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.
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey 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.
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.
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey It's better to have lived and not made it to heaven, than to have never lived at all.
As 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.
Originally posted by @suzianne 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 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.
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey 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.
Could I ask your view on this first please...
It is better to have lived and not made it to heaven, than not have lived at all?
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey 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.
You 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.
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey 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.
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 @tom-wolsey 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.
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'.
Originally posted by @rajk999 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'.
I'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.
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey 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.
However, to love, and yes, to possibly lose, is part and parcel of the human condition, and part of what it is to truly live.
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.
It's Better To Have Loved And Lost
18 Jul '18 05:14
Back to Top