SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Despite the santorum splattered about, the Pontiff of the Church Universal and Triumphant [EDIT: This is actually referring to the Roman Catholic Church, not the Church Universal and Triumphant] is going to agree with the climate change consensus in an encyclical to be released on Thursday. Early leaks give some idea of the content.
Pope Francis is preparing to declare humans as primarily responsible for climate change, call for fossil fuels to be replaced by renewable energy and decry the culture of consumerism, a leaked draft of his much anticipated statement on the environment suggests.
The source for this somehow concerns Australians, but we will take any indication of infallibility where we can get it.
So the humble submitter has to wonder, does this mean that climate-change deniers are now to be considered heretics, rather than just Petro shills or anti-environmental conservative conspiracy theorists? It does add a entirely new dimension to the debate, and I hope that God will forgive your Conservative asses for screwing up Her creation in the quest for profit.
UPDATE - janrinok 18 Jun 12:36UTC
is it possible to update/append aristarchus' post "Pope Affirms Anthropogenic Global Warming" (https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/06/17/0317256), as follows:
Update: The encyclical can be read and downloaded here.
I am not affiliated with the submitter, aristarchus, or the pope. I have a slightly paranoid reason for asking for this update; it is my experience that, whenever politically important documents are published, the actual document often gets overshadowed by an enormous load of blog commentary, providing a bit of "damage control" and "spin". It is my fervent opinion that the readership of Soylentnews deserves to read the actual source documents. (It's only 82 pages long, in this case, anyway).
Original Submission
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Fishscene on Wednesday June 17 2015, @02:31PM
How in the world would climate-change deniers be considered heretics? Your article betrays your ignorance of what Christianity is all about, and for whatever reason, you've decided to blame it on conservatives (because conservatives are ALL the same!). To top it all off, you refer to God as a "Her" - whereas in the Bible, God is *Always* referred to as "Him" or "His". Props for capitalizing (respect) though.
Please don't attack 2 different groups of people based on generalizations - I thought SoylentNews was better than this. :\
I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @02:43PM
Agree, it's a trollish summary posted by someone who sounds atheist or agnostic.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:20PM
I normally condemn these kind of editorializing statements in the article summary, but I have to admit that this time it made me laugh, so thank you, and curse you.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:14PM
While I agree that in this case it is not true that climate change deniers are heretics, the idea is that since the Pope is infallible in Catholicism, anybody who identifies as Catholic but does not agree with the official pronouncements of the Pope, which become Catholic doctrine, is engaging in heresy.
The reason deniers aren't heretics in this case is that the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra in issuing this encyclical. Had Francis done so, Paul Ryan and the like would have some 'splainin' to do.
It's more complicated than that. If we are taking the Bible as literally true, the only people to have ever seen God while alive are Adam, Eve, Lilith (if you follow the view that there were two creations of woman), and Enoch (who "was not" shortly thereafter), and none of them report any particular gender identifying marks such as a beard. The reason that masculine pronouns would have been used has a lot more to do with grammar than any particular interpretation: the Hebrew "Elohim", "El", and "Adonai", as well as the Latin "Deus" are all masculine nouns. But the Greek "Theos" can be either masculine or feminine, the Latin "Deus" was used for both male gods and mixed groups of gods and goddesses prior to the Christians, and one of the first Hebrew phrases used to describe God, "Ruach Elohim", is feminine.
There are also phrases that suggest God either has no gender or both genders. For example, God creates humans in his own image, male and female.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 5, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:50PM
God is a ladyboy.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gaaark on Wednesday June 17 2015, @04:30PM
Please... God prefers He/She!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday June 18 2015, @01:51AM
Everyone knows that God prefers non-shes!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @09:23PM
> God is a ladyboy.
Bakla God?
Sounds like baklava.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:21PM
> To top it all off, you refer to God as a "Her"
I thought it was common knowledge by now that God looks like Alanis Morrissette.
But let's be serious. The correct pronoun for god is "it." We are talking about an omniscient being with the power to build an entire universe in less time than it takes me to redecorate my lounge [1] and magic up at least one world full of life from less than thin air. You really think something like that is going to be restricted by piddling little mortal labels like "male" or "female"? You really think god couldn't spontaneously transmogrify upon a whim into a woman, or a man, or a protozoa, or a quad-sexed semi-sentient fishoid from a water moon in the outer reaches of the Andromeda galaxy, or all four simultaneously? In that case, where god's form is as fluid as its needs or wants, what's the point in attempting to define it by any particular form (like male or female)?
Furthermore, I would argue that one of the defining characteristics of being "male" is that you are part of a species that has a corresponding "female" gender, and vice versa. According to all the dogma [2] god is unique, that there are no others gods of any kind, and it has always been so. Therefore there can be no complementary God(dess) of the other gender, ipso facto god cannot have a gender itself.
I suppose one could try to bypass all of the above and ascribe god a gender by personality characteristics rather than physical characteristics. That's tricky, given the somewhat schizophrenic and contradictory character described in the bible, but I think in the end that rather plays into my argument above about god being able to switch on a whim. The god of the old testament is certainly very patriarchal: Vengeful, warlike, jealous, authoritarian. I can see a definite argument for masculinity there. But then again, it is also a creator: Bringing life and order to the void, which seems to me a far more feminine trait. In the end it's a wash. God is male, and female, and both, and neither, and everything else besides.
[1] Fucking textured wallpaper.
[2] Actually, I've read arguments that the ten commandments tacitly admit the existence of other gods by forbidding their worship, but I'm not going there.
(FWIW I am an atheist and find the whole thing rather silly. This whole post is an exercise in argumentation for the sake of it. )
(Score: 1) by Fishscene on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:46PM
Excellent Observation. This is why I specifically referred to the Bible always referring to God as "Him" instead of saying God was male. I would hope that God, being who He is, would be able to direct the contents of the Bible just fine. :P
Now, I can wager why the Bible refers to God as a "Him" or "Her", but those would strictly be my opinions.
I apologize for not clearly expressing that in my original post.
I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Wednesday June 17 2015, @10:01PM
If he/she/it could direct the contents of the Bible, you would have though he/she/it wouldn't have put so many contradictions in it.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Friday June 19 2015, @03:36AM
If he/she/it could direct the contents of the Bible, you would have though he/she/it wouldn't have put so many contradictions in it.
If he/she/it could direct the contents of the Bible, they would put some information there that would be provable only some time later. For example: "a kaon, made of an up and anti-strange quark, decays both weakly and strongly into three pions, with intermediate steps involving a W boson and a gluon. You will understand what it means once you figure out what small particles of matter are made from." That would prove that the Bible is a word of god - or, to be exact, not the work of priests. One could insert several such revelations and target them for key phases of development of the society. Even just the formulation of Fermat's theorem would be beyond abilities of ancient scribes to invent on their own. Or the god could have used the four color theorem - it is easy to formulate for ancients, and pretty hard to prove :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @04:23PM
Wasn't Man made in God's image, then God made a woman later (apparently because God thought Man was too comfortable and he needed a lot of stress in his life)? So wouldn't God be male by definition?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday June 17 2015, @04:54PM
> Wasn't Man made in God's image
That's what the book says, but "In god's image" is pretty vague. Google up an image of "the creation of Adam". From that you can see that most christians (or catholics at least) seem happy enough to accept that at the moment of creation Adam is a young dude with curly blonde hair, while God is an old guy with white hair and a big beard. Hard to tell, but I think the eye colour is different too. Point is, god did not create an identical copy of itself. Therefore the phrase "In God's image" seems to permit certain discrepancies between the original (god) and the image (Adam).
Why shouldn't gender be another such discrepancy? Maybe just having two arms and two legs is enough to be "made in god's image". Maybe the ability to think and reason is what is meant by "in god's image". Where does it say that a cock and balls are a necessary part of the package any more than a big beard is?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @07:30PM
Children who draw stick-men are drawing images of themselves and people they know. "In His image" doesn't mean an exact replica, just representatively similar.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @05:34PM
This whole post is an exercise in argumentation for the sake of it.
No it isn't.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 17 2015, @06:58PM
This whole post is an exercise in argumentation for the sake of it. )
You say that as if it were a bad thing! The comments so far, including yours, have been quite interesting, and not really what I expected. Thanks.
(Score: 4, Funny) by isostatic on Wednesday June 17 2015, @08:05PM
If god was female, and Mary was female, would that mean that religions are pro-gay-marriage? Or doesn't it count because Jesus was a bastard?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Wednesday June 17 2015, @10:03PM
Jesus a bastard and Joseph a cuckold.
Or to be more realistic, Joseph fucked Mary, and they lied about it to avoid being stoned.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday June 18 2015, @10:00AM
I thought that this "Gabriel" person did Mary, and she was stoned (in the fun way) hence believed his story.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday June 19 2015, @03:27PM
Could even be true. There are documented cases of virgin births where the male didn't quite stick it in before cumming and some sperm still managed to swim up and find the egg.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by penguinoid on Wednesday June 17 2015, @09:17PM
Considering the Israelites used to honor God by building Asherah poles to honor His consort, the goddess Asherah, I think it is fair to say that God is male (or a lesbian!). Asherah poles were built in His temple, and some historical artifacts indicate the people thought this would please Him. Of course, that was back when God was the ruler of the pantheon. God may have lost any gender once he became monotheistic.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday June 19 2015, @01:41AM
by the old testiment, god is more of a destroyer and mean son of a bitch than a warm caring woman.
I'm not biblical scholar but every chraracter trait that is attributed to god points to the notion that if there was such a being, it would not be femle-like, as we understand females.
what characteristics does god have (in either testiment) that suggests that he's a woman?
and why even THINK in terms of animal sexuality. then again, I stopped believing in god in my teens and I could never buy that bullshit set of stories that has more internal inconsistencies than the combined republican and democratic parties...
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:22PM
Try reading the summary... Ignorance about ignorance is a good thing. The two groups greatly overlap...
god (note the capital you silly ass) is a black woman.
(Score: 1) by Fishscene on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:55PM
The reference to capitalization was specifically to point out that the author of the summary knew exactly what they were doing when they referenced God as a "Her" - directly contradictory to what He is referred to in the Bible and communicates disrespect. Seems like it was flamebaiting and I bit. :)
I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
(Score: 3, Informative) by BasilBrush on Wednesday June 17 2015, @10:08PM
You do realise the bible wasn't written in English, right?
Do you realise that as well as different gender rules, Hebrew and Aramaic don't have any capital letters?
Clearly not. Christianity, a religion built on ignorance.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by ralphhogaboom on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:48PM
It's funny how hung up on form we get. It's like either God is an elderly man with kind eyes and a beard, or nothing makes sense anymore. And if we don't agree on what he looks like, then you're on that side and I'm on this side.
I've come to believe God is that which answers me when I call for it. And that doesn't have to look like anything to be a presence in my life. The more time I spend getting hung up on the appearance of my diety, the more distraction I put between myself and my spirituality.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday June 17 2015, @03:49PM
To top it all off, you refer to God as a "Her"
Interesting... God is all powerful but puny little humans get to boss him around and tell him he can't be trans if he wills it. I find this a common social pattern to declare their God as all powerful and then turn around and tie him down and limit him always coincidentally matching the limiters own beliefs. If your god is all powerful, why can you limit him to such narrow tiny weak little ranges? On the other hand, if the proposed god is not all powerful and is completely under the control and limitations and utter domination of some contemporary rich old men, why not ignore the wimp, and if you're ignoring the old men too, well...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God_in_Christianity [wikipedia.org]
I find it interesting that the more I research this the more likely God is a she or an it. The type that thinks the bible was originally written in modern american english is 100% certain their god is a he, but original texts seem to disagree.
When you factor in the legendary misogyny of later ancient, middle, and modern cultures, any evidence at all of their god not being a total 100% pure bro is staggering and would imply the truth is likely pretty far the other way. Given an extreme filter, if the output of the filter looks kinda girly, the input must look rather extreme, like... maybe a woman?
Lets just be honest here based on practical human behavior. Most dudes are pretty mellow on average, nut cases and roid rage aside, etc. If you really want to see a human going all "old testament" on someone or something, you are far better off finding a (angry) woman. Its probably an evolutionary adaptation for being small wimpy and often pregnant, once you get one fired up theres not much to do but get out of the blast radius, like an angry tasmanian devil... or like a momma bear protecting her cubs. If the old testament god did the bro equivalent of getting drunk and punching a dude in the face once and then making up and becoming besties again, like once, just because of all that beer, then I'd say thats evidence of stereotypical male behavior. But no the old testament fire and brimstone stuff reads like only a scorned woman on the warpath could act. You talked to another chick, I don't care if she was your waitress, you get a plague of locusts... I mean seriously, you're still not talking to me for three days because I left the toilet seat up? That's total female behavior, gonna scorch the earth no matter how long it takes and how bad it looks. Women, not men, behave like old testament god. I don't think it a stretch to claim that might imply old testament god is a girl.
(Score: 5, Funny) by isostatic on Wednesday June 17 2015, @08:03PM
The type that thinks the bible was originally written in modern american english is 100% certain their god is a he, but original texts seem to disagree.
I thought that the bible was written by Adam and George Washington as they sailed their ark with dinosaurs on 4000 years ago at the dawn of the American protectorship of the planet?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 17 2015, @08:45PM
Thats just what the illuminati want you to think.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday June 17 2015, @11:19PM
Blasphemy! Xenu had a part too...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @11:27PM
I was under the impression that Jehovah was a local tribal war god who was later adopted by the Israelites. I should have bookmarked my source on that, because now (of course) I can't find it...
(Score: 2) by VortexCortex on Wednesday June 17 2015, @06:50PM
To top it all off, you refer to God as a "Her" - whereas in the Bible, God is *Always* referred to as "Him" or "His".
Well, you're plainly wrong. First off, the English language Bible is an interpretation. Etymologically, in English he, him, his, and man are gender neutral terms. "Man" meaning human, the other masculine form lost their masculine qualifiers while the female forms retained their gendered significance. Thus those translations of the Bible are not referring to God as masculine, excepting of course Jesus being male.
Secondly, the modern Bible was formed slowly over the ages from what was once a polytheistic belief. Let us consider The Holy Trinity (presupposing we're not Benedictine): If we suppose "The Father" is male, and "The Son" is a child, then "The Holy Ghost" is.... what? What would make the most sense here? Perhaps The Holy Ghost is a Female to complete the holy family unit. Indeed, many Bible scholars agree there was a female Goddess among the desert nomads' pantheon. She was later absorbed into the The Holy Trinity.
Finally, Wisdom is personified as Female in the Bible. [google.com] But who is the Spirit of Wisdom? Isaiah 11:22: And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom... Yes, that would be The Holy Spirit AKA The Holy Ghost, which is the Spirit of Wisdom which is personified as female, having many female qualities such as nurturing, teaching, and greatly impassioned.
Alas, it seems to be the curse of atheists to know more of a religion than the majority of its believers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday June 18 2015, @06:24AM
"Alas, it seems to be the curse of atheists to know more of a religion than the majority of its believers."
(Speaking anecdotally, as I have no hard facts to back this up.)
The majority of people I know who self-describe as atheist or agnostic, did not start out so. Nearly everyone I know in this category came to their beliefs (myself included) from actually studying the Bible, as apposed to 'biblical study groups' such as my religious wife attends who study only selected verses and simply self-censor anything unpleasant or contradictory by ignoring or not 'studying' them. Examples being Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and others which they conveniently ignore. These books I found horrifying, and the idea that you could pick and choose what to follow if it is all 'Gods word' confounded me. Not that you could follow all of it, as there are so many contradictions. (Love your neighbor, but kill him if he works on the wrong day or gets a haircut....)
Many (most?) of us became atheists because of actually studying the Bible.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.