Pope praises Twitter and your 'profound' tweets Pope Benedict XVI has given a tentative thumbs-up to micro-blogging sites such as Twitter, but explained to his followers that they may reap more spiritual reward by just piping down a bit online. In his annual message ahead of the Catholic church’s World Communications Day, the Pontiff chose to focus on the virtue of silence …
I see we already have two (probably more by the time I've finished typing) predictable comments about Christianity.
Because one couldn't possibly react positively to the sensible things like "don't waste too much time" and "respect other people" the Pope said?
I know some people calling themselves Christians have done bad things, but let's be honest, so have a lot of others, and some Christians have done some rather good things. And I know some people don't believe any of it, but some people do.
So if you're going to comment, why not comment on what he said rather than just having a go, huh?
"I know some people calling themselves Christians have done bad things"
That's not what people took issue with, it's the fact that some of the clergy did some bad things, then some other people decided to move those wrong-doers sideways, then some other people decided to completely ignore the reports of wrong-doing. Then finally, even more people refused to even admit that the wrong-doing even occurred. The higher up you got, the more complicit people were in covering up the abuse.
Even last year in Ireland, the Catholic Church was objecting to legislation that would mean that a priest that is informed of abuse but failed to report it could be convicted of a criminal offence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14707515
On topic - my first thought was, they're trying to be hip, but actually it makes sense. The church's job is to engage with people, and with young people, this currently could be the most effective method.
Many of you will have seen this before but for those who have not...enjoy
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington engineering mid term. The answer was so profound that the Professor shared it with colleagues, which is why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:
If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you." and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."
But does the question "is Hell exothermic or endothermic" even make sense (assuming Hell exist) ?
I was always under impression that only reaction or process can be "exothermic" or "endothermic". Hell is not a process, Hell is a place. At least girls alway tell me to "go to Hell", not to "Participate in Hell".
I fully admit that this would make for a very, very lame answer for the above mentioned bonus question.
The fact that this question was asked by Professor of engineering, make me very uneasy. Either there is something wrong with this university, or, indeed, I have huge holes in my own education.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well if you *really* want to get into theology, American preacher + author Rob Bell argues in his book "Love Wins" that Hell is precisely a process (or perhaps a state of being) rather than a place. The book's been widely read, and Bell backs up his ideas with some thorough Biblical scholarship. It's fair to say that his ideas (in this respect) as regarded as unorthodox by a good number of Christians of the more right-wing variety, who would like still to see Hell as a place.
And from another angle... Sartre wrote, "L'enfer, c'est les autres" (usually translated "Hell is other people" though I suspect it's more nuanced than that in the French).
So many views on Hell exist. Now back to the heavenly Reg... :-)
“Attention should be paid to the various types of websites, applications and social networks which can help people today to find time for reflection and authentic questioning, as well as making space for silence and occasions for prayer, meditation or sharing of the word of God,”
....or did he say
'Take your weapon...strike me down with all of your anger and your journey toward the dark side will be complete!'
?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
