Hambo Explains How To Argue with Unbelievers

We have some great advice from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: When Should We Use the Bible? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Popular Roman Catholic blogger Matt Walsh … recently wrote that Christians should not appeal to the Bible when arguing with unbelievers about political and cultural topics.

[Hambo quotes Walsh:] There is no need to quote Scripture when trying to explain, for example, why it’s wrong to kill babies. You don’t need to pull out Genesis to convince someone that a man in a dress isn’t a woman. It’s not necessary to mine the Epistles in order to advocate for free speech rights. And if your interlocutor doesn’t believe in the Bible, then this appeal to authority is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. You have now turned a conversation about logic, reason, or science, into a theological debate with a person who rejects the entire premise of your theologyWhy go off on that track if you can make your case honestly and persuasively and without having to wait for your opponent to get baptized?

Sounds reasonable. But Hambo doesn’t agree. He says:

Here’s what I would say to that argument. The Bible, God’s infallible Word, is the absolute authority and, for Christians, it’s the foundation for a truly biblical worldview. Without this basis, fallible man (like me, Matt Walsh, and anyone else) doesn’t have an absolute basis for morality. Therefore, we could only argue based on subjective opinions.

Got that? Everything not in the bible is based on subjective opinions. Then he tells us:

If we ignore or will not appeal to the Bible as our authority, we have no basis for absolute morality and can no longer authoritatively stand for what’s right and wrong. Many of the people with whom we speak reject this foundation for our worldview, but if we as Christians abandon it, we’ve lost the battle!

Makes a lot of sense. He continues:

You can’t effectively argue with someone about a worldview-based issue (such as abortion, transgender, or gay “marriage”) if you don’t have the same foundation. It’s like trying to build a house by starting with the roof or walls — it just doesn’t work! First, you need to lay the foundation. If someone doesn’t believe the Bible, ask them why [Smart tactic!] and deal with their objections to the truth of God’s Word. Why? Because our ultimate goal should never be merely to convince someone that abortion, transgender, or gay “marriage” (or anything else) is wrong.

Debating with Hambo must be loads of fun. Bill Nye knows. Let’s read on:

Apologetics isn’t just quoting the Bible. It involves giving scientific, historical, and philosophical arguments for what we believe. But it should always start with the Bible because it is our ultimate authority and it frames our thinking. We can’t give up our starting point and adopt the secular one that man determines truth! If we do that, we’ve lost the battle already!

Hambo isn’t willing to lose the battle. In his final paragraph, he shows how to apply his advice to debates about science:

Now, please don’t misunderstand. Depending on where a person is at in their thinking, you may have to answer some of their questions to get them to doubt their position. [Like the age of the Earth.] But ultimately you have to show clearly that, as Christians, we do start with the Bible. You can use observational science to help them see how science confirms the Bible’s history [It always does!] and then explain how our worldview is built on the Bible, so that is why we believe what we do regarding morality.

That’s how it’s done. So be warned, dear reader. Don’t ever debate with someone like Hambo. He’s always gonna win, because he knows The Truth!

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Hambo Explains How To Argue with Unbelievers

  1. I suggest that someone be careful about relying on the Bible for one’s opinion, when the Bible doesn’t have anything to say about it.
    But unfortunately somtimess one can get away with it.

  2. Based on the size of his family, I’m betting Ken has at least one grandchild that is going to end up gay….. I hope he lives long enough to have to deal with it!

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    So much decision making at work, with some moral decisions. Never heard anyone cite the bible for their business decisions. We even have a shiny new ‘guiding principles’ that includes no god references. All the christians at work must be fakers, according to Hambo.

  4. Michael Fugate

    “You don’t need to pull out Genesis to convince someone that a man in a dress isn’t a woman.” Certainly not to convince anyone that creationists are not scientists. So women in pants are not women?

  5. Ham”s timing is off. There’s never been a worse time in history to be an evangelical than right now.They’re only just realizing this. If they depart from the Bible, they’ve lost (their words, not mine). But if they stick with the Bible, they’re in even more of a cleft stick. The Bible no longer carries ultimate authority.

    Ham’s false modesty about being fallible — just like you and me!– only undermines his case, not strengthens it.

  6. @Michael Fugate
    man in a dress
    Haven’t you seen a picture of a Biblicsl scene? Men in dresses!
    I suspect someone is playing a joke.

  7. Michael Fugate

    No, you don’t know Matt Walsh
    https://www.dailywire.com/authors/matt-walsh

  8. Ol’Hambo gnarls: “Here’s what I would say to that argument” and proceeds to nicely confirm that very same argument. Could I be sure that it was intentional I’d have to admit that he’s in possession of great and subtle irony.

    “It’s like trying to build a house by starting with the roof or walls — it just doesn’t work!”
    And this is why I don’t think Ol’Hambo’s irony is intentional. See, it does. Building the home office of the Rabobank in Zaandam (formerly the home office of Albert Heijn) started with the roof; it was lifted every time a floor was finished.

    “the Bible ….. it frames our thinking.”
    Well, rather Ol’Hambo’s personal interpretation of the Book. Even more relevant that it the result is a narrow, closed-minded, rigid, bigot frame.

    “If we do that, we’ve lost the battle already!”
    Pssst, Ol’Hambo – you’ve lost anyway.

  9. @TomS: I also suggest that someone be careful about relying on the Bible for one’s opinion, when the Bible does have anything to say about it. The claissical example is WL Craig’s defense of tthe Canaanite genocide, which is essentially the same as war criminal Paul Blöbel’s defense of the Einsatzgruppe.

    @Kosh: “I hope he lives long enough to have to deal with it!”
    I don’t,. for the sake of that grandchild. Compare Fred Phelps.

    @MichaelF: thanks for the link – quite a competition who’s the worst bigot, Ol’Hambo or Walsh.

  10. Hambone is a bold faced LIAR! It is the society that is his basis for morality. Oh! Wait! I never hear him talk about daughters! Do ya think he followed the buyBull and sold them all off?!?!?

  11. Sure, rely on an ancient text filled with contradictions, long lists of begattings, genocide, misogyny, and fairy tales. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me!

  12. Hans-Richard Grümm

    How fallible men suddenly become infallible when they identify a particular religious text as “God’s Word” – and their own interpretation as the only correct one …..

  13. @HRG
    And then there are the “King James only” believers, which Wikipedia tells us are roughly of 5+ kinds:
    1. I like the KJV Best
    2. The Textual Argument
    3. Textus Receptus Only
    4. The Inspired KJV Group
    5. The KJV As New Revelation
    plus the Mormons.

  14. Now, please don’t misunderstand. Depending on where a person is at in their thinking, you may have to answer some of their questions to get them to doubt their position. [Like the age of the Earth.] But ultimately you have to show clearly that, as Christians, we do start with the Bible. You can use observational science to help them see how science confirms the Bible’s history [It always does!] and then explain how our worldview is built on the Bible, so that is why we believe what we do regarding morality.

    Not this again. Creationists like to say that they prefer “observational science” to “historical science”, because, after all, >were you there? But they try endlessly to torture “historical science” (archaeology and geology in particular) into confessing what they want to hear. When it does, or when they can make it seem to, they have no problems with it.