jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (20 posts)

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

  1. PhoenixV profile image81
    PhoenixVposted 7 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 image81
      PhoenixVposted 7 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 image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 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 image58
      (Q)posted 7 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 image60
      paarsurreyposted 7 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. WizardOfOz profile image61
    WizardOfOzposted 7 years ago

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

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It convinced me - that is for sure.

      1. WizardOfOz profile image61
        WizardOfOzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Hi Mark.

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

      2. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 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 image74
      Jeramiposted 7 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 image99
        wildernessposted 7 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 image74
          Jeramiposted 7 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 image79
            mrpopoposted 7 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 image74
              Jeramiposted 7 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 image60
                paarsurreyposted 7 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 image74
                  Jeramiposted 7 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 image60
                    paarsurreyposted 7 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 image99
            wildernessposted 7 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 image79
          mrpopoposted 7 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 image99
            wildernessposted 7 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