A bridge too far?

No, I think you've made another Christ in your own image. Jesus would never say God messed up in how He created someone. He would never slander God that way.

And Jesus never told anyone to go get sexually mutilated so they could have delusions about being the opposite sex. That is foreign to the Jesus declared in the Bible.

The woman at the well is a good example of what Jesus would have done. Jesus rebuked sin. And He offered Himself as the solution to that sin. That is what Jesus would have done. He would have addressed the sin, and then told the person to repent from sin and follow Him.

That is the Jesus of the Bible.

 

I am not saying that God messed up. We have 20 million or so LGBTQ people in this country and 10% or so of them are trans. I am not saying that God messed up with them, but you seem to be saying that. I am saying that people are mistreating them, and this is causing many of them to be depressed and some to be suicidal. We don’t have to go back very far to an era when these people needed to stay in the closet. Why? Because so many people considered them deviant. They weren’t then, and they are not now. I want all of these people to be happy and to be comfortable with themselves. In some cases, that might mean getting a surgical procedure. No one needs your point of view shoved down his or her throat.

 

You are correct. I am not advocating for the system of ethics from a generation of people who enforced slavery against Black people, did not believe in equality, and treated women as inferior beings. Their system of ethics was atrocious and embarrassing, and I have zero respect for any person who believes in that system.

That is not a "fact." I have zero interest in using our governmental system to implement ANY system of ethics, beyond our criminal laws. And my perspective on our criminal laws is that they should prevent people from harming others, guarantee people's security in their property and property rights, and promote liberty. (Basically, in my view, our criminal laws need a lot of reworking.)

If you want your system of ethics to be based on Evangelical Christian ethics, you should be able to live that way. If a Muslim American wants to live by the ethics of their religion, they should be able to live that way. If a Catholic wants to live by their ethics, they should be able to live that way. Government should not be a tool to force the ethics of one religious group on to everybody else.

I spit on the "ethics" of the Founding generation.

Nothing about your viewpoint is libertarian. You want to use government to punish those who believe differently from you. And you care only about the free speech rights of those who share your beliefs. What you promote is totalitarianism.

And a private employer has every right to fire you if you refuse to abide by their rules, regardless of whether you consider what they're telling you to say as "lies."

You're in a holy war against the people who refuse to accept your "ethics." The Ayatollah approves.

I'll take my chances with eternity. I know that I want no part of your religion.

 

That is about the response I expected from you. Some acknowledgment of some things, but a lot of dodging and unsubstantiated accusations. With that said we’ll just agree to disagree.

 

I agree with treating them with love. The problem is the definition of love. You can love someone without feeding their delusions.

 

Love according to what is the question. A leftist modern concept of love, and a biblical concept of love are two very different ideas. You misrepresent the Bible if you present the leftist modern concept of it as what Jesus taught, lived, and embodied.