All that is necessary for triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

Jump to Last Post 1-2 of 2 discussions (20 posts)
  1. PhoenixV profile image64
    PhoenixVposted 13 years ago

    Edmund Burke wrote: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ - Isn't good men doing nothing really the evil ? What expectations should we have of those that are already evil?

    1. PhoenixV profile image64
      PhoenixVposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
      Martin Luther King, Jr.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Yup - This is why I speak out against the Christian religion.

        Evil incarnate. Still - the Pope said sorry for all the children f%^&***d by priests today (in a roundabout fashion). That should make things better and prove that god luvs us.

        Got any specific evils you want to cause a fight over?

    2. profile image55
      (Q)posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      We've done nothing for centuries to expel the evil of religions and now they have us completely under a stranglehold.They are passing laws so that criticisms of their cults are illegal.

      Pure insanity dressed up as religious freedom.

    3. profile image51
      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hi friends

      Muhammad was a peaceful person but at the same time rational one also. He did not sit doing nothing and letting the Evil of Meccans triumph over virtue of freedom of faith. The Meccans Evil was always aggressor and attacked Muhammad and his followers; but he did not let it triumph. With the minimum human losses he triumphed over the Meccans Evil; and he wrote a golden history of rational peace.

      Thanks

      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

  2. profile image0
    WizardOfOzposted 13 years ago

    "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."    — Isaac Asimov.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It convinced me - that is for sure.

      1. profile image0
        WizardOfOzposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Hi Mark.

        http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/Pics/Christianity.jpg

      2. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        the 'bible' has stories of both 'good' and 'evil', how does that convince someone of its devaluation. Shakespeare, The Grimm Brothers, E. Kant and a host of other literature contain the same.
        Shall we discard/discredit them all because they do -and do not- fit into certain agenda/critique?

        Silly humans, tricks ARE for kids.

    2. Jerami profile image59
      Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      that was an overstatement of facts presented.
         To properly read the bible does not disprove there being A God or not.

         To properly read the bible proves that religion has not been teaching what is written.

         You gotta get past that hurdle before you can acurately discert the existence of the God that Religion SAYS that they profess..

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry, Jarami, but Asimov was right.  Properly read (ie. taken as the literal word of God) the bible indicates that the God of the bible is:

        The biggest liar in history, OR
        Nonexistent OR
        Has left his beloved people for greener pastures somewhere.

        Any other "proper" reading is one that changes the word of God into something the reader wants to see rather than what God said and is wrong.  Thus speaketh the Christian religions of today, although each one and each member of each one all have a different idea of what that literal word says.  Because, I assume, the "proper" way to read the bible is always the way someone else reads it.

        1. Jerami profile image59
          Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          The key phrase in what you said above is

          Thus speaketh the Christian religions of today, although each one and each member of each one all have a different idea of what that literal word says. 
           
            Can anyone interpret the writtings and still call it literal.
            I have yet been to a church that does not interpret the written word to be saying something other than what the written word says.
            "IF" the written word does in fact have to be interpreted then I agree that the written word is of no value.

               BUT   it is better understood when personal interpretation is not applied.
               Anyone that says ...  "the written word of GOD is true...  here let me change it so that we can understand it".. is .. """WRONG"""

          1. mrpopo profile image72
            mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "IF" the written word does in fact have to be interpreted then I agree that the written word is of no value.

            Well said, I agree.

            1. Jerami profile image59
              Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Unfortunately for the Church to sell the story that it insists upon...  Interpretation of 2/3 of scripture is necessary in order to discuise the words and teachings of Christ.
               
              All that a person has got to do is to read only those things that it is written that Jesus said.

                For a few moments Forget everything else that you have learned in Church and study those words that are written in red.

                In order to teach Church stuff we have to interpret those things that Jesus said so that they intended to say something else so that they agree with Church teachings.
                 Can anyone see what is wrong with that picture???

              1. profile image51
                paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Hi friends

                The Christians read the Bible the wrong way. One should study first the OT in the same order starting from Genesis; then one should study the Gospels; the letters need not be read altogether.

                People only listen what their priests reads to them; so they don't understand if from the context.

                It is all written under direction of Paul; NT is only a human made book of drama.

                Thanks

                I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

                1. Jerami profile image59
                  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  If you choose to follow Christianity (By definition) you must read those things that Christ is said to have said, or you are following blindly.

                  1. profile image51
                    paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    I follow teachings of Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran; Bible is not a reliable source of Jesus's character and teachings.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            And yet, somehow they do.  God laid down many rules for living in the OT, most of which are ignored today as no longer necessary or outright illegal, but they were never rescinded by God.  Nevertheless the same people ignoring them will insist they use the "literal" bible.

            At the same time inconsistencies abound in the bible; they can't all be true if meant literally.  Thus the "proof" against the God of the bible.  God, if He exists at all, cannot be the one depicted in the bible.

        2. mrpopo profile image72
          mrpopoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah, apparently you have to read the Bible in its context and you can't pull things at random (which makes sense, but sometimes the obviousness of the message is enough not to necessitate a thorough reading of the chapter), yet ironically many Christians do that without looking into the historical context of the Bible.

          For instance, the "virgin" birth. Why couldn't they just say Mary had a child out of wedlock? And where were Jesus' teenage years? Why weren't those talked about? They had to embellish everything.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Nearly all writings had to be picked through and changed to fit the conceptions and needs of the people who translated and wrote the KJV of our bible.  THAT, not necessarily the original writings and/or stories is what is wrong.  Of course no one alive today has the capability to truly understand the original stories from a 4000 year old culture.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)