Difster takes exception to some of my arguments against God's alleged libertarianism:

Libertarians object to other, very flawed people making it their business what you do behind closed doors. Christian libertarians (like myself) believe that since God made us He can do as he pleases in regards to our lives. Those libertarians that are not Christians have bigger things to worry about than individual sins that others are not privy to.

Others more qualified than I have pointed out that you have to be careful about the way that an adjective modifies the meaning of a noun. "Christian libertarians" is no exception to this, as the modifying adjective "Christian" has significant ramifications for the noun "libertarian" that alter its meaning in some ways that the average, non-Christian libertarian would consider to be profound. In short, this is a bait-and-switch argument that Difster is making here. The vast majority of libertarians, being secular, not only do not agree with this notion of authority over the individual, but would vehemently despise it, thus rendering his point moot as it applies to the majority of libertarians.

Note: I don't want to sound like I am accusing Difster of deliberate intellectual dishonesty here, as I actually do think that he believes that Christian libertarianism is actually a respected, normal part of the libertarian movement rather than a splinter movement that, while very similar, has some deep philosophical differences with normal libertarianism.

Only the most ardent follower of Ayn Rand would believe that we have no obligation to the poor. Libertarians assert that giving to the poor is, as the Bible says and individual responsibility and that giving should be from one's heart. God says nothing about having your wages forcibly taken from you and handed over to the poor. Libertarians have no objection to voluntary charity.

Actually, what the Bible establishes is the notion of a non-governmental (human government) moral mandate that applies to all believers. The consequences of this mandate are measured by God, the ultimate sovereign, not by man, but God clearly did establish a mandate for believers. Furthermore, most libertarians would again disagree with Difster when it comes to a moral obligation to a poor because most libertarians, like liberals, rarely, if ever, acknowledge natural obligations. Conservatives are far better than libertarians at recognizing the existence of such natural mandates, but are generally quite off when it comes to understanding how they interact with human society and government.

I suspect that once again Difster is reading statism into my position where I have not actually argued this. It is true that God does not ever legitimize the forcible redistribution of wealth except as part of a judicial sanction against a criminal. It is also true that there are mandates that are not optional, that while not enforced by the state on this side of eternity, are every bit as real in their implications for us as though they were enforced by the state. Just because we will not be punished here and now for failing to ever provide for the poor, does not mean that there will not come a point when God will hold us to this failing and reduce our standing before Him (in keeping with Paul's discussion of the judgment of the believers).

By all means, show me where in the New Testament that the death penalty is applicable. I go back and forth on this issue to be honest. On the one hand there are some people that just need to die. On the other hand, I don't really trust the state to have the power of death and use it wisely or judiciously.

The undeniable fact is that God is not in the least inherently opposed to the use of the death penalty. The New Testament represents a new, ideal covenant between man and God, but it does not change God's opinion on basic criminal jurisprudence. After all, as it is written, "God is not a man, that He should change His mind."

Libertarians are opposed to man using that kind of force against other men at their whim. Do you trust others with nukes? I know I don't. God's judgment is perfect, ours is not.

Again, a classic bait-and-switch. The average libertarian, if asked, would be no more comfortable with God unleashing a collective punishment on a city, than with a government retaliating against another with nuclear weapons.

Believing that animals have no rights is not the same as believing that it's OK to be cruel to animals. And yes, God says to let your beasts of burden rest on the Sabbath as well.

That sabbath provision is a clear grant of liberty to the beast of burden. It is tantamount to a declaration that while human beings do have dominion over animals, and may use them as we see fit for our own non-sinful use, that they are something more than just property to be disposed of as we see fit. The mere establishment of certain boundaries that are immutable, especially one as important as the sabbath, does away with the argument that animals are merely our property, while not going into the equally insane realm of animal rights activism.