltke’s nephew, also von Moltke, took over Schlieffen’s role in the early twentieth century. He wanted to be as great as his uncle, but was held back by not being anywhere near as skilled. He feared that Russia’s transport system had developed and they could mobilize quicker, so when working out how the plan would be run - a plan that was possibly never meant to be run but which he decided to use anyway - he altered it slightly to weaken the west and reinforce the east. However, he ignored the supply and other problems which had been left due to the vagueness of Schlieffen’s plan, and felt he had a solution. Schlieffen had, possibly accidentally, left a huge time bomb in Germany which Moltke had bought into the house. World War One When war looked likely in 1914, the Germans decided to put the Schlieffen Plan into effect, declaring war on France and attacking with multiple armies in the west, leaving one in the east. However, as the attack went ahead Moltke modified the plan even more by withdrawing more troops to the east. In addition, commanders on the ground also veered away from the design. The result was the Germans attacking Paris from the north, rather then from behind. The Germans were halted and pushed back at the Battle of the Marne, Moltke was considered to have failed and replaced in disgrace. A debate over whether the Schlieffen Plan would have worked if left alone began within moments and has continued ever since. No one then realised how little planning had gone into the original plan, and Moltke was vilified for having failed to use it properly, whereas its probably right to say he was always onto a loser with the plan, but he should be vilified for trying to use it at all.