This is an issue I have been thinking about lately, especially since we live in California.

As a believer in Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the World as described in the New Testament, I hold that through Christ all things were made, and that He was the light through which Moses received God’s attitude about homosexuality. In the Old Testament context, God, was driving out the Canaanites because of their abominations, one of which was mentioned as homosexuality. Divorce was not listed as one of the Canaanite’s abominations. Even Paul agrees that there are sins worthy of death, among which is homosexuality.

That said, Paul also tells us that those who are under the Law of Christ are no longer under the Law of Moses. What does this mean in practical terms as to how we who believe in Jesus Christ are to relate to the world on such issues? When the apostles wanted to call fire down on a town for rejecting Jesus, He warned them that He did not come (this time) to destroy men’s lives. When Paul delivered a fellow brother to Satan for immorality to save his spirit in Corinthians 5, he instructed that it is not our task to judge outsiders who are immoral, etc. but to judge our own. He said that God judges those who are outside. Now do we believe that God right now is working in the world for his own purposes? Therefore we must trust that He is judging the world, not we who follow Christ.

Therefore, as much as God hates homosexuality, among other things, and he seems to hate it more than mere divorce. It is not for me to judge “outsiders,” as Paul put it. Please dispel the notion that all sin is the same, it ain’t. There are levels of wrong as well as levels of penalties. God is fair and fits the penalty with the crime, but God, himself is actually punishing people in real time right now, NOT ME. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO PUNISH HOMOSEXUALS. I might not understand how he is doing it, but he is in His own way. Paul actually invites us to associate with unbelievers who are immoral, yet to disassociate with believers who are immoral. This is a clear Biblical principle that I have not heard any Christian leader talk about as far as I can remember.

Now as a libertarian, I am happy to abide by Paul’s instruction. Yet why should I be concerned that Gays want to be recognized legally as married? What is that to me? Is it my job to moralize society? As much as I find Gay marriage as a perverse and distasteful thing. it is not by job to stop it. I actually like the new prop 8 that effectively stops Gay marriage, but I cannot defend it on New Testament grounds, and even the Old Testament was based on a law that is no longer in effect due to the sacrifice of Christ. I voted neither for nor against the proposition.

Yet lets get really libertarian on this issue. Why do Gays want marriage as sanctioned by the government anyway? What ever happened to the sexual revolution when people said, “So what’s with a piece of paper anyway?” It is mostly because they want privelages the government affords to married people especially. Even though California has laws that grant gay couples the same rights as married couples, they want all the rights verbatim not lacking anything that any government agency might not afford to them, such as SSI benefits.

So from a political libertarian issue what is the problem? Maybe the problem is with the government giving special rewards to married people in the first place. Isn’t marriage a contract before God between the married people? Since when does marriage become a contract with the government? Why not propose eliminating special government benefits to married people instead of encouraging any competing concept of union trying to retain the especially coveted legal word “marriage”? If we let the air out of the legal balloon we call marriage, then there is nothing left for gays to want from the government to attempt to appropriate the term “marriage” for themselves. Then they might even disdain the concept.

Our job as followers of Christ is not to Christianize the world, but to be holy in our conduct, while we associate with immoral people in the world. By trying to force the government to define morality from a Christian base we end up confusing the immoral world to want to usurp privileges associated with a moral base. We therefore breed hypocrisy and confusion.

Is gay worse than divorce? From God’s perspective, as far as I can tell, the answer is yes. Is it worse from a libertarian standpoint? Not in many cases. So how do I reconcile God’s perspective from my action? Easy, I take God at his word that it is not for me to judge those outside of faith in Christ. I leave all judgment and action to God without my help for those immoral people outside the household of faith.

This is an issue I have been thinking about lately, especially since we live in California.

As a believer in Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the World as described in the New Testament, I hold that through Christ all things were made, and that He was the light through which Moses received God’s attitude about homosexuality. In the Old Testament context, God, was driving out the Canaanites because of their abominations, one of which was mentioned as homosexuality. Divorce was not listed as one of the Canaanite’s abominations. Even Paul agrees that there are sins worthy of death, among which is homosexuality.

That said, Paul also tells us that those who are under the Law of Christ are no longer under the Law of Moses. What does this mean in practical terms as to how we who believe in Jesus Christ are to relate to the world on such issues? When the apostles wanted to call fire down on a town for rejecting Jesus, He warned them that He did not come (this time) to destroy men’s lives. When Paul delivered a fellow brother to Satan for immorality to save his spirit in Corinthians 5, he instructed that it is not our task to judge outsiders who are immoral, etc. but to judge our own. He said that God judges those who are outside. Now do we believe that God right now is working in the world for his own purposes? Therefore we must trust that He is judging the world, not we who follow Christ.

Therefore, as much as God hates homosexuality, among other things, and he seems to hate it more than mere divorce. It is not for me to judge “outsiders,” as Paul put it. Please dispel the notion that all sin is the same, it ain’t. There are levels of wrong as well as levels of penalties. God is fair and fits the penalty with the crime, but God, himself is actually punishing people in real time right now, NOT ME. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO PUNISH HOMOSEXUALS. I might not understand how he is doing it, but he is in His own way. Paul actually invites us to associate with unbelievers who are immoral, yet to disassociate with believers who are immoral. This is a clear Biblical principle that I have not heard any Christian leader talk about as far as I can remember.

Now as a libertarian, I am happy to abide by Paul’s instruction. Yet why should I be concerned that Gays want to be recognized legally as married? What is that to me? Is it my job to moralize society? As much as I find Gay marriage as a perverse and distasteful thing. it is not by job to stop it. I actually like the new prop 8 that effectively stops Gay marriage, but I cannot defend it on New Testament grounds, and even the Old Testament was based on a law that is no longer in effect due to the sacrifice of Christ. I voted neither for nor against the proposition.

Yet lets get really libertarian on this issue. Why do Gays want marriage as sanctioned by the government anyway? What ever happened to the sexual revolution when people said, “So what’s with a piece of paper anyway?” It is mostly because they want privelages the government affords to married people especially. Even though California has laws that grant gay couples the same rights as married couples, they want all the rights verbatim not lacking anything that any government agency might not afford to them, such as SSI benefits.

So from a political libertarian issue what is the problem? Maybe the problem is with the government giving special rewards to married people in the first place. Isn’t marriage a contract before God between the married people? Since when does marriage become a contract with the government? Why not propose eliminating special government benefits to married people instead of encouraging any competing concept of union trying to retain the especially coveted legal word “marriage”? If we let the air out of the legal balloon we call marriage, then there is nothing left for gays to want from the government to attempt to appropriate the term “marriage” for themselves. Then they might even disdain the concept.

Our job as followers of Christ is not to Christianize the world, but to be holy in our conduct, while we associate with immoral people in the world. By trying to force the government to define morality from a Christian base we end up confusing the immoral world to want to usurp privileges associated with a moral base. We therefore breed hypocrisy and confusion.

Is gay worse than divorce? From God’s perspective, as far as I can tell, the answer is yes. Is it worse from a libertarian standpoint? Not in many cases. So how do I reconcile God’s perspective from my action? Easy, I take God at his word that it is not for me to judge those outside of faith in Christ. I leave all judgment and action to God without my help for those immoral people outside the household of faith.

2: Are you serious? When was the last time you knew a man with a good marriage who left his wife to get a more attractive bed partner? Arguably, the examples are too artificial to be of much use.

3: The homosexual of your example may play no part in militantly advancing the homosexual agenda, but we still need to face the reality: Christians and divorcees aren’t running around trying to say divorce is a good thing, but rather a necessary evil. The homosexual agenda is this: homosexual behavior is as good, normal, and laudable as heterosexuality. My recollection of the Bible is that God sees homosexuality as an abomination, and that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of people’s heart. (Hmmm, oddly enough, I think of Sodom and Gomorrah as I ask this next question) Do you think that if homosexuality had run rampant in Israel, Moses would have said the homosexual marriage was allowed “because of the hardness of people’s hearts”?

4: Your example makes me think of the following comparison: “Who’s worse, a demon or an angel?” We have Brad: great marriage, kids, wife of many years, lustful, pursues younger woman, not because of problems at home, but because he’s lusting after her body. We have Allen: No attraction to the opposite sex, doomed to loneliness if he obeys God, and permanently faithful to his partner.

5: And after being so critical, I agree with the dissatisfaction your queries suggest. I, too, wonder with frustration why the church so blithely puts up with so many horrible sins. Tie in to Norm’s post about homeschooling . . . why do Churches let people who send their kids to be indoctrinated by the state get to have positions of power? I mean, isn’t child sacrifice as bad as homosexuality and adultery? I say this only partially tongue in cheek, but I mean no offense to my friends and Christians who don’t agree with me about homeschooling and public-schooling.

Moving on to Norman:

6: Human beings have a “right” to behave sinfully? Should this not rather be: Humans do not have the right or privilege to forcefully prevent their fellow humans from engaging in certain sinful acts?

7: Peeping Tom’s don’t act coercively. Should it be legal to secretly videotape and sell copies of the tapes of young children taking baths? I think I’m getting a little off track here. Sorry about that.

8: The saying “hate the sin, love the sinner” puts me in mind of one of my soap-boxes. Ideas thrive in the form of words and actions. If you are going to model your actions after certain words, then define the words first. What does “love” mean. Looking down upon and ostracizing others certain does not fall within a good (true/accurate) definition of love. But love is not mere kindness either. I think the toleration-is-everything hordes have highjacked “love” for themselves, and too many Christians are left stammering with no ability to effectively counter.

9: “On the other hand, some Christians need to learn to hate the sin in their own lives a whole lot more.” Good point.

2: Are you serious? When was the last time you knew a man with a good marriage who left his wife to get a more attractive bed partner? Arguably, the examples are too artificial to be of much use.

3: The homosexual of your example may play no part in militantly advancing the homosexual agenda, but we still need to face the reality: Christians and divorcees aren’t running around trying to say divorce is a good thing, but rather a necessary evil. The homosexual agenda is this: homosexual behavior is as good, normal, and laudable as heterosexuality. My recollection of the Bible is that God sees homosexuality as an abomination, and that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of people’s heart. (Hmmm, oddly enough, I think of Sodom and Gomorrah as I ask this next question) Do you think that if homosexuality had run rampant in Israel, Moses would have said the homosexual marriage was allowed “because of the hardness of people’s hearts”?

4: Your example makes me think of the following comparison: “Who’s worse, a demon or an angel?” We have Brad: great marriage, kids, wife of many years, lustful, pursues younger woman, not because of problems at home, but because he’s lusting after her body. We have Allen: No attraction to the opposite sex, doomed to loneliness if he obeys God, and permanently faithful to his partner.

5: And after being so critical, I agree with the dissatisfaction your queries suggest. I, too, wonder with frustration why the church so blithely puts up with so many horrible sins. Tie in to Norm’s post about homeschooling . . . why do Churches let people who send their kids to be indoctrinated by the state get to have positions of power? I mean, isn’t child sacrifice as bad as homosexuality and adultery? I say this only partially tongue in cheek, but I mean no offense to my friends and Christians who don’t agree with me about homeschooling and public-schooling.

Moving on to Norman:

6: Human beings have a “right” to behave sinfully? Should this not rather be: Humans do not have the right or privilege to forcefully prevent their fellow humans from engaging in certain sinful acts?

7: Peeping Tom’s don’t act coercively. Should it be legal to secretly videotape and sell copies of the tapes of young children taking baths? I think I’m getting a little off track here. Sorry about that.

8: The saying “hate the sin, love the sinner” puts me in mind of one of my soap-boxes. Ideas thrive in the form of words and actions. If you are going to model your actions after certain words, then define the words first. What does “love” mean. Looking down upon and ostracizing others certain does not fall within a good (true/accurate) definition of love. But love is not mere kindness either. I think the toleration-is-everything hordes have highjacked “love” for themselves, and too many Christians are left stammering with no ability to effectively counter.

9: “On the other hand, some Christians need to learn to hate the sin in their own lives a whole lot more.” Good point.