I know you asked them before. I do recall both of them admitting that they make mistakes and seeking to apologize when they were persuaded that they had. If a person isn't persuaded they've made a mistake, even though they submit their hearts to God constantly and don't find anything, then it's possible that asking them again with more specifics would help.
Right now you're stating these aren't the least interested in relating from humility; but how do you know that something that happened long ago is the constant state? I recall you modifying your views about people back and forth because people's states change. If it were true that such a person "couldn't" possibly change, then why would you continue talking about the possibility instead of just ignoring them and treating them as an impossible case, and protecting yourself from criticism by not ever bringing up their impossibility?
I recall them deleting content; I certainly deleted their content too. I always offer, if there's something else you want deleted, let me know. If everything that needs to have been deleted has been deleted, then there's nothing to bring up. If you think it's out there but the damage is done and unfixable, then you either decide what it would take to heal, or you conclude it'll never be fixed and you've been damaged forever (which, BTW, people don't generally accept because there's no value in being a perpetual victim).
Yes, u/SicSemperTyrannis2 used a profanity with you and I deleted it. Do you want to keep repeating his profanity many more times than he said it? Do you need something else done before you can forgive him, or do you purpose never to forgive him?
Are you able to answer my questions? Because if you wish to be a person who has a right to complain about others forever but others don't have a right to complain about you forever, that wouldn't be the golden rule, would it? I don't think that's who you want to be, I just don't see you doing anything different from setting aside a time to complain about others about once a month with very little letup. As I said at first, I'd like to do whatever can be done to assist you with resolving the complaints so that this cycle doesn't continue.
I suspect that if you asked them politely what they meant to say, they would tell you that they didn't say the things you think you heard, and the communication might work toward clearing up.
If I were in your situation, and I thought someone had said something hellish to me, I would be very careful to be sure I heard, remembered (had a link or record), and understood completely what was meant, and to be sure I had asked about whether something else could be intended. I've sought to read all the conversations you're talking about and I'm pretty confident there was no implication about actively sending you to hell or about not seeing you as belonging to God.
I do know that it's been said that people who sin continuously are at risk, and that they've suggested that you've sinned a couple times. I hope this is an appropriate place for me to give that impression, knowing that when we talk about people saying that you might have sinned it's a sensitive issue for you. But they've said that, and perhaps there was miscommunication between what was said and what was unsaid. And as you point out, polite questioning often resolves issues and heals past wounds.
I don't think I, or they, esteem ourselves highly. Catholics don't esteem themselves saints, for instance; they reserve that name for those for whom there's evidence of sainthood after death. I think that in this conversation you're dealing with people who care about you but who don't want to be emotionally exposed to criticism that isn't intended to bring about healing. You're not dealing with people who have collectivism or hatred, you're dealing with people who have concerns (like you do) and who have challenges with understanding the behavior of others (like you do). By my putting them in the same category as you, I'm demonstrating that there are not favorites. If you, or I, or they, were to judge another person, I'd treat it the same no matter who it's from, and I'd push back if there's no evidence and hear the concern if there is evidence.
I hope that answers. You hint I might be momentarily judging without caring, and I don't intend to be, so if you can point out how I'm doing so then I can correct that. If we have the air clear between us, it looks like you would like some understanding about and concession about the past conversations you're alluding to. In my silly binary view, I'd think that either you want it healed or you want the right to keep bringing up a wound indefinitely; and in either case when it's clear what you want then it's easy to proceed forward. So let me know what I can do, and what else can be done, to help the situation.
Well, Wells and Beaty get minor roles in the development of the Khazar hypothesis, but every time that's come up I've pointed out that the Khazars were circumcised and naturalized, and then intermarried with other Jews, giving the Jewish people every right to continue the name of Jew because it was the merger of two peoples instead of two completely distinct lines. I silence people by saying that if Americans can tell Jews they're not Jews, then that allows Jews to claim the same right to say Americans aren't Americans (as immigration proponents like Schumer are doing).
But the Khazar hypothesis isn't the Edomite, which isn't the Babylonian, which isn't the Phoenician. And all those are the same category, partial mergers and influences. At no point do the people known in local language as Judahites lose the right to be called that, and at no point does a separate people arise who are not born into or naturalized into the Judahites but who take up the name that is not theirs. (Unless you count a handful of Gentiles in Smyrna and Philadelphia, who may have included Onkelos; but even he later converted to Judaism.) None of the theorists that have advanced any of those hypotheses have a whit of data about there being some other people than the Jews.
Another thing that shuts them up is that the Khazar hypothesis was invented by Jews, first to claim the Khazar power as their own (Judah Halevi, Abraham ibn Daud) and later to minimalize their Jewish heritage to get exemptions from persecution (Isaac Levinsohn, Abraham Harkavi, Abraham Firkovitz). Now it's being thrown back at Jews to claim they all lose all heritage, which is as I say self-destructive of the accusers: Gentiles are using a Jewish-invented pilpul while denouncing the Jews and not realizing that the same logic denounces themselves too just as the Jews are accused of desiring.
You switch to "Hebrews", and nowadays we think of Hebrews as the same as Jews, but Abram was a Hebrew and that meant son of Eber, and there were many other (Semitic) Hebrews, which obtained the name Habiru and the title Hyksos. So tacking to "Hebrews" doesn't help. Those in Babylon had come from the kingdom of Judea and were Judeans (for which Jews is simply a short form first attested in French ca. 1000 AD where "Ju" elided "Judaeus").
You give no evidence that Jews are identified with Tyrians and Sidonians (who used those city-based names rather than tribe-based names). These peoples are kept distinct by basically everyone. You seem to accept Judges 3 about there being Canaanites but you don't seem to be comfortable with the implication that the Israelites were there distinguished from them, or that Judahites were then a key tribe of Israelites (Judg. 1:1-20).
No, it doesn't sound familiar for there to be Carthaginian converts after their utter defeat by Rome in 146 BC because there was no Carthage anymore. If you'd said Punic converts, which is what the remaining people were called, I wouldn't call it out as an obvious invention, but I still see no evidence that Punic people converted to Second Temple Judaism at large.
So you're not carrying the water. To the idea "Jews descend from Phoenicians" I answered Jews descend from Judah (b. 1793 BC) and you didn't respond. To the idea "Jews aren't Israelite" I answered Judah's father was Israel and you didn't respond. To the idea "Jerusalem was in Ebla tablets 3000 BC" I answered there's no evidence of Jerusalem before 1900 BC nor of Ebla tablets before 2500 BC and you didn't respond. Now you throw in some Khazar hypothesis i.e. "Jews aren't Ioudaios", where I've answered that nobody who says that has put forward any proof that modern Jews aren't the same people; and you say "Jews descend from Tyrians and Sidonians", but I answer that Tyre and Sidon were on the boundaries of Asher, not Judah (Josh. 19:28-29), and were never taken by Asher (Judg. 1:31). Do you have any claims that aren't batting .000?
The word "plagiarized" is common for use without edit or attribution; now that you've apologized I'll drop the charge. Yes, I do use Wikipedia to supplement my memory, and when fitting I quote them rather than summarize them. My memory was that Ebla was postdiluvian and so there wouldn't be any tablets before ca. 2500 BC for that reason either, but the fact that Wikipedia agrees isn't a problem.
However, you don't add any data about alleged Egyptian statues or Ebla tablets. But thank you for pointing out that Constantin Tsutras and Salim Khalaf say exactly the same thing. Ordinarily I'd say that one plagiarized from the other because neither give dates or sources, but since I don't know which I'll give them both a pass.
You seem to attribute some relationship between me and Jews other than the fact that I do worship one Jew, Jesus Christ. As a Christian, I believe the whole Bible is accurate and Judah (b. 1793 BC) is the son of Israel, making all Jews Israelites. I know there are recent skeptics disagreeing but I've investigated all their claims and found them valueless.
I see no evidence that Tsutras's book is worth investing in as I'm not interested in "esoteric interpretations beyond the literal and historical accepted meanings" when the literal historical isn't accepted in the first place. He seems to be a Noachite who thinks he's transcended Christianity.
The point is that Jerusalem being originally a Canaanite city, just as the Bible states, is no evidence that Jews aren't Israelites, an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. The default evidence of the Bible stands unchallenged. If you want free reading, consider that the majority of the Ten Plagues are historically attested in the year 1540-1539, exactly the year the Biblical chronology points to.
Thanks for asking, I saw your asking this in c/Christianity first and replied there.
We have no data on the experiences of people who don't come back so it's complete speculation. We do have data on coma dreams; a quick check shows that they are compatible with NDE evidence, although some comas leave permanent neural damage and few reported NDEs do, despite their short-term lethality.
Some have speculated that the physical death process informs neuronic overstimulus that explains NDEs, and my point is that many aspects of NDEs don't fit that at all. Many skeptical of NDEs were confronted by the evidence of their own, or their patients', experience and could not gainsay its inexplicability.
Well, your link sure doesn't show a consensus of any kind. It shows haggling about rules, which is now mostly stabilized.
The link I gave you is the compilation. You can click the links to view all comments to see the individual votes.
The fact that a community exists with rules is a default consensus by its founding members that carries over to members who joined later such that overturning those rules requires a large, clear, new discussion.
I encourage anyone interested to do as I have, post a binary (yes-no) question for discussion and analyze the votes. There was one question proposed about alternate moderation and, it not being binary, my recollection is that every contributor had a different idea from every other.
You have today to find the best one. If your default option is that there are no good options, that's nihilism and most people don't actually wish to continue with that default. But whatever inspires you to purpose today will indicate your path tomorrow.
Funny mix of pretended and real etymologies, Eustace. "Cannibal" is a version of the 16th-century Carib [or Kali'na] people's name for themselves, so it's a Native American word. Many spellings and languages are attested and may have originally been "karipona". We could argue that Natives came from Asians who would have known of Hamite Canaan and of baalim under the simple meaning of human lords, but such a literalist theory would require backup and would need to explain how Kna'an and Ba'al were combined and became karipona* in Guiana, which has no sense. [If we were to supply a Semitic root arbitrarily for the Guianan, we might propose qari'-panah*, which can be translated "chosen head", which would one-up Eustace quite a bit in terms of historical fit.] The fact, that Nimrod, whom I've tracked to be the same as Naram-Sin, engaged rituals that probably included cannibalism, is no evidence that it was so named at that time.
I'm seeing no real evidence for the "seventy deities" besides a late strained Jewish interpretation of Deut. 32:8, which is not about El but about Elyon (since we're making distinctions). The deities have no names unless the Table of Nations starting with Shem, Ham, and Japheth is taken as their names.
Astara or Ostara ... became the patron god of the Nazi movement in Germany.
Oh, that's fun and I should know it if true. Yes, it looks like Jorg Lanz published Ostara magazine about this god, that Hitler read it in his youth, and that Lanz is on my broad list of contributors to Nazi philosophy; but calling this connection "the patron god" ("the") presses the issue too far. Ostara is indeed merged with Ashtoreth in European convergent etymology, meaning that it had the ordinary positive connotations of east, Austria, (sun) rising, and merged those inseparably with the Semitic connotations of Ashtoreth, Asherah poles, and some say Stur (Saturn), a process long before 1000 AD.
"Purple" does not appear to be the original meaning of the "phoenix" words, but a derivative based on association with the extant Canaanite people. The original may be Egyptian "fnhw", "carpenters", found at Karnak; or, in Linear B, "ponikijo", "palm".
Other statements are accurate or not worth disputing.
I distinctly saw her *Running JOYFULLY FREE thru a slightly UPward seemingly eternal Wildflower meadow ... kind of like this https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/12i3ubUQNV/daybyday-in-paradiseyes-gods-cou/c and mom was finally at PEACE.
Very good. That agrees with category 6 above as described by Burke.
This is described by what I give as category 3 of NDEs, as detailed thoroughly by Burke. Other reports vary.
The Jews agree that Jerusalem was not originally their city but was Canaanite until conquered in the late 11th century BC. This gives no evidence that Jews and Phoenicians were the same people.
The third-mill citations you give don't pan out as Jerusalem doesn't seem to go back before the 19th century BC. It's entirely possible there exists one older "Egyptian statue" and/or "[Ebla] tablet" but they don't come up and there are no Ebla tablets before ca. 2500 BC. Instead, I see I don't even have to ask for your source because you plagiarized Phoenicia.org, written by Salim Khalaf without further sourcing. So let's drop the partisan rhetoric and stick to elite research, thanks.
Neither the Jews’s religion nor their DNA traces back to the OT Israelites, but rather to the Phoenicians/Carthaginians.
Source?
What I see is that Phoenicia (including Carthage) had similar ancestry in Canaan to the Israelites' through Abraham, but that would make them brother nations and not descendants. One hint is that Phoenicians have some Jewish heritage rather than the other way around.
Oh, I guess I didn't read it as a threat because it was indirect.
To speak indirectly about it, a lot of people think that they should be free to drop all kinds of intentional hints indirectly but that when they infer a nuance from someone else's indirection then that other person should be punished for the nuance that they received. I would certainly hope that's not you.
To speak directly, when you say "make coherent statements" you're not saying the comment is incoherent but you are implying (connecting it to rule 1) that you think it's potentially worthy of discipline; and when u/Thisisnotanexit says "this is spammy harassey stuff" she is saying the comment is potentially spam or harassment and implying thereby that she thinks it's potentially worthy of discipline. Both statements are equally indirect.
So I applaud your desire for justice and equal treatment and would encourage you to continue calling out things that look imbalanced to you. Over time the discussion will help us all come to agreement on proper balance. But so far I haven't been persuaded by your case.
Funny, incoherence has never been against the rules in this open-minded forum. Failure to address the argument is also not against the rules if one chooses not to attack but to speak of something related. Nor does disrespect seem to be the issue here.
It would be a hard stretch to shoehorn this comment, or similar ones, into an overbroad category of "disrespect" or "subversion" or "spam" without making those words totally arbitrary. Disrespect is in the context of personal attack such as namecalling, subversion is in the context of meta posts, and spam is in the context of inorganic content, none of which apply. The post isn't "low quality" or "trolling" or "intentionally misleading". The worst we've got is that it's contrary to norms (which is what the forum seeks after all), that it can sound illogical (not a deletion criterion because paradox often helps explain conspiracy), or that it slides the forum (but this account never posts, is easily ignored, and has no stated agenda). So I reluctantly tolerate this content, and interact with it from time to time as I am "inspired".
A freshly deceased mind, spasming out fragments of memories, mish mashes of whatever connections your neurons built during life. As you rot and the connections dry out and crumble away, the dreams have less architecture to pull from, and you lose the inclusion of memories of lesser importance. You have flashes of work, family, porn, memes, playing games, injuries, mantras, songs. Little micro-dreams of the school dance, that one ball game... and they occur less and less vividly, less frequently, based on how often you experienced them, how thick your neurons built the pathway. As it melts away you're left with images of immediate family, Bing Crosby singing Christmas carols, your church sanctuary....
This hypothesis has been heard and duly considered by NDE researchers and the sources I listed show it to be a much weaker explanation. In particular, a supermajority of NDEs report greatly heightened ability to sense and to choose, many NDEs, from people blind from birth, report experiences of vision in ways that cannot be explained ordinarily, and many NDEs report observation of contemporaneous events on earth that they could not have known without the NDE. Further, the NDE generally returns to a fully intact mind, not one that has melted away in any sense. So this explanation, while it might handle an isolated, low-detail case, does not account for the data accumulated by researchers in the last 40+ years of collation on the subject.
Water-birthed babies don't scream.
In this metaphor if there were a past life it would not be lost near birth but near conception. The fact is that birth is a crisis transition to much greater liberty, and evidence shows that death is too. Therefore the screaming or its lack relates to how well the parents have provided for the transition, and spiritually the same is true of death.
If they're Cainites, they're not Jews (Judahites) then.
If they're Jews (Judahites), they're not Cainites then.
The fact that Judahites are doing Cainite things, and things from the other races you mention, doesn't make them Cainite by descent.
If Americans can say Jews are not Jews, then Jews can say Americans are not Americans. Perhaps the Jews are seeding us with the idea of erasing their heritage so that they can be justified in erasing ours? We wouldn't want to contribute to that, would we?
NDEs give much evidence that there is a choice but they only show those who choose not to go beyond a certain "barrier". The best two books on the subject are Life After Life by Raymond Moody and Imagine Heaven by John Burke and all those interested who have the time should invest in both. Some people go a long distance "toward the light" but many find a "barrier" and recognize that it's a point of no return, and those that came back tell us that; so going toward the light in itself isn't the final question.
Ranging from negative to positive, NDE experiences include (1) a choking, repulsive "pit", (2) a warring, painful "hell", (3) a distancing, dark "abyss", (4) observation of earth's happenings during the NDE, (5) an ascending, tubelike "passage", (6) a rewarding, fruitful "paradise", (7) an exciting, joyous "city". Almost all fall into these categories. The light can be experienced in any realm but has the effect of moving the soul toward more positive realms and, if pursued, almost always resolves into human form (not any other form). The entire narrative, combined across thousands of testimonies, indicates a presentation where the light is the most reasonable, loving being and resistance to the light is engaged by the most unreasonable, hateful beings.
We can infer from observing death that the experienced "barrier" is consistent with the fact that most people don't return from clinical death. We can infer from the aggregation of testimony that those who return often experience a straining point where they judge that to go further in the direction (either positive or negative) would be "permanent", i.e., it would separate sentience from body indefinitely via a breaking event. All reports indicate that choice exists in all realms (but is harder and more pressured in the negative than in the positive) and the barrier encounter evidences that a choice can be "locked in" for any realm (although the consistent impression is that positive and negative locks create separate, unmixed destinies).
Therefore OP is about (1) trusting the appearances to be accurate versus (2) distrusting the appearances in favor of some other explanation. Death is certainly a "birth" from the present realm to a realm without physical experience but with heightened sensation (reported by the supermajority of NDE experiences). I've pointed out that in reincarnation cultures the gilgul oversoul explanation fits better with evidence than the transmigration recycling explanation, but since OP is about the NDE and since there is no discussion in the NDE about observation of anyone engaging an experience of forgetfulness or return to a zygotic state then we simply cannot rule it in or out on the experienced evidence but only on contingent theory. Therefore my conclusion last time was that every day of life we are preparing to make the right judgments in the afterlife, and making the right decision when confronting the light will absolutely be guided by practicing right discernment in the present, every day. Prejudging the case is unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive as it hampers the ability to judge it when it happens. However, judging human presentation to find out the nature of truth and deception can be practiced at every moment and seems to be the best answer to your question.
We're not arguing white man's burden. I agreed with you that genocide including children is permitted in the Bible in certain very regulated cases. Obviously you don't want the cases drawn so loosely that it justifies the next idiot who decides on his own recognizance that he can commit "genocide" against any individual of his choosing without reason. That would be murder. So let's find out what crimes your avenging by your genocide, you haven't said.
If you get 4.5 votes for, and 1 vote against, on some binary proposition that contradicts the prior vote, that would indicate that the prior voters had become passive so it might be a start on new consensus. However, if you don't get a margin of 3.5 it would be a less conclusive total. Plus, just as last time, it's not on any of us to interpret results finally but only on admin. Admin didn't announce how they would implement the vote in favor of a generic mod, instead they approached TINAE rather than anyone else and negotiated a plan and let her publish it. So please feel free and see what the community does and what the admin does.
You can do all this without namecalling, which is still a Rule 1 violation.
If you claim the right to criminalize children because you believe Jews criminalize children, yes, that's hypocrisy. You need to hold yourself to a higher standard than those you declare enemies.
If you were to claim the moral right to execute children as the result of a tribunal judgment upon a race, that would be different and instead of appealing to the Jews as standards for your behavior you'd appeal to your own circumspection. That's what the Swamp Rangers do: we are willing to judge whole classes of people as Swamp Creatures as long as the judgment and crimes are public. The Bible indicates that there are rare times when even the children can be judged but it is for their own behavior (unless they are casualties of war, which is quite different from "it's the Jews"). So you don't seem to be acting out of moral right but out of emulation.
You say caring more about Jewish children than white children is a crime, and you say my efforts to obtain moderation for this forum were a crime. That would be fine because then you could hold me criminal instead of the Jews. I learned from Paul how to suffer on behalf of others. But you're not stating any crime any Jew has committed. You can't even say Kissinger got JFK killed, let alone that all Jewish toddlers are complicit. So your failing to produce crimes suggests that your judgment may be a trifle rash here. (Speaking of which, I defend all groups against unjust criticism equally, and I defend all attempts to obtain consensus about this forum equally, so your judgments there are questionable too.)
I keep hoping you'll advance the discussion by proposing a tribunal. For instance, let's check in on the ICC, South Africa v. Israel: oh look, Israel has now answered in court (as of 2026-03-14) for charges of genocide, so the proceeding is ongoing. Why not agree to hear the ICC's eventual ruling before making your own judgment? Or why not say, as others do here, that being indoctrinated into Rabbinical Judaism is a crime in itself because a child should know better than to get a bar mitzvah? To say "it's the Jews" when the very pertinent "it's the satanists" is available seems imbalanced. Were you going to give a name for what happened prior to 1793 BC? Were there Jews before Judah and if so how do they retroactively earn a name that didn't exist yet? What tribe are they, Semite (what about before Shem), Noachite, Adamite?
Yet, at the same time there is something of minor value remaining after the fiat currency is abandoned.
Literalist Christians believe the real Tree of Life is a physical species of tree gifted by God to humanity and that will be restored in Jesus's kingdom. They also recognize that Bezalel's menorah is typological of the pattern in the heavenly kingdom, and that it's shaped like a tree, with three nodes on left and right, a main branch with four almond blossoms, and a total of 22 almond blossoms. Catacomb Christians have used diagrams similar to OP to express this thought, with the cross worked into the pattern. Christians also affirm Jerome's observation there are ten basic Hebrew names for God and yet that God himself is an unnamable above all names. So when we claim the symbolism of the Tree of Life for ourselves (much like the nascent-Messianic author of the Sefer Yezhirah) we find that we do have value in it even though that value has been hijacked by a few rather silly associations along the way.
So you're using the alleged standards of Jews who judge their behavior and adopting it as your own standard to judge your own behavior? No, I'm asking you to judge your behavior by stating a crime. You obviously don't believe it's right for them to judge children, so why do you? This has nothing to do with remigration proposals or Anne Frank laws, I want to know why you believe "it's the Jews" includes your criminalizing millions of children. So that I can agree or disagree with your reasoning.
Hey Vlad, sorry to keep asking, but did we establish that the vast majority of Jewish children were guilty of some crimes in your opinion? Either yes, we should name the crimes, or no, we should modify the oversimplified statement "it's the Jews". And what was it called before Judah was born in 1793 BC? I say it's the satanists.
Words that attack persons without evidence of crimes would break Rule 1.
First, you're using the 1611 translation and Early Modern English uses words quite different than we do.
"Happy" was unrelated to emotion but was related to fortuitous chance, for instance. Forms of "happy" and "hap" still appear 58 times, but the then-common word for what we call happiness was "blessing", forms of which appear 522 times.
"Fun" didn't exist in 1611 with the modern sense of amusement, but simply meant "hoax", so naturally doesn't appear. However (contrary to the misread in the OP title), forms of "joy" and "enjoy" appear 216 times.
"Freedom" was a very technical word still, which is why its two KJV usages relate to citizenship. Even so, forms of "free" appear 101 times and of "liberty" and "liberal" 38 times.
Forms of "laugh" appear 40 times and forms of "cry" 434, so the ratio is not as bad as depicted; and laughter was then associated with mocking and foolish mirth (as an OP quote shows) and crying with any emphatic expression, including many positive ones (2 Sam. 18:25-27), so neither the KJV nor the Hebrew context had used the Greek tragicomedy duality to contrast these. "Isaac" the father of Israel, whose name means laughter, appears 132 times. But more to the point, in the root emotions, forms of "pleasure" have 240 appearances and forms of "sadness" 13, so it's all in the word choice.
"Birth" and "death" have many forms so the simplest comparison is between the Hebrew "yalad" "bear" (500) and "muth" "die" (839). So about a 40-60 split, nothing like OP.
Forms of "friend" have 107 cases and of "enemy" 380, again not the ratio projected. But in those days when you were close to someone you called him not "freed" (the meaning of "friend"), but "brother"/"brethren" (975 cases for both biological and adoptive).
The meme also uses some of the deliberate paradox language of Ecclesiastes without getting its point (that negatives have their purpose and place), which ironically reinforces its entire tone-deaf thesis. It digs in to Lev. 19:20 without seeking to understand the cultural context, namely that when evidence indicated a rape victim fought back then she was not punished (Deut. 22:25-27, which was canonically read alongside the Levitical law), but if there was no evidence she fought back then, instead of being executed as an accomplice to adultery, due to her social position she was mercifully punished without execution. In context it is only about a bondmaid who willingly breaks and adulterates her engagement, and it deliberately stops short of making it a capital offense.
So the entire meme reeks of failure to seek context for historical documents but instead to interpret them (even their antique translations) in Modern English only, with PC overtones. This is a local peak of Amerocentric bias that refuses to accept our Lord's dictation that the Word is fully inspired in its original text. Scripture readers will be familiar enough with the Biblical use of these contrasts to need no examples be supplied, but I'll just suggest one that I find inspiring:
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage .... For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another (Gal. 5:1, 13).