Leaderboard

For your consideration and challenge: https://atoday.org/our-conspiracists-and-why-we-love-them/

5 Interesting Facts About The Battle of Bull Run On July 21, 1861, the First Battle of Bull Run was fought just 30 miles from Washington, D.C. See how much you know about this major Civil War battle with these five surprising facts about the First Battle of Bull Run… The Battle of Bull Run Was Where Stonewall Jackson Earned His Nickname. General Thomas Jackson, leading his troop of Virginia volunteers in the battle on July 21, began a major push forward to block a gap in the Confederate line from Union attack. One of the other Confederate generals engaged in the battle remarked that Jackson was standing in place like a stone wall. The nickname stuck, and Jackson was promoted to major general that October. Around 55,000 Union and Confederate Troops Fought in the Battle. The Union Army of Northeastern Virginia, commanded by Brig. Gen. Irvin McDowell was composed of about 35,000 troops, while the Confederate troops that were called the Army of the Potomac and under Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard had about 20,000 troops. The Union suffered 2,708 casualties—481 soldiers were killed, 1,011 were wounded and 1,216 were listed as missing. The Confederates are estimated to have suffered 1,982 casualties, which included 387 fatalities, 1,582 wounded and 13 reported missing. The Fight Was Also Called the Battle of Manassas. Confederates named battles after the cities or towns that were nearby. The Federal government named them after nearby rivers or creeks. For this reason, the Confederates referred to this confrontation as the Battle of Manassas, and the Union called it Bull Run. which is a river tributary of the Occoquan River. It Was the First Time a Railroad Was Used to Move Troops General Beauregard wanted reinforcements to increase the Confederate's chance of success in the upcoming battle; however, rebel General Joseph Johnston and his 12,000 troops were in the Shenandoah Valley, some distance away. To get there, Johnston marched his troops to Piedmont Station where they boarded the Manassas Gap Railroad, which took them to the battlefield. The Was Some Uniform Confusion Some Southern soldiers at Bull Run wore blue uniforms instead of Confederate gray, and some Northern soldiers wore gray instead of Union blue. They had to fight in their state militia uniforms because neither side had enough official uniforms. The lack of uniforms led to confusion on the battlefield, and soldiers often shot people from their own side.

5 Things You Didn't Know About The First Moon Landing_3 On July 20, 1969, American astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first human being to walk on the moon. To celebrate the anniversary of this landmark event, here are five little known facts about the first moon landing... The Astronauts Didn’t Have Life Insurance The cost for life insurance for an astronaut is extremely high, which isn’t much of a surprise, and is probably even more if they are heading to the moon. Since Astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins did not have life insurance to provide for their families if the moon mission failed, they came up with a new plan. The three men signed autographs in the hundreds to distribute among the families, so they could sell them if something went wrong. Neil Armstrong’s Famous Quote Was Incorrectly Transmitted Listeners back on Earth heard, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." But Neil Armstrong maintained that he actually said something slightly different: "That's one small step for a man..." Armstrong told the press after the Apollo 11 mission, that people just didn't hear the "a". In 2006, computer programmer Peter Ford analyzed the audio recording using software that allows disabled people to communicate via computers using their nerve impulses. In a graphical representation of sound waves of the famous sentence, Ford said he found evidence that the missing "a" had been spoken after all: It was a 35-millisecond-long bump of sound between "for" and "man" that would have been too brief for human ears to hear. One of the Astronauts Designed the Mission Insignia Astronaut Michael Collins designed the insignia for the Apollo 11 mission. On advice from Jim Lovell, he traced an eagle he found in National Geographic and drew one that was landing on the moon’s surface and holding an olive branch by its beak. Since he thought the talons of the eagle looked aggressive, he moved the olive branch down, so the eagle was holding the branch in both claws. The Original Tapes of Apollo 11’s Moon Landing Were Erased The films taken by the lunar camera during the landing were lost, according to NASA, probably because they were erased in order to reuse the film. Because the camera used on board wasn’t compatible with television broadcasting, it had to be changed. This made the films seen by those at home on their television sets dark and difficult to make out, instead of the much clearer images filmed on the moon itself. The President Had a Speech Prepared in Case of a Disaster Richard Nixon was president at the time of the Apollo II moon landing, and everyone was aware that the mission might go wrong and the astronauts possibly would not return, so he had a speech ready in case a tragedy happened. The speech touched on the men’s bravery, how they would be mourned and how others would follow them into space. General Eisenhower also wrote a speech in the event the D-Day invasion wasn’t successful, but fortunately, neither man had to read these speeches.

Really? Tell us more. If its not a crime for you; then its not for her or anyone else. Unless you are going to tell us you have never changed your views before when you discovered "new light."

One of the biggest mistakes in this article is the repetitious use of artful adhominem argument to try to make the point that some prophets, to include EGW IS "in error." For example, his quibbling about her limestone statement and how she thought it causes earthquakes, when reacting with iron ore. As we have seen many times before, very selective use of her writings to brute them into saying things she actually did NOT ever intend is rampant with said "author" of this article. Here is the quote, in its context. It should be painfully obvious why Mathew Quartey lifted his quote so out of its original context. He felt he needed to "show" us how wrong she was. Rather than explain the quote in its context, he simply lifted it out of its place in the book Patriarchs and prophets: It can already be plainly seen that EGW was not, as Quartey so triumphantly claimed, saying specifically that iron ore and limestone mix together to cause "earthquakes. She did say they are a part of the process involved in "earthquakes, volcanos, and fiery issues." What she does appear to be alluding to are underground volcanoes, and there is no reason to suppose that she is wrong about how they sometimes do cause earthquakes. While the "science" may not be adequately explained therein, it does not follow that she was making a doctrinal or theological statement here any ways. And thirdly, Quartey fails to consider the ministry of Christ with all of His people, especially when they are in error, or when they dont understand something. As far as I can see, it was just another point and shoot article aimed solely at discrediting a woman of God, with absolutely no redemptive value to anyone. As to her alleged shifting theology on some points, why on earth is that made out to be a crime? Seems to me that God would approve such growth in our walk with Him. (2 Cor 3:18 admonished us to "grow" in grace. And Jesus certainly didnt seem worried about certain of His disciples when they did not believe in the resurrection. Quartey has crippled his case with falsehoods that have no Biblical value.

Gustave: Your questions are good. My response: · Jewish collection on the Sabbath: Your information is new to me. I did not know this. As I said at 5:40AM on Wednesday, I believe that this information supports my position. Thank you. · Apostles meeting on the Sabbath: I also agree with you point that following the resurrection those early Christians would have meet separately from the traditional Jewish Sabbath congregation in a meeting with other Christians. · SDAs collecting on the Sabbath: Yes. SDAs do not base their manner of Sabbath services on how the Jews worshiped on the Sabbath. SDAS are informed by their reading of what we call the 4th Commandment and you call the third Commandment. In actual fact, there are often major differences from congregation to congregation as to how the Sabbath is kept. Probably some of those differences, such as the music in such a service would seem minor to you. So, I will list some major differences: 1) Recently, a SDA Congregation marched in a public demonstration on a current issue perceived to be an issue of justice, instead of having a standard worship service. 2) Recently a SDA congregation, known tome, had some people skip the traditional Sabbath service to plant a tree. 3) Once, I along with twenty some members skipped the traditional Sabbath service to trip through the near-by mountains on a trip led by a PhD, Geology professor. 4) A congregation known to me, people occasionally skip the traditional Sabbath service to do things such as mow peoples lawns and more. Gustave, the issue as to how, when and where the Sabbath was replaced by Sunday in the Christian Church is a complicated one. As you well know, books have been written on the subject. Anyone who states that either Constantine or the Pope changed it is taking a simplistic view that is not historically supported. It is more involved than I will represent below. But, my simplistic view is this: · Early on Christians probably celebrated the resurrection of Christ on Easter mornings which were on Sundays. · After a while Christians began to celebrate the resurrection on a weekly basis, rather than just on an annual basis. · In the beginning, this may have consisted of a Sabbath on what we now call Saturday, followed by a celebration on what we now call Sunday. · With the passage of time, the celebration of the Sabbath on Saturday stopped, while it continued with the Sunday celebration. · This occurred over a period of time and did not occur all at once in every part of the world. So, in some paces while Christians may have been celebrating only on Sunday, in other palaces it may have included both Saturday and Sunday. NOTE: As I have said, this is a simplistic statement, and the actual process was more complex. Your mention of Pliny the Younger is appropriate as well as that of other such people. So, let us look at them in more detail: · The Epistle to the Magnesians: Written by Ignatius a Bishop of Antioch somewhere around 150 AD. The passage in Chapter 9 that has been translated as the “Lord’s Day” is subject to debate as to the actual wording, and is considered to be spurious by some. · Pliny governor of Bithynia: Written about 112 AD. This passage does not clearly identify the exact day of the week cited. · The Epistle of Barnabas: Could have been written about 115 AD, earlier or later. The expression “The Lord’s Holy Day, could have referenced Sunday. · The Didache: Written about 96 AD. In the phrase “Lord’s day of the Lord,” the word “day” does not appear in the Greek and has been supplied by the translators. · Justin’s First Apology: Believed to have been written about 155 AD. It contains a clear reference to the day we call Sunday. It is thought by some to apply to Christians in Rome, and by others to apply to Christians in Ephesus. · The Gospel of Peter: An apocryphal work written probably about 155 AD, and clearly references Sunday. · The Acts of Peter: An apocryphal work written about 200 AD which clearly cites Sunday. · The Acts of Paul: An apocryphal work possibly written about 190 AD, It presents Paul in worships on the day prior to the day we call Sunday. Gustave, the bottom line in the historical records present Sunday keeping as coming into Christianity well after the resurrection. My presentation may be simplistic, as books have been written on this subject. But, it is clear that it cannot be historically supported to say that Sunday cam in immediately after the resurrection.

Are we sick of sheltering in place? You bet! It is my husband and myself and we moved our 96 year-old grandmother in to stay with us. This has not been a joy. We no longer watch our television shows (we watch MeTV and a lot of "bird" and other animal shows now). We don't get to listen to our own music. We can't go to bed at a regular hour (as she's up at any and all hours of the day/night). It's been joy-less. Our grown children moved out of our house last year (so lucky they got out in time). But it's been miserable not being able to see them in person. We were close with them. Visiting at least once a week. Now, it's via computer only--at best once every two or three weeks. I miss hearing their stories, their struggles, and helping them with building their lives. My mother lives 5 states away from us. She's been in the hospital for heart problems and now needs surgery. I am the eldest of 3 children and I've always been the caregiver among the siblings. It's killing me that I haven't been able to be with my mother to help her through all the doctors appointments and making medical decisions. As of last night, I got word that her friends have helped her navigate the system to get her transferred to a hospital near me so that I can start my care giving with her too. We've been spending the past couple of days getting our house ready for another person to live here (my mom). So, soon, it'll be my husband, my grandmother (96), and my mother with heart problems. In the meantime, my son has been working on his plans to get married in October. This whole virus has thwarted their plans at every turn. The numbers of invitations were cut back, the plans for music/dancing were nixed--no longer a buffet setting. He's still waiting on the wedding ring itself to arrive. Each person in the wedding party has to make separate appointments to be fitted for dresses/suits, etc. The rehearsal dinner has a limited capacity and a limited menu. There will be masks in the photos. Back to the virus. My family has all these "co-morbidities": heart disease (3 of us) diabetes (4 of us--the all the same as above) asthma (4) sleep apnea (2) elderly (4) A negative blood types (4) We have been socially isolated since March 17. By my count, that's about 120+ days. We have not gone out of the house for anything but a walk, a bike ride, a drive; and to shop for groceries at outdoor markets. We use drive through service at the pharmacist. We have had only tele-medicine with my grandmother's diabetic doctor (she used to go to a doctor on average at least once a month). We don't visit with neighbors or family. We work from home. We worship from home. We wear masks. We wait 3 days to open the newspaper and the mail. We wash all our groceries. We shower if we've been to the market. We hate it. We want it to be over. Yesterday, we heard a podcast talking about the length of time it would take for the virus to be eradicated *if* everyone would cooperate. SIX WEEKS. If everyone would have been responsible enough, we could have been back to a "normal" life by the end of April. That was 2 1/2 months ago. The number of people suffering from job loss, depression, mental instabilty, and various health conditions that have gone untreated would have been decreased. The only way this will end without a vaccination is for people to stop spreading mis-information and to take it the virus seriously. Masks help, but staying away from others helps even more. From my perspective, the question of whether or not this is government control and a push for a new world order doesn't even matter as long as the virus is active. From my perspective, the question of whether or not take it seriously and wear a mask is moot. Wear a mask now so we can all get back to living our lives again.