Conditional Baptism
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
How would this read try-catch-ing with the Mormon baptism for dead Jewish people ?
-
This post did not contain any content.
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 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
-
Baptism is such a weird thing.
I think Haskell is such a weird thing
Dunno what to tell ya, it's great.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Haskell mentioned 位
位 位 位 位 -
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.wrote last edited by [email protected]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. -
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.
-
I imagine if baptisms stacked, you could pile on a gazillion of them like ablative armor against incoming sin.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Incoming baptismal penetration estimate from carnal sins: -17 layers
Shield integrity: 69%
Hull integrity: 100%
System: stable
-
Haskell mentioned 位
位 位 位 位Half Life mentioned 位
位 位 位 位 -
This post did not contain any content.
i need a therapist who will express life in haskell
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Excerpt from Learn You a Haskell for Great God!
-
I didn't expect the FP inquisition.
-
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
-
This is a slippery slope to baptismal logic gates
Turing complete baptisms
-
This post did not contain any content.
I鈥檓 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.
-
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
-
This post did not contain any content.
Haskell -> Maybe Language
