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: 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 :-)