I’m not religious but I thought baptism was always conditional on confirmation - not in writing or scripture but via a handshake agreement with the parents or some shit.
Excerpt from Learn You a Haskell for Great God!
i need a therapist who will express life in haskell
Haskell mentioned λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ
Half Life mentioned λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ 💪 λ
Priest: If you are not yet baptised, I baptise you in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit. Else break.
Parents: *sweating nervously*…else what
I didn’t expect the FP inquisition.
This is a slippery slope to baptismal logic gates
Turing complete baptisms
Baptism is such a weird thing. It’s ritualized cleansing turned into one and done
You can get baptized as many times as you like, it doesn’t stack
Although baptism probably has its roots in the Mikva, which is a ritual cleansing, that’s not really the significance within Christianity. Baptism is not a washing away of sins, or impurity, but is rather a symbolic death and resurrection. The Apostle Paul, an early codifier of Christian doctrine whose letters became part of the Christian Bible wrote as follows in Romans chapter 6
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
This has the same end effect- the removal of sin and purification, but the conception is totally different.
Jesus was a revolutionary. He removed all weaknesses that could be used against the Jewish people, from temples to stockpiles to using money. He made the early church suck resources from an occupying force while giving nothing back, not even disobedience that could justify a crack down
In this process, he replaced many rituals with simpler versions that can be done without any special requirements. He reworked every ritual so that it couldn’t be taken away, it couldn’t be used to force compliance
Paul was a true believer and philosopher, his job was to sell it to the people. His words were canonized alongside the gospels because they were convenient when reframing Jesus’s teachings with the values of the Roman religion… Plenty less convenient writings were buried instead
Paul was a transitional figure who found himself in between the early church and unexpected gentile converts… He had to rebrand the rituals for a wider audience while keeping the core message. Nothing against the guy… He was in an impossible position and did his best
Per the actual wiki, some denominations seem to think it’s a sin or heresy to do someone more than once. Which seems like what the nullification in the
baptizefunction is supposed to capture.some denominations seem to think it’s a sin or heresy to do someone more than once
Those denominations must have really high divorce rates…
Baptism is such a weird thing.
I think Haskell is such a weird thing
Dunno what to tell ya, it’s great.
Could you imagine how op you could become though if baptisms stacked
Can you get more clean than clean?
Numbers are a human thing. The universe don’t care
I imagine if baptisms stacked, you could pile on a gazillion of them like ablative armor against incoming sin.
Lol, imagine if showers stacked. You could spend a week showering and then all filth just disappears when it touches you
But then, what happens to the filth?
The only way I see this working is if you shower, you just continuously wash filth off yourself. But then does it all just kick in when you walk out of the shower? Or maybe, you never become clean until you’ve washed a lifetime of filth off yourself, then you’re clean forever
I’m imagining every baby just covered in sludge, and after years of washing they become clean. Imagine your kid just never gets cleaner, and everyone just thinks you’re a terrible parent. Imagine cleaning your kid and they become clean way ahead of schedule
There’s some real existential horror here
In reality, if you bathe too much you just stand to lose too much sebum, making it easier for dirt to stick to your skin (and harder to remove) until the layer forms again.
Incoming baptismal penetration estimate from carnal sins: -17 layers
Shield integrity: 69%
Hull integrity: 100%
System: stable
I think erasing one’s body could make you more clean than clean
So what you’re saying is that fundies need to be cremated? Possibly AFTER death from other causes?
no no. they need to switch to Flouroantimonic acid instead of just flowing water.
Conceptual numeracy is a human thing. The universe absolutely cares about quantifiable physical properties which we represent as numbers.
Numbers are a human thing. The universe don’t care
Doubly so with religion, though 🤷
The LDS (Mormons) actually do repeat it, in a sense. Their weekly sacrament is a renewal of their baptismal blessings
Probably the reason some other sects call double-dipping a sin, so as to not be like those Mormons.
That seems likely, zealots love a good dividing line. I’m reminded of all the weird obsessing in the Mishnah about wine because the non-Jews of the period used it in sacrifices.
Well there were also times it was unsafe to use red wine because the non-Jews were looking for any excuse to claim it was the blood of Christian babies.
This was before that - Avodah Zarah is the one I actually read through.
Like, you can’t leave a barrel of mashed grapes too long, because it’s then assumed a pagan broke in, danced on it and left, turning it into pagan wine which is the same as doing idolatry yourself, somehow. And it goes on.
There’s other examples as well, of course. Puritans got worked up about Catholic-seeming practices within the Church of England, although I don’t remember which ones, off the top of my head.
That honestly seems like the best way to write
conditionalBaptizebut I still hate it. Probably because IRL you’d just rewrite baptism instead of retrofitting the function with a clever use ofid.It looks pretty normal to me as a professional Haskeller, though I suppose it’s perhaps slightly cleaner to write it as
conditionalBaptize p = fromMaybe p $ baptize p. It’s largely just a matter of taste and I’d accept either version when reviewing an MR.Edit: I just thought of another version that actually is far too clever and shouldn’t be used:
conditionalBaptize = ap fromMaybe baptize, making use of the monad instance for->. But yeah, don’t do this.This is probably an ok use for a GADT. Something like:
{-# LANGUAGE DataKinds #-} {-# LANGUAGE GADTs #-} {-# LANGUAGE KindSignatures #-} data Bap = Baptized | Unbaptized data Person :: Bap -> * where Baptize :: Person Unbaptized -> Person Baptized NewPerson :: Person Unbaptized conditionalBaptize :: Person a -> Person Baptized conditionalBaptize p = case p of NewPerson -> Baptize p Baptize _ -> p main = return ()Thank you for refactoring baptism. How do we push this to production now?
Which denominations implement idempotent baptisms?
Sounds like Haskell needs an official Saint.
There’s an old joke about functional programming separating Church from state.
How would this read try-catch-ing with the Mormon baptism for dead Jewish people ?
