[George]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Hey, George, regarding "our move to the mainland", are you taking me up on the request to move to Gainesville, FL? Please?? Job? Oops, hadn't thought about that. ... Well, I'll think of something!

I appreciate your "offer", but I worked (full time) from 1957 up until 2003 (Let's see - that makes 46 years! ). I think that I've done my share and held up my end of the bargain.

Lord willing, we are going to live in Tulsa, Oklahoma (Centrally situated), and perhaps my wife (who has never been outside of Hawaii) and I will get to see (around the U.S.A.) some of our family, old friends, and "new friends" also.

If we ever get down Florida way, we would love to visit and "break bread" with you brother - you may not know it, and it may not always be obvious , but your Posts and personal conduct on the Forum has had a "calming effect" on some of my Posts! And I would deem it a real pleasure and an honor to meet with you face to face.

[Brother Tim]

I'm looking forward to that, Brother! And thanks for the compliment. I am trying my best to behave.

I think a person becomes a living soul at conception, or very shortly thereafter. (I don't know if a zygote is a soul, but I think a fetus is.) I had previously accepted you-know-who's "breath of life" idea, but two ofmy brethren have correctedmy thinking:

Cody, by his remark about oxygen coming through the umbilical cord;

and Atlas, for showing me the "smoking gun" in you-know-who's position.

I appreciate their assistance tremendously. I'm always willing to change my position if good evidence is presented.

[atlas]

VR,

As far as I can tell with John and Jeremiah the babies are alive in the mothers womb. I think the breathing deal has been put to rest. Many seemed to get upset when posting Ruckman ideas on the matter, however some folks just do not like the truth.

I have not seen Cody's post however I can understand where he is coming from.

The Bible is not clear on the exact time life begins. The Bible is not 100% clear on many things. When this is not the case as it is not here you have to look at Bible princables on these issues. Most of the time they will get you by and lead you to truth. As an example the Bible dose not come out opposed to XXX rated movies, however the Bible is clear about issues of lust and can be applied to XXX movies. The same can be said for many issues, like can I speed and dive any way I want? No not at all, Rom. 13 takes care of this issue. This tells me what I should do on the issue of speeding. The same can be said for many other issues the Bible dose not address by name but dose address by rules like Rom. 13 for example.

Rom. 13:1

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

So this means no speeding for me and that I need to obey the laws of the state. This is a very simple example, but I think it gets to the heart of the issue on the when dose life began issue. Just use basic Bible rules and princeables and it will take care of 99% of the issues in our lives. Th Bible rule of Rom. 13 keeps me straight with what I need to do when driving.

We know John the baptist was alive in his mothers womb, therefore we know life starts sometime inside the mothers womb, even if we do not know when. Therefore we should defend the right to life from our churches based on this teaching.



Atlas

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by Vendetta Ride

I think a person becomes a living soul at conception, or very shortly thereafter.

This is one idea that I was never able to comprehend - that is, when considering the following. And please, beforehand, forgive the language or imagery that this reply suggests. I don't like to be disgusting, or crude on purpose, but because what I'm about to say is a fact of life (a very commong fact), I must.

My wife (and many women I know) has had a misscarriage. It was early in the pregnancy, say the first month or two at best. The "blood clot" (by appearance) was flushed down the toilet. Perhaps a few days earlier, that "living soul" was "carried by angels" to heaven as so many like to teach. I won't buy it.

Considering this common occurrence alone, having been there for all three on my children's births, there is a big difference between what is in the womb, and what comes out. Abortion, though wrong (up and down), seems to me to be much the same.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

My wife (and many women I know) has had a misscarriage. It was early in the pregnancy, say the first month or two at best. The "blood clot" (by appearance)

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

[Diligent]

Brother pbiwolski,

I think it is important to realize that when a miscarriage ends, what is left of the unborn is not all that was there. As men, we are not usually very aware of what is going on at such early stages. Here is a page explaining how human the unborn is at just seven weeks, with picture of the babe in the gestational sac removed from the mother because of a life-threatening pregnancy:

http://www.c2g.ca/development.html

The picture is worth 1000 words; it is clearly not a blood clot (though after a miscarriage that is often all that is left to see once the body finishes expelling the remains).

[pbiwolski]

I figured I'd see a reply in the exact manner you posted - pics and all.

What I see in the pictures can be still true about any dog or horse. The question that is not answered is the question that started all the debate. Therefore, "I (still) won't buy it."

Having said that, I really don't care that much about the issue. We've all gone a few rounds, and I'm actually glad to see the one thread is now locked. I am pleased to hold by belief/perception on the issue while so many hold to their own. So-be-it.

My final thoughts would be to say that I think it's a shame so many jumped on the "out of context" banwagon. The argument is the very argument used by "hypers" to take your Bible away from you. (Don't rise up over this, think about it for a moment.) This line, or type, of reasoning (once allowed - Gen. 2/Ezek 37/etc.) can be used all over the Book, and, in the end, you'll end up losing more of what you believed than you intended.

I'm not talking about abortion/life, but let it run its course, and you'll inhibit God's words to teach his people the way we all here have come to learn and love. My opinion then is in this case, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

I figured I'd see a reply in the exact manner you posted - pics and all.

I started with two verses and intended to leave it at that, but then figured a response to your anecdote would also be helpful.

What I see in the pictures can be still true about any dog or horse.

Of course. And unborn dog is a dog.

The question that is not answered is the question that started all the debate. Therefore, "I (still) won't buy it."

It's been quite well discussed with Scripture, actually. I think the question is at least answered that it's not reasonable to say "at birth."

My final thoughts would be to say that I think it's a shame so many jumped on the "out of context" banwagon. The argument is the very argument used by "hypers" to take your Bible away from you.

Strange. We have to watch context when we're dividing Scripture. I'm sure you agree. Those of us who have commented on the "context issue" of the "proof verses" offered from Genesis 2 have explained quite specifically why those verses can't be applied the way you want them to be applied. Nobody is trying to take the Bible away by pointing out that Adam was never born or that we inherit his nature and are not "breathed into" by God or that the breath of life is a spiritual thing and not a physical thing or that Job said he had a spirit in his mother's womb.

(Don't rise up over this, think about it for a moment.)

I'm not rising up about it at all -- I am honestly surprised to hear this coming from you. Of course we have to mind context, and we can't base our beliefs on verses without considering their context. I "get" that you don't think they are pulled out of context or misapplied. But you should "get" that we're not denying the truth in these verses just because we don't believe that apply the way you do.

[atlas]

PBI,

My final thoughts would be to say that I think it's a shame so many jumped on the "out of context" banwagon. The argument is the very argument used by "hypers" to take your Bible away from you.

I do not think anyone here is trying to take the Bible away from anyone. I do however think some here are trying to rightly divide the word. I also think we are told to do so in the Bible.

A person saying you must be baptized to be saved and using the book of Acts as the text or a person must keep the law using the book of Deut. could make the same statement you did above. You'd also say they are out of context or wrongly dividing the word. I doubt anyone here would say you were trying to take the Bible away from anyone. I know for a fact I would not.

We must always use the context of what we are reading, if we do not do so we are wrongly dividing the word. This always leads to many false doctrines.

Well so ends the great, " When does a person become a living soul " debate. It ends on the note that we are trying to take the Bible away form someone. This is kind of a sad way to end the debate.


It is nice however to know that VR got it and someone was helped. This is all that matters in the end.




Atlas