The breath of life

puddleglum

Well-known member
Everyone knows that human life begins at conception. A new person comes into existence, created in Gods image, with his unique DNA, with a God given plan for his life. The new human isn’t yet able to survive on his own so he must spend the first nine months of existence in his mother’s womb.

Actually the first sentence isn’t accurate. What I should have said is, “Everyone knows that human life begins at conception, except those who believe a woman has the right to abort her baby.” All of us believe that murdering a human is wrong so abortion can only be justified by claiming that the unborn child is something less than human. Some “Christians” even quote a verse of the Bible to prove this point.

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. (Genesis 2:7)

They say this proves that life begins when the baby takes its first breath and so there is no sin in aborting it before then. This viewpoint is refuted later in the same chapter.

The LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
(Genesis 2:21-24)

God did not breathe the breath of life into the woman yet there is no doubt that she was alive.

Gabriel told Zechariah that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb.

And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth,for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:14,15)

Here is more evidence that John was already alive before he was born.

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. (Luke 1:41)

When God breathed the breath of life into Adam he breathed it into the whole human race. Adam became a living creature and he transmitted that life to all of his descendants.

Satan often uses the Bible to deceive people. He quoted it when he was tempting Jesus.

Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,’
and

“‘On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”
(Matthew 4:5,6)

Here is the source of his quotation.

For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways.
On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.
(Psalm 91:11,12)

If you compare them you will see that Satan left out the phrase “to guard you in all your ways.” When he uses the Bible, he misquotes it or takes it out of context. Don’t automatically accept something as true if the Bible is used to support it. Examine the Bible references used to make sure the meaning is not being distorted.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
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. (Genesis 2:7)

Genesis 2:7, KJV: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Breath is Pneuma... The Holy Ghost is from the word Pneuma..

They have NO material explanation for man or soul.
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Everyone knows that human life begins at conception. A new person comes into existence, created in Gods image, with his unique DNA, with a God given plan for his life. The new human isn’t yet able to survive on his own so he must spend the first nine months of existence in his mother’s womb.

Actually the first sentence isn’t accurate. What I should have said is, “Everyone knows that human life begins at conception, except those who believe a woman has the right to abort her baby.” All of us believe that murdering a human is wrong so abortion can only be justified by claiming that the unborn child is something less than human. Some “Christians” even quote a verse of the Bible to prove this point.



They say this proves that life begins when the baby takes its first breath and so there is no sin in aborting it before then. This viewpoint is refuted later in the same chapter.



God did not breathe the breath of life into the woman yet there is no doubt that she was alive.

Gabriel told Zechariah that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb.



Here is more evidence that John was already alive before he was born.



When God breathed the breath of life into Adam he breathed it into the whole human race. Adam became a living creature and he transmitted that life to all of his descendants.

Satan often uses the Bible to deceive people. He quoted it when he was tempting Jesus.



Here is the source of his quotation.



If you compare them you will see that Satan left out the phrase “to guard you in all your ways.” When he uses the Bible, he misquotes it or takes it out of context. Don’t automatically accept something as true if the Bible is used to support it. Examine the Bible references used to make sure the meaning is not being distorted.

This is where some Christians go off the rails. Peter Ruckman a revered theologian (and certifiable mean spirited looney tune) gave sermons on the breath of life. Full on rants about why abortion isn't a problem.


Later in life he waffled and tried to take it back.

His main teaching was about the KJVO's. He said that if the mss say one thing, and the KJV says another, the KJV should be followed as "advanced revelation". I did say he was a looney toon.

He had a huge following and is still thought of as a martyred KJVO saint.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
This is where some Christians go off the rails. Peter Ruckman a revered theologian (and certifiable mean spirited looney tune) gave sermons on the breath of life. Full on rants about why abortion isn't a problem.


Later in life he waffled and tried to take it back.

His main teaching was about the KJVO's. He said that if the mss say one thing, and the KJV says another, the KJV should be followed as "advanced revelation". I did say he was a looney toon.

He had a huge following and is still thought of as a martyred KJVO saint.
Lunatic
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Remember our own local lunatic? From Vienna?
His strawman was his crafted sentiency/non-sentiency argument.

Under his wacko construct, ALL the patients intubated and hooked up to a ventilator are not humans.
Also at the time patients in surgery are "out under general" (anesthesia) they are not human beings.
 

Base12

Active member
Adam and his Wife were created as adults.

If the Critics were to continue with their logic, then Humans are not Humans until adulthood.

Thus, anyone younger than Adam and his Wife could be aborted since they are not 'adults' yet.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Adam and his Wife were created as adults.

If the Critics were to continue with their logic, then Humans are not Humans until adulthood.

Thus, anyone younger than Adam and his Wife could be aborted since they are not 'adults' yet.
That conclusion goes against the rest of the Bible. So no.
 

BMS

Well-known member

Looks promising. I note the Guardian proposes that a majority of US citizens believe abortion should be available in some or all circumstances. This is double speak for a majority of US citizens believe abortion should be available in some circumstances. That would be a good result when Wade v Roe is overturned.
 

Temujin

Well-known member

Looks promising. I note the Guardian proposes that a majority of US citizens believe abortion should be available in some or all circumstances. This is double speak for a majority of US citizens believe abortion should be available in some circumstances. That would be a good result when Wade v Roe is overturned.
Almost every thinking person in the entire world agrees that abortion should be allowed in some circumstances. The debate is over what the circumstances should be. The all or nothing dichotomy is a false one.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Almost every thinking person in the entire world agrees that abortion should be allowed in some circumstances. The debate is over what the circumstances should be. The all or nothing dichotomy is a false one.
No the post link was about overturning Roe v Wade. And I didnt suggest all or nothing which you mentioned.
When Roe v wade is overturned thousands of lives can be saved
 

Temujin

Well-known member
No the post link was about overturning Roe v Wade. And I didnt suggest all or nothing which you mentioned.
When Roe v wade is overturned thousands of lives can be saved
I know you didn't. You noted that the majority of Americans agree with abortion in some circumstances. I agree with you. In fact I think that virtually everyone agrees with abortion in some circumstances. What they don't agree on is what those circumstances are.

As I understand it Roe v Wade established the right to abortion as federally mandated, hanging it on the right to privacy for some peculiar reason. Removing Roe v Wade doesn't remove the right to abortion. It would allow states to make their own decisions on the matter. It would in effect state that the life of the unborn is insignificant at the federal level. Whether or not lives are saved as a result is a matter of debate. In any event it is a mite unseemly for two Brits like ourselves to get involved, beyond expressing a point of view.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I know you didn't. You noted that the majority of Americans agree with abortion in some circumstances. I agree with you. In fact I think that virtually everyone agrees with abortion in some circumstances. What they don't agree on is what those circumstances are.

As I understand it Roe v Wade established the right to abortion as federally mandated, hanging it on the right to privacy for some peculiar reason. Removing Roe v Wade doesn't remove the right to abortion. It would allow states to make their own decisions on the matter. It would in effect state that the life of the unborn is insignificant at the federal level. Whether or not lives are saved as a result is a matter of debate. In any event it is a mite unseemly for two Brits like ourselves to get involved, beyond expressing a point of view.
As I said, when Roe v Wade is overturned, it needs to allow for some circumstances and get rid of the my body my choice hatred.

And in the UK we need to get rid of the woman's choice rhetoric you subscribe to.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
As I said, when Roe v Wade is overturned, it needs to allow for some circumstances and get rid of the my body my choice hatred.

And in the UK we need to get rid of the woman's choice rhetoric you subscribe to.
Dangerous garbage. Whose choice should it be whether or not to have an abortion? First set the criteria. If the criteria are met, then the pregnant person gets to choose. This is not rhetoric. This is basic humanity. Who would you want to make the choice? The vicar? The father? A politician?
 

BMS

Well-known member
Dangerous garbage. Whose choice should it be whether or not to have an abortion? First set the criteria. If the criteria are met, then the pregnant person gets to choose. This is not rhetoric. This is basic humanity. Who would you want to make the choice? The vicar? The father? A politician?
Roe v Wade could be called dangerous garbage as it leads to the death of thousands of human beings. Letting people choose whether or not human beings die for their own personal reasons is dangerous whether a mother or a vicar
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Roe v Wade could be called dangerous garbage as it leads to the death of thousands of human beings. Letting people choose whether or not human beings die for their own personal reasons is dangerous whether a mother or a vicar
So, you run away from the question. I try again. If the criteria for a legal abortion are met, whatever they may be, who then gets to choose whether an abortion takes place or not? The woman or someone else? If someone else, who? Let's all see you run away again.
 

BMS

Well-known member
So, you run away from the question. I try again. If the criteria for a legal abortion are met, whatever they may be, who then gets to choose whether an abortion takes place or not? The woman or someone else? If someone else, who? Let's all see you run away again.
The human being whose life is in danger. Who else?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
The human being whose life is in danger. Who else?
So, the woman then. Or are you expecting a vote from the embryo or foetus in question? I think that counts as a blatent avoidance. Let's try again for strike three. If the criteria for an abortion are met, who gets to decide whether the abortion should happen? The woman or someone else?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
That implies the woman dies in abortion and the unborn human being lives. What are you talking about chap?
I'm talking about your evasion and refusal to accept a quite simple point. There are two elements to any legal abortion, irrespective of what the laws actually are. Any legislation that allows abortion in some circumstances will specify what those criteria are, whether it is a time limit, whether the woman has been raped or is medically threatened. Whatever the legal constraints some pregnancies will fall within the legal framework and allow an abortion to be legal.

At that point the second element comes into play, which is the decision to go ahead with the abortion or not. I'm asking you who, in your opinion, should make that decision. Should it be the woman herself or some other person? This is not a difficult question, but you have tied yourself into a knot over it because you are incapable of acknowledging that the woman has a right to choose. Abortion is never compulsory. In any legislation where any form of abortion is possible, any woman whose circumstances apply can choose whether or not to have an abortion. Why can you not just say this instead of trying to avoid the dreaded phrase, the woman has a right to choose? Your dogma has driven you into a cul-de-sac. Have you got the moral integrity to back out and admit the truth?
 

BMS

Well-known member
I'm talking about your evasion and refusal to accept a quite simple point.
Then you aren't addressing the point of reality put to you. The point is the unborn human dies in pro-choice abortion.
You asked who should make a decision for abortion and I said the human being in danger of being killed, not the human being doing the killing.
Your response "so the woman then" means you are suggesting the woman dies.
 
Top