Spirituality
18 Jul 18
18 Jul 18
They say it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.
Does anyone agree with that? If so, let's presume the biblical God and heaven exist. Would you agree with this statement: It's better to have lived and not made it to heaven, than to have never lived at all.
Just curious is all. This isn't a trap question.
18 Jul 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyI don't see how your initial sentence is the same as your 'statement' sentence at all.
They say it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.
Does anyone agree with that? If so, let's presume the biblical God and heaven exist. Would you agree with this statement: It's better to have lived and not made it to heaven, than to have never lived at all.
Just curious is all. This isn't a trap question.
For one thing, it [your 'statement' sentence] unnecessarily raises the stakes so that your first sentence seems moot in comparison.
I agree with your first statement; I don't agree with your second.
18 Jul 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyAs I said on a thread related to this recently, life is an almost incomprehensibly wonderful thing and one wonders why it is nevertheless not enough for some people. But hope for 'immortality' is such a common state of mind, it clearly seems to be part and parcel of the human condition.
It's better to have lived and not made it to heaven, than to have never lived at all.
18 Jul 18
Originally posted by @suzianneI consider them similar but you are totally right. The stakes are way higher. I'm not inclined to agree with either statement which is why I was curious what others' thoughts are on the 2nd one, if they agree with the 1st one.
I don't see how your initial sentence is the same as your 'statement' sentence at all.
For one thing, it [your 'statement' sentence] unnecessarily raises the stakes so that your first sentence seems moot in comparison.
I agree with your first statement; I don't agree with your second.
I wonder if most agree with you on it, I predict yes.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117530
18 Jul 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyCould I ask your view on this first please...
They say it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.
Does anyone agree with that? If so, let's presume the biblical God and heaven exist. Would you agree with this statement: It's better to have lived and not made it to heaven, than to have never lived at all.
Just curious is all. This isn't a trap question.
It is better to have lived and not made it to heaven, than not have lived at all?
18 Jul 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyYou are throwing too many wrenches at once. But loving is part of life, and sometimes, too often maybe, it doesn't work out. In a way it isn't the destination that is important.
They say it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.
Does anyone agree with that? If so, let's presume the biblical God and heaven exist. Would you agree with this statement: It's better to have lived and not made it to heaven, than to have never lived at all.
Just curious is all. This isn't a trap question.
18 Jul 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyHow can you not agree with the first statement?
I consider them similar but you are totally right. The stakes are way higher. I'm not inclined to agree with either statement which is why I was curious what others' thoughts are on the 2nd one, if they agree with the 1st one.
I wonder if most agree with you on it, I predict yes.
Just wondering the state of mind necessary to not agree with it.
I mean how can it actually be better to have never loved at all?
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyYou saying it is not a trap question does not make it so. In the first sentence you use a well known phrase about 'love'. In your question you talk about 'live'.
They say it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.
Does anyone agree with that? If so, let's presume the biblical God and heaven exist. Would you agree with this statement: It's better to have lived and not made it to heaven, than to have never lived at all.
Just curious is all. This isn't a trap question.
18 Jul 18
Originally posted by @suzianneTo love and lose would be to suffer a heart break. The pain of a heart break exceeds the joy of having loved the person, in my opinion.
How can you not agree with the first statement?
Just wondering the state of mind necessary to not agree with it.
I mean how can it actually be better to have never loved at all?
Originally posted by @rajk999I'm juxtaposing the 2 ideas. If I say it's not a trap question, it's not a trap question. I'm not a liar. I don't pose questions just to get information on others that I can use later. That's what some others do. Not me.
You saying it is not a trap question does not make it so. In the first sentence you use a well known phrase about 'love'. In your question you talk about 'live'.
18 Jul 18
Originally posted by @eladarHmmm... good question. I'll opt for the latter.
Is it better to be alone when married or alone when single?
18 Jul 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterNice. I mean that both as a positive and a negative at the same time!
Aww come on Tom, just answer the question and stop being a pussy.
18 Jul 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyHowever, to love, and yes, to possibly lose, is part and parcel of the human condition, and part of what it is to truly live.
To love and lose would be to suffer a heart break. The pain of a heart break exceeds the joy of having loved the person, in my opinion.
Surely God never intended for us to just float through life never experiencing pain. It's what we do with that pain that shapes us, for good or bad.