I think I understand what HM...IAC is saying. We're going to have to assume, like he says, that there is a soul.
Instruction to you all.
A soul in this context is what I consider another person deep inside you that can be taken away (in this case)
I don't think it matters as long as you assume we have a soul that is in some sense separate from ourselves.
Normally its about the same thing because you can get hurt you can get destoryed but you can also get rebuilt.
You mean emotionally/morally wrecked I assume.
My theory is that if you take away the rebuilding process and just leave ever person in the world with the hurt would the hurt be enough to keep you from doing more harm?..
In other words: If every time man sinned, his soul was weakened and man presumably felt that loss, he would be more inclined to stop sinning.
Or would it make you a soulless person that goes against God.
Question mark!
As to your question/statement, unless man somehow managed to stop sinning, or the portions taken away from his soul are minuscule, that would eventually happen.
My other thing about the soul in this case is that the soul is directly linked to God .. You don't have to accept him necessarily but only to ask him to forgive you of your one sin that you commit in your own choice with full knowledge of what your doing wrong ..
What?
Which would in essence mean that we would all be super smart babies but that doesn't matter lets say that in this case we have a sub conscience and everyone hurt's one of there parents first and everyone loses a part of there soul...
Again, what?
Lets just say it was all the same incidence that made your soul be essentially "taken" away but only a small part of it.
I think that rather than using the term "taken away" you should use the idea of the soul being damaged with no hope of repair. Makes a lot more sense than the idea that the soul is something material--like a loaf of bread that we can just grab a hunk off.
And lets also say you lose 1 year of your life for every 1 out of 113 parts of your Soul that is taken away.
Right. So every time we're an idiot we loose a year of our life with a maximum lifespan of 113 years.
How would then a human react.. Your soul would be the ultimate Decision of life and death. Thats my oppinion on it..
Well, I think the human race would have ended with Adam and Eve.
And no it is not a Theological debate.. Its to discuss my Theory which Is now..
Because you assume a soul and a moral God, it is really more a theological debate.
Hope I cleared yall up a bit.... That is my new theory so Take that into count and add in the other part.
Rightio.
So lets not discuss small things.. Lets discuss my full theory Thanks
The devil is in the details.
First off, you seem to be talking more about a conscience here.
Secondly, your version of the soul could also use some tweaking; the soul is generally viewed as the part of us with which we make willful decisions, but this wouldn't fit well with your theory.
That aside, it probably wouldn't work. My 5 year old brother has most definitely screwed up enough to be killed, and he probably wouldn't know enough to stop (Mayhap that was you meant when you said we needed "supersmart babies".) And really, when you think about it the likelihood that any human being in the history of mankind could keep this requirement is next to nothing. It completely jibes with the doctrine of original sin and assumes that we somehow would be able to attain perfection. If you wanted to make it at all practical you would need a few million "pieces" of our soul and only a minute or so taken away each time we screwed up. Even with this, there would be a great many people dying at age 17.
His theory for anyone who wants to know seems to be this:
If every time man sinned, his soul was weakened and man presumably felt that loss, he would be more inclined to stop sinning. At least that appears to be your idea.
