If There Is No Heaven Will You Still Love God?

[benedictus2]

If there was no heaven, there would be no such thing as God. So, how could i possibly love God?

That is incorrect. God is independent of Heaven. Heaven does not determine God. It is the other way around.

Suppose we say that heaven is is the state of being with God. Even before we were will into being by God, He already existed.

The only way your statement will be correct is if you posit that God is heaven but that is not quite correct.

 

[Daedelus76]

Doing what is right is it’s own reward but how does one know what is right without a reference to God.

Without God as the final arbiter of what is morally good or evil, what is the yardstick of what morality?

Morality then becomes subjective.

In my experience in Buddhism, when you do what is right, often times you feel it and know it. There’s an axiom I heard: any time somebody rationalizes an action, it is probably evil. An oversimplification but there is some truth in it. People can intuitively know what is right, and it is, to a certain extent, relative.

I think Jesus said “the wind blows where it wills, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going; so it is for everyone born of the Spirit.” ? It is something like that.

 

[benedictus2]

Whether we identify love with God or not; everybody, atheist and theist alike, learns to respect the good of love because of the benefits they gain from it. We learn to love Good; we learn to love God. We love God because of the benefits that come from loving God.

That is a very utilitarian view of God. So I think you have answered the question. You love God only because of what He can do for you. But growth in faith and loveis precisely the elimination of this self centredness.

To desire God or love, is to desire perfection and completeness. We are not complete without God, and so it is natural to desire God. Only God is good. Only God loves perfectly. And although God commands us to love like him, it is impossible to approach God from any other position then that of desire. Our love for God is perfected in our relationship with God and are free acceptance of Gods grace. It is God who perfects us, it is not us who is perfect.

Very well said, and this goes to the heart of the matter. THat when God pefects us, we are able to love HIM for HIMSELF alone, regardless of reward. This is quite evident in what St John of the Cross calls the Dark Night of the Soul.

But the main problem with the original post is that it fails to realize that heaven is a natural extension of Gods love and being.

It all depends on how you define heaven.

If there were no heaven, God would not love us.

Not quite correct. God loves us because God is love. His nature is Love. God’s loving us does not depend on the existence of heaven.

If God does not love us, there is no God.

TRUE. But you cannot say that if God did not take us to Heaven then God does not love us.
Therefore the original post is logically invalid. Its a psychological trick question. .quote]
No it is not logically invalid because as I have show above you have made a few erroneous assumptions and reasonings in your post above.

And because everybody is afraid of admitting that they love God because of what God gives them, they end up saying that they would love God regardless of the absence of heaven.

Not quite true. St Therese of Lissieux stated as much. And I think all the saints would say the same thing because for them God is All.

They don’t want to be seen as a sinner. The truth is, the vast majority would not love God, and nobody would be immoral for not loving God, because there is no such thing as a good that does not save.

You have to be more precise with your definitions. What do you mean by good? I can think of a lot of “goods” that do not save.

 

[benedictus2]

In my experience in Buddhism, when you do what is right, often times you feel it. And if your heart and mind are purer, doing what is right becomes easier and easier. There’s an axiom I heard: any time somebody rationalizes an action, it is probably evil.

THAT IS SO VERY TRUE!!!

An oversimplification but there is some truth in it.

Not just “some” but “a lot” of truth in it.

We are hard wired to do only what is good, so to do what is “evil” we try to make it “good” by rationalization.

People can intuitively, noeticly know what is right. Christians call it love, Buddhists call it compassion.

In Christianity, compassion is an aspect of LOVE. Compassion (com=with + pati =to suffer) means to suffer with. When you truly love someone, you are willing to suffer with them. That is why Christianity is the true religion of compassion because here we have the God who suffered with us.

 

[benedictus2]

**Philosophy is sapience, or more exact; love for wisdom. **
**Wisdom wouldn’t exist without God, who gave us as the one and only creature, the gift of being able to think= Sapience. **

True. But the philosphical question of this thread is not about the existence of God.

**So, Philosophy is Theology. **

No it is not. There are overlaps but they are not one and the same. Philosphy does not go into Revealed Truth. Theology does.

**This even then, when it’s misused to misinterpret life and being, as there are many philosophies leading away from God. Godless philosophies. **
**You have just contradicted yourself there **
Let’s not slide into such, by asking things far away of Gods reality.

Answers like the one you mentioned:
“To have been given this life to share with God is enough for (whosoever)“ testify, that the Question “If There Is No Heaven Will You Still Love God?” is highly irrelevant, as Jesus Christ died for he one and only reason, that we are able to share life with God in Gods Kingdom – which wasn’t possible before.

As I keep repeating, the question is not about Revealed Truth and you keep answering with Revealed Truth. This is why you miss the point of the question.

**So - don’t even mention such senseless “Philosophies”. **

But it is not senseless Philosophy. If that is senseless Philosophy then the likes of St Thomas indulge in senseless Philosophy.

 

[fhansen]

As I keep repeating, the question is not about Revealed Truth and you keep answering with Revealed Truth. This is why you miss the point of the question.

I think part of the problem is that it’s impossible to know God outside of His revelation.

 

[benedictus2]

I think part of the problem is that it’s impossible to know God outside of His revelation.

That is true. That is why I am not totally discounting revelation, only some aspects of it and that is sharing eternity with Him.

As I mentioned on another post, St Therese of Lisseux gets this question. God loves us so overwhelmingly right at this very minute, that is why whether we spend eternity with HIm or not, there is enough reason to love Him back just for this little speck of time that He is loving us.

 

[kesa82]

But the question is not about loving the abyss. The question is whether we would still love God even if the end is oblivion? The question is really whether you love God for Himself alone.

Hmm, perhaps then the question is answered by its opposite.
If God could love us for ourselves alone, then why create us?
If, as they say, " it is the thought that counts " wouldn’t it be sufficient that, knowing he could and would love us regardless of any ends, since there are no ends, not create us, and go on his merry way , sufficient in the knowledge that his sentiment is already accomplished?

Christians love to use the analogy of parent and child, and well they should.
Do we create our children to be their murderers?
An atheist parent would deny it, with some drivel about how the thought, feeling, and moment are sufficient unto themselves.
But it is not so.
Absent postscript, absent epilogue, absent , " and then …" The atheist mother gives birth to death.
With all the evils of the old world, with all the comforts and advantages of the new world, what then all the nostalgia for the old world?
Doubtless there are many causes, but I would identify one as this development of the perception that heaven is a fairy tale, like Santa Claus’s house at the North Pole.
No matter how miserable peoples lives were, when they really believed that there was going to BE A TOMMOROW, it was bareable.
Now, no matter how good things are in the present, we are miserable, it is unbareable. Yes it is !
Even the rich man and the pretty girl must have heaven.
The Thought policeman in “1984” as much as tells Winston Smith, ALL you need is to love Big Brother.
And I seem to recall that in the end of the story, Winston Smith only loved Big Brother, and that was all.

This makes me angry, whenever people suggest thought or feeling is sufficient unto itself.
You starve then !

I asked an atheist the other day, " fine theory you have there. So what do you say to the fat, ugly, incontinent , girl in a wheelchair who has no money? You cannot promise her any reasonable expectation that she will ever have love, health, property, employment, in this life. So what do you offer her? "
His answer ; A thought. An abstraction.
God save us from these abstractions that the bourgeoisie have dreamed up in their drawing rooms !

 

[benedictus2]

Hmm, perhaps then the question is answered by its opposite.
**If God could love us for ourselves alone, then why create us? **

This question is totally illogical. God loves us for ourselves PRECISELY BECAUSE HE HAS ALREADY CREATED US.

If, as they say, " it is the thought that counts " wouldn’t it be sufficient that, knowing he could and would love us regardless of any ends, since there are no ends, not create us, and go on his merry way , sufficient in the knowledge that his sentiment is already accomplished?

It is not sufficient for the the simple reason that you cannot SHARE LOVE with a “thought”. You cannot love an imagined baby. You love a baby. So you’re reasoning here is extremely faulty.
Also, “it’s the thought that counts” is used when we give something that is not quite what someone expected. This is totally irrelevant to your above statement.

Christians love to use the analogy of parent and child, and well they should. Do we create our children to be their murderers?
An atheist parent would deny it, with some drivel about how the thought, feeling, and moment are sufficient unto themselves. But it is not so.

First. If God decides to terminate our lives it is not murder because He and He alone has the right to our lives because He is it’s Author. Think of this, isn’t it that he is the one who determines when we will die. Does that make him a murderer?

Secondly. Allowing us to die naturally and leaving it at that is not murder. Morality is God’s domain and murder is murder only as it applies to us because we are not the Author of life.

Absent postscript, absent epilogue, absent , " and then …" The atheist mother gives birth to death.

You are not making sense here at all.

With all the evils of the old world, with all the comforts and advantages of the new world, what then all the nostalgia for the old world?

So your view of the world is this God forsaken place such that the only joy that can be found is in heaven so therefore if you take heaven out of the equation the only thing left is misery? That is really sad.

Doubtless there are many causes, but I would identify one as this development of the perception that heaven is a fairy tale, like Santa Claus’s house at the North Pole.

I don’t know if you read the OP in full but I was very clear that this is a hypothetical question. Numinous posted a reply on post #8 then finally got it in post #10. THIS IS A WHAT IF.

Let me put it this way. Say you are white and someone asks you what if you had been born black? Will you answer “Don’t be ridiculous, I was born white and that’s that” or will you give a hypothetical answer?

No matter how miserable peoples lives were, when they really believed that there was going to BE A TOMMOROW, it was bareable.
Now, no matter how good things are in the present, we are miserable, it is unbareable. Yes it is !

Well you have confirmed my assessment at the top of this post. You really have a rather bleak picture of the current reality. I have met people who are joyfull inspite of their pains. You are in effect saying here that life sucks so totally that the only reason to keep on going and being good is because there is heaven after this.

Even the rich man and the pretty girl must have heaven.
The Thought policeman in “1984” as much as tells Winston Smith, ALL you need is to love Big Brother.
And I seem to recall that in the end of the story, Winston Smith only loved Big Brother, and that was all.

This makes me angry, whenever people suggest thought or feeling is sufficient unto itself. You starve then !

The example you gave is totally off tangent. This is not thought and feeling. This is a knowledge deep down in your gut that God loves you. That the reason you exist at all is because He loves you.

Read some of the posts of the other posters here. They get it.

I asked an atheist the other day, " fine theory you have there. So what do you say to the fat, ugly, incontinent , girl in a wheelchair who has no money? You cannot promise her any reasonable expectation that she will ever have love, health, property, employment, in this life. So what do you offer her? "
His answer ; A thought. An abstraction.
God save us from these abstractions that the bourgeoisie have dreamed up in their drawing rooms !

Oh my you really have a rather awful view of things. Are you saying here that the fat, ugly, incontinent, girl in a wheelchair has absolutely no hope of experiencing the joy and love of God except in heaven. You really need to broaden your reading.

God is in the suffering. That is what Christ on the Cross is about. The Eucharist is capable of transforming us here and now and experiencing the liberation of Christ. While the joy of heaven will be mind blowing, life on this earth is not the misery you paint it to be.
There are many who are incapacitated, “ugly”, “fat” etc who are actually full of joy.

What an awful view to equate happiness with thin, able, and beautiful. So totally not Christian.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**

What an awful view to equate happiness with thin, able, and beautiful. So totally not Christian

Lets NEVER accuse another Christian of not being Christian.
We are warned in Mt 5,22 to do so:

“But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”**

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

problem is that it’s impossible to know God outside of His revelation.

**.Precisely!
Exactly this is, why God revealed Himself.
First to His beloved people the Jews across Abraham, Moses and the Prophets - later through His Son Jesus Christ to many and the world **

 

[kesa82]

It is not sufficient for the the simple reason that you cannot SHARE LOVE with a “thought”. You cannot love an imagined baby. You love a baby.

I believe this was exactly my point ; thought alone, abstractions alone, hypotheticals alone, are not sufficient. Tangibles are important and have meaning.

Are you saying here that the fat, ugly, incontinent, girl in a wheelchair has absolutely no hope of experiencing the joy and love of God except in heaven. You really need to broaden your reading.

No, I am not saying she cannot experience the joy and love of God in the present. I AM saying there is no fault in her wanting better, wanting more.
As for my reading, I read a lot of stuff about heaven, hell, purgatory, Judgement day, and so on. If only this moment is of transcend importance, of what relevance is all of that?

It seems to me , I could be wrong, that you suggest that if I want more than just Gods love, if I want heaven, then I am somehow selfish, self-serving, self-absorbed, and indeed I am. BUT WHY DOES HE OFFER HEAVEN IF IT ISN’T RELEVANT OR IMPORTANT?

or do you mean to say it has not been offered??

You say this is ONLY a HYPOTHETICAL question. Then why do you , apparently, so doggedly refute and disdain all answers contrary to the specific one you apparently prefer?

 

[benedictus2]

**Lets NEVER accuse another Christian of not being Christian. **
We are warned in Mt 5,22 to do so:

“But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”

**I am not saying Kesa is not Christian. **

If you read my post correctly, what I am saying is not Christian is THE VIEW that happiness can only come if you are thin, able, beautiful and rich.

 

[benedictus2]

.Precisely!
Exactly this is, why God revealed Himself.
**First to His beloved people the Jews across Abraham, Moses and the Prophets - later through His Son Jesus Christ to many and the world **

AAArgh! What is so hard to understand about a WHAT IF. Numinous argued in the same manner that you argued in post number 8. Then he finally got it in Post #10.

Read both posts.

If I were to say to you “What if you were born a black woman in 1920s America?” Would you say to me "That is an invalid question because I am not a black woman in 1920’s America?

 

[Tsuwano]

To love God perfectly is to be in heaven. I strive to love God perfectly.

 

[benedictus2]

I believe this was exactly my point ; thought alone, abstractions alone, hypotheticals alone, are not sufficient. Tangibles are important and have meaning.

But where ever did I say that “thought” alone is enough? YOU are the one who posited the ridiculous notion that God can love us even if He did not create us. And my point is that what you call the reverse question is not a reverse question at all because it is totally off the mark.

You have brought an idea to the original discussion that is not related to it at all.

No, I am not saying she cannot experience the joy and love of God in the present. I AM saying there is no fault in her wanting better, wanting more.

Again, where did I say that there is a fault in her wanting more? Did you even read what I have written? The point is not about anyone wanting more.

The whole question is not about wanting heaven.

The question is: Is it possible to respond in love to God even IF there is no eternal life.

That is the question you need to address. And please note the big IF. THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL.

As for my reading, I read a lot of stuff about heaven, hell, purgatory, Judgement day, and so on.

My comment about broadening your reading is so that you will find that there are indeed people who are way “UNDER BLESSED” if viewed through worldly and materialistic lenses and yet they are happy.

If only this moment is of transcend importance, of what relevance is all of that?

Maaaan!!! What did I say about WHAT IF? This is A WHAT IF. That is why I gave the example of What if you were born black? This is a hypothetical question.

It seems to me , I could be wrong, that you suggest that if I want more than just Gods love, if I want heaven, then I am somehow selfish, self-serving, self-absorbed, and indeed I am. BUT WHY DOES HE OFFER HEAVEN IF IT ISN’T RELEVANT OR IMPORTANT?

IF GIRL. NOTICE THE IF. I am not saying there is not heaven but WHAT IF Heaven is not on offer?

The question is can you still love Him if the end of your life here on earth is precisely that, the end of your life? Has God not given us enough love and beauty and shown how tenderly He loves us right now that we cannot love Him back for the love we get right now.

Sure everyone wants heaven, but can we love Him back for the simple reason that He created us and loves us unconditionally?

or do you mean to say it has not been offered??

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL.

You say this is ONLY a HYPOTHETICAL question. Then why do you , apparently, so doggedly refute and disdain all answers contrary to the specific one you apparently prefer?

I am not refuting answers that say NO. If you have a look at the other replies, one or two have said that they can’t do it and that is their opinion and that is it.

What I am being dogged about is the erroneous reasoning.

If you had just said No I can’t because God’s love is not enough I just want heaven then that is fine. But you wrote a lot of other things which I felt I had to respond to.

The reason for this thread is to get people’s answers to the question that this priest posed.

And as another poster said, to him it is not hypothetical because he really does not believe in heaven but He loves God anyway because he is very aware that God loves him.

 

[ruslan]

Yes.

:heaven: :harp:

 

[benedictus2]

To love God perfectly is to be in heaven. I strive to love God perfectly.

Very well said!

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**

AAArgh!

Oh man. Why don’t you just lean back, have a glass of wine and relax:thumbsup:

What is so hard to understand about a WHAT IF.

It’s not at all hard to understand.
Kids keep asking “WHAT IF…”.

We can never really say what would be, how should we react and so on, if things where different from how they are.

Let’s just be happy that there is Gods heaven and we are promised that heaven and we will meet in that heaven, which is the original kingdom of God.

Why should we worry about a silly question like WHAT IF (there’d be no heaven - no USA - no world - no sun) and all these useless questions.

God created heaven and earth and angels and humans.
Let’s be thankful for this.
We didn’t even understand the very being of all that is. So why quarrel about if this would not be.

Relax my friend – just relax and have a wonderful Palm Sunday
**

 

[kesa82]

Can we love Him just because He is God?

Yes.
Short thread that.

When I was in 6th grade I fell in love with a girl at school. Except many people wouldn’t even call it love. I never spoke to her, I never spent time with her, I know very little about her. it is no exaggeration to say that I know benedictus2 better than I knew her. maybe I won’t see her in heaven either. Her picture has sat on my desk 25 years. ( I copied it out of the yearbook. She didn’t give me her picture ) 9 out of 10 people think that is wierd, if not downright deviant. The sum of their objections seem to be, " …and the point ( i.e. the purpose ) of this prolonged obsession is…? "

The funny thing is that many of these people who look askance at this apparent pointless , motive-less, directionless, love,
are the SAME people who assert that to love God just because he is God is the highest virtue, the alpha and omega, the beginning and end, existence entire.

You bet it confuses me. You bet their thinking and motives confuse me.

They exalt altruism. well fudge, this girl I’m talking about isn’t even a God, a celebrity, a loved one, a friend, an acquaintance. So I guess my altruism must trump theirs huh?
Nope, it only counts if its a God.

Whatever.
I cannot treat this question with emotional neutrality, and I have not been charitable. So I bow out. We must agree to disagree.
Good day. :tiphat:

By the way, I’m not a girl.