Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pastor Chuck Smith Stuns Radio Listeners By Encouraging Woman To Abort
Operation Rescue ^ | February 11, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Troy Newman and Cheryl Sullenger

Posted on 02/12/2011 12:50:08 PM PST by topcat54

“It’s awfully hard to actually suggest abortion,” said Smith. “But, you know, I’m sure that, uh, in a case like this where the life expectancy is just, you know, is so bleak, and all, that I’m sure that the Lord would not condemn her if she went ahead and had an abortion at this early stage of the development of the fetus.”


TOPICS: Current Events; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: abort; abortion; calvarychapel; chucksmith; cultureofdeath; encouraging; listeners; moralabsolutes; pastor; prolife; radio; smith; stuns; woman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: vladimir998
Now where in there is abortion ever even mentioned?

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.

61 posted on 02/14/2011 11:19:13 AM PST by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

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?


62 posted on 02/14/2011 4:18:17 PM PST by vladimir998 (Copts, Nazis, Franks and Beans - what a public school education puts in your head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

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.


63 posted on 02/14/2011 4:20:31 PM PST by vladimir998 (Copts, Nazis, Franks and Beans - what a public school education puts in your head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
The correct answer is that abortion is never mentioned in scripture.

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?

64 posted on 02/14/2011 4:43:18 PM PST by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

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.


65 posted on 02/14/2011 5:07:55 PM PST by vladimir998 (Copts, Nazis, Franks and Beans - what a public school education puts in your head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; All

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.


66 posted on 02/15/2011 7:47:46 AM PST by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SZonian
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.

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.

67 posted on 02/15/2011 7:56:40 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- an error of Biblical proportions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
"How are listeners who are not privy to all the information guilty of jumping to conclusions? "

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.

68 posted on 02/15/2011 8:06:00 AM PST by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SZonian
Did you read this before you posted it? Because that is exactly the definition of jumping to a "conclusion".

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?

69 posted on 02/15/2011 8:25:47 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- an error of Biblical proportions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: SZonian
There are many who are stunned by Pastor Chuck's comments, me included. And I'm a non-denom.

Why were you originally “stunned” by Smith’s comments? Was it because of what he said or what he didn’t say?

70 posted on 02/15/2011 8:28:32 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- an error of Biblical proportions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

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.


71 posted on 02/15/2011 8:40:51 AM PST by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: SZonian; All
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)

72 posted on 02/17/2011 9:29:12 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- an error of Biblical proportions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

“The mother and baby’s life are in danger, an extremely complicated pregnancy involving conjoined twins.”


73 posted on 02/17/2011 10:40:10 AM PST by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: SZonian
“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.

74 posted on 02/17/2011 11:12:23 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- an error of Biblical proportions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

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.”


75 posted on 02/17/2011 11:17:32 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- an error of Biblical proportions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

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


76 posted on 02/17/2011 11:24:48 AM PST by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; SZonian; All

Why am I not surprised that it was you that channeled the vexatious spirit to disrupt the program...


77 posted on 02/23/2011 7:36:34 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
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.

78 posted on 02/23/2011 8:51:16 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- an error of Biblical proportions.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Still good to know.


79 posted on 02/23/2011 8:55:48 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
From the origins of human history and probably predating that by millenia, women have either killed or allowed to die those infants who were perceived to be not viable over the long term.

and slavery fits that same description, very long history among humans, I guess you wouldn't fault someone for taking slaves?

80 posted on 09/29/2014 5:19:52 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson