More Ruckman and abortion
 

Guys,


Sorry I was off line a few days. I moved again and was off line for a few days.

I was writing Ruckman a letter about this whole issue. I was just reading his book Ruckman's Bible References two nights ago and happened upon this. The Lord always works out everything well doesn't he. After the MP3 file and reading his own words on this issue there is no reason to send him any letter on this matter. He believes life starts " when you start breathing. " Case closed. Therefore why ask him about it? Now what I have here is word for word quote of Dr. Ruckman. See his book Ruckman's Bible References and the page number listed. Do not tell me I am misquoting the man like last time. get the book and read it and see if this is not word for word.

This comes from Ruckman's Bible References page 131


Now here we have Ruckman taking more of the Bible out of context to prove that babies are not alive until they breath air out side of the mothers womb.

Now he takes Ez. 37 and the dry bones out of context. This has nothing to do with the birth of any person. This is about the restoration of the nation of Israel and not dealing with ANY BIRTH OF ANY MAN.


Gen 2:7 is out of context as we talked about in out last post. Adam was never born like we are.


We also find that Job is using a parable to tell his story, this also has nothing to do with the birth of any man ever born on this earth. Ruckman is taking even more Bible out of context to prove something the Bible dose not teach. Do not believe me rad the Bible and see what it says.

Notice it is God's breath not the act of breathing that gives Job life. Yet Ruckman uses this verse out of context to say life starts with breath once again.



If there is no live inside the womb their can be no death. If there is no death there can not be any killing. He says, You start life when you start breathing. This is pretty much case closed isn't it?

Now you can attack me again if you like this is fine with me. Do not attack the one taking the Bible out of context, attack me just like last time. This is what the man says and believes. You may defend this all you wish. This case is closed with one quote.

You start life when you start breathing.

Now tell me this is out of context.






Atlas

Bro Jamie, I'm really curious about why this issue bugs you so much. There is some root heart issue that is causing you to be mean spirited about this whole thing.

Dr Ruckman's view is backed up by Scripture, although I am still not sure I agree with it. I have just learned that just because we don't like a particular idea doesn't make it wrong.

I think he's trying to prove that Ruckman is teaching heresy.

Atlas, if you don't like it, then spend some time in the Book and prove when life does start. Doc did his homework, but all you appear to want to do is tear it apart and prove him wrong. Man up and do some legwork yourself, instead of just disproving what the Doc teaches.

No position that is backed up with Scripture taken out of context is "backed up" with Scripture.

No matter how much I appreciate Brother Ruckman on other topics, he is simply mistaken on this one. I have outlined the Scriptural case for when life begins in other posts. The fact that Job explicitly stated he had a ghost (spirit) in the womb absolutely settles it for me. As Atlas has pointed out, Adam was never born. He had no one to inherit a nature (tripartite) from. We inherit Adam's nature from Adam. The other verses used as "proof" do not weigh heavily enough against Job 10:18 compared with James 2:26.

And of course this issue matters. It makes a huge difference in how we deal with all sorts of issues, such as birth control methods, how we view abortions, miscarriages, etc.

That said, I wish the tone had not been set so bitingly by Atlas' first posts about Ruckman's position on this topic. In fact I do not care what Ruckman's position is on this topic.

And unless someone has new Scripture to add, I am about ready to shut down these threads.

Brandon, Amen! Let it be so!

What I should have said was that Dr Ruckman presented lots of Scripture, but that doesn't mean he's right. But until my husband and I have studied the Scriptures for ourselves on this issue, we can't be sure, although until we see otherwise, both of us firmly believe life begins at conception.

Lol and it wouldn't affect our view on birth control because we believe that any form of birth control is wrong anyway. But I can see how it would affect some. And with abortion, it is wrong anyway as I personally believe that it is wrong to even try to prevent life (birth control). We are so anti abortion that we believe that if the mothers life is in danger if you keep the child, you keep it and still trust God.

So I assume Dr Ruckman is wrong on this one, but it does bother me to see Bro Jamie being so mean spirited about it and starting lots of threads about it.

Atlas actually does love Doc a lot, so some of Doc's roughness has rubbed off on him. He's really a nice guy when you get to know him. :)

I got to know Atlas as much as I care to in other places. But thanks.

Diligent,

You and I do attend to agree on this whole issue. This is what is so bad about this issue. You can not build any issue with scripture taken out of context. All false teachings are based on this very thing.



I was pretty nice about it until I was attacked for misquoting and representing Ruckman. I have also been nice on this topic despite jabs and insults from others.

Atlas

You quoted him speaking about the soul, then said he was speaking of life. That was a misrepresentation, regardless of what you posted later. The quote at hand was speaking of the soul of a child, not the actual life. He said directly that a baby is alive before birth, simply not a living soul.

Say what you might, you still misrepresented him, as is easy to see by anyone who pays attention.

aussiemama,


You do not have to study very much to know that the valley of dry bones is all about restoration of the nation of Israel. This is some very important scribture about the restoration of the nation of Israel. You can see this all through Jer. and Ez. This has nothing to do with the birth of any man but the rebirth of a nation. That being said a study of the restoration of the nation of Israel is a very important issue. Ruckman has a very good book on the topic by the way. I'd even recommend you get it. Israel A Deadly Piece of Dirt.

Gen. 2:7 also is not a very big stud when you know that Adam was never born.

maybe it's just the 50,000,000 death by abortion. maybe that's not a big issue with you, but it is for me. This is not a simple issue.


Atlas

So the fact that Ruckman believes the way he does, and believes abortion is sin at the same time, means he's responsible for all the abortions?

Maybe you should blame me for them instead. When I was a homeless teenager I helped girls get things that could cause abortions. Of course I don't do that anymore, but you might as well at least blame someone who had something to do with it.

Again, I haven't seen anyone say abortion is okay, regardless of this specific point.

But I understand your position completely.

I think my own posts here have clearly shown I base my belief that unborn children are living and with spirits is substantiated by Scripture and is not an emotionally-justified opinion.

However, having recently dealt with a miscarriage, it certainly bothers me that people will come up with strange theories to justify the idea that the son or daughter I lost was not really alive -- the child I saw with my own two eyes. But I try not to take it personally.

Ask any woman that has had a miscarriage and you'll find out that it's a sensitive issue anyway. But miscarriage is one of the reasons why I certainly want to always believe that a baby is a life at conception. I just don't want emotions to cloud my judgment though. But you don't have to worry, this isn't an issue I'm going to tackle right now which means that as it stands, I believe that life begins at conception.

I have also heard something weird about that it's not a life till the tenth day coz that's when it gets blood or something. That sounds weird too.

Thank you so much, brother, for providing an actual citation. I looked it up, and of course you've quoted him accurately (not that I'd expect you to do otherwise.) So....

Ruckman is, in my judgment, entirely wrong on the issue of when life begins. And I wish he hadn't made the snarky reference to "anti-abortionists." But I still am not convinced that he explicitly approves of abortion.

When I was at PBI, in a course entitled "The Preacher and His Problems," Ruckman discussed, graphically, all of the various methods of birth control - - - which he believes is okay, as I do. (The "abortion pill" hadn't been invented yet, so he didn't mention it.) In the discussion, he did not list or suggest abortion as a birth control method.

But the pro-abortion people do. They think it's just as legitimate as a condom or a diaphragm.

So, I wouldn't put Ruckman in the "pro-abortion" camp; that would be going too far. But he is wrong about when life begins.

I thank you again for providing the reference, which helps clarify my thinking.

I will continue to praise God for all the truth that Ruckman does teach! And I will repeat, as I do so often, that "all flesh is grass."

That would be a mercy and a blessing!

Peter Ruckman does not teach abortion is murder, but he does NOT teach that it is not murder. Antics with semantics, doublespeak. He then goes on to justify abortion for rape and not adding to the Catholic Church membership.

Psalms 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.


"I don't teach that abortion is murder, like the brethren do"

"You don't want to get hung up on those things. Some of the brethren get so hung up on this thing, 'abortion is murder, abortion is murder', they show you pictures. Well they're trying to prove, they're trying to prove the thing looks like a person that is a person. That's what Darwin taught. You gotta watch that business. You can take an embryo of an animal and prove it looks like an embryo of a person. That doesn't make it a person. You gotta watch that business. You go around start prove that thing is a person before that thing is born, then you got that matter of salvation. And the first thing you know you'll be up there at the Catholic hospital dumpin' water on them so they don't go to limbo. You gotta watch that kind of stuff. Now I'll grant you the child is an organism, I'll grant you that. But they're a lot of organisms. I'll grant you the child may be alive in the sense of animal life, I'll grant you that. I'll grant you it's an embryo, I'll grant you that. But if you talking about a living soul see, I read my bible there's no living soul till the Lord breathed in his nostrils the breath of life."

"Now if you ever start teaching the other, and maybe some of you fellows subscribe that way, you gonna have some real problems. When all those Indians and Hindus came into Bangladesh and Pakistan and raped about 2000 women and left them with about 800 illegitimate children, the good Catholic nuns, in order to increase the membership to the local church, decided it'd be a terrible sin to have any abortion. So the will of God for 800 women who were abused against their will to bear children for the Roman Catholic Church. I don't believe it!"

I think we've burn this ground quite enough. If Ruckman wants to come to the forum and talk about his position, he can. He's not here, so let's quit talking about what he thinks and stick to Scripture and Scripture alone -- the "Ruckman abortion threads" are closed.