the beginning of knowledge.

[4tune8chance]

Well, what part of what I stated did you now understand?
It's a pretty basic concept.
Did you not read the linked article I provided?

I already understand what fear means, i.e. the link. Hardly goes to answering the questions now does it!

So ill repost the questions:
A. "What sort of knowledge are you referring to? But I am confused by previous text, because the sermon appears to be telling followers not to be afraid, not sure how that counts as being knowledgeable about something. To be well informed on something I would expect lesson on topics, yes?

B. "Why must fear be apart of it." Why can't "love of God is the beginning of knowledge"? Seems to me to put a positive spin on learning rather then learning because you have to.

Do my questions seem unreasonable? Pretty basic information required on your part, so far nothing from you.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Fools despise learning. They reject science. They prefer ignorance and superstition.
They reject overwhelming evidence, and instead cling to myths, legends, and fairy tales.
From the geological reality of an ancient Earth, to the biological reality of evolution, to the cosmological reality of the expanding universe...
they reject it all, in favour of a book of myths and legends.
They so desperately want their bibles and q'rans to be scientifically accurate, that they attack science.
They reject germ theory for evil spirits.
And of course

 

[SteveB]

Yup.... and if an attempt at trust fails to get the child in the van... fear is the next tool utilized in the arsenal.... it’s clockwork. “ You better get in the car kid or you/your mom/your dad/your siblings will die or be very very hurt.” You need a more grown up hobby Steve.

I'm not the one who needs to claim that what others actually know, and experience daily can't be real unless you agree with it, but since you don't actually want to know for yourself, you instead choose to rail at it, while believing that as long as you don't believe it's real, the consequences inherent in the truth won't affect you.
Which just demonstrates the passage I provided as my op....

The Fear of God is the BEGINNING of Knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and understanding.

 

[Lighthearted Atheist]

The Fear of God is the BEGINNING of Knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and understanding.

Your assumption is wrong. Your first step seems to always be first we must all accept and believe God without question. This is not an acceptable premise or assumption to start to understand reality.

If I said the first step to knowledge is to fear and believe in Lord Shiva then of course all of Hinduism makes sense. The problem is that first assumption is based on nothing - and no knowledge can come from such a flawed start.

Fruit of the poison tree and all that

 

[5wize]

I'm not the one who needs to claim that what others actually know, and experience daily can't be real unless you agree with it, but since you don't actually want to know for yourself, you instead choose to rail at it, while believing that as long as you don't believe it's real, the consequences inherent in the truth won't affect you.
Which just demonstrates the passage I provided as my op....

The Fear of God is the BEGINNING of Knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and understanding.

Nope... fear of god is merely the beginning of fear of the things you force yourself to believe, like those not in control of their minds fear the boogie-man, which is a child's malady. So go ahead and carve that piece of your mind out for crap. You'd be better off if you scooped it out and just filled it with dirt because healthy people just refuse to live with that poison.

 

[bigthinker]

I was reminded of this earlier, and thought it'd be a good thing to redux this.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

The fear/reverence of God is the BEGINNING of knowledge.

Not the middle, not the end, not somewhere in between the beginning, and the end....

It's the very beginning of knowledge.

Define "wisdom".

 

[bigthinker]

I was reminded of this earlier, and thought it'd be a good thing to redux this.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

The fear/reverence of God is the BEGINNING of knowledge.

Not the middle, not the end, not somewhere in between the beginning, and the end....

It's the very beginning of knowledge.

You're merely assuming the existence of God and using the passage to confirm your assumption. Demonstrate that fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge. And honestly, what you mean by "wisdom" is belief in God -not actually anything that involves knowledge; one must first believe in the Lord before one fears the Lord. Essentially it is circular. Atheists don't fear your God because they don't believe that your God is something to be feared; they don't believe in your God at all. To that point, the lack of belief is the opposite of fear.

 

[Eightcrackers]

I was reminded of this earlier, and thought it'd be a good thing to redux this.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

The fear/reverence of God is the BEGINNING of knowledge.

Not the middle, not the end, not somewhere in between the beginning, and the end....

It's the very beginning of knowledge.

Then how is it that people that don't fear your god, know things?

 

[SteveB]

Then how is it that people that don't fear your god, know things?

Proverbs said the beginning....

It's where genuine knowledge starts.
The foundation upon which all beneficial knowledge is built.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Proverbs said the beginning....

It's where genuine knowledge starts.

Oh - I didn't hear the bagpipes the first time.
So "there are infinitely prime numbers", which can be known without fearing your god, does not count as genuine knowledge?

The foundation upon which all beneficial knowledge is built.

I know that smoking will more than likely decrease both my quality and expectancy of life, and I know it without fearing your god - is this not "beneficial knowledge"?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Actually it tells atheists that if you want to gain genuine knowledge, you have to learn to fear God.

No, it claims that if you want to gain genuine knowledge, you have to learn to fear God. It provides no supporting evidence for this claim whatsoever.

The fact that a great many people who do not fear God yet have genuine knowledge show that this claim is not only unsupported, it is false.

It further tells atheists that only fools despise wisdom and instruction.

No, it claims that only fools despise wisdom and instruction. It provides no supporting evidence for this claim whatsoever.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Well, I agree that if we define anything based on observation to be science, and focus only on empirical (i.e. observation-based) knowledge, then it follows trivially that all human knowledge is based on science. But those are some pretty big qualifications to the initial claim. Stories and art often convey very real knowledge about human existence, but convey it through metaphor and allegory - a great example is Jordan Peterson's psychological take on the Bible. Such stories were conveyed by oral tradition long before anything resembling the scientific method was used, codified or otherwise. And there is real knowledge to be had in philosophy - not empirical to be sure, but objective knowledge of the relations between concepts.

PS. The Dune trailer looks great. I read all the books in anticipation, and was gutted when they delayed release to Oct 2021. I'm just really hoping the movie does well enough to bring a sequel.

I really hope not - the book sequels were terrible.

 

[Eightcrackers]

I really hope not - the book sequels were terrible.

Children of Dune I thought was decent, God Emperor of Dune was interesting, but too much of a time jump.
Haven't read the rest (which come after another huge time jump).

 

[Eightcrackers]

Actually it tells atheists that if you want to gain genuine knowledge, you have to learn to fear God.

I'll ask again: is "smoking kills" "genuine" knowledge ?

 

[Nouveau]

I really hope not - the book sequels were terrible.

I disagree, but it's not really relevant in this case. The upcoming movie will only cover the first half of the first book, so a sequel will be needed to complete the story.

 

[Algor]

I really hope not - the book sequels were terrible.

Gee whiz, yes.
I read Dune to death. The sequels.....no.

 

[Algor]

I disagree, but it's not really relevant in this case.

I warn you out of respect, but phone calls have been made.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I disagree, but it's not really relevant in this case. The upcoming movie will only cover the first half of the first book, so a sequel will be needed to complete the story.

Oh, I didn't know that.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Gee whiz, yes.
I read Dune to death. The sequels.....no.

I cite Dune as the absolute number 1 prime example of a wonderful book...which turned to absolute shite in the sequels.

 

[Nouveau]

Oh, I didn't know that.

I think it makes sense, as there's a significant time jump in the middle of the first book and too much material to squeeze into a single film.
I'll also agree that the first book is better than the sequels. But there's a lot of value and interesting ideas in Herbert's subsequent Dune books - it just takes more effort, as his pacing isn't always the best. I haven't read his son's follow-up works, but I understand the consensus to be that the drop-off from father to son is far worse than the drop-off from the first book to the next five.