I think eternal salvation and indelible mark of ordination are better illustrated by monads. Once you go through a convert : α → α Christian function, the original sin : α → β function is no longer accessible for you, only sinM : α → α Christian.

In catholicism, there’s a Priest monad: ordain : α → α Priest. A person who was ordained can be banned for administering sacraments, but if he does, they are still valid.

Since there are no demonination that has both perseverance of the saints and indelible mark of ordination doctrines, in practice there is no need for a monad transformer that combines Christian and Priest monads, but I’m pretty certain that future computational theologians will work it out.

For a good intoduction to computational theology, you should read this article by Rev. Bob Harper: https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/the-holy-trinity/

My first hobby is computer science (which happily also pays the bills), my second hobby is the history of Judaism and Christianity (note that I am neither Jewish nor Christian)…so this is right up my alley. :)

It’s a fun thing to note that in both computer science and western theology, every single one of those example programs could be argued to be both right and wrong simultaneously (for example, there are non-Trinitarian Christians and there are programmers who would argue that the assertions in the Trinity example violate transitive identities…which they do, that’s part of the so-called mystery of the Trinity…).

EDIT: Actually, it’s funny that the JavaScript Trinity program uses == and not ===. I am amusing myself thinking of the implications.

I like the idea of thinking in code. The Holy Trinity in Javascript! Who knew?

Nice article. Whatever you’re thinking about, expressing it in code is a great way of making it more logically consistent.

Python 2’s True, False = False, True pretty much always said everything I’d need to know about the relationship between code and theology.

I think there’s a bug in the javascript for Catholic salvation. Obviously, part of the implementation has been left out (our booleans get modified in another thread?). Assuming that the missing code is merely straightforward calls to change the value of those booleans during the course of life events, rather than some complex logic… then it appears that you only have to get Reconciled once. The rest of your mortal sins are “free”, I guess.

(:

Terry Davis would be proud

This is rather whimsical. :) The only way the “immovable object” thing makes sense to me is like:

$ touch immovable.o
Error: insufficient privilege?
$ sudo touch immovable.o  # ok
$ mv immovable.o there.o
Error: insufficient privilege?
$ sudo mv immovable.o there.o  # ok

For a completely serious discussion of certain mathematicians’ fascination with theology and metaphysics, there’s an interesting paper.

Impermanence seems wrong:

// Impermanence
for ($i = 1; $i < count($population); $i++) {
   //echo $population[$i] != $population ? "CHANGED\n" : "UNCHANGED\n"; // wrong
   echo $population[$i] != $population[$i-1] ? "CHANGED\n" : "UNCHANGED\n"; // right, I think
}