Jesus is not a demigod. He is both fully god and fully human and any suggestion to the contrary is heresy. /nsrs
Hey that only took a few centuries to iron out. Arianism swept through northern eurasia and kind of stayed rooted until some crusading and a mongol horde or two displaced it for good.
His execution was barbaric and horrifying. Easily the worst day of his lives. We like to put up realistic statues depicting that moment wherever we can.
It’s so very weird. Imagine if he’d been hanged and people casually walked around wearing nooses. Or drawn and quartered…
The only reason it doesn’t seem batshit insane is because we’ve normalised it.
And they are expecting him to return one day. I can't imagine he will be stoked to see all that iconography and be reminded of that awkward part. I'd have thought depictions of one of his sermons, or a carpentry tool, or just his name would have been better.
The execution is the whole point though. The Christian understanding of the Crucifixion isn't just "our leader got tortured and killed and that's sad," it goes way deeper than that. The cross represents the very moment that human sin was forgiven due to the sacrifice of Jesus as a perfect, sinless being. Christians believe that the sacrifice (death on the cross) was the entire purpose of God incarnating on Earth in the first place. It's not simply that God became a man to teach humans how to live, but rather the whole point was this moment of self/human sacrifice. So of Jesus was who Christians believe he was, he wouldn't find it awkward at all.
Still super weird that a deity would need to sacrifice himself to himself, to forgive his own creation's offspring for the actions of their ancestors who acted in the way he created it to (not knowing right from wrong ) when it ate the forbidden fruit said deity put in an easily accessible location...
Well, when you put it like that...
Good news, they’ll never have to find out. Just as nobody needs to worry about the return of other Mesopotamian gods or their judgement, Jesus isn’t coming back.
It’s a good thing, too, because if they actually read their scripture, Jesus wasn’t the hippie socialist they like to think he was. According to the book (if you don’t cherry pick it), he was just as vengeful as his father, and was fine with all the terrible and unjust things done by every other incarnation of himself.
Modern Christians would absolutely fall short of his judgement. Maybe the Amish would be okay. Maybe.
I think it was carnival row that did that with their messianic religion?
Was that a Netflix series? I remember wanting to watch it. Did it get cancelled prematurely?
Amazon I think?
It's an important distinction. They are consuming simultaneously the flesh of a human being and an actual deity. That's much less crazy.
oh, So jesus was more like a quantum superimposition of god/mortal
rather than being half god half mortal
Also if your elders fuck kids and family/congregation members tell you you're lying about being molested
That's the "Roman" part of Roman Catholicism, lol. The Jews certainly weren't doing blood rituals and ceremonial cannibalism! 🤷
Yeah, just good old ritual mutilation of babies. Nothing barbaric or bloody there.
That's a bit hyperbolic. I don't think there's any major health effects from circumcision if done in a hospital by medical professionals.
The part I think is fucked up is when some rabbis decide to play doctor and do it themselves, and regularly either fuck it up or pass diseases to the babies.
EDIT: 2 excellent sources I've been given in this comment chain about this topic:
Systematic review of complications arising from male circumcision
Neonatal male circumcision is associated with altered adult socio-affective processing
I don't think there's any major health effects from circumcision if done in a hospital by medical professionals
You would be wrong. Extreme pain has been shown to cause psychological trauma as well as lasting brain damage.
Cutting into the foreskin of someone who literally can't have developed any kind of pain tolerance (or even understanding of what pain IS and whether or not it's transitory) without any anaesthetization DEFINITELY qualifies.
there are theories that such intense pain leads to being neurodiverse.
I have my skepticism, but I imagine having severe pain, getting one of the most sensitive parts of the body diced, just as soon as you are born, is likely not good for mental development.
Please don't take this the wrong way, I'd greatly appreciate a source on this. I'm extremely open to having my mind changed if it is indeed causing extreme pain that leads to psychological trauma.
Here's a study from the US NIH (from before Trump, JFK Jr, and Elon Musk attacked it with a chainsaw, a sledgehammer, and napalm)
Here's an article from Psychology Today
And lastly, a study from Journal of Applied Nursing and Health
Will that do?
The 2nd link isn't really research, it's the opinion of a psychologist. The 3rd one is specifically about circumcisions with no anesthetic, which (as far as I know) is not how it works in a hospital. Again, my opinion is specifically about circumcisions done in a hospital by doctors. I think we both agreed before I opened any of these that non-doctors should not under any circumstances do a procedure like this.
The first one, the NIH link, is much more compelling, and has changed my mind. Specifically from the results:
Specifically, between-subjects effects analysis indicated that EC [early circumcised] participants reported higher levels of avoidance and anxiety compared to the NC [non-circumcised] sample. [...] A multivariate effect on sexual libido was found (F2,519 = 5.82, p = .003, η2p = .022), with EC men scoring higher in solitary and dyadic dimensions. Lastly, compared to NC, EC men reported higher levels of both stress (F1,521 = 10.76, p = .001, η2p = .020), and sensation seeking (F1,550 = 4.08, p = .043, η2p = .007).
If I'm reading that correctly, there's statistically significant correlation between anxiety + self-isolating behavior & circumcision.
Their proposed method as to how those things are linked is the following:
This is in accordance with life-history theory, which stipulates that early-life stress reduces reliance on one's social environment (e.g., opportunistic-exploitative interpersonal orientation), increasing stress, heightening sexuality, and increasing short-term mating and externalizing behaviors.
some studies have found that post-circumcision mother-infant bonding is disrupted, marked by altered breastfeeding and sleep patterns as well as higher infant irritability [...] Also, early attachment security at 12 months has been found to predict the experience and expression of emotions at elementary school, at adolescence, and in the mid-twenties
So as far as I understand, their argument is that post-op infant, after coming off the anesthetic at the hospital (hopefully), is still in some pain for a while. Pain means more crying, irritability, etc until it's fully healed. This disrupts the parents, which then stresses the baby out. That snowballs into elementary school and beyond.
That's not nearly as extreme as you were describing, but it still counts as a potential source of trauma.
EDIT: Lol, this is why I prefer actual research to a blog post. The second link starts like this:
The new CDC guidelines highlight methodologically flawed studies from Africa that have no relevance to the United States. They chose to ignore studies that were conducted in the United States
Then cites a study:
The most comprehensive study available that assesses the psychological impact of circumcision on children after infancy was conducted by Ramos and Boyle (2000) and involved 1072 pre-adolescent and adolescent boys who were circumcised in a hospital setting
So, I looked for that study. There's a good reason why she didn't cite the actual name of the study, considering how she started her argument:
Ritual and Medical Circumcision among Filipino Boys
Reading what the "medical circumcision" consists of in the paper itself, yeah, no shit it causes PTSD. It's at 7-14 years old, en masse, with a bunch of scared boys crammed into a room able to hear everything going on in the operating room next door.
Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths:
Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that more than 100 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.
That study is from 2010, and the fact that he seems to constantly blame the medical establishment for "hiding the facts", uses cherry-picked emotive cases instead of relying on numbers, and lines like "an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents" in the conclusion make me very skeptical of this whole document. 117 children per year in the US, if true, is absolutely nothing. That'd make this an incredibly safe procedure. Consider the fact that the mortality rate for SIDs in the US is in the thousands per year. SIDs, for those that don't know, is essentially when the baby suddenly dies for no explicable reason whatsoever.
I've been trying to google for either a well-sourced mortality rate for circumcision, or a longitudinal study that shows a decreased standard of living for circumcised people, and I can't seem to find either. If either the mortality rate is indeed high or it decreases standard of living in some way, I will change my mind on this topic immediately.
Killing 117 children a year for no reason is absolutely nothing? Uh huh.
117 ÷ 1,300,000 * 100 = 0.009% of babies undergoing the procedure die, according to that source. Of course, that doesn't include other complications and potential trauma from the baby experiencing post-op pain and thus disrupting the mother-child bond, which I wasn't fully aware of. I've linked some of the studies in my original comment.
Okay, I can understand your point.
Here’s a more recent study of circumcision complications from 2021:
Systematic review of complications arising from male circumcision
Complications from neonatal male circumcisions are common and healthcare providers need to be better informed of the potential complications of the surgery so that they can more effectively counsel their patients about potential risks, likelihood of complications and what can be done to prevent them.
…
As with any surgical procedure, complications after a male circumcision surgery are possible. Some of these complications are minor and easily treated such as bleeding (in patients without a bleeding disorder) and infection; others, however, require additional surgery to correct the complication such as trapped penis and unsatisfactory cosmetic results. Some complications are irreversible such as decreased sexual sensation and death. Psychological issues have been reported to arise in children after operations, including circumcisions.
There are tables that include long lists of complications and links to case studies, and these are worldwide, both in hospital and religious settings.
The point is that circumcision is elective surgery, and can and does pose risks to infants, from psychological damage to permanent disfigurement or even death.
Ah, a meta-analysis! Excellent, studies of studies are almost always the best way for researchers to summarize findings, thanks a lot.
The conclusions very much match what I was trying to say: done in a sterile environment by doctors in hospitals with anesthetic, it's a very safe procedure. Done by rabbis/imams in the synagogue/mosque, this is insanely dangerous. If I had my way, I'd ban religious figures from performing circumcisions. If you want to get it done, go to a hospital.
As an elective surgery, the benefits are so close to zero as to be non-existent. From the meta-analysis:
while male circumcision may be useful in protecting against the incidence of male urinary tract infections, 12 bacterial colonization is still present after circumcision, so genital hygiene is regarded as more effective in preventing UTIs rather than circumcision surgeries. 13 In certain instances where hygiene is poor, circumcision may be implemented to prevent urinary tract infections.
I certainly wouldn't advocate for anyone that I know getting this procedure as it seems like a small risk for zero benefit (again, when done by doctors), but neither is it mutilation.
There are links and sources throughout if you want to dig deeper.
The conclusions very much match what I was trying to say: done in a sterile environment by doctors in hospitals with anesthetic, it's a very safe procedure.
No, they don’t. It concludes it’s safer in hospitals with anaesthetic, which should be obvious, but that even in those environments, it carries the same risks as any surgical procedure.
This does not imply that every male circumcision performed results in a complication but it is important to note that there can be serious life‐altering consequences from this procedure, even if it is done correctly.
Again, even if the complication rate is low (and it’s nowhere near as low as should be acceptable), nearly every instance is preventable by not performing elective surgery on infants.
There are links and sources throughout if you want to dig deeper.
I definitely will. Thanks for taking the time to share some good sources.
yes, lets mutilate a baby genital for no medical reason.
yhea, no justification.
if your religion does genital mutilation it's primitive
I'm Jewish, got circumcised.
and won't circumcise my children, they can be Jewish, and if they want to, once they are adults, they can get one.
There really are people in 2025 trying to defend genital mutilation. And pretending like they are using some form of logic. It’s like talking to one of those historical reenactment museum people.
every surgery has risks.
and even it it was perfectly safe, there are still downsides later in life, that the kid had 0 say in receiving
pain itself is a risk, and they don't use pain killers or anesthesia for circumcisions.
it's straight up torturing a newborn for aesthetic reasons.
how TF is it legal?
Less hyperbolic than calling Christian communion cannabalism or blood rites.
Circumcision being Genital mutilation (it objectively is) is a stretch.
but
eating/drinking the body of Jesus (also literal canon) is also a stretch?
Well, the word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, so eating the body and blood of Christ is just a metaphor for wholehearted acceptance of the word of God.
That was always the way I saw it, anyway.
All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cursed
This isn’t your personal call-out post.
Rule 2: No Forbidden Posts
Some things belong in the drafts forever. That means:
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.
