Origin of the Universe

[Melinda2000@gmail.com]

C) The Quran on the Origin of the Universe:
The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical,
clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was
nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot
gaseous composition).1 This is one of the undisputed principles of
standard modern cosmology. Scientists now can observe new stars
forming out of the remnants of that ‘smoke’ (see figures 10 and 11).





Figure 10: A new star forming out of a cloud of gas and dust (nebula),
which is one of the remnants of the ‘smoke’ that was the origin of the
whole universe. (The Space Atlas, Heather and Henbest, p. 50.)





Figure 11: The Lagoon nebula is a cloud of gas and dust, about 60
light years in diameter. It is excited by the ultraviolet radiation
of the hot stars that have recently formed within its bulk. (Horizons,
Exploring the Universe, Seeds, plate 9, from Association of
Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.) (Click on the image to
enlarge it.)


The illuminating stars we see at night were, just as was the whole
universe, in that ‘smoke’ material. God has said in the Quran:

Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... (Quran, 41:11)

Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars,
planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same ‘smoke,’ we
conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity.
Then out of this homogeneous ‘smoke,’ they formed and separated from
each other. God has said in the Quran:

Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth
were one connected entity, then We separated them?... (Quran, 21:30)

Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world’s renowned geologists. He is
Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at
the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz,
Germany. He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it
is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the
common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out
within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced
technological methods, that this is the case.”2 (To view the
RealPlayer video of this comment click here ). Also he said:
“Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen
hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out
from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had
the same origin.”3 (View the RealPlayer video of this comment ).


Next: The Quran on the Cerebrum


_____________________________

Footnotes:

(1) The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the
Universe, Weinberg, pp. 94-105.

(2) The reference for this saying is This is the Truth (videotape).
For a copy of this videotape, please visit this page.

(3) This is the Truth (videotape).

[Rev. Red Hot Lava]

On Sep 21, 7:37*am, Melinda2...@gmail.com wrote:
> C) The Quran on the Origin of the Universe:
> The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical,
> clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was
> nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot
> gaseous composition).1 *This is one of the undisputed principles of
> standard modern cosmology. *Scientists now can observe new stars
> forming out of the remnants of that ‘smoke’ (see figures 10 and 11).
>
> Figure 10: A new star forming out of a cloud of gas and dust (nebula),
> which is one of the remnants of the ‘smoke’ that was the origin of the
> whole universe. (The Space Atlas, Heather and Henbest, p. 50.)
>
> Figure 11: The Lagoon nebula is a cloud of gas and dust, about 60
> light years in diameter. *It is excited by the ultraviolet radiation
> of the hot stars that have recently formed within its bulk. (Horizons,
> Exploring the Universe, Seeds, plate 9, from Association of
> Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.) *(Click on the image to
> enlarge it.)
>
> The illuminating stars we see at night were, just as was the whole
> universe, in that ‘smoke’ material. *God has said in the Quran:
>
> *Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... *(Quran, 41:11)
>
> Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars,
> planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same ‘smoke,’ we
> conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity.
> Then out of this homogeneous ‘smoke,’ they formed and separated from
> each other. God has said in the Quran:
>
> *Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth
> were one connected entity, then We separated them?... *(Quran, 21:30)
>
> Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world’s renowned geologists. *He is
> Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at
> the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz,
> Germany. *He said: “Thinking where Muhammad came from . . . I think it
> is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the
> common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out
> within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced
> technological methods, that this is the case.”2 *(To view the
> RealPlayer video of this comment click here ). *Also he said:
> “Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen
> hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out
> from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had
> the same origin.”3 *(View the RealPlayer video of this comment ).
>
> Next: The Quran on the Cerebrum
>
> _____________________________
>
> Footnotes:
>
> (1) The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the
> Universe, Weinberg, pp. 94-105.
>
> (2) The reference for this saying is This is the Truth (videotape).
> For a copy of this videotape, please visit this page.
>
> (3) This is the Truth (videotape).

the kabba is eeeeebble...

[SixthtySixthSix]

<Melinda2000@gmail.com>
> The Quran on the Origin of the Universe:
> Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... (Quran, 41:11)
> Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were
> one connected entity, then We separated them?... (Quran, 21:30)
> Next: The Quran on the Cerebrum

Can I maintenance that the universe has been around forever?

[Ato_Zee]

On 21-Sep-2008, "SixthtySixthSix" <SixthtySixthSix@ATT.NET> wrote:

> <Melinda2000@gmail.com>
> > The Quran on the Origin of the Universe:
> > Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... (Quran, 41:11)
> > Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were
> >
> > one connected entity, then We separated them?... (Quran, 21:30)
> > Next: The Quran on the Cerebrum
>
> Can I maintenance that the universe has been around forever?

There was smoke and a smell of gas, the good lord said let there
be light, struck a match, there was The Big Bang, and the universe
came into being, along with the Big Bang Theory.

[ericm0009@yahoo.com]

On Sep 21, 7:37*am, Melinda2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars,
> planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same ‘smoke,’ we
> conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity.
> Then out of this homogeneous ‘smoke,’ they formed and separated from
> [Quran bullshit]

Its not smoke. It is clouds of hydrogen and helium.

All religions are stupid. The religion that has a sky monster
stapling his kid to a telephone pole is stupid, but your blood and
death cult is the most stupid one out there.

[Tom]

<ericm0009@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1b687202-89bd-4161-a64c-83d5f504b4ef@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> All religions are stupid. The religion that has a sky monster
> stapling his kid to a telephone pole is stupid, but your blood and
> death cult is the most stupid one out there.

Stupid? I don't think so. Irrational in its assertions about the
supernatural origins of the universe and its ongoing supernatural
maintenence, it most certianly is. However the discovery of a technique for
influencing large numbers of people to see some given person or organization
as God's Conduit To Earth has significantly altered the way in which the
human race is organized. This was a very astute discovery that has been
overwhelmingly successful for more years than our historical inquiries can
trace. Nothing stupid about that at all. Give credit where credit is due.

I think we can agree that the people who need to believe in some
supernatural protector and be assured that they'll live forever are indeed
kind of stupid. At least they are stupid in that one way. In other ways,
they can be pretty sharp, maybe sharper than anybody, including you. After
all, some of them have managed to secure more political power than you ever
could, and they did it despite the deleterious effects of an irrational
worldview. Indeed some of them have done it so well largely *because* of
that irrational belief system. The person who can successfully pull off an
impersonation of God's Conduit To Earth is generally a pretty shrewd
operator.

It is a big mistake to underestimate the intelligence of the people who run
religions. Their flocks of followers are by and large pretty stupid, but
that's not a bug. That's a feature. The fact of the matter is that 50% of
the world's people are below average intelligence. They have to be, by the
very definition of "average".

Exactly half of our population is below average intelligence, making them
more easily manipulated into operating as an obedient political bloc than
any group with above average intelligence could be. So the people who know
how to best manipulate stupid people are going to be very successful,
especially in a democracy. The people who know best how to manipulate
stupid people are very smart people.

I'm reminded of a quip made by Adlai Stevenson in his unsuccessful
presidential run against Eisenhower. A woman at a rally shouted to
Stevenson, "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson
replied, "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority." Ah, those golden
years when occasionally a politician would speak the truth... Did I mention
that he lost? He knew what he had to do and he couldn't figure out how to
do it. He was smart enough to recognize the problem but not smart enough to
find a solution.

Your best hope for eliminating the influence of religion on humanity is to
do your level best to get smarter yourself about how to get people smart.
Calling them stupid isn't going to change the fact that they're stupid.
Stevenson demonstrated that. Making people smarter, though, might help. If
you raise the average intelligence high enough so that the religion trick
won't work on as many people as it does now, you will have forever broken
the power of religion in the world. So how one goes about actually making
people smart instead of merely complaining about how stupid they are is a
question for smart people to consider.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:11:39 -0700 (PDT), ericm0009@yahoo.com wrote:

>All religions are stupid. The religion that has a sky monster
>stapling his kid to a telephone pole is stupid, but your blood and
>death cult is the most stupid one out there.

Nice metaphors. Think of religion as an insurance policy. Tithing
means you donate 10% of your income and time to the church.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe>
In exchange, you get a coupon that lets you avoid eternal damnation,
Hades, or a personalized hell. There's also no statute of limitations
on these places, so you need to get it right the first time.
Considering the cost-benefit ratio, I would think religion would be a
good investment. It's also also helpful to read the documentation
before proceding, but that can take a lifetime. As for your distaste
for religious symbols, think of these as a billboard, where it pays to
advertise, and establish an easily recognizable trademark or
servicemark. Todays products and philosophies are no better at
selecting these symbols than the traditional religions. For example,
who would logically associate battery efficiency with a pink rabbit,
or forestry with a talking bear?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Searles O'Dubhain]

"Tom" <dantPAYATTENTIONomel@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Ga2dnQa6hNod-EfVnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Making people smarter, though, might help. If you raise the average
> intelligence high enough so that the religion trick won't work on as many
> people as it does now, you will have forever broken the power of religion
> in the world. So how one goes about actually making people smart instead
> of merely complaining about how stupid they are is a question for smart
> people to consider.

Perhaps smarter people will figure out more intelligent ways to empower the
"religion trick" as you've termed it?

If increases intelligence is the goal then one has to consider optimizing
the factors in people that are measured as intelligence. What are these
factors or perhaps there is disagreement on what intelligence actually is?
If intelligence is genetically tied to brain size and efficiency then
selective breeding or genetic determination of the best zygotes for
reproduction might be an area of optimization that would work. If training
and education is an area where intelligence can be increased then massive
state supported schools could possibly increase intelligence. If
intelligence is increased through proper nutrition and exercise then
mandatory feeding and exercise programs would be required. All of these ways
to *make* people more intelligent smack of totalitarian efforts from the
past to produce a master race. I don't think they worked then and heavens to
the movie, Gattaca, I don't think they'll work now or in the future.

Humans are not purely rational creatures and their intelligence is also not
purely rational. Why we got down out of the trees may also not have been
purely rational. Many of our greatest discoveries have been due to mistakes
and coincidence rather than intelligence or rationality. Most of our
greatest art has not been due to intelligence at all but to creativity and
subjective experimentation with the senses. I'm not arguing against
intelligence as it is part of the human skillset, but it is only a part of
the success story. Imagination, subjectivity, energy, drive and the unifying
power of belief have also been apart of what makes humans successful. They
(including intelligence) have also been part of the greatest failures for
humans.

Perhaps understanding of the human condition and what makes humans
successful should look beyond intelligence to be successful? Openness to
the ways of others might be one aspect of the human condition that also
needs to be improved. Being willing to allow others to be dumb when we
consider ourselves to be smarter might also work at times.The great
religious experiment might still turn up discoveries to improve the human
condition in much the same way that magic has invented and sustained the
sciences. To reach the stars or split the atom. one must first believe that
it can be done in order to spend the inordinate amount of human resources
and effort required to make the task a reality. Dreams come true only when
seemingly irrational beliefs get huge investments.

Finally, perhaps it is not rational to believe that one can make humans do
anything that is good for them? One can only inspire and at times lead
humans. One can also force them with great effort to act against their
wills. To get humans to become more intelligent seems to be a task that
requires somehow that humans want to become more intelligent themselves.
History doesn't show that this desire is very strong in many people. They
seem to be happy with their usual level of intelligence and think that
others are either too smart or too stupid. This thinking may be irrational
but it is also pretty much a fact when considering that humans are not
entirely rational or even want to be entirely rational.


That being the case, then there perhaps should be ways in which people can
use their irrationality and its power? One of these ways is religion though
that's not the only way. Other ways are sports, entertainment, art, magic,
rites of passage, trends and 'happenings.' These channel human irrational
energy and belief in ways that may be good or bad. The politics and upcoming
election here in the United States is the epitome of irrational human
belief, a channeling and a focusing of its power to achieve the irrational
goals of one group of humans over those of others. The outcome of this
effort might prove to be a disaster or it could accidentally be a blessing
if we are lucky enough.

Perhaps when we are through making people smarter, we can work on making
them luckier too?

Searles O'Dubhain

[Tom]

"Searles O'Dubhain" <odubhain@*comcast*.net> wrote in message
news:aKudnd05v_3S4EbVnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom" <dantPAYATTENTIONomel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Ga2dnQa6hNod-EfVnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> Making people smarter, though, might help. If you raise the average
>> intelligence high enough so that the religion trick won't work on as many
>> people as it does now, you will have forever broken the power of religion
>> in the world. So how one goes about actually making people smart instead
>> of merely complaining about how stupid they are is a question for smart
>> people to consider.
>
> Perhaps smarter people will figure out more intelligent ways to empower
> the "religion trick" as you've termed it?

Yes, indeed That would also be an improvement. In the ongoing process of
making people smarter, the encounter with more complex problems is not only
inevitable but desireable.

After all, we're talking about someone's opinion that religions are stupid.
So if religions got smarter because their flocks were getting too smart to
be controlled by the same old tricks, he might have less to complain about,
too.

> If increases intelligence is the goal then one has to consider optimizing
> the factors in people that are measured as intelligence. What are these
> factors or perhaps there is disagreement on what intelligence actually is?

There is no single factor that comprises intelligence any more than there is
a single factor that comprises consciousness. Howard Gardner, author of
"Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences" and "Multiple
Intelligences: New Horizons", has made the case for many years that
"Spearman's g" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor )
is really no more than an artifact of the kinds of tests of aptitude for
Western-style classroom activities. Rather he feels that intelligence is a
combination of many different cognitive capacities acting simultaneously.

This is what I was getting at when I suggested that we think about how we
make people smarter. We need to focus our attention on what we mean by
"intelligence" as a process rather than merely focusing on its outcome.

I think the person arguing that religion is stupid is equating intelligence
with critical reasoning, the process by which we decide what information is
factual and what information is fictional. It's pretty clear that virtually
nobody is unerringly correct in making those distinctions, but with practice
we can all get better at it. I think that may be the particular function of
intelligence that would satisfy our complainer, if anything would.

> If intelligence is genetically tied to brain size and efficiency then
> selective breeding or genetic determination of the best zygotes for
> reproduction might be an area of optimization that would work.

It's tricky. Increasing brain size or even efficiency is probably not the
answer by itself, since there is evidence that one can overwhelm the
delicate balance between the various intelligence systems by introducing too
much complexity or speed of function to one or or several of the brain's
structures which puts them out of synch with the rest, resulting in various
kinds of neurological disorders.

> If training and education is an area where intelligence can be increased
> then massive state supported schools could possibly increase intelligence.

That might be one option, but I suspect it wouldn't work because such an
entity would merely keep the authoritatrian model going and religion (at
least the "stupid" kind) thrives in a society with rigid authoritarianism.
It might require no more than the introduction of certain types of games or
activities into whatever education and recreational systems currently exist.
If those games or activities stimulated an increase in one's critical
faculties, the result could be obtained without having to rely on Orwellian
nightmares.

> Humans are not purely rational creatures and their intelligence is also
> not purely rational. Why we got down out of the trees may also not have
> been purely rational. Many of our greatest discoveries have been due to
> mistakes and coincidence rather than intelligence or rationality.

Those serendipitous discoveries came not from an application of
irrationality, though. They came from having very astute and rational
inquiries into something that happened unexpectedly. You cannot defend an
irrational approach to problem-solving by claiming that you'll get better
results more often by accident than you will be careful and purposeful
inquiry.

> Most of our greatest art has not been due to intelligence at all but to
> creativity and subjective experimentation with the senses.

Gardner disagrees. He considers intelligence to manifest in spacial
relations, body kinesthetics, interpersonal skills, empathy, and so forth.
Great art is, therefore, a result of high intelligence in areas not usually
considered by IQ tests.

> I'm not arguing against intelligence as it is part of the human skillset,
> but it is only a part of the success story. Imagination, subjectivity,
> energy, drive and the unifying power of belief have also been apart of
> what makes humans successful.

I quite agree, although I will not divorce all those things from
intelligence completely nor credit them with all our successes or only our
successes. Imagination and social organization infuse intelligence, acting
both to augment it and to stifle it. For example, particularly appropriate
to this thread, the "unifying power of belief" built our first civilizations
but also sent them to war against one another and forbade any intelligent
inquiry that might cast some doubt on the absolutely correctness of that
"unifying belief".

> They (including intelligence) have also been part of the greatest failures
> for humans.

I cannot find an example of how intelligence caused any of our greatest
failures. I'm not even sure what these "greatest failures" are.

> Perhaps understanding of the human condition and what makes humans
> successful should look beyond intelligence to be successful?

That may depend a lot on how you choose to define "success".

> Openness to the ways of others might be one aspect of the human condition
> that also needs to be improved.

This openness is rarely, if ever, a part of any religious doctrine. It
doesn't seem to play much of a part in any of the world's largest (most
successful?) religions.

> Being willing to allow others to be dumb when we consider ourselves to be
> smarter might also work at times.

I think I've made that point already. The leaders of religions are a lot
smarter than their flocks and keeping things that way seems to work just
fine for them.

> The great religious experiment might still turn up discoveries to improve
> the human condition in much the same way that magic has invented and
> sustained the sciences. To reach the stars or split the atom. one must
> first believe that it can be done in order to spend the inordinate amount
> of human resources and effort required to make the task a reality. Dreams
> come true only when seemingly irrational beliefs get huge investments.

The problem with most religion, notably the authoritarian kind, is that it
works just the opposite of what you describe. It does not enable inquiry
but suppresses it. It does not give us a belief in our ability to discover
the truth, but has imposed upon its membership a belief that everything we
should know is already known and any effort to learn more, or, even worse,
learn that something taught by God's Conduit is actually wrong, must be
vigorously eliminated.

> Finally, perhaps it is not rational to believe that one can make humans do
> anything that is good for them? One can only inspire and at times lead
> humans.

Inspiring and leading is how you make people do stuff, whether it's good for
them or not.

> To get humans to become more intelligent seems to be a task that requires
> somehow that humans want to become more intelligent themselves. History
> doesn't show that this desire is very strong in many people.

I think that this impetus towards becoming smarter is a pretty new idea,
comparatively. Only in the past couple of hundred years has any culture
actaully come to value the intelligence of its general populace at all. The
idea of making education available to eveyone is very, very new. The idea
that education might actually result in smarter people in general is even
newer.

> Perhaps when we are through making people smarter, we can work on making
> them luckier too?

I think "luck" is far more illusory than "intelligence".

[Ato_Zee]

> > Perhaps smarter people will figure out more intelligent ways to empower
> > the "religion trick" as you've termed it?
>
> Yes, indeed That would also be an improvement. In the ongoing process of
> making people smarter, the encounter with more complex problems is not
> only
> inevitable but desireable.
>
> After all, we're talking about someone's opinion that religions are
> stupid.
> So if religions got smarter because their flocks were getting too smart to
> be controlled by the same old tricks, he might have less to complain
> about,
> too.

But we already have this great new making people smarter religion,
it's called Scientology.

[James]

"Searles O'Dubhain" <odubhain@*comcast*.net>

>Re: Origin of the Universe

>
>"Tom" <dantPAYATTENTIONomel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:Ga2dnQa6hNod-EfVnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> Making people smarter, though, might help. If you raise the average
>> intelligence high enough so that the religion trick won't work on as many
>> people as it does now, you will have forever broken the power of religion
>> in the world. So how one goes about actually making people smart instead
>> of merely complaining about how stupid they are is a question for smart
>> people to consider.
>
>Perhaps smarter people will figure out more intelligent ways to empower the
>"religion trick" as you've termed it?
>
>If increases intelligence is the goal then one has to consider optimizing
>the factors in people that are measured as intelligence. What are these
>factors or perhaps there is disagreement on what intelligence actually is?
>If intelligence is genetically tied to brain size and efficiency then
>selective breeding or genetic determination of the best zygotes for
>reproduction might be an area of optimization that would work. If training
>and education is an area where intelligence can be increased then massive
>state supported schools could possibly increase intelligence. If
>intelligence is increased through proper nutrition and exercise then
>mandatory feeding and exercise programs would be required. All of these ways
>to *make* people more intelligent smack of totalitarian efforts from the
>past to produce a master race. I don't think they worked then and heavens to
>the movie, Gattaca, I don't think they'll work now or in the future.
>
>Humans are not purely rational creatures and their intelligence is also not
>purely rational. Why we got down out of the trees may also not have been
>purely rational. Many of our greatest discoveries have been due to mistakes
>and coincidence rather than intelligence or rationality. Most of our
>greatest art has not been due to intelligence at all but to creativity and
>subjective experimentation with the senses. I'm not arguing against
>intelligence as it is part of the human skillset, but it is only a part of
>the success story. Imagination, subjectivity, energy, drive and the unifying
>power of belief have also been apart of what makes humans successful. They
>(including intelligence) have also been part of the greatest failures for
>humans.
>
>Perhaps understanding of the human condition and what makes humans
>successful should look beyond intelligence to be successful? Openness to
>the ways of others might be one aspect of the human condition that also
>needs to be improved. Being willing to allow others to be dumb when we
>consider ourselves to be smarter might also work at times.The great
>religious experiment might still turn up discoveries to improve the human
>condition in much the same way that magic has invented and sustained the
>sciences. To reach the stars or split the atom. one must first believe that
>it can be done in order to spend the inordinate amount of human resources
>and effort required to make the task a reality. Dreams come true only when
>seemingly irrational beliefs get huge investments.
>
>Finally, perhaps it is not rational to believe that one can make humans do
>anything that is good for them? One can only inspire and at times lead
>humans. One can also force them with great effort to act against their
>wills. To get humans to become more intelligent seems to be a task that
>requires somehow that humans want to become more intelligent themselves.
>History doesn't show that this desire is very strong in many people. They
>seem to be happy with their usual level of intelligence and think that
>others are either too smart or too stupid. This thinking may be irrational
>but it is also pretty much a fact when considering that humans are not
>entirely rational or even want to be entirely rational.
>
>
>That being the case, then there perhaps should be ways in which people can
>use their irrationality and its power? One of these ways is religion though
>that's not the only way. Other ways are sports, entertainment, art, magic,
>rites of passage, trends and 'happenings.' These channel human irrational
>energy and belief in ways that may be good or bad. The politics and upcoming
>election here in the United States is the epitome of irrational human
>belief, a channeling and a focusing of its power to achieve the irrational
>goals of one group of humans over those of others. The outcome of this
>effort might prove to be a disaster or it could accidentally be a blessing
>if we are lucky enough.
>
>Perhaps when we are through making people smarter, we can work on making
>them luckier too?
>
>Searles O'Dubhain
>

Hello Searles,

Yes, intelligence doesn't always produce the correct results. Wisdom
is also needed. Wisdom is the proper application of one's intellect.
But humans can sometimes find good application of their knowledge to
be a difficult thing.

For example, several decades ago the German people elected a person
they thought would be good for Germany. It was Adolf Hitler. Thus in
order to make good decisions, humans need guidance from a HIGHER
intellect and wisdom than their own. The Bible provides such guidance.
As it says at Jer 10:23,

"I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man
to direct his steps." (NIV)

Thus the first step in attaining real wisdom is to acknowledge that we
are not perfect, but need guidance from a higher source.

Sincerely, James

If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I do
not follow all conversations in ng threads


***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses Questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************