Let me try this hypothetical question one more time, choose one of the following (please read everything):?

Question

A.)You can give the world the ability to cure every single disease and destroy every single virus that will ever exist for the rest of eternity, but when you die you simply cease to exist. (You do not go to heaven, and you do not go to hell, when you die that is it, GAME OVER)
B)You cure nothing, but when you die you go to heaven


(Please no lame answers such as: "If I cure everything then I will go to heaven", or "I am going to heaven anyway"....All you have to do is select A or B.

AND PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU DO NOT GO TO HELL IF YOU CHOOSE THE ABILITY TO CURE EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you people not read? I say in the f'n question that you do not go to hell if you choose A, you simply cease to exist.

Answer 1

I'm going to go ahead and say cure for all diseases.

I asked about ending world wars and people were telling me they choose heaven.

O well.

Answer 2

A or B, A or B let me think I must consider. I don't remember do I get to go to heaven guaranteed if I send everyone else to hell? I'm not a doctor or a scientist how can I cure all those diseases. If I cure them all how will I die get run over by a car. Will that boogie man Satan bite me in the butt. There is so much to consider what will it be A or B, A or B ??????

Answer 3

I'll choose B. The reason.....I do not believe it is feasibly possible to cure all diseases....not to mention that to do so would mean wiping out other living organisms that probably play a vital role elsewhere in the biological ecosphere. Thus my reasoning for my choosing is not strictly religious, but just an awareness that to destroy the balance the universe has already structured most likely could result in other problems. I mean, just look at how the misuse and overuse of antibiotics has helped the microbes evolve to become immune to some of the antibiotics we use...making them even more powerful and more deadly to us humans than they were before (and some of these same microbes have no ill effects on some forms of life....and may, perhaps, actually be useful to others and we humans just may not have studied it enough because we've been too busy trying to protect ourselves for their ill effects on us).

Great question....made me really ponder.

Peace be with you and wishing you mind-peace.

Answer 4

Well, at least we know where all the so-called Christians stand: so many of them answered that they cared so much more for their own selfish gain and getting admitted into heaven than for doing a single thing that would benefit every other human being in the world. If that's all the compassion that's left in the contemporary Christian heart, then clearly Christianity is DOA.

The fact is: heaven is an archaic myth. There is no credible evidence to prove its existence. The assertion that "when we die, we are dead and there is nothing" has the highest probability of being correct. Therefore, since we cannot avoid oblivion, it would be a much better choice to sacrifice oneself for the good of all people rather than cynically indulge one's desires for "pie in the sky."

Answer 5

From a moral standpoint I feel compelled to choose A (and I probably would) but from a philosophical standpoint, I am more inclined to choose B becaue I am cynical enough to think that the result of curing disease would be war which would kill just as many. So I don't think it would really matter that much what I did.

Sorry if you don't like this answer but it is my honest answer. Also, in the end I would feel morally compelled to choose A -- so if you absolutely demand an answer, there it is.

Answer 6

As much as I don't like the suffering that comes with disease, imagine how overpopulated we will become if no one ever got sick.
I don't believe in heaven anyway so it's not there I am trying to go.
If the qualification was I could cure all disease and people would be limited to the amount of children they have I would say I have to research the consequences more.
This reminds me of the curse of the Magi, no one ever gets sick again but we all die of starvation because there will not be enough resources to go around.

Answer 7

most people i guess are thinking it,s better to sacrifice heaven and cure the world of disease.self sacrifice .that's good.But then if there was no disease and less dying that means more people ,which means less food and over population, less jobs to go around increased homelessness and higher crime rates and more wars. wide scale murder of certain groups of people,forced abortion.euthanasia of the mentally retarded and disabled and others who fail to meet the standard of valued humans.
I'm basically a self centered person so i choose heaven. and let all you Noble, unselfish people have A.

Answer 8

Between those two choices, A. I probably don't count, I don't believe in a heaven or hell to begin with. A is potentially problematic as humans would then have absolutely no population control outside of war and hunger, but I still say A.

Answer 9

B. Even though I don't believe in heaven, personally. But as hypotheticals, and if for the sake of the question we are assuming heaven would exist, come on. How can you even compare the two? Heaven is an eternity of nothing but perfect happiness. Nothing done or experienced in a mortal life could equate to (nor make one deserving of, and the same applies to hell) that.

Answer 10

A, of course. I'd be the most noble act I could ever do. I personally have seen the horror of such illnesses as cancer, if there was any way I could prevent one more person from dying of that dread disease or any other, I would gladly and willingly cease to exist. It would be the only moral choice, which I believe is your point.

Answer 11

B. Cure nothing, but when I die, go to heaven. Assuming that in your hypothetical question the heaven that you are talking about is the heaven of the bible. There would be no disease in heaven. No suffering, no sickness, no hate.