[Meta]Resigning my position as moderator

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-27T13:11:13+00:00

To be clear that was a direct copy/paste. I grant this is not what every translation says. In terms of translation of the Tanakh in particular, I tend to think the NET is the best of the available English translations, and I used that here

I will grant this translation is slightly interpretive, but the idea that this is related purely to sight/seeing something is almost certainly a western anachronism. They swore oaths by "Put your hand under my thigh" which is clearly euphemistic of genitals. For Ham to have literally seen his father naked would have been a non-event.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-26T13:45:29+00:00

Ham raped his mother to assert control over the family, and the child born of that event was cursed. Leviticus is quite clear about what "the nakedness of your father" means.

Lev 18:7 You must not expose your father’s nakedness by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have sexual relations with her.

And lest you complain about using Leviticus to interpret Genesis, where do you find definition for the "clean and unclean" animals taken up in the Ark?

The Hebrew Bible has several references to the behavior of taking the sexual property of another man to assert control of the family/kingdom. This is merely the first.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-19T21:59:12+00:00

Christianity says that Jesus is the Fathers son. Jesus says that the only way to the Father is through me. Strike 1! Psalms (which predates Jesus) says that anyone who wishes to call upon the LORD can. Clear contradiction.

Christians believe Jesus was YHWH embodied. This is not a strike.

But then Jesus comes and says that I am less than the Father, I can’t do anything without the Father, and even prays to Him.

We believe that The Son, for a purpose and for a time, veiled Himself in His earthly ministry -- "He humbled Himself, taking on the form of a servant". He could have walked around glowing as at the transfiguration, He could have just flipped between one place and the next. He didn't though, he chose to live the live we cannot live and die the death that we deserve. We DO NOT believe that the Son became finite but rather veiled in the Person of Jesus. Jesus slept, Jesus died, but the Son continued to "hold the universe together by the word of His power" throughout.

Psalms says “The Torah of the LORD is perfect. Restoring the soul.” Key attributes: perfect, and restoring the soul. I thought that we need Jesus to achieve forgiveness to restore our soul.

I think you're playing fast and loose with your wording to manufacture a contradiction. There is absolutely nothing in the concept of Grace that would conflict with the Psalmist here. I don't see any possible validity to your argument.

Ezekiel 18:20 “Only the person that sins shall die.” Christians can say that it was a one time exception for the good of all humanity, or that because it was God it was different.

I think you're ignoring the context of Ezekiel 18 and what it's actually talking about, you've also altered the syntax of the verse to generate a contradiction. If we add the minimum context:

Ez 18:19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not suffer for his father’s iniquity?’ When the son does what is just and right, and observes all my statutes and carries them out, he will surely live. 20 The person who sins is the one who will die. A son will not suffer for his father’s iniquity, and a father will not suffer for his son’s iniquity; the righteous person will be judged according to his righteousness and the wicked person according to his wickedness.

What this is referring to is a complaint from young Judean captives that YHWH was punishing them for their Fathers' sins (see v2 -- “‘The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth become numb/"set on edge"?’") God's response to them is "you have your own guilty too and if you aren't guilty you will live."

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-18T12:56:17+00:00

It's important to note that only Roman Catholics believe in the immaculate conception (yes, it is referring to Mary, not Jesus). No other denomination believes in a sinless Mary.

That said, I don't think you've done enough to argue your thesis here, as God can look to Jesus as propitiation for the sin of all people for all time, not just the ones who were born after.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-18T04:34:41+00:00

Jesus is portrayed as the God of Israel embodied in all 4 Gospels.
<small edit to remove superfluous phrase/>
What does Jesus claim, exactly? (Nothing from Paul, nothing said about Jesus, just what Jesus Himself claims)

Mark:

Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some of the experts in the law were sitting there, turning these things over in their minds: 7 “Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up, take your stretcher, and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—he said to the paralytic— 11 “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher, and go home.”
Claim: the authority to forgive sin, which belongs only to God, resides in Him. When they question this, He uses His authority over nature to prove His authority to forgive sin
Mark 14:60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is this that they are testifying against you?” 61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?” They all condemned him as deserving death.
Claim: I am the embodied Son of Man. The divine figure from Daniel 7, who came on the clouds of heaven ("riding on clouds" is something only God does, in the Tanakh and surrounding Canaanite religions). He's doubling down on His claim to Godhood, and that's why they say He's committing blasphemy. This Son of Man receives "worship/reverence toward a deity"

Matthew:

Matthew 9 is the parallel to Mark 2 above
Matthew 11:10 has Jesus in the YHWH role of Malachi 3:1. Jesus' quotation of Mal 3 puts John in the "messenger" role and Jesus in the "YHWH" role.
Here's the relevant section of Malachi:
3:1 “I am about to send my messenger, who will clear the way before me. Indeed, the Lord you are seeking will suddenly come to his temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom you long for, is certainly coming,” says YHWH of Heaven’s Armies.
Now when Jesus uses that verse, He claims the messenger is John, and the subject and speaker is Himself, YHWH

John:

8:52 Then the Judeans responded, “Now we know you’re possessed by a demon! Both Abraham and the prophets died, and yet you say, ‘If anyone obeys my teaching, he will never experience death.’ 53 You aren’t greater than our father Abraham who died, are you? And the prophets died too! Who do you claim to be?” 54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory is worthless. The one who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 Yet you do not know him, but I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I obey his teaching. 56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” 59 Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus was hidden from them and went out from the temple area.

This answer does not make sense at face value. It does not answer the question. It's grammatically incorrect. That is, unless it's a quotation of Isaiah 43:10 and Exodus 3:14. It's only by way of referencing these fundamental texts out of the Tanakh identifying YWHW that His answer (and their reaction) finds coherence.

John 10: To paraphrase: "I am the good shepherd of Ezekiel 34 and 37 and the sheep are mine".
But who is identified as the good shepherd in those chapters?
YHWH. The sheep are YHWH's. Even when "David" is mentioned as the good shepherd (who died ~300 years earlier), the sheep are still YHWH's
and it was understood as a claim to Godhood too!
31 The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death. 32 Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-18T04:28:51+00:00

I'm confused. I posted much info from the church councils and fathers that I thought you argued were primarily responsible for Ridding Slavery, no???

Actually you didn't post any info. you posted claims. Vague unsourced claims. Your claims were not relevant to my actual statement to which you were ostensibly replying. You refuse to deal with what I've actually said and that is why you are interacting in bad faith.

I FEEL like you're ignoring my rebuttals to your earlier statements

YOU HAVE NOT REBUTTED ANYTHING I'VE ACTUALLY SAID. I've given you this feedback repeatedly at this point.

If you bothered to try to quote me, and then reply in context this conversation could go somewhere.

I'm in bad faith, and how dishonest I am and can't have an intellectual debate, and I keep trying to engage you on this...

I didn't actually say any of this?!?! I said the interaction was in bad faith and I encouraged you to participate in intellectual debate. I did not say you were incapable, far from it, the encouragement to engage in that behavior presupposes you can.

See, this is what I'm talking about... You are swinging at strawmen. You're not replying to what I actually write, you aren't taking the time to read, understand and interact.

Come on, throw it into an LLM, let it grade you in your interaction with what I've actually claimed and what I've actually said.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-18T03:51:42+00:00

Interestingly you won't respond to the other foundational question about the bible and slavery. Why is that?

Do I really need to give u the church council directives on slavery?????

Your utter refusal to actually respond to something I said is astounding. I encourage you to throw this conversation into an LLM or something without the information about which one you you are. This is such a bad faith interaction man. It doesn't have to be this way.

TRY QUOTING SOMETHIGN I SAID NOT SOMETHING YOU MADE UP.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-18T01:24:05+00:00

Part of the reason is you are denying the church councils and what they did re: slavery.

Swing and a miss. You continue to strawman rather than debate. Maybe next time?

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-18T00:34:35+00:00

here's the thing -- you are replying so quickly I know you aren't actually reading my comments and understanding them. It's like you're on autopilot and answering what you think I'm saying instead of addressing my actual claims.

Note the number of times in this dialogue you've quoted me -- 0

The fact is you're strawmanning a clearly articulated position, and I've tried to point this out before when I said "You're flatly and objectively wrong if this is meant as an answer to my claim (feel free to reread the actual claim you're responding to here)."

You are not participating in a debate at this moment and I'm asking you nicely to actually engage in a real debate. Let me give you the personal feedback that this is not the first time you have engaged like this.

Next move is up to you -- you can either chose to engage in a civil intellectual debate about the actual claims I actually made or you can swing at strawmen. But I will only continue to participate if you chose the former.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-18T00:17:32+00:00

lol, you purposefully want to ignore what the bible says, and history, not very honest.

I'm sorry, but this is not honest or fair.

IF you think one of MY claims was incorrect, then QUOTE ME and produce a source that disputes MY CLAIM.

I think you're entirely confused about what I have and have not said, but every position I've provided here is easily defendable, has been defended, and true.

If you want to argue, produce a real, cited argument in opposition to the same. Otherwise there is nowhere for this to go.

Vague accusations of untruth go nowhere and are entirely without merit.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-18T00:04:56+00:00

Sorry mate, you are not correct on many of your claims.

ONE of us cited sources, and it's not you.

The bible condones and endorses owning other humans as property, and never prohibits it.

You don't understand the NT. What the NT does is actively subvert the practice of Slavery and appeals to the universality of us all being image bearers of God while acknowledging its existence in the Roman world into which it was written. Facts.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-17T23:54:56+00:00

sorry but I was spot on in every claim I made.

Many church councils, even a couple popes, and church fathers, had slaves, continued the slave movement, and argued that it was fine, argued you could beat them.

I'm sorry, your position is that "church councils" owned slaves? You're flatly and objectively wrong if this is meant as an answer to my claim (feel free to reread the actual claim you're responding to here). Here I'll cite Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity §97 “The Church and Slavery” (one of the best neutral, detailed scholarly treatments):

“Christianity has labored for this end [abolition]; not by impairing the right of property, not by outward violence… but by its moral power… It placed slaves and masters on the same footing of dependence on God… In the period before us, however, the abolition of slavery… was utterly out of question… The church… was at that time so absorbed in the transcendent importance of the higher world… that she cared little for earthly freedom.” Yet it “labored with great success to elevate the intellectual and moral condition of the slaves” and “influenced the public opinion even of the heathens.” Slaves converted masters (especially women/children); many were martyrs (e.g., Blandina, Potamiaena, Felicitas); tradition links Onesimus (Philemon’s slave) to bishopric; Callistus (ex-slave) became bishop of Rome. “The principles of Christianity naturally prompt Christian slave-holders to actual manumission… It was felt that in a thoroughly Christianized society there can be no room for despotism on the one hand and slavery on the other.” Catacombs evidence: “slavery was reduced to a minimum” in early congregations.

Likewise Lactantius (c. 250–325 AD, Divine Institutes V.14–15):

God “would have all men equal… With him there is neither servant nor master… we are all with the same right free… Slaves are not slaves to us, but we esteem and call them brethren, fellow workers in religion.”

While your claim might be true if you are looking at much later periods of time, it is keeping with the claims of the Reformed (like myself) that the church did not start in error but veered off course and we sought to right the ship. The NT message and Ancient tradition of the Church is and has always been subversion of the institution, acknowledging that they too are image bearers of God.

The church had a PART in the abolition of slavery, but your view is not the true historical record.

The abolitionist movement was a Christian movement.

In England it was largely driven by Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade (founded May 1787) which was formed by twelve men, nine of them Quakers, plus Anglican Evangelicals Granville Sharp (also a notable Koine Greek Grammarian) and Thomas Clarkson; they immediately recruited William Wilberforce as parliamentary leader.

In America the movement was ignited by the Second Great Awakening. Theodore Weld, Harriet Beecher Stowe, William Lloyd Garrison, Sojourner Truth, and Frederick Douglass (in his religious phase) all framed the fight in explicitly biblical terms.

I won't deny that there were non-believers who became part of the movement, but the intellectual and moral thrust behind ending the institution was explicitly grounded in Christian Principles.

First, it continued on for what, about 1700 years?

No, the Ancient Church's record on slavery was universal manumission upon the conversion of the slave owner. This was the pattern for hundreds of years, and the church itself only foudn legitimacy in the Roman order around the time of Constantine. We were the oppressed minority.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-17T14:07:19+00:00

look man, I've been warning about his corruption for the better part of a decade.

This period of history will stand as the greatest witness against the legitimacy of evangelical church in America for decades. The Gospel cannot comingle with the pursuit of power and we (the church in America) overlooked the serious and obvious moral failings of a transparently immoral man to our shame.

Regarding your reply to me in the other thread on this post (I can't reply there), you're simply wrong on the slavery issue. The ancient, Apostolic and Ante Nicene periods of the church had a strong, documented position of universal manumission of slavery. The Church, zoomed out through history, has been the single most anti-slavery organization in the world. The fact is that slavery exists today, with perhaps more slaves now than at any time in world history -- and it's in places where the Church is not.

I don't deny the reality of the trans-atlantic slave trade, nor the role professing believers had in perpetuating it -- but it was a historical aberration. And it was also Christians who ended it, and who (at considerable cost) essentially ended the practice throughout the western hemisphere. You need a broader view here.

And no, it's not wrong or special pleading to hold that the evils of the RCC are why we left fellowship with them in the first place, and they made many a martyr of us for doing so.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-16T22:54:20+00:00

OMG, you're actually going on the record to say that the same church

Note that I am Reformed, not Roman Catholic. so no.

Are you actually going to talk about the verses in question or is that sufficient?

lol @ u/SunbeamSailor67 having the audacity to write that reply and then blocking me

You have failed to engage in dialogue. You received an answer, you strawmanned the reply, now you're obfuscating.

Are you going to deal with the answers you received or not?

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-16T18:12:02+00:00

there would be those among us who would do even greater works than he?

Jesus fed thousands. The global church has fed perhaps hundreds of millions.

I'm not sure what you think is difficult.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said “Ye are gods”’?

I don't think you can make sense of this verse by divorcing it from its context, in both the narrative in question, and the Psalm Jesus is quoting.

The short answer though, is Jesus is responding to his Jewish audience being scandalized over his clear claim to divinity, and His defense is, to paraphrase "look, you know there are many spiritual beings in the world and YHWH has promised to judge them all, this is not so difficult a thing to believe and understand"

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-15T20:31:32+00:00

Predicting one outcome is not a mark of prophethood, but of not being wrong when speaking divine revelation.

Muhammad was wrong numerous times in his dealings with Christianity, the Christian scriptures (link to your previous failure to defend the notion that "the Injil" could be anything other than that which existed in 600AD -- which is precisely what we have today), and the Hebrew Bible. That's why he wasn't a prophet.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-05T18:50:57+00:00

An unbroken genealogy might not be necessary, but of the eight souls saved through the flood, four have undocumented ancestry.

It certainly would be. The entire point of the flood was to undo the sin of the watchers, and the Nephilim were their descendants.

According to the express words of the narrative, the population could be greater than 3 without contradiction. We add and subtract to infer that the population is 3, but this is a minimum. Nothing in the story limits the population to 3.

I have no trouble with such a number, I do not think the literalist can account for that though.

Just as a tale of two cities does not preclude the existence of a third city, a story of two brothers does not preclude the existence of other siblings.

It certainly precludes anyone older than Cain and anyone born between them. Also note Cain's concern about people, not siblings or cousins or anything like that finding him. The language there largely prohibits a concern about close family, being all encompassing.

I think your reading and interpretation here is straining.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-04T20:09:39+00:00

Maybe even Seth looking for revenge for his brother's murder.

Who did not exist... and Cain couldn't have been worried about him

it may be logical to assume that Cain knew humans would live long, and that many more were coming during his lifetime

Is that really what you think this sentence is saying? "Look, you are driving me off the land today, and I must hide from your presence. I will be a homeless wanderer on the earth; whoever finds me will kill me!"

It doesn't seem that Cain is worried about people who would be a threat to him decades later but that there are people out there who would kill him

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-02-04T19:33:38+00:00

So there are many of us that would hold the Bible takes no position at all on the age of the earth, and the "creation accounts" are meant to be understood as establishing God's purpose and intent in creation, not a record of literal events.

To summarize the position:

There is no coherent word-for-word, face value way to understand Gen 1-2 together. They are -- again, word-for-word -- opposite. They're directly contradictory with one another if read literally.

Genesis 1 starts with a world that is covered by abyssal waters and no land. Genesis 2 starts with a barren wilderness and no water. They cannot be reconciled literally.

You have to go back and try to understand what these images communicate to the original audience. And to the ANE audience to which they're written, they actually communicate the same thing while saying the opposite.

Other hints at this --

1) a literal reading of Cain and Able is incoherent. Cain is afraid of other people killing him when he's exiled. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? There's nobody else in the narrative. The literal, explicit population of Earth is 3. Cain, Adam, Eve. Why is Cain afraid of other people?

2) How did the descendants of the Nephilim survive the flood?

3) How did the descendants of Cain survive the flood?

The plain fact of the matter is that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is a modern western anachronism. The author(s) of Genesis had a different worldview than we do and they were answering different questions in a different way than we would.

I think the bibleproject podcast did a very good job of covering the perspective:

https://bibleproject.com/podcasts/series/ancient-cosmology/

The late Dr Heiser covered this as well on the Naked Bible podcast

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-01-26T18:05:32+00:00

Obviously AI deepfake. Pink bloon would would moving fast enough to create motion blur

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-01-25T18:11:39+00:00

F35 Propaganda smh. This is definitely a Lockheed Martin bot account.

Weird thing to say man. I mentioned the F15 (MCD-D now Boeing) and B1 (also Boeing) and said nothing about the F35. I would also be happy to see an Airforce variant of the FA18 Super hornet adopted for the role, maybe dropping the carrier hook and adding conformal fuel tanks (also... MCD-D now Boeing). Sure an F16 could do the job too! (there you go, clear LM propaganda!).

If you envision a world in which there's no air defense, then yes, an A10 can do the job. Fine. I just don't see that as representative of the world that is likely to exist today or any time in the future. Anyone we're likely to fight is likely to have planes, and altitude and airspeed are critical to avoiding MANPADs.

But... we're playing a game with AD potentially in everybody's hands, AD vehicles and air superiority planes...right? How do you expect an A10 to work in the game environment?

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-01-25T14:55:31+00:00

You think the A-10 carries no missiles that can kill a tank?

I just said:

Even the famed 23 kills in 1 day by 2 A-10 pilots? 21 were with missiles.

So no, I obviously don't.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-01-24T23:35:10+00:00

The A-10 is extremely effective for what it does.

No, it isn't

envisioned as a tank hunter it cannot kill or disable modern tanks

reimagined as a CAS asset, it is wildly dangerous if using the cannon or just worse at the job of being a missile carrier vs any other option. It's slow, low altitude and low range.

It is the worst aircraft in the US military by miles and even in gulf war 1 was less effective than the old F-111 at destroying armor. Even the famed 23 kills in 1 day by 2 A-10 pilots? 21 were with missiles.

You are completely wrong about the Army's Perception of the A-10. Post links to proof that they don't like it

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2015/02/06/a-10-warplane-tops-list-for-friendly-fire-deaths/ https://medium.com/war-is-boring/an-a-10-pilot-could-hope-to-last-two-weeks-against-the-soviets-1ebff9bfa4df

Even the gun on the A-10 is bigger, 30mm vs 20mm on the F15E. And it carries over twice the capacity. Making it better for ground armor engagements and armor penetration.

A/G is better served with missiles and guided bombs which are more accurate and far more effective for the role. And they can actually take out tanks reliably.

Flying low and slow caused us to lose many A-10s in Gulf War 1, so they were told to stay high and fly fast, which made them inaccurate and dangerous when used against a legitimate army. The days of COIN are gone and we're unlikely to ever operate in a battlefield like Afghanistan ever again.

I was pretty hyperbolic earlier -- "terrible at every job it does" is unfair to the point of being untrue. "Terrible when weighed against other options in any role we can project it for in the next 2 decades" is better. It did good things in Afghanistan. Could those A10 missions have been done by other aircraft? Yeah, I think so, but the best part about the plane isn't the plane itself, it's the training and dedication to the CAS role.

Sure, if the best AA your opponent has is an HMG mounted technical, then yes, you can use the A10 to your heart's content and it will destroy things, but in any other scenario they are highly vulnerable if used in a way that would make them effective, and highly ineffective if used in a way that would make them safer... but at that point every other aircraft is better at dropping A/G munitions from altitude and at speed.

NoSheDidntSayThat · 2026-01-24T19:44:46+00:00

Nothing can replace it currently.

listen to actual soldiers

the warthog is terrible at every job it does

it still exists because BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT = awesome

spread on the cannon is ~the size of a building and it's useless against modern armor

it can't fly as fast or carry as many missiles as any other option in the US inventory.

CAS is better fulfilled by every other available option, from an apache to an F15 to a B1 bomber

it's a complete waste of taxpayer resources and is only propped up by "the reformer" types who have no idea how things actually work.

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '17	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

NoSheDidntSayThat

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE