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

For urban environments I 100% agree, but e-bikes and public transport can’t help farmers* get their produce to market. I don’t know much about this truck, but if it can fill a similar niche as the Japanese kei truck, I think it’s great to provide people who actually need a pickup with an alternative to the F-150+ behemoths currently available stateside.

*Yes there are some urban farms that totally could operate via ebike/other form of micro mobility, however most farms, even small ones, are located >10 miles outside urban centers, usually in areas only accessible by roads and highways that are currently very dangerous for non-motorized transportation modes. Fixing this problem would take decades and hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars even if the government were fully on board with the transportation network and/or land use changes necessary to allow for a true car-free society (which of course they aren’t). I’m not such an idealist as to poo-poo a significant short-term improvement to the “oversized working vehicle” problem.

Somewhat amazed they’ve rebounded this much given the VW emission scandal some years back. Guess it wasn’t that brand-damaging after all.

Seconded.

To clarify, bring your cat to the groomers for this. I’m not sure DIY with barber shears is the best approach.