Licensed Offenders: Dogs and Swine

 

FORGIVENESS – (9 of 13, Part 2,)

Licensed Offenders: Dogs and Swine

Preachers – and I have been one of those – have often addressed forgiveness from the angle of the transgressed person who should be magnanimous with forgiveness so that they are not shut out of Heaven. We have not equally restrained the habitual offender from their ‘right’ to offend. My engagement with this subject has taught me that even though a transgressed righteous person might dispense forgiveness for the sake of their righteousness, there is as much responsibility, if not more, on the offender in resolving conflicts and achieving peace.

Dealing with the characteristic offender who would never repent yet demands forgiveness, is reminiscent of the danger against which Matthew 7:6 warns; the danger of wasting treasures on cantankerous dogs and habitually filth-seeking ravenous grunting and aggressive swine. Forgivers who deal with such characters need to guard themselves with the consciousness that they are dealing not with strayed sheep and recuperating prodigal sons but with ungrateful dogs and pernicious pigs; that they are dealing with determined rebels rather than with unfortunate prodigals. An African proverb says, “He who forgives ends the quarrel.” Sadly, it is not always so; not with aggressors who are vampires after the very soul of the righteous forgiver. Such dogs will find other causes for newer fights. Mind what you give to them; even in forgiving, mind how you relate with them.

Confess Whose Sins?

Confession, yes; but if what a person chooses to confess is their rightness and their rights, rather than their “sins,” they could win a case but lose forgiveness. The matter could be worse if what they ‘confess’ is the other person’s ‘faults’ rather than their own “sins.” The writ is: “If we confess OUR sins …” not THEIR sins …. The issue, therefore, is not in winning an argument, it is in winning back a lost or threatened relationship; or at least, winning back one’s peace. For true resolution, every mouth should:

•confess its errors rather than its rights to err,

•confess sins rather than excuses that blame the sin on someone or something else,

•confess its own sins, not another’s.

Confess to Whom?

Confession is more effective when it is made directly to the offended or trespassed person rather than to a proxy, unless in a case where that person cannot be reached. If you slapped me but went to apologise to my dad or mom or husband when you could have reached me, you might be further accusing me, indirectly, of being adamantly unreachable, unless that person through whom the confession is routed was also joined in the offence.

3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him [before you proceed to publish it on social media]; and if he repent, forgive him.

4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again TO THEE [not to another], saying I repent; thou shalt forgive him (Luke 17:3-4).

Confession is not gossip; it should not be wasted on those who do not have the power to give the forgiveness that it demands. In further clarification of what true confession should entail, the passage above is clear on:

1) who was trespassed against – “thee”

2) who should ask forgiveness – “thy brother,” the trespasser

3) from whom to ask the forgiveness – “thee,” the person trespassed against

4) who should forgive whom – “thee” forgive “thy brother.”

How not to Confess

Confession is important, but what one confesses and how one does it could change the whole scenario. If you should use your mouth to ‘confess’ my sins instead of yours, you would seem to be indirectly arguing that I am the guilty one in need of your forgiveness, rather than you being the one making the application for forgiveness. When you ‘confess’ my sins instead of yours, you put me in the dock, and assume to yourself the role of jury and judge, forcing me into the defensive. I could fight back in more bitter ways. When you ‘confess’ my sins to me or to others, you become my accuser, which restarts the fighter in me, even if merely in ‘self-defence.’ It changes the whole dynamics of the relationship from forgiver-offender to two fighters with no truce in sight. In any proper court, accuser and accused do not take the witness box at the same time, and the one in the box does not pose questions to the judge; they take questions, and only plead guilty or not guilty. Legal protocols.

Someone may confess their sin, yet do it so proudly that it had been better if they did not open their mouth to start the ‘apology.’ If you ‘confess’ your sin so proudly as if you were not to blame after all, it would appear that you were only seeking an opportunity by means of the ‘apology’ to state ‘your side’ of the story, or guilt the other. That won’t be a confession but a debate, or at best, a speech, if not also an indirect insult to injury. Elbert Hubbard would say, “Reversing your treatment of the man you have wronged is better than asking his forgiveness.” In other words, to ask forgiveness of someone whom you make no effort to stop offending, is an error. The act of asking forgiveness implies or should imply a readiness to amend the ways that cause the offence. That should be the case, unless one was being hypocritical, masking with goodly ‘public’ words merely to make an impression or win sympathy. Words mean little from a heart that will not change.

Too big to Confess or Forgive

True confession of sin is an implicit penitent admission of guilt, which is why the incorrigible proud person might not wish to say that they are sorry, as they never agree that they have done anything wrong. Such toxic arrogance keeps one fettered down, denying them forgiveness. They hardly change who are slow to admit their error. They get less and less help who often refuse correction. It is hard to help anyone who habitually defends their ‘weakness.’ It is self-destructive pride to be hard to admit faults. None repents from a fault they won’t admit.

Not only will there be people too proud to repent, there will also be people too proud or too pained to forgive. By not forgiving, however, they also deny themselves forgiveness notwithstanding their known pain. Then, numberless sacrifices and ‘confessions’ to God and to priests become futile in procuring their own forgiveness (Matthew 6:12 and 14; Mark 11:26). Forgiveness is like a currency; it never comes to those who hoard it. They cannot receive forgiveness who do not give it. The forgiveness you give to others is the receipt you need to claim yours from God.

In Genesis 50:17, trespassers as eminent as “servants of the God of thy father” did not feel too tall to stoop to request forgiveness. Are ‘servants of God’ infallible? Do they also trespass? Should they ask forgiveness from an offended person not as eminent as they? Those brothers of Joseph teach us many great lessons. Joseph himself did not feel too hurt to hear the offenders, neither did he consider himself too eminent in Egypt to give audience to those ancestral immigrant offenders with whom, we might have said, divine justice had caught up at last.

FORGIVENESS (10 of 13)

The Two Aspects of Confession

In 1 John 1:9 – “If we confess our sins…” – we find two aspects to confession. Firstly, confession of the sins, which implies admission of guilt; and secondly, requesting forgiveness based on the sins admitted. If somebody simply said to you, “Please, forgive me,” you might ask them, “Forgive you for what?” They have asked forgiveness but have confessed to no wrongdoing. Forgiveness is usually connected to a trespass. However, if they said, “I damaged your car on Monday (acknowledgment – of sin). Please, forgive me (apology; request for forgiveness). I am willing to pay for the repairs if you should give me time to get the money” (therapeutic restitution). Anyone would relate better with such an apology than one that requests blank forgiveness without also providing the specific ‘address’ of the trespass to which the pardon should be posted.

It is possible, sometimes, for the two aspects (admission and confession) to be subsumed in one speech. For example, the penitent thief on the cross said to Jesus, “Remember me when You come into Your Kingdom,” to which Jesus replied, “Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” That thief did not have the luxury of time to list all his sins from youth: the robberies on the highways, the stolen shekels from synagogues, the night raids at Bethlehem, etc. In one penitent confession, Jesus saw both his admission of guilt as well as his plea for mercy, and Jesus responded appropriately. In fact, admission of guilt had earlier also been expressed in that thief’s remarks to the other thief, when he said, “We indeed are in this mess because of what we did (admission of guilt), but this holy Man does not deserve this cross, like us.” So, then, there was, firstly, admission of guilt/confession of sins, and secondly, request for pardon (Luke 23:39-43). An application for forgiveness that does not also indicate or acknowledge the offence for which the application is being tendered, is an ‘incomplete sentence.’

The experience of those two thieves further stresses the point that confession is much more than words; it means a penitent state of heart and a subsequent changed lifestyle (or willingness for the change). Two thieves on the cross; two men with the same opportunity to be pardoned by God; two men who each spoke words. One spoke to justify himself; he wasted his words. The other, by words, acknowledged his sins and proceeded to ask pardon. Both thieves each spoke words, but only one got express pardon. The heart.

Confession without Commitment

When one admits that they had done wrong, and follow it up with a confession of their fault, they should take steps to not repeat the faults. If they should still fail after making sincere commitments to not fail, the other may understand their struggle; but where they are unwilling to commit to a change on the pretext that ‘the flesh is weak,’ it could be that they were only being manipulative. “I am sorry,” is great, especially when backed with actions that show ‘sorry-ness’ for the past wrong. For some, however, it is merely a convenient lip-service ‘for the records,’ so that it may not be said against them that they did not apologise after all.

The value of an apology or a confession is not merely in the words, it is in the deepness of the soul from which the words come. According to Romans 10:9, confession with the mouth without preceding belief in the heart does not make for salvation. When the Prodigal Son returned home, he not only confessed to his father when he said, “I have sinned …”; he also made a commitment in his heart to stay, even if it meant being hired as a servant (Luke 15:19, 21). In every case, “I am sorry” is not enough where practical commitment to change should be a follow up, even if the change be slow.

The Bible says in Luke 17:3, “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and IF he repent, forgive him.” In other words, forgiveness answers to repentance, not merely to confession. Asking forgiveness should imply a commitment to change, to repent, to not repeat the offence. Even where his strength might be small, if he realizes enough to admit his fault each time he falls, and takes the pains to ‘return’ and sincerely ask pardon, such a weak brother will receive help and forgiveness the seven times he comes back, and he is less and less likely to remain the same thorny brother.

And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn AGAIN to thee, saying, I REPENT; thou shalt FORGIVE him (Luke 17:4).

Unlike this brother, others will trespass seven times and stand at their door, daring anyone to affront them with their sin. It is their right as weaker flesh to offend, and yours as high priest to forgive. They would neither “turn again” nor say, “I’m sorry.”

Acknowledgment

Confession says, “I committed this trespass against you. I am sorry about it. Please, forgive me.” It does not excuse itself. True confession does not just say, “I apologise for everything.” ‘Everything’ is nothing. Nobody is offended by ‘everything’ or by ‘whatever I did that you don’t like.’ Offence arises from a specific act or the omission of it. Sometimes, the generalized apology for ‘everything’ or for ‘whatever I did’ is pride eloquently disguised as penitence. True confession for sin, or the sincere request for forgiveness, would clearly admit guilt; it will say

• who was wrong,

• who was wronged,

• what was the wrong.

Joseph’s brothers said to him, “Forgive… THE TRESPASS of THY BRETHREN, and THEIR sin; for THEY did unto thee evil.” They called their trespass by its proper names, and they owned up to it. They were clear on

• the wrong that had been done: “trespass” and “sin,”

• who did the wrong: “thy brethren,”

• against whom the wrong was done: “unto thee,”

• the objective of the speech: “Forgive…” That objective was not wrapped in some circuitous and foggy proud metaphors.

It was no time to coat their grievous sin in the euphemistic colours of a ‘mistake’ or ‘weakness of flesh.’ They did not attempt to give a nicer name to their trespass. They called it by its proper name: an “evil.” They did not show up merely to trade blames. They admitted their vile roles, their “evil.” Their meekness and sincerity made the matter much easier to resolve. The story might have been different if it had been some of us, eminent ‘bigger brothers,’ with a right to trample on others.

The apostle John was clear on what true confession should entail: “If we confess OUR sins…” Until one admits to their “sins” (plural), they cannot make meaningful apology; they cannot repent. To admit selectively to one ‘sin’ when there are plural “sins” to confess, is an error. Anyone would continue to do whatever they never agree is wrong, especially where they also care no hoot how others feel about their ways. A trespasser would hardly cease from what they don’t agree is wrong. According to Aaron Lazare in “Making Peace through Apology,” a prominent healing factor in reconciliation is in the agreement “that the harm committed was wrong.”

Assurance

True confession of guilt is a powerful healer also in being an implicit assurance to the injured; an assurance that the trespasser would not repeat the harm, or at least, would work on themselves to not repeat the harm. This assurance, implied in the confession of sin and admission of guilt, is like a visa that one grants the offended, to ‘cross over’ again from their ‘safe’ side of the ‘border’; it is like a solid bridge which the offender offers the offended, to step out from the ‘security’ of the reclusion into which they have fled, and to begin their cautious steps back, across from the ‘other side’ to ‘this side’ again. True penitence dissolves the divide between selves that offences have created.

Somebody may righteously grant forgiveness yet not ‘cross over’ again to the ‘other side’ if they cannot find this bridge of assurance that they will not be injured again. The bridge is built not just by the words that say “I am sorry”; it is constructed by the total ‘message’ that one sends to the other through words and actions directly or otherwise transmitted through third parties. The bridge is not built at the one moment and by the one act of ‘apology’ but over time, especially where the hurt has been deep and long.

As in any narrative, characterisation (here, the NEW image of the penitent seeker of forgiveness) in the mind of the offended, will be developed over time through what the person says (language), what the person does (actions), and what others (neutral third parties) observe and report about the person. So, even where the offender might have apologised but their language still betrays otherwise, or where third-party reports suggest otherwise, we may be dealing with a pretender rather than a changed character. Of course, there might be paid praise singers who want to force the ‘change’ down the other, or malicious gossips who wish to destroy the person. Discretion and discernment will be important, which is why the ‘new’ image is not to be forced upon the hearer, to compel hasty restoration.

Back to the story of Joseph: even though they might have done it out of fear for what Joseph could do to them (in case his declared pardon had not been sincere), at least those brothers returned to reassure him of the deepness of their penitence for the great harm they had caused him (Genesis 50:15-21). They did not assume that one meeting with Joseph had been sufficient to rebuild the bridge that they had destroyed many years before, through their “evil” way.

Genesis 50:15-21(NIV) New International Version

Joseph Reassures His Brothers

¹⁵ When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?” ¹⁶ So they sent word to Joseph, saying, “Your father left these instructions before he died: ¹⁷ ‘This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.’ Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father.” When their message came to him, Joseph wept.

¹⁸ His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. “We are your slaves,” they said.

¹⁹ But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? ²⁰ You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. ²¹ So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.

Third Parties

FORGIVENESS – (11 of 13)

Third Parties

Do ‘third parties’ have a place in a feud between two parties? Yes. After all, Jesus promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name, He would be there in their midst (Matthew 18:20). Where personal outreach has failed, third parties could become an option for peace. Sometimes, a project is beyond the ability of one person to execute, so they hire contractors. The peace mover or initiator would often be the one who seeks the third party, as in the following scripture where one party in the dispute makes himself impossible to reach.

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican (Matthew 18: 15-17).

In the matter of the outlawed Absalom and his estranged father, a third party was hired (2 Samuel 14:1-21). Also, in the matter of David’s sin with Bathsheba, after dragging on for about a year during which time David would not admit his sin to make peace with God, God had to engage a third party, the prophet Nathan. It worked (2 Samuel 12:1-13). Nathan was also third party in resolving what could have conflagrated into another civil crisis in the Adonijah-Solomon controversy over ascension to the throne of their father David (1 Kings 1:11-35). Third parties could be helpful, but they should be reliable people, like the “wise woman” in the David vs Absalom case. Note the adjective, “wise” (2 Samuel 14:1). That adjective fitted the wise and tactful spiritual man, the prophet Nathan, whom God sent to David the evasive aristocratic transgressor.

A wrong third party could be an irreparable disaster. Often, third parties are recruited by the person initiating the peace, whether it be the offender or the offended. In the case of David and Absalom, the third party was at the instance of the offender. In the example of David and God, it was the Offended God that commissioned the third party. That is the scenario we also find in Matthew 18:15-17 cited above. The third party was the effort of the peace seeker. None of the third parties cited above was a flippant talker. They were wise with their words. Third parties, then, should be sought for the purpose of gaining peace, not out of the impulse of gossip, to broadcast a tale or solicit sympathies.

Often, we hear people speak against ‘third parties’ in a rather critical self-righteous tone, even when they are in obvious need of help to manage their crisis. Especially in disputes of marriage, some speakers make it appear as if it were repugnant irresponsibility or immgaturity to let anyone into their pains; yet when they are sick in their body, they go to the medical doctor, who is a third party; or when they are in a professional or financial dilemma, they go to the ‘specialist,’ who also is a third party.

Who says that physical ailments are less private or less harmful than emotional traumas? According to Dr David Servan-Schrieber, “emotional wound affects deep vital processes,” and “a psychological wound sets off mechanisms of the stress response … release of cortisol, adrenaline… (including) a slowdown in the immune system … which contributes to growth and spread of cancer” (quoted in Cherie Hill). Often, it is pride more than ignorance that keeps people from the third-party help that they could have had. Such people eventually commit suicide or harm themselves in other ways when they can no longer cope alone. They suffered alone and died alone when they could have had a physician’s help, if they had cried out early.

Even God solicited and still solicits ‘third parties’ (Ezekiel 22:30). He knows why. It saves the weaker one from avoidable pains. Where two parties are unable to resolve their difference, a third party becomes an inevitable option, discreetly chosen by both feuding sides or by the peace-seeker (1 Corinthians 6:1-3). Help does not always come to who does not call for it. It is the sick who seeks the physician (Mark 2:17).

The Bible verily prescribes experienced third parties to help younger couples in dealing with domestic conflicts. It says in Titus 2:3-4 that “The aged women,” which suggests age and experience (or wisdom), should “teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children.” The Holy Bible so clearly prescribes mature “aged” women to get involved in the family matters, or “husband”-matters, of younger women. Some younger women’s marriages are plagued not by witches and demons but by the lack of knowledge, which aged women can supply through teaching rather than by ‘deliverance prayers,’ if only they would hear. It is curious that the marriage-saving family ‘lecture’ here is prescribed for the woman, not the husband. Maybe Proverbs 14:1 is the explanation.

Proverbs 14:1 states, “The wise woman builds her house, but the foolish tears it down with her own hands.” The foolishness here does not have to descend all the way down to the level of being a nabal (naw-bawl') for this to happen. All it really takes is being “thick brained” – proud and stubborn.

Why did Paul prescribe third parties is addressing marital issues in the church community? Wouldn’t somebody call that a meddling in ‘private’ matters? Well, that is the Bible, and none can be more mature or more spiritual than the God who wrote the Bible. The reluctance to call for third-party help is sometimes borne out of ignorance, or even the pride to show that one is ‘mature’ and has been ‘managing’ one’s affairs well (even when people can see that they are dying silently and slowly). From such proud or ignorant sufferers, helpers will generally keep their distance for fear of being embarrassed as uninvited interferers and trespassers. They risk dying alone after suffering alone.

In Matthew 18, that classic chapter on human relations and conflicts resolution, Jesus prescribed that in the event of a dispute between two brethren, the more mature should make the peace move, alone (v.15); just the two of them “alone,” without any other ‘party.’ However, Jesus proceeds to show that this provision will not work with every character, or in every case, so He adds that where that personal approach fails, the peacemaker could initiate the assistance of one or two more witnesses, which makes not just a ‘third’ party but a ‘fourth.’ In other words, God makes allowance for the fact that there are crises and characters that are not mutually resolvable unless with the aid of other ‘parties.’ In effect, God actually endorses those ‘parties.’ Unfortunately, even third parties might not be sufficient to resolve some conflicts. Community involvement becomes imperative. There are people who will hear no one but the community; they respect no third party but the ‘community party.’ “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church” (v.17). Are third parties a scriptural option in crisis resolution? Jesus taught so.

Some myopic theologies have sadly prevented suffering people from the help that could have saved them. That there have been wrong third parties does not make all third parties wrong. That somebody has abused the use of money does not make money bad. That a knife was used for murder does not make all knives reprehensible murder weapons. The Bible advises in James 5:16 to “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.” The contrary option is to conceal your faults one from the other; pretend one to the other that all is fine, and slowly fry to a death that could have been avoided.

Forgiveness is Requested, not Extorted

FORGIVENESS – (12 of 13)

Forgiveness is Requested, not Extorted

Forgiveness should be requested, not demanded. One does not say, “But I have been begging him since, yet he doesn’t want to forgive. After all, is he God that I should be begging him over this very small matter?” ForGIVEness should be a gift, not an extortion. Penitence is deeper than the words of confession by which one ‘applies’ for forgiveness. If confession has no roots in a repentant heart, if it is only as deep as the tongue, then it had been a mere religious show or ceremonial oration, which could be more offensive to the sensitive soul. We may not call something a gift if it were procured by force from the other. Gifts are offered and received, not extorted; for-give-ness no less.

Who Takes the Initiative?

In these matters of reparation and restoration, who should make the first move to the other? Properly, it is the sick person who seeks the physician; it is the sinner who seeks forgiveness. The brothers of Joseph took the initiative to go to Joseph, even though they were his elders (who nevertheless had been made inferior by their present circumstance of hunger and their needy immigrant status in Joseph’s territory of Egypt). Also, it was the Prodigal Son who went back to the father, rather than the father going for him in his non-descript Republic of ‘Far Country.’ He said to himself, “I will arise and GO…”; go where? “to my father.” He meant his words; “he arose, and came to his father” (Luke 15:18, 20).

 “I will arise and GO…,” the Prodigal said to himself. Sometimes it takes the crises of the Far Country for stubborn prodigals to give themselves the advice that they have refused from others. In those self-inflicted pains and sad solitudes is when they tell themselves the hard truth that they have often refused from fathers. The sincere advice one gives oneself often opens shut doors and restores lost favours. Unfortunately, sometimes, precious self-advice comes too late – so late after prohibiting pride has gone ahead of irredeemable destruction, and the door has been shut (Proverbs 16:18).

In Luke 15, Jesus gave three parables about three lost items: the lost sheep (vv. 4-7), the lost silver coin (vv. 8-10), and the lost son whom we call Prodigal Son (vv. 11-32). A coin has no consciousness; it does not even know that it is lost, so the owner goes sweeping for it. A sheep has life but no intellect. It knows that it is lost but cannot find its way back. It has no cell phone or GPS locator by which to tell its migrant master’s present location or find its way back there, so the shepherd goes looking for it. The lost son, however, is different. He exercised his choice to depart and with his own legs went off to his distant address. The father therefore waited for him to use the same legs to retrace his way back home. The father did not go looking for him, even though he looked out for him. Any prodigal son who takes the pains to travel the long distance back home to such a lavish family reception as the Prodigal Son received, is not likely to easily trespass again or return to that ‘far country.’ If the father had made the trip to seek him in that far land, the son might not have much valued the cost of the pardon he had been offered. He might have thrown that precious pardon to the pigs that had become his new companions in that strange land.

All three items were said to have been “found” (vv. 5-6, 8-9, 24,32), but whereas the first two were ‘found’ where they were lost at, the son was ‘found’ where he was lost from. Whereas the first two were ‘found’ through the effort of their owners, the son was ‘found’ through his own effort, when he made himself findable by returning with his own legs. In all three cases, there was a seeker. In the first two cases, the ‘owners’ took the initiative to ‘find’ what had been lost; in the last case, the loser took the initiative to seek what he had lost, by presenting himself where he would be found.

If the returning prodigal was described as ‘found,’ it means that the father had been searching or looking out for him, but not by going to his ‘far country’ address. Somebody might question how the father could have been ‘searching’ for a son he never went out to look for. Only that father knew in how many lonely streets and deserted countryside pens his grieving heart had searched for that lost son. Visible actions alone did not tell the full story – his side of the search-story.

Women might sweep for their lost coins, and shepherds might go out in search of lost sheep, but fathers may wait for lost sons to use their volitional legs to find their way back home again. This might not sound ‘righteous’ but it is what may be called ‘tough love.’ The found sheep is spoken of as a “sinner that repenteth” (v.7); the found silver coin is equally spoken of as a “sinner that repenteth” (v.10). But the same description is not used for the son. He is rather described as having come back from a kind of death. He had been very aware of the choice he was making. However, after tasting that bitter choice, he found in it the attractive emptiness that he had long pursued as alternative truth. He learnt a lesson the hard way.

The three parables and the three lost items tell of three different levels of consciousness: the mindless coin, the senseless sheep, and the deliberate son. There are errors you might overlook in mindless coins and timid sheep, which you would not allow in intelligent sons under your roof, who suddenly wake up one morning to subtly but publicly stamp upon you the sad name of an uncaring and irresponsible father depriving them of due access to good fortunes. Such sons might not appreciate the value of unasked-for forgiveness mailed to their ‘far country’ address. But if they should travel so far back home to seek it, after having been bitterly bitten by the storms of a hard life, they would deserve it better and value it more. The prodigal son was received back home with a public celebration announcing his wisely return from a foolish far country. That celebration was as public as the widespread embarrassment that he had caused when he fled home. That son was unlikely to repeat the foolish trip. In the name of ‘love’ and ‘care,’ some indulgent fathers have sometimes interfered with the development process of their sons and, unfortunately, left them worse, having hurried them out of the oven half baked, just because they cried aloud about the transforming heat that had been purging their tough prodigal character.

The Initiative of the Righteous

Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are situations where maturity would compel the stronger to take the righteous discretion to make the move to the other, even though that other is the undeserving guilty one. That is as Jesus prescribes to His followers (Matthew 5:23-25), not because it is the right of the sinner. It is especially a prescription for ‘brothers’ who cannot afford to live day after day under the same roof with their hearts out of alignment with each other. In such a scenario, the one who is closer enough to hear and obey the voice of the Master, takes the initiative. Let’s look at the following passage:

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift (Matthew 5:23-24).

The one who brings a gift to God’s altar is a worshipper of God. The other ‘brother’ who is far from the altar when worshippers are taking sacrifices there is likely not a worshipper himself, or not a good worshipper. A ‘brother’ like that, who keeps away from the altar of God when others are making sacrifices there is very capable also of hoarding an “ought AGAINST” anyone, even against more righteous and committed worshippers who keep frequently close to the altar of God. In such conflicts with a guilty altar-far ‘brother,’ the altar-close worshipper could take the initiative for forgiveness.

By his nearness to the altar of sacrifice, the worshipper hears the voice of God more clearly than the altar-far brother. His peace initiatives are a sacrificial response to that Voice, not to the wrongs of his altar-far assailant. In other words, even though it is not the protocol for prodigals, the righteousness of the Altar sometimes compels the person trespassed against to go to the trespasser to dispense forgiveness and ensure peace. It is not a right to be claimed by the trespasser; it is merely an onus upon the worshipper because of his cherished nearness to the altar of God. The closer one stands to the altar, the more different would be one’s approach to matters; the farther one gets from the altar of God, the more ‘ought’ one carries “against” people, even against more righteous worshippers at their customary altar of sweet sacrifices.

The altar does not permit in some lives the stains that others might take for granted. The glorious light of the altar does not ignore even little spots in the garments of those who draw nigh to worship, even though larger stains might matter little in the garments of other ‘brethren’ who frolic with swine in dark and shadowy far-far countries (Isaiah 6:1-5).

WORDS ARE CONTRACTS

 God Made Covenants Through Words And Your Mouth Is Still Signing Them

What if every word you have spoken in the last twenty-four (24) hours was not just speech but a signature? Not metaphorically, literally. 

What if your mouth has been signing invisible contracts this entire time? And you did not even know the terms. 

Here is what most people miss. In the Hebrew Bible, there is no separation between speaking and creating. 

The same word that means to speak also means to establish reality. 

When God spoke the universe into existence, he did not just describe what would happen. He made it happen through speech itself. 

And here is the problem. 

You were made in His image. That means your mouth carries the same creative authority, the same binding power, the same covenant making force. 

But nobody taught you how it works. 

Nobody warned you that every declaration you make about yourself, your future, your identity is not just an opinion.  It is a spiritual contract being signed in real time. 

The ancient Hebrews knew this. It is written into the very shape of their alphabet, hidden in the structure of their most powerful words, embedded in their most sacred rituals. 

In the next few minutes, I am going to show you five moments in scripture where human speech literally rewrote history and one ancient Hebrew secret hidden in the shape of a single letter. 

And by the end of this post, you will understand why the Bible says, " life and death are in the power of the tongue." And it is not a metaphor. 

But first, you need to see what is hidden inside a single Hebrew letter that represents your mouth. 

There's a Hebrew letter you've probably never heard of, but it controls everything that comes out of your mouth. 

It's called phe פֶּה, or pay, not pay as in money. Phe, the Hebrew letter written like this, פֶּה PE, and it literally means mouth. 

But here is where it gets strange. This letter has two completely different forms in Hebrew. 

Two distinct shapes. 

And they do not just look different. They mean different things. 

The first form is the regular phe. Pay. 

In ancient Hebrew thought, this represents the closed mouth, the mouth at rest, the mouth in humility, the mouth that listens before it speaks. 😐

The second form is called phe sofit. P. 

It is used at the end of words and it represents the mouth wide open. 😮

The mouth in full declaration. The mouth releasing its creative power without restraint. 

Two forms, one letter, one profound teaching. 

There is a time to keep your mouth closed and a   time to open it with authority. 

But most people spend their entire lives doing the opposite. They speak when they should be silent. They stay silent when they should be declaring truth. 

And here's the problem. The Bible does not treat speech as neutral. 

In Genesis 1, every act of creation begins with the same phrase. 

And God said, not God thought, not God imagined. 

He said.

 Psalm 33:6 confirms it. By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. 

Speech was not a commentary on creation. Speech was the act of creation. 

And then God made humanity in His image. Which   means you did not just inherit His likeness in appearance. You inherited His creative mechanism. The power to create reality through words. 

But here is what the church does not emphasize. That power is still active right now in you. 

Every time you speak, you are not just making noise. You are invoking the same creative force God used to form galaxies. You are establishing spiritual realities. You are signing covenants with the invisible realm. 

The letter phe teaches you when to speak and when to stay silent, but it does not tell you what happens when you speak at the wrong time. Or worse, when you speak the wrong words. That is where the real danger begins. 

Because the Bible records five specific moments where human speech changed the course of history, not because of miracles, but because words themselves became the weapon. or the shield. 

And in one of those moments, an entire generation was sentenced to die in the wilderness because of what ten (10) men said out loud. 

If you're hungry for biblical truths most people overlook, read on right now. 

Because what we are about to uncover here will change the way you read scripture and the way you use your own voice. 

Let us go  to the five moments in the Bible, where words literally rewrote reality. 

¶First, the book of Esther, chapter 4, verse 14. 

Esther is standing at the edge of annihilation. 

Her people are marked for death. Haman said to King Xerxes, a decree has been signed. The execution date is set. And Mordecai  tells her,  "Who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?"

 Esther makes a declaration. Not a prayer, not a wish, but make a declaration. "I will go to the king. And if I perish, I perish."

 That sentence changed the fate of an entire nation. Not because it was eloquent, because it was spoken out loud in faith with authority. 

¶Second , Passover. Pesak. פֶּסַח phesah in Hebrew.

The Jewish people do not just remember the Exodus. They verbally proclaim it. 

Every year during the Seder meal, they recite the Haggadah, pronounced Hagda in Hebrew, a formal declaration of freedom. We were slaves. Now we are free. Why speak it out loud? 

Because according to Hebrew thought, the declaration renews the covenant. 

The spoken word reactivates the promise. It is not nostalgia. It is spiritual legislation. 

¶Third, Acts chapter 2, the day of Pentecost. 

The Holy Spirit descends like tongues of fire. And what is the first thing that happens?

They speak in languages they never learned. Not quietly, not in their heads, but spoke out loud with power. Why? Because the Spirit does not just fill you. He activates your mouth. He turns your speech into prophecy, into declaration, into the same creative force God used in Genesis chapter 1. 

¶Fourth, Numbers chapter 13. This one is devastating. 

Moses sends twelve (12) spies into the promised land. They all see the same thing. A land flowing with milk and honey. 

Giants. Fortified cities. Abundance and danger, side by side. 

Ten (10) of them come back and say, "We can't do it. We're like grasshoppers in their sight." 

Two (2) of them, Joshua and Caleb, say, "We can absolutely do it. God is with us." 

Same evidence, two different declarations. 

And here is what happened. 

God did not punish Israel for seeing the giants. He punished them for speaking defeat. 

Numbers 14:28. As you have spoken in my hearing, so I will do to you. 

So tell them, 'As surely as I live, declares the LORD, I will do to you the very thing I heard you say:

An entire generation sentenced to forty (40) years in the wilderness. Not because of unbelief in their hearts, because of the words they spoke with their mouths. 

Their speech became their sentence. 

¶ Fifth, the month of Elul. In the Jewish calendar, Elul is the month before the high holy days.

Elul is the twelfth month of the civil year and the sixth month of the religious year in the Hebrew calendar. It is a month of 29 days. Elul usually occurs in August–September on the Gregorian calendar. It's a time of repentance, of self-examination. 

And one of the primary focuses is speech. 

What have you said? 

What have you declared? 

What covenants have you signed with your own tongue? 

Because according to rabbinic teaching, your speech during elul determines your spiritual trajectory for the year ahead. 

So yes, words change history. But why? 

What is it about human speech that carries binding authority? 

The answer is hidden in a single Hebrew word, דבר. Dvar. Dvar pronounced DHvar. 

It is the Hebrew word דבר for word. But that is not all it means. The root is dbrallet. 

And this root carries multiple meanings that English can't capture in one term. To speak, to declare, to command, to ordain, to establish. 

In Hebrew, dvar does not just mean a word you said. It means a word that does something. 

A word that creates, a word that establishes reality.

 That's why the same root appears in the phrase here. Elohim, the Word of God, not a message about God. 

It is the active, living, creative word of God. 

And here is the shocking part. 

When you speak, you are using the same linguistic mechanism, the same spiritual technology.

Isaiah 55:11 says, "So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth. It shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it." 

God's word does not just describe reality. 

It commands it into existence. And you're created in His image were given a mouth that operates on the same principle. 

When you declare something over your life, you're not just expressing a hope. 

You are invoking dvar. You're releasing a word that establishes, ordains, and creates. But here's the problem. If dvar works for blessing, it also works for cursing. Because there's another Hebrew phrase you need to know. 

And this one is so dangerous. 

The Talmud says it kills three people every time it's spoken. The person who says it, the person who hears it. and the person it's about. 

The phrase is lashon hara , pronounced lashon ha ra. It means evil tongue or more literally the tongue that does harm. 

Lashon hara (or loshon horo, or loshon hora) (Hebrew: לשון הרע‎; "evil tongue") is the halakhic term for speech about a person or persons that is negative or harmful to them, even if it is true. It is speech that damages the person(s) who is talked about either emotionally or financially, or lowers them in the estimation of others. Shmiras Halashon (guarding the tongue) is the positive practice to promote the quality of life and help combat and reduce Lashon Hara.

Lashon hara differs from the more severe prohibition of hotzaat shem ra, "making a bad name," in that hotzaat shem ra consists of untrue statements.

Lashon hara is considered to be a very serious sin in the Jewish tradition. The communicator of lashon hara (which is included in rechilut) violates the Torah prohibition of lo telech rachil b'ameicha, translating to "thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people" (Leviticus 19:16 KJV).

And in Jewish tradition, it's one of the most serious sins a person can commit. Not murder, not theft. 

Speaking badly about someone. 

The Talmud, specifically tractate Arakhin 15B says that lashon hara is equivalent to the three cardinal sins combined. Read details here. 

Idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder. Why murder? 

 Because when you speak negatively about someone, you kill their reputation. 

You destroy their credibility. 

You damage their future. 

And unlike physical death, this kind of death is irreversible. 

You can't take back words once they've been released. 

Think about the last conversation you had. 

Were you building someone up or tearing them down? 

The rabbis taught that gossip, slander, and negative speech don't just hurt the person being talked about. 

They poison the speaker, corrupt the listener, and contaminate the spiritual atmosphere. 

And here's the part that will make you uncomfortable. You do not have to lie for it to be lashon hara. Even if what you're saying is true, if it harms someone's reputation, it is still forbidden. 

This is why James chapter 3 uses such extreme language. 

The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body and sets on fire the course of our life. 

James is not exaggerating. He is confirming the ancient Hebrew teaching. 

Your tongue is small, but it steers your entire life like a rudder steers a massive ship. 

One sentence can destroy a career. 

One rumor can end a marriage. 

One declaration of defeat can sentence you to forty (40) years of wandering. 

Now, let me ask you a question. 

What have you been saying about yourself? Not to other people, but to yourself, in your head out loud. 

In moments of frustration, in moments of fear, have you been declaring, "I'm not good enough. l'Il never change.  I always fail. Nobody respects me. I can't do this." 

Because according to the principle of d'var, those are not just thoughts. They are creative declarations. 

The principle of "d'var" in Hebrew means "word" or "thing," and it often refers to teachings or discussions based on the Torah.

They're establishing spiritual realities. 

They're signing covenants with failure, with fear, with defeat, and the invisible realm is listening. 

Proverbs 18:21 says it plainly, "Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit.

 You will eat the fruit of your own words.  Good or bad, blessing or curse, faith or fear. 

If you've been declaring poverty, you'll harvest poverty.

 If you've been declaring sickness, you'll harvest sickness. 

If you've been declaring that your children are rebellious, guess what covenant you just made with. Rebellion. 

But here's the hope. If death is in the power of the tongue, so is life. 

If your mouth has been signing contracts with defeat, your mouth can cancel them. 

If your tongue has been a weapon of destruction,   your tongue can become an altar of covenant because every word you speak is a form of beerit. בְּרִית, beerit the Hebrew word for covenant. 

And that brings us to the final revelation. 

What if every major covenant in the Bible was sealed not by ritual, not by sacrifice, but by spoken words? 

And what if your mouth is doing the exact same thing right now, signing invisible covenants every single day without you even realizing it? 

Let's go back to the beginning. Genesis 15. God makes a covenant with Abraham. How does he do it? He speaks to your descendants. "I will give this land. 

Genesis 17, God establishes the covenant of circumcision. How? By declaring it. This is my covenant which you shall keep. 

Exodus 19:20-24. The covenant at Sinai. 

Moses reads the words of the covenant out loud and the people respond out loud. "All that the Lord has said, we will do." Every major covenant in scripture was verbally declared, spoken, sealed with words. 

Because in Hebrew thought, a covenant is not just an agreement. It's a beerit, a binding spiritual contract, activated by speech. 

Exodus 19:20-24(New International Version)

²⁰ The Lord descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain. So Moses went up ²¹ and the Lord said to him, “Go down and warn the people so they do not force their way through to see the Lord and many of them perish. ²² Even the priests, who approach the Lord, must consecrate themselves, or the Lord will break out against them.”

²³ Moses said to the Lord, “The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, because you yourself warned us, ‘Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy.’”

²⁴ The Lord replied, “Go down and bring Aaron up with you. But the priests and the people must not force their way through to come up to the Lord, or he will break out against them.”

Numbers 3:2 says, "If a man makes a vow to the Lord or swears an oath to bind himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word,

前穆斯林分享证词

 前穆斯林揭露伊斯兰教为何比共产主义更糟糕……并最终离开

证词：伊斯兰教是对圣经价值观的否定。它是一场反对十诫的运动。原因在于穆罕默德违背了十诫。基督教徒和犹太教徒所信奉的每一项圣经价值观，他们的先知都违背了。他们无法挽回颜面。我生于开罗，是一名穆斯林。我曾深信自己是一名穆斯林，并为此捍卫信仰。我全心全意地捍卫它。如果需要为此献出生命，我也会毫不犹豫。我去了教堂，听了一场布道。布道内容的神圣性深深震撼了我。我开始哭泣。从布道开始到结束，我一直在哭泣，我立刻意识到我出生的宗教并不神圣。于是，我第一次开始阅读有关伊斯兰教的书籍。我开始阅读有关伊斯兰教法的书籍。我简直不敢相信伊斯兰教竟然违背了十诫。 不要杀人：穆罕默德杀过人。不要偷窃：他偷过东西。不要婚外性行为：他自己婚外性行为过。不要崇拜偶像。伊斯兰教是最大的偶像崇拜，他们崇拜黑石，亲吻它，膜拜它。这块黑石在伊斯兰教出现之前就在克尔白里，他们把它拿走了。他们现在崇拜它。伊斯兰教是唯一一个合法处死叛教者的宗教。实际上，杀死叛教者是他们的义务。任何在街上杀死你的人都会被原谅。这就是伊斯兰教法。成为穆斯林就像加入黑手党。伊斯兰教比共产主义更糟糕。伊斯兰教的领袖们知道，如果他们取消叛教者的死刑，整个伊斯兰世界将会崩溃。独裁者喜欢这种制度，因为这是他们唯一可以不受反对地统治的方式。伊斯兰教对服从者施以严厉的惩罚。你不服从，就会受到严厉的惩罚。 体罚在伊斯兰世界非常普遍，原因很简单：他们必须让人们不加思考地信仰伊斯兰教。如果你提出问题，就意味着你在思考。牧师说：“如果有人还没受洗，我们就给他们施洗。”于是我起身走向洗礼池，浑身颤抖。我感觉自己仿佛正在被洗净，脱离伊斯兰教的束缚。我站在那里，浸入水中，然后起身，感觉自己像个全新的人。基督让我获得了自由。只有真正离开伊斯兰教，成为基督徒，你才能理解这种自由的意义。因为你一生都饱受虐待和凌辱，而当你接受耶稣，你才能挣脱这一切的束缚。基督让我获得了自由。

Ex-Muslim Shares Testimony

 Ex-Muslim EXPOSES why Islam is WORSE than Communism .. and left 

Testimony: Islam came as a rejection of biblical values. It was a movement against the Ten Commandments. The reason is Muhammad violated all of the Ten Commandments. Every biblical value that the Christians and Jews stand for, their prophet has violated. They cannot save face. I was born a Muslim. I was born in Cairo. I really thought I was a Muslim, and I defended it. I defend it with all of my being. If I need to put my life down for it, I will do it. I went to a church and I heard the sermon. The holiness of the topic was so powerful on me. I started crying. I started crying from the beginning of the sermon to the end, and I immediately realized that the religion I was born in was not holy. So I started reading about Islam for the first time. I started reading about Sharia. I couldn't believe that Islam violated all the Ten Commandments. Don't kill: Muhammad killed. Don't steal: he stole. Don't have sex outside of your marriage: he himself had sex outside of his marriage.  Don't worship an idol. Islam is the biggest idolatry that is out there, the Black Stone, that they go and yes, kiss it and worship it. That same Black Stone was in the Kaaba before Islam came, and they took it. They're worshiping it. Islam is the only religion that legally kill those who leave it. Actually, it's an obligation to kill you. Anyone on the streets who kills you, will be forgiven. This is in Sharia. Being a Muslim is like belonging to the mafia. Islam is worse than communism. The leaders of Islam know that if they remove the death penalty for leaving Islam, the whole Islamic world will collapse. Dictators love this system because it is the only way they can rule without opposition. Islam uses severe punishment for compliance. You don't comply, you have severe punishment. Physical punishment is very, very common in the Islamic world, and for a reason: they have to associate believing in Islam without thinking. If you ask questions, it means you are thinking. The pastor was saying, "if anybody was not baptized, we have a baptism." So I got up and I went to the water baptism area and I was shivering. I was almost like, I'm being cleansed from Islam. I stood there. And I immersed in the water and I got up and I was like a new person. Christ set me free. You never understand the meaning of it until you really left and become a Christian because you've been abused, mistreated all of your life, and then you accept Jesus and you break out of it. Christ has set me free. 

مسلم سابق يكشف لماذا الإسلام أسوأ من الشيوعية.. ثم ترك الإسلام

شهادة: جاء الإسلام كرفض للقيم الدينية. كان حركة ضد الوصايا العشر. والسبب هو أن محمدًا انتهك جميع الوصايا العشر. كل قيمة دينية يتمسك بها المسيحيون واليهود، انتهكها نبيهم. لا يمكنهم تبرير أنفسهم. ولدتُ مسلمًا. ولدتُ في القاهرة. كنتُ أعتقد حقًا أنني مسلم، ودافعتُ عن ذلك. أدافع عنه بكل كياني. إذا تطلب الأمر التضحية بحياتي من أجله، فسأفعل. ذهبتُ إلى الكنيسة واستمعتُ إلى الخطبة. كان موضوعها مؤثرًا جدًا عليّ. بدأتُ بالبكاء. بكيتُ من بداية الخطبة إلى نهايتها، وأدركتُ فورًا أن الدين الذي ولدتُ عليه لم يكن مقدسًا. لذلك بدأتُ أقرأ عن الإسلام لأول مرة. بدأتُ أقرأ عن الشريعة. لم أصدق أن الإسلام انتهك جميع الوصايا العشر. لا تقتل: محمد قتل. لا تسرق: لقد سرق. لا تمارس الجنس خارج إطار الزواج: لقد مارس الجنس خارج إطار زواجه. لا تعبد الأصنام. الإسلام هو أكبر وثنية موجودة، الحجر الأسود، يذهبون إليه ويقبلونه ويعبدونه. كان هذا الحجر الأسود نفسه في الكعبة قبل مجيء الإسلام، وقد أخذوه. إنهم يعبدونه. الإسلام هو الدين الوحيد الذي يُجيز قتل من يتركه. في الواقع، قتلك واجب. أي شخص يقتلك في الشارع، سيُغفر له. هذا في الشريعة. أن تكون مسلماً يشبه الانتماء إلى المافيا. الإسلام أسوأ من الشيوعية. يعلم قادة الإسلام أنه إذا ألغوا عقوبة الإعدام لمن يترك الإسلام، سينهار العالم الإسلامي بأكمله. يحب الدكتاتوريون هذا النظام لأنه الطريقة الوحيدة التي يمكنهم من خلالها الحكم دون معارضة. يستخدم الإسلام عقوبات شديدة للامتثال. إذا لم تمتثل، ستُعاقب بشدة. العقاب البدني شائع جدًا في العالم الإسلامي، ولسبب وجيه: عليهم أن يربطوا الإيمان بالإسلام بالخضوع التام. إذا طرحتَ أسئلة، فهذا يعني أنك تُفكّر. كان القس يقول: "إذا لم يكن أحدٌ قد تعمّد، فسنُجري له معمودية". فنهضتُ وذهبتُ إلى مكان المعمودية بالماء، وكنتُ أرتجف. شعرتُ وكأنني أُطهّر من الإسلام. وقفتُ هناك، وانغمستُ في الماء، ثم نهضتُ وشعرتُ كأنني وُلدتُ من جديد. لقد حرّرني المسيح. لن تفهم معنى ذلك حقًا حتى تترك الإسلام وتصبح مسيحيًا، لأنك عانيتَ من الإساءة وسوء المعاملة طوال حياتك، ثم تقبل يسوع وتتحرّر من ذلك. لقد حرّرني المسيح.

muslim sabiq yakshif limadha al'iislam 'aswa min alshuyueiati.. thuma tarak al'iislam

shhadt: ja' al'islam krfd llqym aldyny. kan hrkt dd alwsaya aleshr. walsbb hw an mhmdan anthk jmye alwsaya aleshr. kl qymt dynyt ytmsk bha almsyhywn walyhwd, anthkha nbyhm. la ymknhm tbryr anfshm. wldt mslman. wldt fy alqahr. knt aetqd hqan anny mslm, wdafet en dhlk. adafe enh bkl kyany. 'idha ttlb alamr altdhyt bhyaty mn ajlh, fsafel. dhhbt 'ila alknyst wastmet 'ila alkhtb. kan mwdweha mwthran jdan ely. bdat balbka'. bkyt mn bdayt alkhtbt 'ila nhaytha, wadrkt fwran an aldyn aldhy wldt elyh lm ykn mqdsan. ldhlk bdat aqra en al'islam lawl mr. bdat aqra en alshrye. lm asdq an al'islam anthk jmye alwsaya aleshr. la tqtl: mhmd qtl. la tsrq: lqd srq. la tmars aljns kharj 'itar alzwaj: lqd mars aljns kharj 'itar zwajh. la tebd alasnam. al'islam hw akbr wthnyt mwjwdt, alhjr alaswd, ydhhbwn 'ilyh wyqblwnh wyebdwnh. kan hdha alhjr alaswd nfsh fy alkebt qbl mjy' al'islam, wqd akhdhwh. 'inhm yebdwnh. al'islam hw aldyn alwhyd aldhy yujyz qtl mn ytrkh. fy alwaqe, qtlk wajb. ay shkhs yqtlk fy alshare, syughfr lh. hdha fy alshrye. an tkwn mslmaan yshbh alantma' 'ila almafya. al'islam aswa mn alshywey. yelm qadt al'islam anh 'idha alghu eqwbt al'iedam lmn ytrk al'islam, synhar alealm al'islamy bakmlh. yhb aldktatwrywn hdha alnzam lanh altryqt alwhydt alty ymknhm mn khlalha alhkm dwn meard. ystkhdm al'islam eqwbat shdydt llamtthal. 'idha lm tmtthl, stueaqb bshd. aleqab albdny shaye jdan fy alealm al'islamy, wlsbb wjyh: elyhm an yrbtu al'iyman bal'islam balkhdwe altam. 'idha trht asylt, fhdha yeny ank tufkkr. kan alqs yqwl: "'idha lm ykn ahd qd temmd, fsnujry lh memwdy". fnhdt wdhhbt 'ila mkan almemwdyt balma', wknt artjf. shert wkanny 'uthhr mn al'islam. wqft hnak, wanghmst fy alma', thm nhdt wshert kanny wuldt mn jdyd. lqd hrrrny almsyh. ln tfhm mena dhlk hqan hta ttrk al'islam wtsbh msyhyan, lank eanyt mn al'isa't wsw' almeamlt twal hyatk, thm tqbl yswe wtthrrr mn dhlk. lqd hrrrny almsyh.

Bekas Muslim MEMBONGKARKAN mengapa Islam LEBIH TERUK daripada Komunisme .. dan meninggalkan

Kesaksian: Islam datang sebagai penolakan terhadap nilai-nilai alkitabiah. Ia adalah gerakan menentang Sepuluh Perintah. Sebabnya ialah Muhammad melanggar semua Sepuluh Perintah. Setiap nilai alkitabiah yang diperjuangkan oleh orang Kristian dan Yahudi, telah dilanggar oleh nabi mereka. Mereka tidak dapat menyelamatkan air muka. Saya dilahirkan sebagai seorang Muslim. Saya dilahirkan di Kaherah. Saya benar-benar menyangka saya seorang Muslim, dan saya mempertahankannya. Saya mempertahankannya dengan segenap jiwa saya. Jika saya perlu mengorbankan nyawa saya untuknya, saya akan melakukannya. Saya pergi ke sebuah gereja dan saya mendengar khutbah itu. Kesucian topik itu sangat kuat dalam diri saya. Saya mula menangis. Saya mula menangis dari awal khutbah hingga akhir, dan saya segera menyedari bahawa agama tempat saya dilahirkan tidak suci. Jadi saya mula membaca tentang Islam buat kali pertama. Saya mula membaca tentang Syariah. Saya tidak percaya bahawa Islam melanggar semua Sepuluh Perintah. Jangan membunuh: Muhammad membunuh. Jangan mencuri: dia mencuri. Jangan melakukan hubungan seks di luar perkahwinan anda: dia sendiri pernah melakukan hubungan seks di luar perkahwinannya. Jangan menyembah berhala. Islam adalah penyembahan berhala terbesar yang ada di luar sana, Hajar Aswad, yang mereka pergi dan ya, cium dan sembah. Hajar Aswad yang sama ada di dalam Kaabah sebelum Islam datang, dan mereka mengambilnya. Mereka menyembahnya. Islam adalah satu-satunya agama yang secara sah membunuh mereka yang meninggalkannya. Sebenarnya, membunuh anda adalah satu kewajipan. Sesiapa di jalanan yang membunuh anda, akan diampuni. Ini adalah dalam Syariah. Menjadi seorang Muslim adalah seperti menjadi sebahagian daripada mafia. Islam lebih buruk daripada komunisme. Para pemimpin Islam tahu bahawa jika mereka menghapuskan hukuman mati kerana meninggalkan Islam, seluruh dunia Islam akan runtuh. Diktator menyukai sistem ini kerana ia adalah satu-satunya cara mereka boleh memerintah tanpa tentangan. Islam menggunakan hukuman berat untuk kepatuhan. Anda tidak mematuhi, anda akan mendapat hukuman berat. Hukuman fizikal adalah sangat, sangat biasa di dunia Islam, dan atas sebab tertentu: mereka perlu mengaitkan kepercayaan kepada Islam tanpa berfikir. Jika anda bertanya soalan, itu bermakna anda sedang berfikir. Paderi itu berkata, "jika sesiapa belum dibaptis, kita ada pembaptisan." Jadi saya bangun dan pergi ke kawasan pembaptisan air dan saya menggigil. Saya hampir seperti, saya sedang dibersihkan daripada Islam. Saya berdiri di sana. Dan saya membenamkan diri ke dalam air dan saya bangun dan saya seperti orang baru. Kristus membebaskan saya. Anda tidak akan pernah memahami maksudnya sehinggalah anda benar-benar meninggalkan Islam dan menjadi seorang Kristian kerana anda telah didera, dilayan dengan buruk sepanjang hidup anda, dan kemudian anda menerima Yesus dan anda keluar daripadanya. Kristus telah membebaskan saya.