> folks of other sexual preferences and gender identities

Since Jesus was an observant Jew, who explicitly said that not a letter of the Mosaic Law would pass away, I don't think he would be support of sexual "preferences" and "gender identities". The Law pretty much placed everything except sex within marriage as out of bounds, and not only did Jesus uphold the Law, but he even upped the requirements from actions to unexpressed desires. For instance, the Law only required not committing the act of adultery, but Jesus said that even looking at someone lustfully was adultery. So I can't see Jesus being supportive, but rather saying "go and sin no more".

Actually, I think Jesus was rather opposed to people who had identities of any sort, since he called people to an identity in himself. He had the harshest words for the Pharisees, who had an identity of "holy". The prostitutes and tax collectors and other "sinners" that Jesus hung out with agreed that they were not keeping the Law and repented of it, but if you've got an identity (that is, it is what you define yourself by), by definition you aren't going to be repentant about it.

He also said, "There is much that you cannot bear now, but when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will lead you into all things."

Love is the rule. The Great(est) Command(ment) of all.

And, Jesus, of course, manifested such love completely, so his saying, "go and sin no more" is love, but he wasn't throwing any stones (literally), only giving advice -- but very, very good and important advice, for sure. And he also did literally protect the adulterer from get stoned, and he was fulfilling the Law there, too.

What we do in our homes behind closed doors is our business and our business alone (unless we are harming another adult against their will (or harming a child), then we must carefully intercede as a society on behalf of the innocent).

Put more simply, we all have the free will to choose how to live according to our wishes, with those certain caveats and careful, compassionate discernment.

Absolutely, there are societal-level problems with sex outside of marriage, regardless of the genders of the people involved, but I'm pretty sure we are not authorized to intrude into someone's home life, except in extraordinary circumstances.

The Law's sole purpose is our happiness, and serves to guide us towards an ever more compassionate society. But societies also have the right to create rules for themselves, should their majority decide to set them into stone, so to speak. [Democracy is God's Will; the oppression of tyrrany is a form of evil.] I don't believe that intruding into someone's personal life outside of the public's view is ever in love's best interest.

Regardless, the rules for oneself are intrinsically on a different level and nature than those imposed by govt upon everyone, yet we must try to walk a very blurry line and make a dilligent effort to incorporate the Great(est) Command(ment) into our societies' laws and enforcement -- or failure, misery, and strife will be the result.

I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable punishing someone for what they do in the privacy of their own home, but I can't in any way claim that to be authoritative, it's just my sense of loving others and wanting them to be happy with the choices they make. My counsel would be to keep things simple and not let the vice of greed/lust dominate one destructively, for both their and society's well-being and happiness.

> He had the harshest words for the Pharisees, who had an identity of "holy"

Phuck the Pharisees, those worthless fools. They have sold their souls for a small price. They get all the reward they're going to get from their hypcritical proclamations. Their "identity of holiness" is an utter lie and is not worth a jot.

> if you've got an identity (that is, it is what you define yourself by), by definition you aren't going to be repentant about it

Well, everyone's stubborn until they're not. Everyone acts out of vice until they choose to learn how to be virtuous. Patience is the last perfected virtue (and few reach that lofty peak), and is required to be "pure in heart" as stated in that one Beatitude.

Thanks for your well-considered, thoughtful, and though-provoking response. I don't have all the answers on this very thorny problem here in 2025. I hope my reply makes sense, though it is surely the first time I've put serious thought into or words together on this topic in this level of detail/amount of rambling :-)

Peace be with you. Thank you for this conversation. I am at your service.

> He also said,

This can easily be explained by wide application of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion in the bibles.

saying it can be explained <<< actually explaining it