Guess Why Hambo Is Upset Today

Things are becoming increasingly boring at the blog of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Instead of focusing on creationism and the other topics we like — Noah’s Ark, life on other worlds, etc. — ol’ Hambo keeps blogging about “social issues” like abortion, unconventional gender choices, etc. That’s what he’s doing today.

He just posted United Methodist Church to Divide Over Gay “Marriage”. As we’ve said before, the only private life we’re interested in is our own, and we don’t care what other people do — as long as it’s done privately with consenting adults. But Hambo does care what other people are doing.

Why doesn’t he blog about the pro-evolution stand the Methodists have taken? See, e.g.: Methodists Strongly Accept Evolution. It’s because he’d rather blog about gay stuff. Okay, there’s nothing else going on so let’s talk about it. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A recent announcement [this story in the New York Times: United Methodist Church Announces Plan to Split Over Same-Sex Marriage] was no big shock to anyone following the story of the United Methodist Church in America. The church denomination (the second-largest Protestant denomination in the US) recently announced that it is planning to split, with some churches leaving to form a “traditional Methodist” denomination, with the remainder of the churches carrying on the name of the United Methodist Church. What are they splitting over?

We give up, Hambo. Tell us why they’re splitting. He says:

Well, again, it’s no big shock what the issue is . . . gay “marriage” and LGBT individuals. [Gasp!] At a general conference last year that was attended by Methodists worldwide, the church voted by a narrow margin to tighten the ban on gay “marriage,” recognizing that it goes against God’s Word (this victory was largely due to churches outside of the US, which tells you something about the sad state of this denomination in the US). That was the culmination of several decades of tension. Since last year’s conference, a split in the denomination — which is not so “united” anymore — seemed inevitable.

Hambo continues:

It is correct for this denomination to divide over the gay “marriage” issue — that kind of division is biblical and necessary. But the thinking of so many churches on the issue of gay “marriage” is just a symptom of a more significant issue — the foundational issue.

What’s the “foundational issue”? Hambo explains:

The real divide needs to be over taking a stand on the absolute authority of God’s Word, beginning in Genesis! Once a church takes a stand on a literal Genesis, everything else follows from that, as all biblical doctrine is ultimately founded in Genesis chapters 1-11.

Yeah — Genesis is a source of great doctrine, like flat Earth, firmament, geocentric universe, etc. Let’s read on:

And unless the church takes Scripture as it’s meant to be taken (e.g., Genesis is historical narrative), there will continue to be problems over what the church stands for and teaches. The church will continue to be weak, lukewarm, and will not impact future generations and the culture as it should.

Ooooooooooooh! Only Hambo can save the church. Hey — we have some good news: we’ve arrived at the end of Hambo’s post. Here it is:

We need a generation of Christians who will stand boldly on God’s Word, beginning in Genesis, and will refuse to compromise with the ideas of our day.

Right. We need millions of droolers who will pay to visit Hambo’s creation museum and his ark replica. Isn’t that the real issue?

Copyright © 2020. 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

18 responses to “Guess Why Hambo Is Upset Today

  1. Theodore Lawry

    “Guess Why Hambo Is Upset Today” Because the Sensuous Curmudgeon mocks hjm?

  2. Dave Luckett

    Strangely enough, there is no proscription in Holy Writ against same-sex marriage, just as there is none in the rubric against homosexuality itself. Not one recorded word of Jesus concerns it. Rather, He condemned hypocrisy, slander, fraud, sanctimoniousness and showy displays of piety. Needless to say, Ken Ham is not much exercised on those.

    Yes, yes, the Law of Moses, sure, sure – which was the authority Paul appealed to when he recorded his own opposition to homosexuality. Or at least, to what he thought some aspects of homosexuality were. (The case of Ernst Rohm comes to mind, though.) But then again, Paul seems to have had much the same reaction to any kind of sex, being apparently asexual. I hasten to add, that is a perfectly respectable and estimable state, and it would be entirely his own business, except that he concerned himself with the sexuality of others. He was celibate – well, at least that’s what he said.

    But the Law of Moses… wasn’t there some talk of a new covenant? Didn’t Christians dispense with its dietary regulations, its proscription against wearing two threads, its requirements on attire, its prohibition against sowing two crops, instructions on ritual cleanliness, and demand for animal sacrifice? The Torah spends more space and time on enjoining meat-milk separation than on homosexuality – four references to two.

    As for Ham’s obsession with Genesis, in chapters 1-11 there is no reference to homosexuality at all. If Ham were right to say that all Christian doctrine is founded on that body, it would appear that a proscription on homosexuality has no foundation in Christian doctrine. He’s not right, of course, but he is plainly false to his own dictum.

    At Genesis 19 we have the first possible reference to homosexuality in the Bible, and it doesn’t actually condemn it. Lot seeks to protect the men from rape – if that is what yada, the word translated “know” or “have relations with” actually means – because they were guests in his house, not because they were male. And that’s it for Genesis. One dubious cite, and no actual prohibition.

    So Ham is leaning on the two brief references in Leviticus for his damnation of same-sex marriage. But he has no problem dispensing with other regulations, often far more lengthy and precise ones. Of course this is mere hypocrisy, but it is rooted in hubris. Ham is simply inserting himself and his own attitudes as the authority, here. And ignoring the far more important moral principle Jesus did spend some time on: removing the log from your own eye before starting on the speck in another’s.

    It’s odd, in its way, that I often find by far the most powerful rebukes to people who think themselves spokesmen for the Christian God are to be found in the words of the man they call God. But so it is.

  3. Michael Fugate

    And he is no doubt in favor of selling daughters into servitude or concubinage or just handing them over to appease angry men? It never amazes me how little of the Bible is read and how much is ignored while purporting to be a strict adherent to “God’s” word.

  4. You’re right, dear SC, boring. The news made the Dutch media several days ago and even then I only read the headlines – the arguments are utterly predictable and have been repeated for decades.

    “which tells you something about the sad state of this denomination in the US.”
    Now if he would reflect on the state of his brand of christianity at this site of the Great Pond ….

  5. chris schilling

    “Guess why Hambo is upset today.”

    a) He’s just realised how much dental work he’s gonna need from all those decades of chewing the carpet.

    b) He’s still in Kentucky, and last he heard, you can’t throw homosexuals from the top of buildings like ISIS do.

    c) Not enough people are eating, sleeping, and s******g Genesis 24/7, like Ken does.

  6. @Dave Luckett, andbutalso, much of Paul’s opposition to homosexuality is invented. In Romans, it’s broken up in a way that makes it looks like condemnation, but reading both chapters back-to-back changes the perception.

  7. what’s so bad in Genesis 12 through 50 that Ken has to ignore it?

  8. @Dave L, yes, the same word as in Genesis 4:1, “And Adam [pedantic note; ha-adham, the man; KJV wrong again] knew eve his wife”

    But why does Ham keep the Sabbath on Sunday, unlike Jesus, and in plain violation of Genesis 2:3? At least the Adventists are consistent in their biblicalism

  9. Michael Fugate

    I wonder at the context of the assertions in the Bible. We know people (primarily males) use sexual assault as a method of humiliation, subordination, disempowerment. It is not about sexual orientation or attraction. Not being a Bible historian I could be mistaken, but I thought the OT laws apply were meant for within the tribe and were not global. A ban on males raping males would be meant to apply to males in the tribe only and would mean that those in power couldn’t use it to maintain power. What was done to captives from other tribes is another story. Love has nothing to do with it. So much reading between the lines is necessary, no?

  10. Eddie Janssen

    In 200 years christians will fiercely deny they ever discriminated against homosexuals and were in fact the first to emancipate/liberate this segment of the population.
    They will blame Darwinists for the bad treatment of homosexuals because reproductive succes according to the Darwinists was minimal for homosexuals and therefore justifiable targets in the struggle for survival.

  11. The OT books, particularly the first 5, were written (collected) as justification for one particular tribe’s claim to a strip of land. They invented a god to give them the land, which they took by force and genocide. People have been living (and dying) with the consequences ever since. Interesting (and distressing) how this plays out in modern times.

  12. @Michael Fugate, the Mishnaic rabbis distinguished between those Commandments that were meant to be universal, and those were specific to the children of Israel. The former were known as the Seven Laws of Noah, and according to the Wikipedia article on the subject included a prohibition of adultery, bestiality, and sexual immorality. Whether homosexual activity was explicitly included as sexual immorality, one would need to dig down a bit further to find out. Being in Leviticus, of course, does not distinguish

  13. @Scientist, it isn’t really as bad as all that. The Israelites *were* the Canaanites, and El and YHWH, originally perhaps distinct, emerged from the local pantheon. I think that SC has written about this

  14. Actually there is no evidence for that particular tribe taking that strip of land by force and genocide. A popular hypothesis is that the story of conquest with the aid of a genocidal god served as a warning – the small Hebrew kingdoms thus tried to scare off the superpowers Egypt and Assyria (later Babylonia) and give their own populations a moral boost. History showed that it didn’t work. Hence all the appeals to maintain a pure judaism in the OT. Ol’Hambo obviously is inspired by this.
    As far as King David was historical (and well, there is a palace found from the 10th Century BCE – at Megiddo iIrc – so someone had to be the first king) it’s not even clear how much more than just a chieftain he was. As the oldest archeological evidence of urbanization is also from 1000 – 950 BCE the most likely scenario is the usual process: local developments, rivaling chieftains and one being victorious. This was possible due to the Bronze Age Collapse (about 1200 – 900 BCE), when both Egypt and Assyria were too busy with internal affairs.
    Of course during Antiquity genocide was a widely accepted instrument in international politics (it later became a Roman specialty). So I have no doubt that King David, his predecessors and successors killed a few people here and there. But a full scale invasion, no. That’s propaganda a la Ol’Hambo.

  15. Eddie Janssen

    Although this nice theory is too beautiful to be true I still love the connection between Akhenaten and the Israelites, Moses being the leader of the underground Aten sect, who together with his Egyptian followers, is thrown out of the country to restore civil (and religious) peace.

  16. @FrankB
    One explanation which I recall for the formulation of a history of wars of occupation: This gives a justification for their ownership of the land..Their God was stronger than other gods. They won the land. I have no idea how well accepted this idea is.

  17. @Eddie Janssen, a much discussed theory, , but the main problem with this idea is the lack of evidence for any mass migration from Egypt to Israel. Also if we take the biblical timeline seriously, the Eastern Mediterranean coast up until way into what is now Lebanon would have been Egyptian territory

  18. Michael Fugate

    Ham won’t like this article by an evangelical