Perfect example of “Yes, and..?” So Jesus supposedly made a racially provocative statement to a woman (an assessment I’m not certain I agree with, but OK), so what, that means Doug Wilson gets to be a persistently offensive, foul-mouthed, intemperate imbecile? Yeah, no. Nope.
Wilson relies on fallacies to advance his idiot positions. Note he premised his argument on a naked assertion:
“Jesus was not above using ethnic humor to make His point either.”
Of course, this is false. Wilson is projecting his racism on the Son of God. It means, “Wilson was not above using ethnic humor to make his point.” No exegete in church history agrees with Wilson’s interpretation — none get near it.
Then Wilson concludes his argument with a false dilemma:
“If this understanding is right, then Jesus was using a racial insult to make a point. If it is not correct, then He was simply using a racial insult. In either case, His language is more than a little rough.”
Actually, Wilson’s “understanding” is not correct and Jesus was not “simply using a racial insult.” Wilson used the racial insult.
Perfect example of “Yes, and..?” So Jesus supposedly made a racially provocative statement to a woman (an assessment I’m not certain I agree with, but OK), so what, that means Doug Wilson gets to be a persistently offensive, foul-mouthed, intemperate imbecile? Yeah, no. Nope.
Wilson relies on fallacies to advance his idiot positions. Note he premised his argument on a naked assertion:
Of course, this is false. Wilson is projecting his racism on the Son of God. It means, “Wilson was not above using ethnic humor to make his point.” No exegete in church history agrees with Wilson’s interpretation — none get near it.
Then Wilson concludes his argument with a false dilemma:
Actually, Wilson’s “understanding” is not correct and Jesus was not “simply using a racial insult.” Wilson used the racial insult.