Panta Pei

Most of us here at II know that the only real unforgivable crime is annotated in John 3:18 - "He that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

How freakin' convenient

Welcome to Happyland(tm) Mr. Dahmer, come watch as General Yahweh turns up the heat on that vile unbeliever Mahatma Gandi...

XGuilt

Equating 'immorality' with 'evil' may be causing confusion here and a lack of focus. The entire concept of 'evil' became the product of the creation of 'theism' - i.e., theism's necessary antagonist, its self-justification for existence and its forcibly implanted source of guilt into the human psyche. Human 'morality' on the other hand, which can and perhaps should be evaluated on an entirely secular basis, does not automatically embrace 'evil' - i.e., 'morality' questions whether something is conducive or inimical to human life, not whether it is 'good' or 'evil' (which must be struck against a religious dogmatic standard). If theism were removed from the discussion of human morality, as it should be, the entire notion of 'evil' would evaporate from relevancy right along with it. From an appropriately secular standpoint, our concern with our fellow man should be only whether he is 'moral' or 'immoral' - i.e., whether his actions are conducive or inimical to (all) human life, and based on an entirely objective epistemology. If a man is judged 'immoral'- even by the most objective criteria, that does not automatically make him 'evil'. It takes religion to pronounce someone 'evil', and all of its practitioners speak from personal experience when they make such wholly contemptible pronouncements. Has anyone ever noticed that 'evil', spelled backwards, represents everything that theism has vehemently been in opposition (to) for humanity since its inception?