0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Ransom

  • Standing Ovation? +448/-22
Re: Is Buttigieg a Ruckmanite?
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2019, 10:56:04 AM »
Ruckman taught that a baby was not a human until it takes its first breath. . . .

The gay Buttigieg says the same thing.

Gah.

"Then again, there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath, and so even that is something that we can interpret differently."

I'm not aware that there are "lots." There are a few that seem to imply this.

There are about 15 Bible verses (in the ESV) that associate the words "life" and "breath" or some derivation. In the majority of these, the "breath of life" is used as a figure of speech for life itself, for example,  "Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life [i.e. that was alive] died" (Gen. 7:22). "Breath" is elsewhere used as a figure of speech to represent the shortness of one's life (e.g. Job 7:7) or the end of it (Ishmael "breathed his last and died" [Gen. 25:17]). So these verses can be dismissed: they neither prove nor disprove that human life begins with the first breath.

In maybe three places could we infer that it is saying life begins with breath.

Genesis 2:7 is the obvious one. "The Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." Of course, "the man" does not mean all men: it refers specifically to Adam, the first man, who was made, not born. God fashioned him out of inanimate matter and then breathed the power of life into him. Adam is a special case. The fact that he was breathed into life doesn't make it true for all people. God made Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. Does that mean all women are made from the ribs of men?

Job 33:4 might be more helpful to Buttigieg's argument: "The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life." Here, at least, the speaker--Elihu, Job's friend--is a normal man, not the prototype of the entire race. However, not what he tells Job only a few moments later: "Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was pinched off from a piece of clay" (33:6). Neither he nor Job were fashioned from clay. So it's clear Elihu is speaking poetically in verses 4 and 6: he's telling Job, "Listen to me, because I am a son of Adam just like you."  This passage does no good to Buttigieg, either.

Finally, there's Revelation 11:11: "After the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet." This passage is speaking of the two witnesses of Revelation. Again, they are (presumably) normal human beings with a normal birth. However, they are murdered and left in the street for three and a half days before being supernaturally resuscitated. Revelation is a highly symbolic book, and it would be dodgy to establish a firm point of theology on this passage.  And, like Adam, the two witnesses are kind of a special case. People do not routinely return from the dead. It is a special display of divine power.

One additonal passage I have seen used on secular and leftist Christian sites is Ezekiel 37, the valley of dry bones:

Quote
I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them. Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live." So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army." (Ezek. 37:8-10)

Like the Revelation passage, this proves nothing, because a) it's a vision, not something that actually happened; and b) even assuming for the sake of argument that the bones had real existence, it is the miraculous resuscitation of dead bodies, not the birth of new human beings.

Leftists think Christians are stupid. The assumption seems to be they can just quote a verse or two--however bad their exegesis may be--and we'll all uncritically fall in line, because it's from the Bible. It's made doubly hilarious because this is the supposed "party of science," ignoring the reality that a) the unborn meet any reasonable definition of life: they are organized, adapt to their environment, grow and develop, consume nutrients, etc.; and b) they have human parents and human DNA, and therefore are human beings. Chew on that, science dinks.
Take care,
Scott



insanely liberal - ALAYMAN
little runt bully - The Rogue Tomato

Tarheel Baptist

  • Standing Ovation? +547/-24
Re: Is Buttigieg a Ruckmanite?
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2019, 02:18:56 PM »
Your vagueness is difficult.

Your error is obvious.

A let her Rip Ruckmanite calling someone else out for their ‘error’....oh, the irony!
Ignoring ignorami and keeping idiots in suspense...

The honorable Rev. FSSL, Litt.D., Hon.D.

  • Standing Ovation? +177/-671
Re: Is Buttigieg a Ruckmanite?
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2019, 04:39:58 PM »
Twisted... are you attempting to defend Ruckman?

No, I'm attempting to straighten you out.

He’s trying to learn you something...and yes he’s a true blue ‘let her Rip’ Ruckmanite.
And he’s also a skolar.

... and supports human baby killin’ too??!!!! :(
WELCOME TO OUR FORUM! I am the resident "skeptic, critic, purveyor of doubt, self-contradicting, silly, weak-minded, ridiculous, inconsistent, superstitious zealot, deceptive equivocator, hell-bent, disbeliever, contemptuous, doubter, hypocrite, thumb twittler, lying, jackass...

Twisted

  • Standing Ovation? +97/-2
Re: Is Buttigieg a Ruckmanite?
« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2019, 04:47:09 PM »
Twisted... are you attempting to defend Ruckman?

No, I'm attempting to straighten you out.

He’s trying to learn you something...and yes he’s a true blue ‘let her Rip’ Ruckmanite.
And he’s also a skolar.

... and supports human baby killin’ too??!!!! :(

That's low (not surprising, mind you) but really low.
"And they call *ME* crazy?"

The honorable Rev. FSSL, Litt.D., Hon.D.

  • Standing Ovation? +177/-671
Re: Is Buttigieg a Ruckmanite?
« Reply #14 on: September 10, 2019, 07:13:51 PM »
You are being intentionally vague.
Do you subscribe to Ruckman’s view on a human beginning at the first breath?
WELCOME TO OUR FORUM! I am the resident "skeptic, critic, purveyor of doubt, self-contradicting, silly, weak-minded, ridiculous, inconsistent, superstitious zealot, deceptive equivocator, hell-bent, disbeliever, contemptuous, doubter, hypocrite, thumb twittler, lying, jackass...

Tarheel Baptist

  • Standing Ovation? +547/-24
Re: Is Buttigieg a Ruckmanite?
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2019, 08:47:29 AM »
Twisted... are you attempting to defend Ruckman?

No, I'm attempting to straighten you out.

He’s trying to learn you something...and yes he’s a true blue ‘let her Rip’ Ruckmanite.
And he’s also a skolar.

... and supports human baby killin’ too??!!!! :(

That's low (not surprising, mind you) but really low.

Oh! The irony....yet again.
Ignoring ignorami and keeping idiots in suspense...

cpizzle

  • Standing Ovation? +39/-0
Re: Is Buttigieg a Ruckmanite?
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2019, 11:35:14 AM »
Isn't the question "when does man become a living soul?"

Are all miscarried and/or aborted babies going to be in heaven?

70% of fertilized eggs never implant into their mothers womb.  25% of those never even register as a pregnancy before they naturally abort.  If a "soul" begins at conception, then 80-85% of the people in heaven will have never been born.

I'm not saying that I agree with Ruckman because the Bible is not clear, but his theory makes rational sense without contradicting scripture.  Still, just because abortion doesn't "kill a soul," it still takes an innocent life.
What doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Ransom

  • Standing Ovation? +448/-22
Re: Is Buttigieg a Ruckmanite?
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2019, 12:13:48 PM »
Isn't the question "when does man become a living soul?"

No. The question Buttigieg was implying was, "when does human life begin?" "There’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath," he said. He is wrong. We know when human beings become alive. It's about nine months before their lungs first take in air.

Quote
Are all miscarried and/or aborted babies going to be in heaven?

Maybe they won't be, maybe they will. Would it offend you if they were?

Quote
70% of fertilized eggs never implant into their mothers womb.  25% of those never even register as a pregnancy before they naturally abort.  If a "soul" begins at conception, then 80-85% of the people in heaven will have never been born.

God is the author of life, and it is his to disposition as he chooses. The fact that miscarriages happen spontaneously doesn't justify causing one on purpose. Born people are killed by cars accidentally; that doesn't mean I can run 'em over deliberately.

Quote
I'm not saying that I agree with Ruckman because the Bible is not clear, but his theory makes rational sense without contradicting scripture.

But it does contradict Scripture, which assumes the unborn are living. Adam became alive when he took his first breath. He alone of all men was first formed out of the dust of the earth; all of his descendants were begotten naturally, and were living beings in the womb. For example, Job asks, "Why did you bring me out from the womb? Would that I had died before any eye had seen me" (Job 10:18). For the unborn Job to have died in the womb, he would have had to have been alive. I don't necessarily ascribe the same "pro-life" significance to Luke 1:41 as many pro-lifers do, but the fact that the unborn John the Baptist leaped in Elizabeths's womb upon encountering Mary also presupposes that he was, at the very least, alive.

The phrase "living soul" is characteristic of the KJV. Other translations use something like "living being" or "living creature." It's perfectly reasonable to read "living soul" as "a living person," and it fits just fine as such in the three places it is usd in the KJV (Gen. 2:7, 1 Cor. 15:45, Rev. 16:3). If Ruckman insisted that a "living soul" was something other than a human being that was alive, then his enslavement to KJV-onlyism and hyper-dispensationalism was to blame.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2019, 12:16:06 PM by Ransom »
Take care,
Scott



insanely liberal - ALAYMAN
little runt bully - The Rogue Tomato

cpizzle

  • Standing Ovation? +39/-0
Re: Is Buttigieg a Ruckmanite?
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2019, 03:31:17 PM »
Quote
Are all miscarried and/or aborted babies going to be in heaven?

Maybe they won't be, maybe they will. Would it offend you if they were?

It wouldn't offend me at all.  I just want to be intellectually honest and use logic when necessary.  God can certainly work in mysterious ways if he chooses, but I don't abandon reason where the Bible is unclear.
What doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Twisted

  • Standing Ovation? +97/-2
Re: Is Buttigieg a Ruckmanite?
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2019, 09:39:19 PM »
Isn't the question "when does man become a living soul?"

No. The question Buttigieg was implying was, "when does human life begin?"

"the baby was stillborn and didn’t meet the legal criteria to be considered a child."

In the news today.  It's appropriate for the subject.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ex-cheerleader-tearfully-addresses-judge-170732691.html
"And they call *ME* crazy?"