Posted on 02/12/2011 12:50:08 PM PST by topcat54
Only someone that doesn't consider the unborn a human being -- as the Bible clearing does -- has to ask why Thou Shall Not Murder applies to abortion.
You wrote:
“That is a false statement.”
No, it is not.
“Contraceptives that prevent conception are not abortifacient.”
I did not say they were.
“And, other than liberal denominations that aren’t Christian anyway, Bible-believing Protestant denominations like the Assembly of God oppose any form of b/c that end a pregnancy after conception:”
So, Jerry Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority, was a liberal?
You wrote:
“Only someone that doesn’t consider the unborn a human being — as the Bible clearing does — has to ask why Thou Shall Not Murder applies to abortion.”
The correct answer is that abortion is never mentioned in scripture. Your apparent inability to make that simple point speaks volumes about your preparedness to deal with this issue.
The answer is that it didn't have to be because it was understand there was no difference between killing an unborn child and born person as proven by laws in Exodus 21:22-25:
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
And, why are you whining about protestants allegedly being soft on abortion when you trying to deny there is a Biblical prohibition against it?
You wrote:
“The answer is that it didn’t have to be because it was understand there was no difference between killing an unborn child and born person as proven by laws in Exodus 21:22-25:”
I asked where abortion was mentioned. It is mentioned no where in the Bible. Thus, the correct answer is that it is not mentioned.
“And, why are you whining about protestants allegedly being soft on abortion when you trying to deny there is a Biblical prohibition against it?”
I never denied that there was a Biblical prohibition against abortion. I asked where in the Bible is it mentioned. Those are two entirely different things. Learn to read. Did you attend a government school?
When you learn how to read you might want to pick up Charles Provan’s The Bible and Birth Control. Provan is a Protestant.
Updated...
Clarification was issued on yesterday’s show. There was a lot of information that they had that was not provided to the listeners which they were basing their comments on.
The mother and baby’s life are in danger, an extremely complicated pregnancy involving conjoined twins. Suffice it to say, I believe their explanantion and ask forgiveness for expressing doubt.
Folks didn’t have all of the information before running off at the keyboards/mouths and according to Pastor Chuck, there were many quite un-Christian comments and phone calls.
Kneejerk reactions.
How are listeners who are not privy to all the information guilty of jumping to conclusions? If you’re going to have a radio talk show and offer spiritual advice that may be taken by many anonymous listeners -- esp. on something as important as potentially killing an innocent child -- it’s best that you give all the facts and be crystal clear what you’re saying. Chuck didn’t seem to do that, hence the need for his clarification.
I’m glad he got the message. Hope he’ll be more careful in the future.
Did you read this before you posted it? Because that is exactly the definition of jumping to a "conclusion".
Did any and I mean ANY stand up and say, "wait a minute", are we sure we know what we're talking about here before demanding he step down and accuse him of being past his prime?
Didn't think so.
Did you miss my point about Smith’s responsibility to think before he speaks to many listeners (I assume he has many listeners), rather than give selective information and them blame others for jumping to conclusions?
Why were you originally “stunned” by Smith’s comments? Was it because of what he said or what he didn’t say?
As many on the thread, I reacted to the information, given. Jumped to a conclusion based on information presented.
As I remarked in my update post, I asked forgiveness for doing so.
I’m not trying to be confrontational here, and if I’m coming across that way, my apologies.
What did Pastor Chuck mean by “extenuating circumstances?” Such a vague phrase uttered by a pastor cries out for scriptural clarification, but Pastor Chuck (and his representatives at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, KWVE, and the Pastor’s Perspective radio program) refused to provide any such clarification even after my repeated efforts (and the efforts of countless others who have been concerned about this situation). Yesterday, Michael David, producer of Pastor’s Perspective, informed me that the pastors have said all that they are going to say on this subject, and that they will not allow me to go on the air to ask this question. (Tim and Terri Palmquist’s blog)
“The mother and baby’s life are in danger, an extremely complicated pregnancy involving conjoined twins.”
This is Chuck’s day after spin. Sounds like a politician. Push the matter off upon the anonymous call screener. No record. Easy enough to do.
In the original call she never expresses any concern for her own life, just the life of the unborn children. Perhaps Smith’s claim is true, but it seems unlikely. In fact, Smith’s entire focus in this response is on the “life expectancy” of the children and the prospects being “so bleak.” Not only that, but he manages to abuse the story of woman taken in adultery in this situation. Why bring up a woman taken in sin if this poor woman on the phone was simply trying to protect her own life? No sin involved, is there? Can you say “bizarre?”
Smith still had an obligation to get all the facts out to everyone who was listening, not just the caller. That fact that such importation “information” was omitted in the original call suggests that Smith is being too casual with the initial call or blatantly dishonest.
Or, perhaps the call screener misunderstood, in which case it would behoove Smith and his sidekick Tonto to get clarification directly from the caller on such a critical fact which, they caim, was the basis for his counsel to her that, “hey, God’ll forgive you.”
Neither of us have “all of the facts”. It’s on Smith’s head if he’s being “blatantly dishonest”.
Based on the content and tone of your comments, it appears you don’t think too highly of Pastor Chuck, so are coming in with preconceived notions or prejudices.
That’s fine, entirely up to you, but please don’t make the assumption that I’m a blind follower of his. I came back to post his explanation, which none of the other so-called “Christians” flaming him bothered to do.
You keep asserting he “...had an obligation to get all the facts out to everyone who was listening...”. I won’t dispute that he could have done a better job explaining it during the call, but that’s water under the bridge. They both came out on Monday and clarified it.
As I stated before, I’m not trying to be confrontational.
If you are, I’m not interested.
Have a great day!
Blessings,
SZ
Why am I not surprised that it was you that channeled the vexatious spirit to disrupt the program...
Channeling? Disrupting the program? You're just getting around to commenting now? You're about a week and a half late to the party.
Still good to know.
and slavery fits that same description, very long history among humans, I guess you wouldn't fault someone for taking slaves?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.