Baxter Williams
@baxterwilliams.bsky.social
470 followers 250 following 3.2K posts
Discussing Christianity, science, and sometimes philosophy (mind & epistemology) on the internet. Pandeist. God-fearer.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
This is from a Johns Hopkins article written 2 weeks ago
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
looking this up shocked me though because apparently there are still a lot of scientific groups recommending it, recently too.
Scientific evidence supporting the health benefits of male circumcision — surgical removal of the foreskin from the penis — dates back hundreds of years to observations made by physicians of their circumcised patients. More recently, research has continued to confirm that the procedure reduces penile inflammation, urinary tract infections, and acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, such as genital herpes and HPV (known to cause oral, cervical and penile cancers).

In response to the evidence, the World Health Organization (2007), the American Academy of Pediatrics (2012) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018) have all recommended that male babies be circumcised for lifelong health benefits.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
looks like it's decreasing prevalence for most groups.
circumcision rates 2012 and 2022
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
on the plus side, no childhood nightmares too hopefully?

I had nothing but nightmares for almost 3 years straight. It sucked.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
It is just that I've said "I read on the Google AI summary that..." too many times in the last month to family and friends.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
this is a bit in retaliation to AI summaries, but when I share something I learned I'm trying really hard to also share the name of the author who taught me. As in, remembering the name of article or video author, and not just the company they work for.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
As someone struggling with infertility, but also dismayed by those who think having children is a terrible thing, this article feels like it was written directly to me.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
Actually, I'm not correct here. There additionally needs to be an acceptance of Hell, AND a rejection of annihilation.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
It's just the only logical conclusion if the necessity of baptism is accepted, so I guess that's really the root of the issue.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
As long as you stay away from the eternal-torment-for-unbaptized-infants stuff
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
My harmonization: "we can't tell people they are or aren't going to hell. We *can* tell people to leave our church. Governments have the blessing of God to bestow legal punishments."
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
Paul says we can't judge.

Then Paul says he judges people.

Then Paul says governments can judge.

Paul, my man, you are absolutely terrible at clear communication...
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
I would like to remind folks that there are free television channels (well, paid for via taxes) accessible via antenna and nothing like that will probably ever exist for the internet.
Reposted by Baxter Williams
margueritek.bsky.social
Happy feast of William Tyndale to all of us who can read the bible in our own native language.🕯
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
Plus if we additionally think that the good things we notice are planned or even in response to our requests, that gives us comfort that someone more powerful than anyone on earth cares for us, which is obviously an amazing feeling.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
Even if miracles don't happen, asking God for miracles gets us in the mindset of looking for them, and that is good for us.

Looking for and highlighting the small details in life that are wonderous and positive is good for our well being.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
I don't think deism will ever have a large percentage of believers because I just can't imagine the concept of a God that you can't influence via prayer ever catching on at scale.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
John's most significant interpretations were that Jesus was pre-existent, and had a mutual indwelling with the Father.

The early church's most significant interpretation of all this stuff was the trinity.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
Paul's most significant interpretation was Christ's laws were a new covenant that applied to all, that this new law said all food was clean, circumcision not required, celibacy was best but not required.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
Jesus’s most significant interpretations were that the Son of Man was himself, that the general resurrection would happen, that the coming judgment would be eternal, and that there was a priority ranking of commandments with Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 at the top.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
Jesus was an interpreter of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Paul, John, Peter, etc were interpreter of Jesus's words and actions in addition to Hebrew scripture.

The later church additionally had to interpreted the words of Paul, John, Peter, etc.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
But do you though?

This makes me realize another concern of mine is that I might genuinely cause doubt for Christians who aren't harmed by Christianity, don't cause harm, don't enable harm, and rely on it for psychological stability.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
This may be pessimistic of me though. But I have a hard time imagining Christians that do not look at my opinions and thoughts with suspicion.
baxterwilliams.bsky.social
I guess I mean where we both think we learn more with the other present.

I don't think most Christians would feel they are really learning anything from my thoughts, more just tolerating me. But I would probably feel I was learning from them.