Quote:
Originally Posted by atlas
Peter Ruckman teaches that life starts when a baby breaths open air out side of the mothers womb.
Atlas
|
WRONG, atlas, no he does not.
You even quoted him...
"On the MP3 file at 29 seconds he says,
Quote:
I teach ta baby is not a living soul until it breaths
C'mon atlas, get it straight.
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.)
"He's 100% wrong (big and bold), wrong, wrong, wrong...blah, blah, blah"
No, atlas, you're 100% wrong! (but I won't put it in bold!)
What
you suggest and
what he said are
two different things.
You said that he teaches that LIFE starts when a baby breathes...
No he does not.
Dogs and trees have
LIFE, but they are NOT living souls.
The life of the flesh is in the blood...right??? Of course, but it does not say the life of the
soul is in the blood (you understand there's a difference, don't you?).
Souls are a bodily shape (Rev. 6), but
they are NOT the body. The unborn
living baby in the womb is
a body (flesh) with life in it, but it is not yet an eternal soul. It is not yet "self-sustaining," that is it is only alive (flesh) as its "host" (mother) is providing its life...
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. They are not sending the unborn baby to heaven, they are simply terminating the life that was in the flesh, life that when born would become a living soul. Never has he condoned or recommended abortion, but he teaches that it is not what everyone says it is.
You can run all kinds of scripture to say what you think refutes this, but you'll have trouble considering that the position is
not saying the unborn baby is not living, as you falsely supposed.