Tom Usher commented or added the following:
Daniel C. Maguire is a Professor of Moral Theology at Marquette University, a Catholic, Jesuit institution in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is full of it.
He takes one image possibly portraying a marriage and takes it as a sexual marriage between the two males. He even admits that only some people took it that way.
Hello, every Christian is called to the wedding. In fact, most Christians are aware that the Church at that time included the idea that the Church is the "bride" of Jesus. Many churches still do. In a sense, it's absolutely true that the Church is the bride of Christ. It has nothing to do with sexual gender either. It has to do with faithfulness – morality, etc.
Then this Maguire continues on talking about non-Christian religions, as if he put to rest that Jesus wasn't opposed to homosexuality. He doesn't bother to mention that Jesus gave the definition of marriage as between a male and female.
Then Daniel Maguire twists Jesus words ("he that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her") by conveniently leaving out the part where Jesus told her to go and "sin no more," meaning exactly that, contrary to what this Daniel Maguire would have you believe, Jesus said her act was a sin!
Wow, I hate this sort of twisting. It comes from someone who actually teaches "Moral Theology at Marquette University." It's too bad he doesn't know anything about it. His grade isn't even passing. It gets an "F" for failure.
Who ever let this person have an advanced degree in the subject and then teach at the university level on it, also knows nothing about Moral Theology.
Good point. I confess, Tom, that I often forget the rest of what was written in the Bible as you have commented here: "Then Daniel Maguire twists Jesus words ("he that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her") by conveniently leaving out the part where Jesus told her to go and "sin no more," meaning exactly that, contrary to what this Daniel Maguire would have you believe, Jesus said her act was a sin! But I must have internalized it because I always thought that it was not that the woman was pure, only that if you are not pure yourself, you are not in a position to judge. That could also be a faulty interpretation and not precisely as you believe the meaning was intended.
Actually, Betty, you have it right. Even Jesus didn't judge her. We are to know what is sin and to say so, but we are to realize that none of us has lived up to the perfection who is God. If we destroy the life of the flesh just because someone is less than perfect, who among us can survive that standard?