Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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 ]

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