Nance Greggs: WWJB – Who Would Jesus Boycott?

[DemocratsForProgress]

My dear, self-serving, delusional Trevin Wax:

After reading your article, entitled “Why the Chick-fil-A Boycott is really about Jesus”, I felt a need to educate you on a few things.

It seems that you, and many others, have missed the point entirely. The boycotting of Chick-fil-A is not due to Dan Cathy’s expression of faith, nor running his business based on his Christian beliefs. It is due to the fact that the company’s charitable arm has given millions of dollars to groups opposing gay marriage.

Obviously, there are those of us who choose not to contribute, through our patronage, to profits that will find their way into the hands of political groups seeking to deny equal rights to our gay/lesbian citizens. Much in the same way, I would imagine, that Christians such as yourself would choose not to patronize companies that contribute to groups whose activities you find to be not in keeping with your beliefs.

“I believe this Chick-fil-A boycott has revealed some fault lines in our culture that will lead to increasing pressure upon Christians who uphold the sexual ethic described in the New Testament.”

Can you point me to where in the New Testament Jesus said anything about homosexuality? Let me save you the research – He didn’t. One would think that if The Nazarene found homosexuality to be an abomination before God, He would have said a few words on the topic. Perhaps He was forgetful – or perhaps He just left it to people like you to put those clearly unspoken words in His mouth two thousand years after the fact...

More at: http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2012/08/02/wwjb-who-would-jesus-boycott/

[ellenfl]

1. haven't read a good rant in a while! thx. eom

[tk2kewl]

2. k&r

[pacalo]

3. K&R!

[Suich]

4. Excellent!

K&R!

[Igel]

5. Incest.

Bestiality.

Apparently also Jesus approved.

It's called an argumentum ex silencio or argument from silence. It's generally considered a fallacy.

Jesus didn't go around laying down the law. He'd done that already. He modified or expanded it. Divorce he reverted; adultery he expanded. The sabbath, he pointed out, was no constraint on doing good. He refocused attention on love to God and, after that, love to man. Lots of things were ignored. A few things were mentioned in passing, where the context was appropriate: things like tithing, where he affirmed that even herbs should be tithed, a big point of honor (it would seem) to some. Given the nature of what he said, the overall tendency, lots of things that weren't expanded or changed (or which could be expanded and changed by analogy) were left unmentioned.

That's the problem with an argument from silence based on texts you don't know well. The idea of silence presupposes what the "shape" of the context is around it.

Greggs just justified the Catholic priests' sexual abuse. Jesus didn't say there was an age of consent, did he?