If There Is No Heaven Will You Still Love God?

[Nom_the_Wise]

St Augustine says that in the Eucharist, we are transformed into that which we recieve. That transformation happens on this earth as well, although it’s completion does take effect in heaven.

*(boldface emphasis mine). *

But What IF There is No Heaven? What then?

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Why aren’t there more clear thinking people like you?

I guess I’m just not a clear-enough thinker for you to love me too.

Aw shucks.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

The OP may be valid, but it is ILLICIT.

The more I think about it, the question itself isn’t illicit. So, yes, I do make mistakes. Sorry. But many of the responses are. This would be clearer if we did a circle test, but I’m not good enough with computers to insert circles on this thread.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Who gave you the authority to judge us? Nancy:shrug:

Pehaps you should address my arguements, instead of making this personal?

Heres my arguement again.

1. Heaven is the fullfilment, salvation, and completion of humanity.
2. Only God can fullfil us, and no idol can compare to the intrinsic nature of God or take the place of God in regards to our fullfiment as human beings.

Conclusion…I will be charitible and let you work it out for yourself.

Thanks for your imput and constructive criticism. God bless.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Even a Priest would laught at fallacious.

Well… my old priest would not laugh at anyone.

In fact he affimed my position in mass.

He said more or less the following…“Many people think that heaven is a place. This is not so. Heaven is going back in to God.”

So put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Well… my old priest would not laugh at anyone.

In fact he affimed my position in mass.

He said more or less the following…“Many people think that heaven is a place. This is not so. Heaven is going back in to God.”

So put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!

I was not going to post in this thread anymore, [edited] but i have to tell you that you just admitted what some others believe in that we came from God and we are going back to God and there fore we must have lived before,which means we were always with God and mabe didnt need a redeemer? Cause we’d go back to where we came from anyways? Does that mean we are all Gods to? GEE please inlighten me more. Was I taking you wrong? was it all MIND over Matter? I wont even sign my name here.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I was not going to post in this thread anymore, [edited] but i have to tell you that you just admitted what some others believe in that we came from God and we are going back to God and there fore we must have lived before,which means we were always with God and mabe didnt need a redeemer? Cause we’d go back to where we came from anyways? Does that mean we are all Gods to? GEE please inlighten me more. Was I taking you wrong? was it all MIND over Matter? I wont even sign my name here.

That goes for NOM the JerK to!

 

[benedictus2]

The graces that we are receiving NOW are only the barest foretaste of the promise of Heaven, “bought” for us by Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

Is being given the “barest foretaste” enough to love Him back? Remember, however “bare” this foretaste, it is still a GIFT from Him.

The OP may be valid, but it is ILLICIT. I’d go back and read my logic books if I were you.

Ha! First you say that the question is invalid. Now that it has been shown that it is valid, you come up with this ILLICIT argument.

Okay, Definition of Illicit from Merriam Webster = unlawful.

Please cite Church law that prohibits ASKING this question.

 

[benedictus2]

He said more or less the following…“Many people think that heaven is a place. This is not so. Heaven is going back in to God.”

So put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!

I’m smoking the pipe and coughing in the process

Notice your old priest did not say Heaven IS GOD.

He is almost right, it is going back “to” God but not “in to” God.

If you have an issue with this take it up with Jesus Christ.

He says to pray " Our Father who art in heaven" not “Our Father who IS heaven”.

 

[rookieonedge]

I have read quite a few posts, but the pages are getting blurred. I just thought I’d post this quote that I had but don’t know where it came from, sorry to say. (Many posters said much the same thing in different words).

“Live in such a way that your life doesn’t make sense if God does not exist.”

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I’m smoking the pipe and coughing in the process

Notice your old priest did not say Heaven IS GOD.

He is almost right, it is going back “to” God but not “in to” God.

If you have an issue with this take it up with Jesus Christ.

He says to pray " Our Father who art in heaven" not “Our Father who IS heaven”.

:extrahappy: Thats right because if that were so then we’d all be GODS! AMEN SISTER

 

[benedictus2]

*(boldface emphasis mine). *

But What IF There is No Heaven? What then?

If there is no heaven, we still have had a lifetime of having known God and having known His love.

I received one of those mushy emails called Letter from a Friend, you know one of those that go as if it is God speaking to you and there is a lot of truth in it.

We sometimes fail to see that this earth is God’s creation and when He created it He said it was very good.

Sometimes, in focusing too much on heaven we fail to see that here on earth God is loving us and giving us graces so that we will appreciate what He is doing for us right now.

He gave us families and friends who love us, nature that speaks of His glory.

I went to Assisi two years ago and the beauty was jaw dropping, heart stilling, awe inspiring, soul soaring that I sang inside “How Great Thou Art” and cried tears of joy.

I watched the documentary “The Human Body” and tears welled in my eyes as I exclaimed with Psalmist “how wonderfully” we are made.

And that is just a few examples.

If we put on the eyes of faith, we will see that everything speaks to us of His love, even the trying bits.

But we need to pray for it. The blinders come off with prayer and then we see that creation speaks of the Majesty of God.

To look at creation in any other way is to look at creation in a secular and materialistic way.

There is so very, very much to be thankful for on this earth and to LOVE HIM FOR on this earth.

I will pray that you realize that too.

The tragedy is not “not being loved by God”. Rather, it is being so tenderly loved by Him and not know it.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

I have read quite a few posts, but the pages are getting blurred. I just thought I’d post this quote that I had but don’t know where it came from, sorry to say. (Many posters said much the same thing in different words).

“Live in such a way that your life doesn’t make sense if God does not exist.”

That makes sense i realy like that,see every one Philosophy does make sense:thumbsup:
Love of CHRIST Nancy :)

 

[benedictus2]

In an ealier post you called someone “sad” for answering no to this question, but for me it’s “fine”? I’m not “sad”?

Just a quick reply as I have reached the end of my lunch hour.

What I said was “SAD” was MindOverMatter saying that “If there is no heaven then He does not know that God loves him”. THAT is SAD because that means he has not known or experienced love at all here on earth.

What I said was a “fine enough answer” is if you say you cannot love God if there is no heaven. And yes that is okay because my question was a yes or no answer and if you answered no then that is where you are right now and that is that.

So as you can see, they are two different issues.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Is being given the “barest foretaste” enough to love Him back? Remember, however “bare” this foretaste, it is still a GIFT from Him.

And yet to give a foretaste and deny the banquet is cruel. YOUR QUESTION asks me to consider that there may be no banquet, and that God may be cruel. What Gift is there in that? Re-read St. Paul 1 Corinthians 15. Study it. Memorize it. Pray over it. If St. Paul says that we are the most “pitiable” people in the world to believe in Jesus IF he didn’t rise from the dead (and opened the door to Heaven) then who am I to refute him? I have refuted you soundly and you persist in believing your heresy. I guess we’ll have to leave it at that.

Ha! First you say that the question is invalid. Now that it has been shown that it is valid, you come up with this ILLICIT argument.

You have me confused with someone else. I never said this question was invalid. Find the post where I did; it doesn’t exist. I did say that I misspoke saying that the question was illicit. You don’t read through all the posts on your thread, just the ones that you can bully it would seem.

Okay, Definition of Illicit from Merriam Webster = unlawful.

Have you even taken a logic class? You’re going to the dictionary for a definition of illicit? A dictionary? All arguments are either valid/invalid or licit/illicit. To say a logical argument is illicit is to say that it breaks the rules of logic, is perhaps non-sequitur, is essentially fallacious. There is more to it of course, but you have your Merriam Webster so I’ll leave you to it.

Please cite Church law that prohibits ASKING this question.

There is no church law that prohibits asking the question. But once again you haven’t directly refuted me (because you cannot) and it seems you’ve never actually studied philosophy. I applaud your efforts to learn logical argumentation but you really should take a class.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

That goes for NOM the JerK to!

I am really very hurt by this. I am.

Goodbye.

 

[benedictus2]

You have me confused with someone else. I never said this question was invalid. Find the post where I did; it doesn’t exist. I did say that I misspoke saying that the question was illicit. You don’t read through all the posts on your thread, just the ones that you can bully it would seem.

You are right I don’t read all the posts anymore as I don’t have the time. I look at a few and if I think it is worth commenting I comment. I am not even very methodical in chosing which post I will read.

Now why would you consider my posts bullying I do not know considering that on your first salvo post you put forth the arrogant claim that you expect your post to put an end to the thread. Now that is what I call an attempt at bullying.

You were hoping to silence me but this opinionated woman just will not keep her mouth shut and will not allow herself to be bullied by you.

Have you even taken a logic class? You’re going to the dictionary for a definition of illicit? A dictionary? All arguments are either valid/invalid or licit/illicit. To say a logical argument is illicit is to say that it breaks the rules of logic, is perhaps non-sequitur, is essentially fallacious. There is more to it of course, but you have your Merriam Webster so I’ll leave you to it.

Okay then, since you are so highly logical and have studied philosophy, show me which part of the OP is ILLICIT and why. But of course you can’t because you said above the you MISPOKE when you said the question was illicit.

So if my OP is not illicit therefore it does not break any rules of logic, therefore not a non-sequitur, therefore not a fallacy. With me here?

So since according to you the OP is NEITHER invalid nor illicit, what objection do you now have to the OP?

Also, isn’t it that if an argument breaks the rules of logic it is therefore illogical therefore not a logical argument?

There is no church law that prohibits asking the question.

PHEW! Thank God for that! Since you said it was HERETICAL of me to even ASK the question, there must be some rule I have broken somewhere.

But once again you haven’t directly refuted me (because you cannot) and it seems you’ve never actually studied philosophy. I applaud your efforts to learn logical argumentation but you really should take a class.

Well now it seems there is nothing to refute in your statement since it seems you now claim that the OP is NEITHER INVALID NOR ILLICIT.

So I repeat, what is your objection to the OP now?

And if you do not have an objection, maybe you would care to answer it.

You are right I have not studied Philosophy, I just manage to scrape by on my own meager wit.

But if as you say you have studied Philosophy, then mannn, please put forth logical arguments.

 

[benedictus2]

And yet to give a foretaste and deny the banquet is cruel. YOUR QUESTION asks me to consider that there may be no banquet, and that God may be cruel.

But you miss the point. The question presupposes that there is no banquet. So there is nothing to hanker for because there is no promise of a banquet. What ever is served is all that will be served so there is no cruelty. That is the point of the question. There

So again, with whatever you have been served by God right now, is what you have been served good enough for you to love Him back?

To simplify the question: Have a look at your life so far. Whatever love you have experienced from God, can you love Him back for that and that alone?

 

[benedictus2]

NO!
God is God
God created heaven and therefore can’t be heaven.
But there is a heaven we get into if we where good.
But only after we died - not now Dear.
No, you can’t walk into heaven now - and you can’t marry Greta Garbo when you grow up! Now stop being a baby about it!

Isn’t that a silly roundabout

But I give up
Yes, you are absolutely right whatever you say
phoo - content now

let’s talk about the weather - ain’t is lovely (or whatever you say - I say rain and hailstorm if you wish).

Dear Bruno,

Here is a little snipet of what I mean when I say there is something to love God for apart from heaven.

And I must say I have YOU to thank for this one.

On one of your previous posts you called me Benedictthesecond. On the train to work today, I thought I will correct you and explain that I call myself Benedictus not because of Pope Benedict (although I love him dearly), but because of” The Benedictus”, as in Zechariah’s Canticle. I thought I would explain that the reason it is called Benedictus is because the first word of the canticle “Blessed” translates to Benedictus in latin.

Now, I have been feeling quite depressed for some time and as I thought of the Benedictus, suddenly that first line of the canticle - Blessed be the Lord the God of Israel, He has visited His people and redeemed them - just washed over me and I felt this surge of joy and peace right there on the train. Just like that, the Lord lifted this darkness that has been hanging over me and gave me a glimpse of blue skies again. That little incident was for me an evidence of His great love for me.

There are so many of such incidents (big and small) that I would sometimes forget when the day and the morrow looks bleak. But then He would step in and dispel the clouds. I think everyone has experiences such as this.

Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, He has visited His people and redeemed them.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

But you miss the point. The question presupposes that there is no banquet. So there is nothing to hanker for because there is no promise of a banquet. What ever is served is all that will be served so there is no cruelty. That is the point of the question. There

No. You miss the point. You are contradicting your own question here. “If There Is No Heaven Will You Still Love God?” If I don’t know that there is Heaven, the question is pointless. I can’t be expected to care about something that I don’t know exists. That really brings us back to a situation similar to that found in the Old Testament which I said before. If I lived in the time before Christ, I would hope that I would have become a Jewish convert and waited for the promised Messiah. I would love God as I understood God at that moment.

But again, your question MUST include the knowledge of Heaven for us to ponder whether or not we would still love God without it. And that points directly to the entire ministry of Christ who labored to help us understand what Heaven is and what exactly he was promising us, to the best of our ability to understand (what little any of us understand of an infinite God).

I’m glad for your admission that you’ve never studied philosophy; it shows humility and to be honest, based on what I read I didn’t think you capable of it (and I don’t mean that as an attack–I’m feeling compassion for you now). I was not being arrogant in wanting this thread to die. You say “You were hoping to silence me but this opinionated woman just will not keep her mouth shut and will not allow herself to be bullied by you.” That is the strawman fallacy; you are putting words in my mouth. I don’t want you to keep your mouth shut. I want you to listen to me, consider what I’m saying, and reply. You haven’t done that.

There are so many errors listed in this thread, so many. But I was using strong language (purposefully) and you reacted to **that **rather than reading (deeply) what I’ve written here. In the end, there **is **a heresy implied by the question. That has been my position all along. I’m going to repost here some of my earlier posts, and I hope you will read them. I’ll be selective.