I can’t tell if you’re being humorous here, but historically babies were baptized shortly after birth out of fear that anyone who died without being baptized would be unable to get into heaven.

In the middle ages* in Europe, baptism was usually scheduled a few days after birth, and often the historical record includes baptism dates and death dates for individuals, so historians estimate birth dates to be a few days prior to the baptism date. Babies that died pre-baptism were thought to go to purgatory instead of heaven, and considering the high infant mortality rate pre-modern medicine, there was a bit of a rush to get your offspring baptized pronto to save their itty bitty souls. Generally this is no longer believed, at least not by most mainstream Protestant sects, and many Christians nowadays opt to wait until their children are old enough to “appreciate” the event more.

*Not sure exactly when, and maybe this was mostly a Catholic thing? Again, this is not my area of expertise.

I don’t know if I’d call it “easy” reading, but this is a well-regarded college textbook that’s popular in “Christianity 101” religion classes (so at least it’s entry-level and doesn’t assume prior knowledge on the topic):

https://www.bartehrman.com/the-new-testament-a-historical-introduction-to-the-early-christian-writings-4th-ed/

For something much lighter, Extra Credits did a video series on early Christian schisms that mentions the circumcision debate:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=E1ZZeCDGHJE&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5BuNVhOt8Ls82Cr20yo6Y_p&index=32&t=1s&pp=iAQB0gcJCYQJAYcqIYzv

I’m far from a religious scholar (just someone who enjoys history from time to time), so I’d be curious if other folks have additional recommendations.

Actually there was a huge debate among early Christians whether circumcision was still required because Jesus never spoke on the issue (or if he did, there was no verifiable record of it).

To crudely summarize:

The earliest Christians were primarily Jews, so they were already circumcized as required by Judaism so it was a non-issue. However unlike Judaism where you’re almost always born into the religion, Christianity actively encourages adult conversion, so as more non-Jews (e.g. Greeks) began to identify as Christians, the circumcision issue became a conundrum. Some felt Christianity was a branch of Judaism and as such Jewish practices like circumcision were still required, whereas others objected because they saw Christianity as a new approach to Judaism, or even as a separate religion altogether (circumcision specifically was hotly debated due to such issues as adult circumcision being more, shall we say, unappealing than infant circumcision, plus getting circumcized would “out” non-Jews in nude spaces like bath houses, which was at best awkward and at worst deadly).

The earliest followers of Jesus thought Jesus was going to return in their lifetimes, so these types of issues were not discussed (or at least not resolved) by the original founders and proselytizers (researchers have determined the Gospels weren’t even composed until well after everyone involved was dead), but as generations passed it became clear that the Second Coming actually may not happen anytime soon, so practical issues of “how to establish a new religion (is it even a new religion or just a Jewish sect???)” turned into gigantic internal debates for the community. That’s what much of the New Testament is: letters back and forth trying to interpret the words of Jesus to resolve doctrinal conflict. In other words, the New Testament is basically four different versions of the story of Jesus (Mark, Matthew and Luke which were based on Mark and a lost “Gospel X”, and John), followed by a curated back-and-forth commentary section debating issues of the day such as circumcision and women’s role in the church, and controversially capped off by the (theorized) hallucinations of a hermit tripping balls off donated moldy bread.

The history of the New Testament (how it was written and later compiled, early texts that were lost or discarded, and all the doctrinal conflicts that boiled over into variously incidents of geopolitical chaos) is fascinating and seriously worth exploring.

deleted by creator

Original tweet quote translation:

“After inserting the giant butt plug, the [strained back/slipped disk] pain disappeared”

“thinks the Japanese are evil” needs to be a lot bigger…

Unfortunately Idaho has really incredible geology and ecology. The panhandle is nestled in a beautiful mountain range with lush pines and scenic towns like Wallace and Sandpoint. The southern regions have their gems too: Craters of the Moon for instance is one of the best western parks you’ve never heard of. Idaho is a gorgeous state, and it’s a complete shame how insane “libertarian” politics have turned it into a horror show.

Audiences aren’t sick of superhero movies, they’re sick of BAD superhero movies.

Societal pressure to have children is a huge factor for sure. I’ve heard from previous generations in my family that during the baby boom era, rumors would circulate in their community if you didn’t have enough children, like “something must be wrong with the Johnsons down the street because they only ever had two kids” (and this was in upper-middle class WASP America).

Obviously this attitude continues today in certain communities (Mormons, small rural towns, etc), but it’s no longer as prevalent.

No, property tax is basically the only direct motivation in place for home owners to vote for politicians and policies that will keep housing affordable for future generations and people who don’t already own a home. Otherwise why wouldn’t home owners want to see housing prices skyrocket in value if there’s no financial downside for them (and a giant payout when they do sell)? As mentioned in other comments, some states have tried property tax caps, and the result is creating a system of haves and have nots based entirely around who was lucky enough to buy into the market before it shot to the moon.

Vigano referred to the pope only by his surname, “Bergoglio”, and accused him of representing an “inclusive, immigrationist, eco-sustainable, and gay-friendly” Church

First time I’ve ever heard the words “inclusive” and “eco-sustainable” used with the intent of condemnation.

Once upon a time you could entice youngsters to the countryside with promises of low cost of living, but then rural housing got super fucking expensive super fucking fast during the covid years. Like sure, maybe rural housing is still cheaper than suburban/urban housing (although this is HIGHLY location-specific), but gone are the days where you could buy a pretty nice house (or an iffy house on a sizable chunk of land) for less than the down payment on a house in a “desirable” area. You might be able to convince a middle-class 30- or 40-something American to live in the middle of nowhere in exchange for a good house they’re able to pay for in cash with change to spare (and with it the opportunity to retire a decade or so early). But once rural housing started needing mortgages to afford and buyers still had to deal with crap like bidding wars and sparse inventory, where’s the draw? At least in my state (Washington) rural housing inventory is finally going up and prices are starting to come down (although monthly payments are still at near-record highs if you need a mortgage), but it’s going to either be many years of incremental decline or a very sharp, very painful crash to return rural housing affordability to how it was.

Well, it’s extremely unfortunate then that the last half-century of zoning and building policies have put us two million homes in the hole. Where y’all plan on putting millions of surplus people, broken down RVs in the Walmart parking lot? (Except now it’s also illegal to be homeless in many places… It’s hard to pay into social security when you’ve been fired for your job after getting arrested for “loitering”!)

The H-Mart in Federal Way (south of Seattle) is about 2/3 Asian food aisles, 1/3 Hispanic food aisles. Of the handful of H-Marts I’ve been to it’s the only one like that.

I know everyone hates HOAs because they’re usually petty and dumb, but this is where I think they’d actually be helpful. Designate certain neighborhoods as “quiet zones” where similarly obnoxious activities (that have reasonable, quiet alternatives) are banned: no motorized leaf blowers, lawn mowers, souped-up motorcycles or muscle cars. If you want to own one of those things, don’t move into that neighborhood.

I’ve come to realize many people feel “forced” to move to incredibly space- and resource-inefficient (and thereby ecologically-damaging) places like suburbs and exurbs for basically two reasons: better schools, and in an attempt to escape asshole neighbors. Sometimes it’s so that they can themselves be the asshole neighbors, but generally people are trying to live in a “nice” neighborhood not over usual HOA things like house siding color and properly-concealed trash cans, but rather for a general desire for peace and quiet. I know I dream about living on 40 acres not so I can start a dairy farm, but to escape the various forms of pollution (primarily noise, air, and light) emitted by my current neighbors. But I wouldn’t feel the need to do that if my neighbors had similar desires as I and limited things like car idling, porch lights, and landscape-related noise. Meanwhile the neighbors upset at me for keeping my yard wild to support wildlife could have a neighbor with similarly bland yard maintenance standards.

Or we could regulate vehicle size and reduce speed limits, two things actually proven to reduce pedestrian fatalities and that could be implemented today without waiting on future technological advancements

¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

Hot take: all severe/extreme-risk flood zone properties should be immediately rezoned to disallow residential use. Current residents would be able to stay where they are, however any flood zone property put up for sale should be sold for either recreational or agricultural use, otherwise acquired by the government to be restored to a riparian ecosystem. Better to take the financial hit of property value decrease now and start dismantling high-risk development than realize the loss suddenly after the next big flood washes the entire neighborhood away. Additionally, creating more dedicated wetlands may even mitigate how far-reaching that next flood is and help protect properties that would have otherwise gotten inundated.

I’m really confused why the If You Care brand would have been flagged for PFAS. Unless they have another product I’m unaware of, their bags are made of uncoated paper. In other words, no plastics or waxes are used to make the product. They’re even home compostable. Either they’re lying out their ass, their supply line is compromised, the study/reporting on the study is wrong, or…?

The article mentions home size, but the other half of the equation is lot size. The lot equivalent of the empty nester couple living in a five-bed three-bath house is the the 1-2 acre property that’s almost entirely grass, with a handful of ornamental shrubs and maybe a tree or two. Rural farmland is getting absolutely gobbled up by people who complain about having to mow the law every other week in summer (or how much money they “had” to spend on a riding mower). Every square foot of every lot not covered by building is space that, collectively, could have been productive land (like a farm/community garden), public land (like a park), more housing (“our city is full” the fuck it is, you could fit a sixplex in your personal backyard), or wildlife habitat. No, your English Laurel is not habitat, it’s an invasive species. No your neighborhood isn’t a thriving ecosystem because there are deer everywhere; in fact that’s pretty good evidence that the food chain is missing a link. Maybe I’m just bitter because I’m currently having to meticulously plan out every square inch of my apartment postage-stamp yard to maximize vegetable production in a part-shade environment alongside the building in a pitiful attempt at self-sufficiency while I’m surrounded on all sides by huge (10k sqft - 1/2 acre) properties with full sun grassy yards that I have never once seen used by the owners for any activity except keeping said grass meticulously mowed. Like JFC if you’re not going to use your yard at all at least throw the local bee population a bone by letting the dandelions flower on occasion. And then there’s the transportation impact of sprawling cities: of course everyone drives long distances to get anywhere and there’s no public transit option: there’s only a few dozen houses in the miles between here and the grocery store so not enough density to support a bus, nor enough density to support a closer grocery store. And now people here are so used to driving everywhere that there’s no incentive for cycling or walking infrastructure either because “everyone drives so no one would use it.” There’s a lot of talk about how bigger houses are climate disasters because they’re more energy intensive to operate, well we should also mention that bigger lots are also climate disasters for inducing more driving (and create bizarre standards for minimize size housing because “smaller houses wouldn’t fit in with the existing neighborhood character”).

Commercial properties aren’t exempt; standalone chains (like many fast food restaurants, banks, car washes, etc) especially seem to always get built on oversized lots, especially if a drive thru is involved, even in fairly urban settings. But people tend to be less possessive of these properties; it’s not often someone whines that replacing the local Arby’s with more commercial density would “destroy the neighborhood” like replacing single-family housing with even slightly denser single-family housing (“oh no, the eye-sore skinny houses are invading!” skinny houses are only ugly because they’re required by code to include built-in garages you architecturally-illiterate cretin).

Good article; this news has been making the rounds for quite some time, but this article actually goes into more thorough detail re: what various effects we might see worldwide.