Showing posts with label Intolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intolerance. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

God's intolerance for the Canaanites and their child sacrifices

My second example of God's intolerance is his treatment of the Canaanites. He didn't want the Israelites to hang-out with the Canaanites or intermarry with them. In fact, God's prescription for dealing with the Canaanites was to "wipe them all out." But here's the reason why--the Canaanites sacrificed their children to false gods.

James Michener in his novel, The Source, describes this ritual and the pain and sorrow that attended it. Even though this is a long excerpt, try to read it in its entirety because it is very poignant and moving: 
Timna was an unusual girl who had come from Akka with her father on a trading visit...,she had been childless and the target of contempt from Matred, but with the recent arrival of her first son a more harmonious balance had been achieved. As a mother she could demand respect from Matred, but now, her composure fled, she told her husband, “The priest of Melak was here.”
This was what Urbaal had expected. It was bound to come and he wished he knew something that would console his gentle wife, but he had learned that in these matters nothing could be done. “We’ll have other children,” he promised. She started to weep and a clever lie sprang to his mind. “Timna,” he whispered seductively, “look at what I’ve just bought you. A new Astarte.” She looked at the smiling goddess, so bursting with fertility, and covered her face.
“Could we run away?” she pleaded.
“Timna!” The idea was blasphemous, for Urbaal was definitely a part of the land … this land … these olive trees by the well.
“I will not surrender my son,” she persisted.
He was tempted to show his irritation, but she was so gentle that he did not. Instead he reasoned, “It is to Melak that we look for protection. Great El is necessary, and we cherish him, but in war only Melak is our protector.”
“Why must he be so cruel?” Timna pleaded.
“He does much for us,” Urbaal explained, “and all he asks in return … our first-born sons.” To the farmer this was persuasive logic, and he started to leave for his olive fields, but Timna held his hands, pleading, until he felt that he must shock her into reality. “As long as Makor has existed,” he said harshly, “we have delivered to Melak our first-born sons. Matred did so.
Shortly after dawn a group of priests in red capes passed through the streets banging drums and sounding trumpets, and it was a mark of Urbaal’s confusion that in spite of the grief he felt over the impending loss of his son, he nevertheless hurried to the door to see if the tall slave girl was marching with the priests. She was not.
When the procession had made several circuits of the town, the drumming ceased, the priests separated, and mothers began to feel the ultimate terror. Finally a knock came on Urbaal’s door, and a priest appeared to claim Timna’s first-born son. Timna began to scream, but her husband placed his hand over her mouth and the priest nodded his approval, carrying the child from the house. After a while the drumming resumed and cymbals clashed. A trumpet blew and excited mutterings were heard in the town. “We must go,” Urbaal said, taking Timna’s hand. But Timna, who was not of Makor, could not bring herself to attend the terrible rites. “Let me at least stay hidden,” she begged.
Patiently Urbaal took her to the room of the gods and showed her his smiling Astarte. “Last night,” he assured her, “Baal-of-the-Storm came and made sport with the goddess. I watched them. She’s pregnant now, and you shall be too, I promise you.” He dragged her to the door, pulled her hands away as she tried to hold herself to an entrance pillar. Then he lost his patience and slapped her sharply.
“What are sons for?” he asked. “Stop crying.” But when they were in the street he felt sorry for
her and wiped away her tears. Matred, his first wife, who had known this day, said nothing but watched from behind. “Let her know sorrow,” she mumbled to herself.
With an aching pain in his chest Urbaal led his two wives along the twisting street to the temple square, but before he entered that sacred place he took a deep breath, set his shoulders and did his best to quell the panic in his guts. “Let us all be brave,” he whispered, “for many will be watching.” But as luck would have it, the first man he saw in the holy area was the herdsman Amalek, who was also trying to control his anguish, and the two men whose sons were to go that day stared at each other in mute pain. Neither betrayed his fears, and they marched together to the monoliths, lending strength and dignity to the ritual.
Between the palace and the four menhirs dedicated to the gentler gods had been erected a platform of movable stones, under which a huge fire already raged. On the platform stood a stone god of unusual construction: it had two extended arms raised so that from the stone fingertips to the body they formed a wide inclined plane; but above the spot where they joined the torso there was a huge gaping mouth, so that whatever was placed upon the arms was free to roll swiftly downward and plunge into the fire. This was the god Melak, the new protector of Makor.
Slaves heaped fresh fagots under the statue, and when the flames leaped from the god’s mouth two priests grabbed one of the eight boys—a roly-poly infant of nine months—and raised him high in the air. Muttering incantations they approached the outstretched arms, dashed the child upon them and gave him a dreadful shove downward, so that he scraped along the stony arms and plunged into the fire. As the god accepted him with a belch of fire there was a faint cry, then an anguished scream as the child’s mother protested.
Urbaal looked quickly to see that the cry had come from one of the wives of Amalek, and with bitter satisfaction he smiled. The priests had noticed this breach of religious solemnity, and Urbaal thought: They will remember that Amalek couldn’t control his wife. This year they will choose me.

The last child was a boy of nearly three—his parents had prayed that the years had passed when he might be taken—and he was old enough to understand what
was happening, so with frightened eyes he drew back from the priests, and when they lifted him to the god he screamed, trying to hold on to the stone fingers and save himself, but the priests pulled away his small, clutching hands, and with a violent push sent him tumbling into the flaming mouth.
As soon as the boy had disappeared, wailing in fiery smoke, the mood of the temple changed. The god Melak was forgotten; his fires were allowed to die down and his priests turned to other important matters. Drums resumed their beat—this time in livelier rhythms—and trumpets sounded. 
The people of Makor, satisfied that their new god would protect them, left him smoking by the monoliths and gathered about the steps of the temple itself, where a sense of excitement replaced the terror that had recently held sway. Even the mothers of the eight boys, numb with pain, were moved into new positions, and although they must have longed to flee that place and grieve in silence, they were required as patronesses who had pleased the god with their first-born to remain in locations of honor. They were permitted neither to comment nor to look away, for this was the tradition of their society and would be forever.
I'll leave you with this thought. If God judged and hated the Canaanites who sacrificed maybe 5-10 children maybe, once a month, at the most. What do you think his thoughts are towards us here in the United States where we slaughter upwards of 4,000 innocent unborn babies every day?

Who do you think needs to change? Does God need to become more tolerant of abortion, homosexuality, adultery, sexual perversion, or do you and I and the rest of our society need to become more intolerant and less accommodating to these perverse sins? I would much rather side with God than with man, any day, because man's social morals and standards are always shifting as the sands in the desert, but God's standards never change. The Bible says, "He is the same, yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).


Saturday, March 23, 2013

Is God an intolerant bigot or homophobe?

Add caption
After watching 2 episodes of the Bible mini-series on the History Channel, it got me to thinking. How tolerant is God? What is the number one value and virtue in public high schools, colleges and universities and today? It's either tolerance or diversity. But I think tolerance trumps diversity in terms of values being taught and disseminated in our society.

It's against the backdrop of tolerance that Islam has made inroads both here in the U.S. as well as all throughout Europe. It's also because of tolerance that the gay agenda has been championed in schools, as well as in the media. USA Today is determined to have  at least one pro-gay story each week, and you're left feeling like an intolerant bigot if you don't agree with their stated views. 

This got me to thinking. How tolerant is God? In other words, is God a bigot? Is God homophobic? Is God pro-choice? Is the Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth intolerant of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, transgenders? Would God be a big supporter of Planned Parenthood or GLAAD?

Off the top of my head, I can think of two glaring instances (I can actually think of many more, but I don't have the space and you probably don't have the time) where God revealed his intolerance. One was Sodom and Gomorrah where he judged those two cities and rained down fire and brimstone on them from heaven, and their judgment has stood to this day. But, why were Sodom and Gomorrah judged in such a severe manner? Because homosexuality and perverse sexuality were rampant.

Jude 1:7 (ESV) gives us further insight:
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. 
 The other example in the Bible that reveals God's intolerance is his judgment of the Canaanites. In Gen. 24, Abraham sends out his servant to find a wife for his son, Isaac, but he makes his servant swear that he will NOT take a wife for Isaac from among the Canaanites. What was so bad about the Canaanites? God is giving the instructions to the Children of Israel and in Exodus 23:23-24 (ESV), He says, 
23 “When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out,
24 you shall not bow down to their gods nor serve them, nor do as they do, but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their pillars in pieces. 
What does God have against the Canaanites and all the other "ites"? I'll give you some more insight in my next post where I offer a description of the Canaanite ritual of child-sacrifice.

But for now, let me leave you with this question:
What are your thoughts on tolerance? 
Do you think tolerance is one of the most important values that we can adhere to in our society today?

Do you think God is tolerant?
Do you think God is intolerant of anything? Do you subscribe to different values than God? Leave a comment. Let me know what you think, and don't miss the next post on the Canaanites and how their value and beliefs are still being practiced today here in the good ol' USA.




Sunday, April 22, 2012

The New Tolerance is Intellectual Cowardice


"The tolerant person occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each person is permitted to decide for himself. No judgments allowed. No 'forcing' personal views. Each takes a neutral posture towards another's convictions.
"What the new tolerance means," D.A. Carson writes in his new book, The Intolerance of Tolerance:
"is that the government must be intolerant of those who do not accept the new definition of tolerance." In this vein, tolerance becomes an absolute good with the power to erode moral and religious distinctives. 
Greg Koukl, "Stand To Reason"
In the name of tolerance, Carson writes, the secularists assert that "they have the right to control the public sphere because they are right—completely unaware that they are trying to impose their worldview on others who disagree with it." 

As Greg Koukl writes, 
True tolerance is impossible. In the realm of ideas, one must think that someone else is wrong in order to exercise tolerance towards him, and in doing so, this brings the accusation of intolerance....Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality are often afraid of intelligent engagement. Unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, they don't engage contrary opinions or even consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult--"you intolerant bigot"--than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. "Tolerance" has become intolerance. 
The Tolerance Trick

Greg Koukl gives this real-life example which sums up the contradictions of the new tolerance:
Earlier this year I spoke to a class of seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines, Iowa. I wanted to alert them to this "tolerance trick," but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board. The first expressed the current understanding of tolerance:

"All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another."
All heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here. Then I wrote the second sentence:
"Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting Him."

Immediately hands flew up. "You can't say that," a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. "That's disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?"

"In fact, that happens to me all the time," I pointed out, "including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I'm wrong?"

"It's intolerant," she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn't see was that the first statement also violated itself.

I pointed to the first statement and asked, "Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?" They all agreed.

Then I pointed to the second statement—the "intolerant" one—and asked the same question: "Is this a view?" They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them. They'd been taken in by the tolerance trick.

If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than the Jews have is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than the Christians do. But this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because "tolerance" turns out to be gibberish.


                                                  Josh McDowell on Tolerance Time:2:57









Wednesday, April 18, 2012

The Intolerance of Tolerance


What is the supreme virtue in today's culture? Is it excellence? Honesty? Courage? Truthfulness? 

D.A. Carson's new book
Sorry, these wonderful virtues have all been supplanted by the virtue of TOLERANCE. If you have a child in school, you already knew the answer to the question.

The "tolerance" card trumps everything else. Tolerance is demanded by our government, our schools and many employers for the following groups and subjects. 

Here is a partial list of what we are told we need to TOLERATE: 
  • LGBT (in case you don't know, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, trans-gender). Tolerance means accepting ALL genders including cross-dressers. 
  • Islam-- Our media and educators seem to excuse the beheadings, death threats, terrorism, death to unbelievers that is part of Islam.
  • Multi-culturalism (every culture is to be respected except for the culture of white-Europeans).
  • Religious diversity. All religions are equal and should be tolerated, except for Christianity.
  • Global citizenship. It's so jingoistic to continue to believe in American exceptionalism. 
  • Tolerance for social justice including black power, total respect for Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.
  • Tolerance for anything that liberals or Democrats do, including their media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.
  • The PLO and their demand for Israel to give up Jerusalem and the West Bank.
  • Black racism from New Black Panthers, Eric Holder, President Obama (he is in charge of Holder's Justice Dept. Any racism on the part of Holder is a direct reflection of Obama), Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. 
  • Evolution
However, the dirty little secret is that those who espouse the value of TOLERANCE happen to be hypocrites because here is a partial list of what teachers, administrators, government leaders, employers and even the military elite will NOT tolerate. 

There is NO TOLERANCE for:  
  • Christians (especially evangelicals. Often lovingly referred to by the media as the "religious right")
  • While we're at it, let's also include Jesus, who is cool as long as you don't believe he is "the way, the truth and the life." In that case, we don't care for your Jesus!
  • Conservative views and leaders. Do a Google search to see how tolerant university students are towards George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity. Many  university students and faculty who espouse the value of tolerance would NOT tolerate the speech of any conservative. They will shout them down or picket to keep them from even being speaking on any college or university campus. 
  • Fox News
  • Any discussion of race or criticism on black behavior or attitudes. This is always seen as racist. 
  • Israel
  • Patriotism 
  • Creationism or belief that God created everything.
  • Discipline or corporal punishment. No tolerance for disciplining special-needs children who can disrupt classes daily and sometimes terrorize other children.
  • Criticism of Global Warming as phony science.
  • Franklin Graham (because he believes that Islam is an evil religion that seeks to dominate the world).
  • Pro-life agenda
  • Rush Limbaugh. I mention his name again because you can test the tolerance or the political views of an audience by mentioning his name, or that of Sarah Palin. Just by  referencing Rush or Palin, you will invoke the wrath of many supposedly "tolerant" loving liberals and progressives. 
  • Anti-gay agenda. No criticism of LGBT allowed. You will be threatened and shut down if you persist in pointing out that this is radcial agenda that is being forced down the throats of every American, especially our school children.
In my next post, I'll offer up a few more thoughts on tolerance as a value and its destructive influence on  every aspect of our culture.