According to a Vatican statement released on April 21, 2025, Pope Francis has died. The announcement did not provide details about the cause of death but did confirm the passing of the 88-year-old pontiff. The Vatican indicated that further information regarding funeral arrangements and the process of electing a new pope would be forthcoming.
Despite its association with the crucifixion of Jesus, Good Friday is called "good" for a few possible reasons. "Good" may be a corruption of "God Friday," or reflect the older sense of "holy." Alternatively, it may refer to the belief that Christ's death, while tragic, ultimately brought salvation to humanity, therefore making it a "good" event. Finally, some suggest "good" refers to the good deeds performed by Christ throughout his life, culminating in his ultimate sacrifice.
Several Hacker News commenters discuss the etymology of "Good Friday," with most agreeing that "good" likely derives from archaic usages meaning "holy" or "pious." Some suggest alternative theories, like "God's Friday," but these are generally dismissed. One commenter points out the irony of calling a day commemorating a crucifixion "good." Another highlights regional variations in how the day is named, citing "Great Friday" in some areas. A few commenters lament the increasingly secular nature of modern society and the declining awareness of religious terminology and traditions. There's also a brief tangent discussing linguistic shifts and the evolution of word meanings over time.
Elaine Pagels' new book, "Heretic," reviewed in The New Yorker, revisits the enduring fascination with Jesus, even amidst declining Christian belief. Pagels argues that Jesus's radical message of love, forgiveness, and inclusivity, initially appealing to the marginalized, continues to resonate today, divorced from traditional church structures and doctrines. This enduring power stems from the human need for meaning and connection, offering a model for ethical living and social justice that transcends specific religious dogma. The review highlights how Pagels contrasts Jesus's teachings with the evolving, often exclusionary, interpretations imposed by the early Church, particularly Paul, suggesting the original message has been obscured and even betrayed over time.
Hacker News users discuss the complex legacy of Christianity, largely agreeing with the review's premise that its influence is still felt today. Some highlighted the enduring power of religious narratives, even for non-believers. Others pointed out the irony of dismissing Christianity while simultaneously being shaped by its values. Several comments explored the cyclical nature of history, with one user suggesting that humans are inherently drawn to belief systems, even if those systems change over time. A few questioned the reviewer's framing of early Christianity, suggesting it was more diverse than portrayed. There's also a thread examining the role of power structures in shaping religious narratives and their impact on societies throughout history.
John Scalzi's "The Church FAQ" satirically addresses common (and often absurd) inquiries about a fictional, powerful organization called "The Church." The FAQ establishes The Church's absolute authority, clarifies that questioning its pronouncements is heretical, and outlines the benefits and drawbacks of membership, emphasizing the significant power and influence afforded to members while simultaneously highlighting the draconian and often arbitrary rules they must follow. The Church controls reality itself, offering proof through easily dismissible circular logic. The FAQ ultimately serves as a commentary on blind faith, unquestioning obedience, and the potential for abuse within hierarchical power structures.
HN commenters discuss Scalzi's "Church FAQ," largely focusing on the problematic nature of applying real-world religious structures and power dynamics to online communities. Several highlight the inherent differences between joining a church and participating in an online space, questioning the analogy's validity. Some comments point out the satirical nature of the FAQ, while others express concern about the potential for such frameworks to be misused in online groups, leading to exclusion and control. The potential for abuse of power, particularly regarding moderation and community guidelines, is a recurring theme. A few comments mention the role of humor and satire in addressing these issues, while others delve into the nuances of community management and the challenges of balancing inclusivity with addressing harmful behavior.
Neal Stephenson's "Wrong 5" argues that Thomas More's Utopia hypocritically condemns individual acquisitiveness while simultaneously advocating for England's imperial expansion and resource extraction under the guise of "improvement." More portrays Utopians as morally superior for rejecting private property, yet Stephenson contends this stance ignores the exploitative nature of acquiring resources and labor to establish and maintain Utopia's seemingly idyllic state. He highlights the inherent contradiction of More, a wealthy lawyer serving a rapacious empire, decrying individual greed while remaining silent about the systemic greed driving England's colonial ambitions. Essentially, Stephenson posits that Utopia serves as a veiled justification for powerful entities seizing resources under the pretense of societal betterment, a process mirroring England's contemporary actions.
The Hacker News comments generally agree with Stephenson's critique of Thomas More's Utopia, finding his vision naive and impractical. Several commenters point out the hypocrisy of More's personal wealth and position contrasting with the communist ideals he espouses in Utopia. Some discuss the inherent difficulties and contradictions in attempting to design a perfect society, citing issues of human nature and the potential for tyranny. Others find value in utopian thought experiments, even if flawed, as they can spark discussion and inspire incremental improvements. A few commenters delve into More's religious context and the historical influences on his writing, suggesting that modern interpretations may miss nuances of his intent. One commenter highlights the darkly satirical elements of Utopia, arguing that it shouldn't be taken entirely at face value.
Researchers have reconstructed the face of St. Thomas Aquinas using 3D modeling based on his skull, offering a glimpse of his appearance 750 years after his death. Analysis also suggests he suffered from a chronic ear infection and severe osteoarthritis, possibly contributing to his demise. While the cause of death remains uncertain, these findings provide valuable insight into the health and physical characteristics of the influential theologian and philosopher.
HN commenters discuss the methodology used to reconstruct Aquinas's face, with some skepticism about its accuracy given the reliance on skull shape alone and the potential for subjective interpretation by the artists. Several commenters point out the irony of reconstructing the face of a theologian who emphasized the immaterial soul over physical appearance. Others question the significance of the project, while some express interest in the historical and forensic aspects. A few commenters debate the cause of death, with one suggesting it might have been a stroke rather than the reported "cerebral stroke" mentioned in some historical accounts. Overall, the comments express a mixture of curiosity, doubt, and philosophical reflection on the nature of identity and the limits of historical reconstruction.
Luke Plant explores the potential uses and pitfalls of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Christian apologetics. While acknowledging LLMs' ability to quickly generate content, summarize arguments, and potentially reach wider audiences, he cautions against over-reliance. He argues that LLMs lack genuine understanding and the ability to engage with nuanced theological concepts, risking misrepresentation or superficial arguments. Furthermore, the persuasive nature of LLMs could prioritize rhetorical flourish over truth, potentially deceiving rather than convincing. Plant suggests LLMs can be valuable tools for research, brainstorming, and refining arguments, but emphasizes the irreplaceable role of human reason, spiritual discernment, and authentic faith in effective apologetics.
HN users generally express skepticism towards using LLMs for Christian apologetics. Several commenters point out the inherent contradiction in using a probabilistic model based on statistical relationships to argue for absolute truth and divine revelation. Others highlight the potential for LLMs to generate superficially convincing but ultimately flawed arguments, potentially misleading those seeking genuine understanding. The risk of misrepresenting scripture or theological nuances is also raised, along with concerns about the LLM potentially becoming the focus of faith rather than the divine itself. Some acknowledge potential uses in generating outlines or brainstorming ideas, but ultimately believe relying on LLMs undermines the core principles of faith and reasoned apologetics. A few commenters suggest exploring the philosophical implications of using LLMs for religious discourse, but the overall sentiment is one of caution and doubt.
Summary of Comments ( 376 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43749405
HN users quickly identified the linked article as satire from a source called "The Babylon Bee," known for its humorous and often politically charged content. Several commenters pointed out the date of the article (April 21, 2025) as further evidence of its fictional nature. Some expressed annoyance at the misleading headline, while others appreciated the joke or simply noted the satirical nature of the source. A few users discussed the potential impact of such misinformation, even if intended as satire, and the importance of verifying sources.
The Hacker News post titled "Pope Francis has died" linking to a Reuters article announcing the Pope's death in 2025 has generated a number of comments. Several commenters express surprise at the fictional future date in the article, with some initially believing the news to be real before realizing the date discrepancy. This sparked a discussion about the nature of the article, with some speculating that it was a pre-written obituary mistakenly published, a placeholder for future use, or a test of some kind.
Some users analyze the technical aspects of how such an error might have occurred. They discuss the possibility of automated publishing systems and the potential for human error in scheduling or content management systems. The possibility of a "test" environment accidentally going live is also raised.
Several commenters express a degree of cynicism towards news organizations, with some suggesting that the mistake reflects a decline in journalistic standards or a lack of attention to detail. Others jokingly speculate about the possibility of time travel or alternate timelines.
A few commenters discuss the implications of the Pope's fictional death, including potential succession scenarios and the impact on the Catholic Church. However, these discussions are generally brief and speculative, acknowledging the hypothetical nature of the situation.
Several commenters express amusement at the situation, finding humor in the unexpected and somewhat absurd nature of the error. The overall tone of the discussion is relatively lighthearted, with many commenters focusing on the technical and logistical aspects of the mistake rather than the serious implications of the fictional event itself. The discussion also touches on the potential for confusion and misinformation in the age of online news.