Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
They don't, as I've pointed out.
Read what Jesus had to say about heaven.

Very well my friend, I'll do the work for you.

I'll do some for you. You define heaven as follows:

Heaven is right before our eyes. It is this existence, this glorious existence we have been gifted.

Some things Jesus says:
Matthew 25 Jesus speaks of heaven as the kingdom which has been prepared for us from before the creation of the world.

Not congruent with your definition.

Luke 20 : teaches that humans will not be married or given in marriage in heaven and that it is a place inhabited by the dead,

Not congruent with your definition.

John 14, Jesus describes heaven as an actual place he had to go to.

Not congruent with your definition.

Philippians 3 describes heaven as a place Jesus is already in after death

Not congruent with your definition.

Etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
They don't, as I've pointed out.
Read what Jesus had to say about heaven.

Now as you have also questioned me on Christs commandments, and doubt my sincerity to the same, know that Christ issued about 100 commands as elaborations of his two Great Commandments.

But don't take my word for it.

Mt 22:36 “[Jesus], which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, ’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'll do some for you. You define heaven as follows:

Heaven is right before our eyes. It is this existence, this glorious existence we have been gifted.

Some things Jesus says:
Matthew 25 Jesus speaks of heaven as the kingdom which has been prepared for us from before the creation of the world.

Not congruent with your definition.

Actually, this existence was prepared before the creation of the world

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Luke 20 : teaches that humans will not be married or given in marriage in heaven and that it is a place inhabited by the dead,

Not congruent with your definition.

Here is Luke 20:

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

Yes we still marry. But, it is because we still have not opened our eyes to the Heaven we are in. Marriage came about because women were property. This is not loving. We get Marriage licenses because in the 1920's the states did not allow interracial marriages. You had to go to the court house and prove you were the same race. Today, marriage is more about money. Two people who love each other do not need anyones permission to be together, and neither owns the other. Did you even read my link?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
John 14, Jesus describes heaven as an actual place he had to go to.

Not congruent with your definition.

John 14:

2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

There is room here for everyone my friend, of all different opinions. The tying bind is love for all. Christ did go to prepare it. He gave his word to live by. He gave his life as a demonstration of the word. It is up to us to live it.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Philippians 3 describes heaven as a place Jesus is already in after death

Pssst.. Look in your heart. That is where you will find him.

Lets see if I can help clear up your confusion my friend.

Originally posted by Griffo
It's nice the way you say theists, but then add derogatory adjectives before the word atheist.

ad·jec·tive
 
 /ˈædʒɪktɪv/ Show Spelled[aj-ik-tiv]
–noun
1.
Grammar. any member of a class of words that in many languages are distinguished in form, as partly in English by having comparative and superlative endings, or by functioning as modifiers of nouns, as good, wise, perfect.

In other words, the adjectives used are to differentiate the plain noun, from the class of nouns which fall under the category of the adjectives. Thus, he was not being derogatory to Atheists, but rather expressing his disagreement with the position of those Atheists which fall into to the category of the group identified by the adjectives, in this case the radical and aggressive ones.

In smaller words, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Originally posted by Griffo
Also there is no such thing as an agnostic! There's gnostic theist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist

Ahem...

ag·nos·tic
 
 /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tik]
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Well there ya have it...

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
the radical aggressive atheist.

Love how people who don't share your point of view (which isn't even based on rationality/logic) are suddenly radical and aggressive...no wonder we have religious people attacking and killing non-believers all over the world.

Originally posted by Griffo
He didn't say mentally challenged, ignorant theists though did he? Only chose to insult the atheists

The only Atheists which should be insulted are "radical and aggressive" Atheists, and then only because he states they are no different than Theists, which he left in general. If you do not fall into the category, do not be concerned.

Originally posted by Griffo
Yes many people believe that is what it means. An agnostic theist believes there is a god, whilst an agnostic atheist believes there is not a god. Gnostic theists and atheists know that there is a god/no god respectively. It's a slight difference, but it's how I've understood it for a while now

You are certainly free to define words however you like my friend. I support your right to call what ever it is what ever you like. Call an apple and orange if it fits your world view. My point was that his use of the word is the most commonly used and thus must universally understood usage.

If you offer a different definition, you have no more right to claim another is wrong. The burden on you is to explain your alternative definition if you wish to be understood.

Of course, none of this fits the topic at hand. So, unless you wish to be perceived as trolling for an argument where one does not exist, you may wish to review what is actually being discussed, and offer a point on topic.

Just a suggestion.

With Love,

Your Brother

Interesting how sensitive some people are to adjectives, if the shoe fits, and the truth hurts, so be it.

Not all atheists that post on ATS are in that category that's for sure, but I can think of three or four that do fit the bill, they are virtually in every thread that even comes close to any topic related to atheism and evolution, ripping up those of us with faith. And even attack the unsure agnostics at times.