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).
(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?