586
top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Gork@sopuli.xyz 85 points 1 week ago

This is a slippery slope to baptismal logic gates

[-] technojamin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Turing complete baptisms

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 66 points 1 week ago

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

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 56 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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 baptize function is supposed to capture.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 week ago

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..

[-] Tanoh@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago

Baptism is such a weird thing.

I think Haskell is such a weird thing

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago

Dunno what to tell ya, it's great.

[-] Gork@sopuli.xyz 25 points 1 week ago

Could you imagine how op you could become though if baptisms stacked

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 7 points 1 week ago

Can you get more clean than clean?

Numbers are a human thing. The universe don't care

[-] _stranger_@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

I imagine if baptisms stacked, you could pile on a gazillion of them like ablative armor against incoming sin.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 6 points 1 week ago

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

[-] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Incoming baptismal penetration estimate from carnal sins: -17 layers

Shield integrity: 69%

Hull integrity: 100%

System: stable

[-] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I think erasing one's body could make you more clean than clean

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

So what you're saying is that fundies need to be cremated? Possibly AFTER death from other causes?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

no no. they need to switch to Flouroantimonic acid instead of just flowing water.

[-] vithigar@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

Conceptual numeracy is a human thing. The universe absolutely cares about quantifiable physical properties which we represent as numbers.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

Numbers are a human thing. The universe don't care

Doubly so with religion, though 馃し

[-] MrQuallzin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

The LDS (Mormons) actually do repeat it, in a sense. Their weekly sacrament is a renewal of their baptismal blessings

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

Probably the reason some other sects call double-dipping a sin, so as to not be like those Mormons.

[-] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 2 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago

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

[-] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 57 points 1 week ago

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

[-] NewOldGuard@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 week ago

Haskell mentioned 位 馃挭 位 馃挭 位 馃挭 位 馃挭 位

[-] VitabytesDev@feddit.nl 12 points 1 week ago

Half Life mentioned 位 馃挭 位 馃挭 位 馃挭 位 馃挭 位

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That honestly seems like the best way to write conditionalBaptize but I still hate it. Probably because IRL you'd just rewrite baptism instead of retrofitting the function with a clever use of id.

[-] solrize@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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 ()
[-] KazuchijouNo@lemy.lol 11 points 1 week ago

Thank you for refactoring baptism. How do we push this to production now?

[-] expr@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] paulbg@programming.dev 12 points 1 week ago

i need a therapist who will express life in haskell

[-] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago

Which denominations implement idempotent baptisms?

[-] fubarx@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Sounds like Haskell needs an official Saint.

[-] solrize@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

There's an old joke about functional programming separating Church from state.

[-] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] squalless@reddthat.com 4 points 1 week ago

Excerpt from Learn You a Haskell for Great God!

[-] goatinspace@feddit.org 3 points 1 week ago

Haskell -> Maybe Language

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

How would this read try-catch-ing with the Mormon baptism for dead Jewish people ?

this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2025
586 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

26006 readers
868 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS