English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-08-01 13:48:29 · 25 answers · asked by CluelessOne 5 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

25 answers

is for good men to do nothing.

edmund burke.

2007-08-01 13:50:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

"Finish this: All that is necessary for evil to triumph?

Is for some Madison Avenue agency to package Umph in a glitzy wrapper, show a few pretty faces, and add a soundtrack from a has-been 60's rock band.

No one ever went broke underestimating the gullibility of Americans with discretionary income.

2007-08-01 14:15:00 · answer #2 · answered by Grey Raven 4 · 1 0

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for man to do nothing.

2007-08-01 14:03:59 · answer #3 · answered by alioopisme 3 · 0 0

When all that is good in human nature is named evil, when all wants are temptations, the relief in satisfying human wants is evil in any manner pleasing, every social intercourse for any kind or reason, when the self its self is evil, when the Judgment in the human has swallowed thus every good sense in the human Will for a hazy dream shrill high vision to God and life after this life, struggle, war and the like, and all people are such as this, that's the straw that breaks the whole camel.

The short abstract version: The Judgment is negative, the Will is positive. when the Judgment has subsumed in it the whole Will in its self, that self has become infinitely evil.


The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative.

2007-08-01 14:03:55 · answer #4 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 0 1

"The existence of evil would properly be defined particularly fairly and is additionally reconciled with scripture. suffering and dying would properly be defined away" You call a pathetic justification that doesn't make any sense in any respect, "uncomplicated"? it particularly is a daft cop out it particularly is punctiliously contradictory to a "loving" God. A BENEVOLENT author does not also have a theory of evil, no longer to point enable this sort of ingredient. something is achievable with magic, so no longer something needs to stay with the organic international we live in. the reason pathetic justifications ought to be made continually for each thing on the subject of God is easy, the international we live in got here from indifferent nature. no longer one ingredient needs to be justified from the attitude of a organic indifferent author. the international is precisely how we would assume it to be, one huge food chain in a conflict of survival of the fittest, with good and undesirable issues happening randomly. The feeble tries to meld a "loving God with the observable "crimson in enamel and claw" organic international will in no way make any sense to a guy or woman who thinks approximately it, particularly than blindly accepting it. Edit: confident, somebody can inform you why, yet you will no longer settle for a real answer. you basically prefer solutions that consider you. a minimum of you fairly question your ideals. It does not make a lick of sense that a "loving" God could enable such countless variables to a toddler on the subject of their eternal destiny. what proportion billions of infants are born to non Christian parents? what proportion are overwhelmed down and abused all their lives to the ingredient the place all they ever sense would be hate? Does a toddler born in Iraq have a similar possibility of believing on your God, as a toddler born in united states of america to Christian parents? this is fully ridiculous to assume a basically God could have this sort of Micky Mouse gadget, with an unlevel enjoying container. the only ingredient that should ever reconcile that nonsense is to end that God is imaginary, or on the least fairly unjust. Edit: Supremely benevolent and evil is a freakin OXYMORON. i do no longer ought to bypass any better and waste time interpreting volumes the place a biased illogical guy or woman tries to make pathetic justifications. Incompatible is incompatible no count which attitude you seem at it.

2016-11-10 23:21:41 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

2007-08-01 13:53:10 · answer #6 · answered by keepsondancing 5 · 3 0

Is for a majority to accept the "lesser of two evils". Evil wins either way.

2007-08-01 14:14:22 · answer #7 · answered by open4one 7 · 0 0

..is for the good to do nothing. For things to stay the way they are. For the powerful to trample the weak. For everyone only to think of themselves. For ignorance to to walk the land accompanied by greed and hatred. For justice to die, or constantly be denied. For those in power to be above the law.

2007-08-01 14:07:47 · answer #8 · answered by Fr. Al 6 · 0 0

Complacency

2007-08-01 13:53:19 · answer #9 · answered by Margaret T 2 · 2 0

is nothing. Evil defined so many different ways depending on what you believe in.

To christians evil are non-believers
To atheist evil are christians
To USA evil are terorist
To terorist evil is USA.

2007-08-01 13:52:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Another Bush to be appointed president.

2007-08-01 13:53:03 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers