Christian Right Bigots Are Hiding the Truth -- Early Christians Condoned Gay Marriage [LIE!]

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.

Betty Molchany

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.

Tom Usher

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?


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.