Comments on: Does Libertarianism Provide an Escape for Ken Ham?

By: Mr. Ham Introduces Miss Egenation | First Word

Mr. Ham Introduces Miss Egenation | First Word — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:43:59 +0000

[...] At bottom, I think the Christian miscegenists are libertarians to a far greater extent than they are aware. They really model humanity as a miscellaneous collection of individuals, with libertarian choice the highest value governing everything. Society is only a matter of voluntary association. Earlier I showed why this solution is inadequate. [...]

By: Say to Wisdom, You are My Sister | Spirit/Water/Blood

Say to Wisdom, You are My Sister | Spirit/Water/Blood — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:35:27 +0000

[...] Here again, we arrive at the libertarianism being pushed across the board by 21st century pastors. Tim Harris parses Ham’s unbiblical, unscientific, and fundamentally libertarian ideas. Blood relation [...]

By: Adam & Eve as mulattos | First Word

Adam & Eve as mulattos | First Word — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:06:47 +0000

[...] But perhaps Ham’s party will attempt to escape between the horns of the dilemma I have presented by recourse to Christian libertarianism: individual freedom governed by covenantal categories that do not ever apply to collectives. Perhaps the divine intent in creating a mulatto couple was to enable the exhibition of maximum freedom of the individual in tribe-less autonomy, governed only by conformity to specified precepts, and to be judged in individual eschatology at the end of history. Examining that outlet will be the burden of the next section. [...]

By: TJH

TJH — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:14:19 +0000

Shotgun — yes study the presbyterial succession topic (of which “Presbyterian” is but one).

However, in general, I would caution away from a view of epistemology that is non-rational in origin. Instead, you should read the works of van Til to understand that particular niche.

By: shotgun

shotgun — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:14:52 +0000

Wait…it just hit me that I should go back and listen to your mp3 on Presbyterian succession (keeping this article in mind) before thinking about patriarchal epistemology.

By: shotgun

shotgun — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:45:17 +0000

I read about a feminist who tried to create a theory of knowledge surrounding the woman’s role in the home. (Unfortunately, I can’t remember the reference.)

I wonder if the same could be done as a sort of “patriarchal epistemology?” (Only consistently. The feminist epistemology was fraught with problems that even I could see.)

The topics discussed in this series are completely new to me (though fascinating) so if this is something taken for granted or passe’…I’m sorry.

God preserving His truth through a particular family group seems (at least from my limited knowledge of history) to be plausible.

By: Scarborough Fayre

Scarborough Fayre — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:50:11 +0000

Good points all. This is what is so frustrating with Christian theonomists who think the way that they do on issues of race and collective identity. You especially do a good job of showing how patriarchal authority is not simply exposition of God’s law.

Another good example is the commandment in the New Testament for servants to obey their masters. This is obviously a biblical commandment, but it is obvious that this is not limited to express biblical commands.

Under the libertarian model, if a master tells the servant, it’s time to cook dinner, the servant could simply reply; where in the Bible does it tell me that I have to make dinner?

Obviously the commandment to cook dinner is nowhere expressly stated in scripture, but the authority to command such is implied in relationships that have legitimate authority. The servant/master relationship is legitimate in scripture therefore the master has the right to make such a request.

This means that it is only wrong for legitimate authority figures to request something that is against God’s laws, like committing idolatry, fornication, stealing, etc.

By: TJH

TJH — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:28:09 +0000

Eliza — yes, good point. My opponents might find a way to agree with you too while the child is underage. But they see no way a parent could withhold blessing a marriage except for the one single thing, marrying someone that does not profess to be a Christian.

By: Eliza

Eliza — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:50:13 +0000

It is never safe for a child to fail to heed a parent, even an unbelieving parent. It is part of the honor that God requires of inferiors, and I think that in the long run, it will work for the good of the child, even if the “advice” has no real biblical backing. [Of course, children ought never to disobey God's commands, e.g., you need to lie for us, or steal or whatever.] I have in mind something like, “Those aren’t good people to hang out with.” Intuition or horse sense on the part of a parent ought to be honored.