A question did come up, however, about what sort of content should be centered around an FSTDT blog. After all, most people go to the mainpage of the site for a gander at the awesome stupidity that'll crop up while others go to the forums which are a different world unto themselves.
And honestly? I have no idea, this is largely a half-baked idea for me and its still quite gooey in the middle; we could have a joint blog venture and do all sorts of things. In-depth looks at science and technology or the latest news or whatever. But there is one thing I wanted to do. I wanted to take a more...intellectual look at some of the things on the mainpage and reply to them a bit more properly than they get normally.
So, without further adieu, I give you a comment from Glory In Print:
All people deserve not to be just left behind we all deserve hell, and like salvation being caught away in the rapture is by the grace of God for Christians only.... Those who haven't accepted Christ like atheist you mention, they do indeed deserve to be left behind..... Atheist I debate with all time make statements about how they hate Christians and how the world would be a better place without us - well they'll get their wish after the rapture... I just wonder if they will like whats coming in the tribulation better?.. I often wonder if they will come to their right minds and repent, but after talking with hundreds of them over the years most of them will be the first ones to follow the anti - Christ for sure.
This is one of those things that has properly laid out an old puzzlement of mine: why do fundies think we all deserve hell?
It's not something I've found easy to understand, really. Original sin, right? But exactly how does that make any logical sense? Look at it this way: what justification could we hope to use if we're going to hold the transgressions of the father against the child? There is a reason we don't do that; it's because we all know that the child had nothing to do with the actions of the parents. The child had no involvement in the crimes of the parents. So why is it that they are so comfortable in saying the child is born into sin?
Another question; how can anyone sit back and tell me with a straight face that anyone who is otherwise a good person deserves to go to hell for the crime of not believing in god? Well, that's not even the fullest part, really. How can they not loose sleep over that belief? A person who has done no harm, who will donate his time and money to doing otherwise Christlike behaviors and who's biggest crime is disbelief?
I think this is the biggest problem for me; that they can condemn someone for not believing in a god who refuses to show himself or give evidence for his existence aside from an old book which is making the original claim of his existence in the first place.
There is a reason why the burden of proof is on the side making the original claim. If they want me to believe that God exists, give me evidence for the claim. Not an old book, not the world around me, not things that can be explained scientifically. You want me to believe, then give me reason to believe.
And anyone who can say that otherwise good people will suffer for all eternity and not lose sleep over that thought is simply evil.
