[atlas]

pbiwolski,

You are 100% wrong I did not misquote anyone one time.

The trouble that you, and so many others, are having here is that you misquote Dr. Ruckman and then rail on him after doing so. (Go back and read you words and see if the quotes match.)

Can you not read my post? It is on page one. How dare you missrepresent and say I misquote anyone, when the facts prove I do not.

Do you not understand I put the time the quote came from? Can you not read and hear at the same time? The quotes are a 100% perfect word for word match.

I did this and the quotes match word for word

Quote:

On the MP3 file at 29 seconds he says,

I teach the baby is not a living soul until it breaths

MP3 file 42 seconds


Quote:
and so I don't teach that abortion is murder like the brethren do


It starts back again on the MP3 file at 2:54


Quote:
abortion is murder, abortion is murder they show you pitchers. What are they trying to prove? They are trying to prove that the thing looks like a person it is a person. That is what Darwin taught. You've got to watch that business.

Every quote I made has the MP3 time beside the quote. Check it out. Do not lie and say I misquoted anyone I NEVER DID SO!!!!

GO READ THE POST I MADE AND LISTIN TO IT!!!!!!

You will see the qoutes are word for word.

Dr. Ruckman teaches (and so do I) then that when someone aborts a living baby in the womb, they are not murdering a living soul.

Well both of you have no scripture for this teaching.


Tell me who dose Gen 2:7 applies to other than Adam?



Atlas

[atlas]

Tim,

aside from the fact that Dr. Ruckman's position was misquoted,

There is no fact that Ruckman was misquoted.

This is where I quoted Ruckman.

On the MP3 file at 29 seconds he says,


Quote:
I teach ta baby is not a living soul until it breaths

MP3 file 42 seconds



Quote:
and so I don't teach that abortion is murder like the brethren do


It starts back again on the MP3 file at 2:54


Quote:
abortion is murder, abortion is murder they show you pitchers. What are they trying to prove? They are trying to prove that the thing looks like a person it is a person. That is what Darwin taught. You've got to watch that business.

You go listen to the MP3 READ the quote and tell me I misquoted him.

You need to get the facts. The facts are I quoted Ruckman word for word.


Atlas

[Brother Tim]

Atlas, you need to cool down. You are indeed misstating Dr. Ruckman's statement. You say for us to look at your first post. Here is your statement: (underlining mine for emphasis)

Peter Ruckman teaches that life starts when a baby breaths open air out side of the mothers womb.

You directly quote Dr. Ruckman here:

I teach ta baby is not a living soul until it breaths

pbiwolski identifies that (in his opinion) having life and being a living soul are two different things. That may be up for argument, but to be specific, the two phrases are not the same wording. I attempted to point out that even using pbiwolski's separation of meaning, that abortion is still murder.

[Josh]

I agree with atlas. Life starts at conception, body - soul - spirit. I also believe abortion is 100% wrong 100% of the time.

Luke used the senario of his wife at risk of dying giving birth. I am getting married soon, so I have put much thought to this as well. It would be a very tough decision, but I believe it would still be wrong even in this case. There's no such thing as justifiable murder. The taking of human life is allowed in (a) time of war, and (b) self defence, or the defence of others. Abortion never falls under self defence. To defend requires there to be an attacker. An unborn child is not an attacker, the threat is not one of attack. Therefore in this case to have an abortion is trying take the situation out of God's hands and choosing to kill an innocent child instead of trusting God to do what is best.

[atlas]

Tim,

You and PBI the ones that need to calm down and stop saying someone did something they did not do.

Now you are saying I am misstating, what happened to misquoting? Back peddling a little now are we? Maybe you should apologize for the misquoting statement. As it was 100% incorrect and you know it.

You both stated I misquoted Ruckman. Both of you have said I did this. Both of you are wrong and this is backed up with facts.


You both state this as a fact, you can not show me where I misquoted him.

This is the quote again.

Quote:

I teach that a baby is not a living soul until it breaths

Now is this a misquote or not?



He also says,

Quote:
and so I don't teach that abortion is murder like the brethren do

Now is this a misquote or not?

Now either I did or I did not misquote him. You both said I did.


PBI said,

The trouble that you, and so many others, are having here is that you misquote Dr. Ruckman

You said in this in reply to PBI's statement,

aside from the fact that Dr. Ruckman's position was misquoted

I have not misquoted Ruckman one time.


Do not attack Ruckman for taking Gen. 2:7 out of context. Attack the person that made the post pointing out that Ruckman takes the verse out of context. This is how you guys play the game is it? Well any Bible corrector in the world would be very proud indeed.



Atlas

[atlas]

Josh,

Abortion never falls under self defence. To defend requires there to be an attacker. An unborn child is not an attacker, the threat is not one of attack. Therefore in this case to have an abortion is trying take the situation out of God's hands and choosing to kill an innocent child instead of trusting God to do what is best.

This is a very interesting point. I have never looked at it this way before. I agree with you 100%. Thanks for the wonderful post on this issue. I also think in this case you should pray and ask that God's will be done and hope somehow that mother and baby live. Doctors have been wrong before, it would be my hope the doctor would be wrong and mother and child would live.


Atlas

[Brother Tim]

Atlas, did you say:

Peter Ruckman teaches that life starts when a baby breaths open air out side of the mothers womb.

Yes or no?

Does that misquote his position? Some might say "yes", but the exact meaning of misquoting one's position as opposed to misquoting one's words could be debatable.

Would you be willing to admit that your first statement misrepresented Dr. Ruckman's position or at least did not make it clear?

I will gladly admit that my sentence would better have been, "aside from the fact that Dr. Ruckman's position was misstated," and would apologize and ask that you forgive me for not being as clear as I should have been.

For the record, I very early in the discussion about the "living soul" made my position unmistakably clear. http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...3&postcount=10

You and I agree on the position, just not in the language of the discussion. I have not called you a liar.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Josh

Luke used the scenario of his wife at risk of dying giving birth. I am getting married soon, so I have put much thought to this as well. It would be a very tough decision, but I believe it would still be wrong even in this case. There's no such thing as justifiable murder.

You will change your mind fast when you get married. Or her parents will change it for you. And if you are ever in this situation, you will change your mind.

I think this position, while it sounds noble, is legalistic and ridiculous.

[pbiwolski]

atlas,
Slow down and read. Read clearly and slowly without skipping or jumping to conclusions.

Tim was not defending my position, he merely understands what you (and others) are doing, and sees where the "error" (it's in quotations for you, Tim!) is.

By the way, thanks for attempting to clear it up, Tim.

[atlas]

Tim,

Peter Ruckman teaches that life starts when a baby breaths open air out side of the mothers womb.

Does that misquote his position?

No because without a soul no human is anything more than a dog or cat. Without a living soul no man is a man. We are not talking about just a body here. We are talking soul. All men have 3 parts, and must have 3 parts to be a man. Anything else is an animal and not in the image of God.

This is Ruckmans stand and he uses Gen. 2:7 taken out of context for this false doctrine. He bases this false doctrine by taking the Bible out of context. AS an example, RC's do the same thing with John 3 and use it for getting babies wet and saying they must do this to be saved. All false doctrines come from taking the Bible out of context and wrongly dividing God's word. We all oppose this and will agree that RC's take John 3 out of context to teach false doctrine.

Dose Ruckman take Gen 2:7 out of context?

yes or no.

Dose Gen 2:7 apply to you?

Did God make you out of dirt?

yes or no

Did God breath into you the breath of life?

yes or no

Who dose Gen. 2:7 apply to?


You seem to be far more worried that I may have misstated what Ruckman has said, yet Ruckman taking Gen. 2:7 100% out of context seems to be just fine with this. Why is this the case? This is what I'd like to know?



Atlas