[Rat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SWANYDSPIN:
Does believing in god mean believing in the bible?

---

No. There are at least 9 other religions that have one "God" figure and a "prophet/messenger" figure.

[Awetopsy]

originally quoted by Martin Rebas.

quote

Quote:

I've often seen christians argue that what's called a "slave" in the OT wasn't like we imagine slavery; that it's more like being an employee, like you say.

the verses in question were in the New Testament, and were really and actually referring to "servants" as a butler or a maid would be.

quote

Quote:

I find that hard to believe because of bible verses like Exodus 21:20, which says that you can beat your "employee" as much as you like without punishment unless he dies the same day, because after all, he's your money.

again you can take this entirely out of context or you can do a little research to findout the circumstances of having "slaves".
Exodus 21,20 and 21 say "(20) And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. (21) Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
the reason why Isreal even had slaves at this time was because as they were travelling aound other nations would come against them, Isreal would win conflict after conflict and so some nations got scared and pretended to be travellers form afar, when really they were from the next valley, or city etc., seeking refuge. So Isreal made a covenant with those people saying that Isreal would protect thier lives. When Isreal found out that they had lied to them they had to figure out something to do with those people, and those people who had lied volunteered to be their slaves. So the law was passed that if any Isrealite beat one of those 'slaves' to death that he would be put to death because he was breaking the covenant that was already in place with those people.

quote:

---

I've always found this to be a very weak defense of the bizarre laws in the OT, which recommend the death penalty for most everything, including gathering wood on Saturday. Getting killed by stoning persumably hurt as much then as it does now.

To me, it seems like your arguments could apply equally well to the Taliban's laws in Afghanistan: "They weren't that bad; you have to take into account that the culture then was not like it is today, and, well, anyway, the laws are better now".

---

Be careful of how you've misquoted me. I never said "they weren't that bad" I merely gave an explanation of those old laws. If you believe in the Devil and God then throughout the bible you can see the devil trying to thwart Gods plan for things. The one thing he wanted to thwart more than anything, throughout the bible, was the birth of the Messiah. It was never Gods intent for Isreal to have slaves in the first place, but Isreal disobeyed, and so God, through moses, had to place laws to keep Isreal from killing those slaves. Under that old law, Isreal was supposed to get all their work done in 6 days and take the seventh for rest and worship. I notice you didnt provide scripture supporting the gathering wood comment.

You dont have to agree with those old laws, but thats the way it was. Its not a defense, just an explanation as to why. Ill admit Im no scholar on the Old Laws, because they are done away with. What Im saying is that God IS fair. and anyone of those laws had a reason for being there.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[Martin Rebas]

quote

Quote:

again you can take this entirely out of context or you can do a little research to findout the circumstances of having "slaves".

It is not out of context at all. God clearly condones one person being the property of another, and says that it's ok to beat that property with a rod as long as it doesn't die the same day. Look at it from any angle you want to, it's still morally reprehensible.

quote

Quote:

It was never Gods intent for Isreal to have slaves in the first place, but Isreal disobeyed, and so God, through moses, had to place laws to keep Isreal from killing those slaves

This is just stupid. Because the Israelites disobeyed God, God decided to remove the ban against slavery, and instead created laws to make slavery marginally less unpleasant?

Wouldn't it be about a million times better to enforce the ban against slavery, perhaps by writing down a law against it, and giving the first few transgressors powerful visions that show them that they are on the wrong track? It's not like an omnipotent god wouldn't have the resources.

What would you say if your country's lawmakers decided that because rape is so common, it should be legalized - but only if the rapist uses a condom?

quote

Quote:

Be careful of how you've misquoted me. I never said "they weren't that bad" I merely gave an explanation of those old laws.

I don't think I've misrepresented you here; the "they weren't that bad" comment was obviously not meant to be a literal quote of anything you've said. And you do seem to think that the laws were fair:

quote

Quote:

What Im saying is that God IS fair. and anyone of those laws had a reason for being there.

I suppose you could have meant that they were fair but still pretty bad, but it seems a little strange to me.

quote

Quote:

I notice you didnt provide scripture supporting the gathering wood comment.

Numbers 15:32-36

32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Happy now?

/Martin

[wayfinder]

i think it's time for a bit of nacho cheese.

what's making me sick is how people are willing to go Extreme lengths to make their point, and expect anyone who is disagreeing to show the same amount of involvement, or else they're WRONG.

i do see where veen's post begs to have holes punched in it, and hehe some have already been made , but i don't care about the topic enough to come up with the amount of citing and stuff you guys seem to be expecting from anyone with a serious opinion.

anyway, i just wanted to say that when you get no more replies, it's not because you converted someone or "won the argument" (as if such an argument can be won), but it's because nobody cares enough to make their point any more.

have a nice evening

[Awetopsy]

Martin Rebas: Im sorry but you seem to be taking this much more seriously than others here.

No. God did not condone slavery but he had to allow it. Allowing something and condoning something are two entirely different things. Neither did he condone beating the slaves. The law about killing them was passed to prevent the killing of the slaves, but beating them was a less of an offence. So the issues of beating the slaves were passed down to the leaders of the tribes to judge on their own much like things are done today with Supreme courts and municipal courts.
The Isrealites had a blood covenant with the people that came to them not to slay them. Outside of the western world a blood covenant is the most serious contract; meaning that God had to allow it because he had a blood covenant with Isreal. God specifically told the Isrealites not to enter into any covenants with anybody, But they did disobey, and ended up bringing themselves back into slavery several times because of it. Because Isreal took slaves God let them reap the rewards of their actions and over the course of the next couple thousand years they never stood solidly as a nation and went in and out of slavery.

Numbers 15:32-36 you seem to be claiming that the man was put to death unfairly. Well vs 29-31 of the same chapter talk about the difference between a sin of ignorance and a sin of presumtion. The sin of ignorance would only require an offering on the part of the person who sinned to attone. But a sin of presumtion (or intention) required the death penalty. God was the government at that time. The law stated that The sabbath was Gods day and no man should work. SO, It is then safe to assume that this man was acting, knowing that he was openly and publicly not obeying the command of the Lord, thus commiting high treason. Even in the United States today, High treason brings the death penalty.

This is pretty all Im going to say to you about this, you dont seem to be too interested in a civilized conversation. Your demeaner is unpleasant and I really dont appreciate anybody telling me my opinion is stupid.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[Martin Rebas]

I agree with everyone who thinks that this discussion is getting really out of hand, so I'll stop now and just clarify one thing:

quote

Quote:

Your demeaner is unpleasant and I really dont appreciate anybody telling me my opinion is stupid.

When I said "This is just stupid", I wasn't referring to your opinion; what I meant was that it would be stupid for the biblical god to allow slavery when it could easily be avoided. It still seems obvious to me that slavery was easily avoidable, but this doesn't seem to be the time and place to argue the point further.

/Martin

[Rat]

How is it that every time someone posts something even vaguely related to religion, it turns into a big debate over Christianity? The original question was "what is religion for" rather than "who's right/wrong about the Bible," which is what everyone has turned it into.

So, I will again ask the original question. What is religion for?

[social drone]

i use religion for wiping my ass

[sacrelicious]

quote

Quote:

God did not condone slavery but he had to allow it.

He's fucking God. God the ALLMIGHTY. He doesn't have to allow anything he doesn't want, because he's omnipotent. Or am I wrong about the whole omnipitence thing?

Rat: It's more fun to talk about this.

[Giant Hamster]

Hey, Fool! I can't be everywhere at once. That whole omnipotence bull is just a joke that got started long ago. The whole slavery thing...well...refer to comment one; I can't be everywhere at once.

[SWANYDSPIN]

Ok I'll get back to the original topic, even if you believe in god why do you have to physically worship him, confess sins, pray, go to church, why would he want you to do that.

he has no effect on anything, everything on earth and the universe works together, nothing created nothing destroyed! It just changes.

As bad as it sounds, War, murder, rape...'evil' means nothing in the whole scheme of things

[Unsound]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SWANYDSPIN:
Ok I'll get back to the original topic, even if you believe in god why do you have to physically worship him, confess sins, pray, go to church, why would he want you to do that.

---

To show him you care.

[SolarC]

What interests me is why people have to be so fanatic about these things? I don't think that there is a single living human being who could really know what comes after death or is there a god or not for sure. So I guess it's just everybodys own business how do they decide to believe or not.

What comes to interpretation of bible there are so many different views on things with different churches and the interpretations have actually changed so much over the years as science has found out new things about the world. So I don't think arguing about bibles content is going to lead us anywhere ever and the content of bible is for sure nothing of a nature it could be used to argue with scientific facts.

[klaivu]

Yeah, the free will issue .. if the biblical god is omnipotent and also loving, why does he create faulty humans that he knows are not going to believe in him ? Creating people whose only purpose in existence is eternal torment and suffering doesn't sound loving to me.

[Steven Stahlberg]

You're right, I agree, the notion of Hell and eternal damnation doesn't make much sense. (In fact the Baha'i Faith lacks that concept.)

[Unsound]

The word “hell” is found in many Bible translations. In the same verses other translations read “the grave,” “the world of the dead,” and so forth. Other Bibles simply transliterate the original-language words that are sometimes rendered “hell”; that is, they express them with the letters of our alphabet but leave the words untranslated. What are those words? The Hebrew she’ohl' and its Greek equivalent hai'des, which refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the Greek ge'en�na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction. However, both in Christendom and in many non-Christian religions it is taught that hell is a place inhabited by demons and where the wicked, after death, are punished (and some believe that this is with torment).

Job 14:13, Catholic Challoner-Douay Version: “[Job prayed:] Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell, and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me?” (God himself said that Job was “a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.”—Job 1:8.)

Acts 2:25-27, King James: “David speaketh concerning him [Jesus Christ], . . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (The fact that God did not “leave” Jesus in hell implies that Jesus was in hell, or Hades, at least for a time, does it not?)

“Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.”—The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.

Translators have allowed their personal beliefs to color their work instead of being consistent in their rendering of the original-language words. For example: (1) The King James Version rendered she’ohl' as “hell,” “the grave,” and “the pit”; hai'des is therein rendered both “hell” and “grave”; ge'en�na is also translated “hell.” (2) Today’s English Version transliterates hai'des as “Hades” and also renders it as “hell” and “the world of the dead.” But besides rendering “hell” from hai'des it uses that same translation for ge'en�na. (3) The Jerusalem Bible transliterates hai'des six times, but in other passages it translates it as “hell” and as “the underworld.” It also translates ge'en�na as “hell,” as it does hai'des in two instances. Thus the exact meanings of the original-language words have been obscured.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Unsound ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

Yes, I don't like fanaticism, I'm not even fanatic about being non-fanatic...

I read earlier someone posting about "get off the fence", hinting that people who wouldn't make up their minds were some kind of cowards. I don't think that's it at all. I think in questions like this one, it's much better to be closer to the fence than way off in one direction or another.

About omnipotence - the old problem: if God is omnipotent, can he create a problem he cannot solve? If he can, he's not omnipotent - and if he can't, then he's also not omnipotent.
But this and other paradoxes are just silly word-games we humans like to amuse ourselves with.

If you see this universe as a process that must run as undisturbed as possible to have any value to God, then it becomes obvious why he doesn't interfere more. I mean, what's the use of giving your experiment free will and choices, if you interfere all the time with the effects of those choices?

[Awetopsy]

"could God create a problem he couldnt solve?" yeah, free will.

Technically he could solve it... but that wouldnt be fair.

[klaivu]

I mean that omniscience, omnipotency and love are not compatible. The christian god would know the fate of each of his creations exactly. Therefore knowing beforehand the ones that he regards worthy of salvation. So basically he would be making flawed people that he blames for his own mistakes.

And why would a perfect, omnipotent god need constant flattery in the form of prayers ? There would be no wishes or feelings god had not intentionally created them to have long ago. What would this god care for the requests of people whose fates are already set in stone ?

And judgement day. What would there be to judge ?

[Awetopsy]

quote

Quote:

Yeah, the free will issue .. if the biblical god is omnipotent and also loving, why does he create faulty humans that he knows are not going to believe in him ? Creating people whose only purpose in existence is eternal torment and suffering doesn't sound loving to me.

Interesting point. But what if we look at it from a different angle?
What if God had originally created Mankind to live forever, whos purpose was to be like a family to God, loving, devoid of imperfection; but still having a free will? What if God had created Hell to be a holding place for the devil and his angels, demons etc. What if the devil wanted to attack God and since he couldnt outright attack God himself, he attacked something God loved that he had created and so he tricked man into giving up the right to live eternally with God by his own free will? So what does God do then? Wipe everything out and start from scratch? Well the scripture lays out a foundation that the Devil had accused God of not being fair. So in order to be fair, God allows man to keep his free will and lets him follow after whatever he chooses. What if the punishment for this treason that man commits against God is separation from God and a new system where things now die? Where does God then put these people who have chosen to reject him and die that way? Well he's already got a holding place for the devil and his angels who have rejected him.

What if its not God that damns people to hell? What if its the people that damn themselves? So God puts them there due to their own choices, their own free will to reject God.

In fact Jesus talked about "Hell" more than he talked about heaven. Unsound's definitions of Hell are pretty close to correct.

The word 'Sheol' is literally translated, the all demanding world; the unseen world; the place of departed spirits.

throughout the bible it talks about two hells. the first being the grave, in which men are placed by other men. Since man cannot manipulate the spirit realm, he could not put another spirit into any hell, only a body into a grave. the second hell is teh hell in which God puts people as a holding cell until the great Judgement. This place described as a place where people can do things such as burn (deuteronomy 32:22), be in pain (Psalms 116:3), Speak from (Ezekiel 32:27), and lift ones eyes in (Luke 16:23). It is also described as having gates (Matthew 16:18), a belly (Jonah 2:2), and fire (James 3:6). the scripture also says that death and Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire (revelation 20:14)

[klaivu]

>What if its not God that damns people to hell? What if its the people that damn themselves? So God puts them there due to their own choices, their own free will to reject God.

If your god is omnipotent, he knew already who were going to reject him. He did nothing more than create people knowing that they would reject him.

An omnipotent god implies that there is no free will. So either your god is uncaring or malicious, or not omnipotent, but limited.

Another thing I don't understand when debating these things is putting all evil things on the account of the devil. If god is omnipotent, he fully knew what this "bringer of light" was going to do with it's existence even before he made him. So god knowingly made pain, suffering, sin and evil ?

[Martin Rebas]

I can't seem to stay out of this thread. My question is:

What does the devil hope to accomplish?

I mean, I can understand if regular people don't follow the biblical god's laws, considering that I've never seen the least sign that he exists, but the devil supposedly knows that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and I can't understand why someone would fight against that kind of odds.

The usual characterization of the devil seems to be that he acts out of pride; he wants people to admire him instead of God. But really, what's the point? God is on the side of love, is omnipotent, and wants to win the battle. According to many christians, he'll also have an extra talk with those who didn't understand that he exists while they were alive. With those odds, the expected result for the devil is to get zero admirers, and then get cast into a lake of fire and brimstone and be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Revelations 20:10).

But even if he would succeed in converting billions of people, what would be the result? Well, a couple of billion people wouldn't live forever (I can't really see what the devil gains by preventing that), and then he gets cast into a lake of fire and brimstone and is tormented day and night for ever and ever.

It seems that the devil's dominant characteristic isn't evil, or pride - it's stupidity.

[Awetopsy]

quote:

---

If your god is omnipotent, he knew already who were going to reject him. He did nothing more than create people knowing that they would reject him.

An omnipotent god implies that there is no free will. So either your god is uncaring or malicious, or not omnipotent, but limited.

Another thing I don't understand when debating these things is putting all evil things on the account of the devil. If god is omnipotent, he fully knew what this "bringer of light" was going to do with it's existence even before he made him. So god knowingly made pain, suffering, sin and evil ?

---

Again another very interesting and good point. My question to you is this then, What if this omnipotent God decided that in the best interest of all of creation, to be fair to mankind, he chose not to look into mans future, essentially limit himself from knowing each mans outcome?

quote

Quote:

What does the devil hope to accomplish?

there are a few things the devil hopes to accomplish, some of which hes been quite successful at.
Essentially the devil hopes to dethrone God. The devil used to be Lucifer, Gods cheif angel. Lucifer was perfect with no thought of pride or evil in his heart. Because God is light, there had to be the possibility of darkness. Because God is good,the possibility of Evil had to exist. So Lucifer got proud and said "I could be God"

The devil also wants followers for himself.

Perhaps the most sneaky thing the devil wants, which has been the most successful, is to merely get people to reject God. In alot of ways the devil doesnt care if people acknowledge him as their Lord and serve him as satanists, As long as he separates God and man, hes happy. Man is not strong enough to reject both God and the devil.

because the devil is called the father of lies, and because it is said he has come to steal to kill and to destroy, we can understand that the Devil has decieved himself into thinking he really can win against God, and he thinks he can use the "couple billion" that he has to do it. In his mind attacking Gods people is almost as good as attacking God himself.

quote

Quote:

It seems that the devil's dominant characteristic isn't evil, or pride - it's stupidity.

exactly.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[klaivu]

quote:

---

Again another very interesting and good point. My question to you is this then, What if this omnipotent God decided that in the best interest of all of creation, to be fair to mankind, he chose not to look into mans future, essentially limit himself from knowing each mans outcome?

---

But he wouldn't be fair, would he ? Think of all the people born into another religions - people who grow up to be good christians would probably end up as good muslims elsewhere. And the ones that grow up not knowing right from wrong ? A baby born into a drugaddicted, abusive family is likely to grow up as emotionally unstable and violent. Assuming that this "limiting" was possible, he still would knowingly have made people that would never turn to him.

And isn't omnipotency and omniscience of god a crucial part of the christian dogma ?

But, you neatly went past the devil issue in this question. Why would a loving god knowingly send evil to the earth ?

edit : rusty grammar

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: klaivu ]

[Martin Rebas]

Awetopsy, could you tell me exactly what kind of powers the devil has, and how he uses them to further his plans?

I mean, could he create matter, life or planets? How does he travel around the Earth - does he fly, teleport, or is he omnipresent? Could he create fires or natural disasters? Could he stop them? Could he, say, heal the sick in an attempt to make himself more popular? Could he obliterate a bible? Could he hurt a fly? Could he turn water into wine? Does he spend his days telepathically influencing people to do ungodly things?

At the moment, the most supernatural things I remember him doing in the Bible are speaking through a snake, showing Jesus the kingdoms of the world through a vision, and perhaps sending out demons to possess people and taking the shape of a great dragon.

[SolarC]

Awetopsy, you sound so sure and all knowing about omnipotence god, devil and all spirituality you make my brains hurt. I just wonder where do you get all this information, do you grab a beer with god every friday and ask him, right?

[Awetopsy]

quote

Quote:

But, you neatly went past the devil issue in this question. Why would a loving god knowingly send evil to the earth ?

I actually side stepped it because its a fairly in-depth thing. I dont have all the scripture on hand, because Im at work, but Ill do my best to explain it. here are the order of events

In the beginning God creates.

He creates the heavens, and all of its inhabitants. how long this took is unstated. Science has discovered objects in space that are older than we can say (trillians of years?) One of the beings he creates is the angel Lucifer, whom he sets as his cheif angel. the general, if you will.

God creates earth somewhere in that time.
In the book of Jeremiah there is a full chapter where God mourns the loss of Lucifer. In that chapter God says to Lucifer, "You were the king of this world, you sat upon the throne of earth" (or something similar) So we then can infer that after God had created the earth, he set Lucifer as overseer of this world, and could move between heaven and earth freely. If Lucifer was king over this world there must have been something to be ruler over. Science says that the earth is 65 billion years old. (i think) Science also has evidence of creatures that lived billions of years ago, that resembled modern man, it also shows that Dinosaurs were somewhere in that time frame too.

Somewhere along the lines Lucifer starts to get proud, he starts believing that he can be God and accuses God of not being fair. He also convinces 1/3 of the angels in heaven of this. So God boots him and that 1/3 of angels out of heaven. So, like I said, what does god do with him? Annihilate him? Well if God really is fair he cant do that, so he confines him to this earthly realm of which he was Ruler.

Now the Devil gets mad. God kicked him out of heaven, so he figures he's gonna get back at God, So he decides hes gonna wreck this little earth that God loves. Science also believes that and asteroid may have hit the earth which caused a sort of nuclear winter, a blanket of ash covered the earth and made it dark, and rasied the water level, etc. So ok Lucifer throws an asteroid at earth which then effectively sets up the conditions of Genesis 1:2 "and the earth was without form, and Void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep" There is also a scripture which talks about the Angels falling from heaven as balls of fire.

So, with the accusation of not being fair, God decides that hes going to now create again what Lucifer destroyed and this time its going to be an example that He, being God, is fair. So God recreates the earth, and makes a new kind of man, in his own image, whom he loves, and gives him authority over all the earth, and puts them in "the garden". Now this man also has a free will. Now in order to be fair, God has to allow something to be in place in which man can err, other wise Lucifer wouldnt have any avenue in which to tempt mankind. You see, mankind is a sort of experiment. The claim that Lucifer made was that God is not fair and wont allow any creatures to choose thier own destiny, so God put man in place to show that if man so chose, he could reject his creator and follow after the creators enemy. So God puts two "trees" the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. Why trees? why in the garden, I honestly have no explanation but that they were there to satisfy the claim that God wouldnt let man choose for himself.

So God tells mankind not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil "lest they should surely die". well when he says "die" here he is talking about separation from God. Lucifer comes along, and tempts man, saying "you shall not surely die, but you will become as God". Which is only partly right. Mankind would become like God in that he would then understand good and evil, but when lucifer reffered to "die" he was talking about the physical body dying.
So mankind gave into the temptation and Sin and Death and evil was then brought onto the earth, and Mankind effectively handed "dominion over earth" (which God had taken from Lucifer and given to man) back to Lucifer. But then, in order for God to be absolutely fair to man, he had to then come up with a redemption plan. He had to get it so that man could go back to God. So he set the plan of the Messiah in motion.

Really, this whole thing is a legal issue. Lucifer wants to dethrone God by proving God is unfair. You see God has to be fair to both mankind and to Lucifer. Lucifer has completely rejected God and will never be ble to turn again to him, and thats why God made Hell, for him and his angels.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[Awetopsy]

SolarC: Ive spent a fair amount of my life studying God and the things of God.
I dont claim to know it all.. far from it, in fact. And honestly my opinion is subject to change given adequate evidence.
Really, its that Ive spent alot of time thinking it out, and working it out so that it made some sense.

Oh and Ive never had Beer in my life.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Awetopsy ]

[Giant Hamster]

Awe and Solar: Ya'll don't know shit bout me.

[Ilsoap]

I'd just like to add a few corrections to Awetopsy's statements, because there were a few small points that he got incorrect, and there are people who have the mindset of "that one point was incorrect, so everything he said must be wrong".

Here goes:

- The age of the earth seems to keep changing in the scientific world, but generally, the commonly accepted age is 4.5 billion years (give or take a millenia, it's still an awful lot of birthday candles to blow out)

- The part of the Bible that talks about Lucifer is actually in Isaiah 14, not Jeremiah.

- Scientists have some evidence (not a lot, mind you) of human-like primates living 2 million years ago. Any farther than that, and everyone seems to agree that they were monkeys.

- The common date of dinosaurs being extinct is 65 million years ago. (I don't know how they decide these things, but whatever.)

That's about it. Good work Awe!