I didn’t grow up in a religious family and never had any real knowledge of religion as a child. As a young adult I would have described myself as an agnostic, not saying one way or the other whether there was a god. On one hand there was nothing to say there wasn’t, on the other it was hard to see much evidence in the positive either. There is no real evidence as far as I could see. There have been no miracles or other events in millennium (I know that the Catholic Church still uses miracles to prove sainthood, but that just seems to be people with diseases who recover and say it was prayer, but could just as easily be random recovery). And the bible and other books are stories from a iron age culture, I don’t see how anyone could take them at face value.

Over time I came to see that this position I was taking was weak and I was avoiding the issue, not addressing it. Because in fact it was obvious that there was no god. Having spent more time reading up on science, on physics, chemistry and biology it was clear that science had discovered all kind of explanation for previously unexplained phenomena. There was a really well established theory about how we evolved over time, about how the earth was formed, about the nature of the real material world. You didn’t need god to explain these things. In fact god made little sense in explaining these things, evolution fit much better. Of course people often say that well, science doesn’t explain this little thing or that – this is the basis of the intelligent Design movement. But it is a “God of the Gaps’ argument – wherever there is a gap in sciences explanation, people insert god. But is that a rational approach? Science always has gaps, but over time it fills in those gaps. The existence of gaps in knowledge is not a good basis for god.

So in the end I decided that, given the lack of evidence, I had to be an atheist. Of course, the annoying thing about religion/atheist debate is the varying nature of religious conceptions. So if the 6000 year old earth, no evolution, Abraham on the mountain god is not true, what about a more etherial god? A god who accepts science but is still there in the background, one who is about spirituality and morality? I must admit I have always found this kind of god even more annoying, because it kind of has no strong basis or evidence, so why even begin to believe?

Is it a god who doesn’t effect the evolution of the universe, but created the big bang? But no one knows where the big bang came from, why invent a god to create it? The obvious next question is who created god? And no amount of he is universal and omnipotent etc does anything more than avoid the question by quickly changing the topic.

Can there be no morality without god? Of course there can, morality comes from the same place as all other human values, from humans. Human invented human rights, and they invent all kinds of new moral rights all the time. Should it just be that we should say that the human values that were invented in the iron age are not human but god given? I don’t see the logic in that.

In the end I don’t see a place for god or a need. The history of religion is one of massacre and genocide (gee that old testament!) and inquisitions. But I don’t blame religion for that, for religion is a human construct. It was an attempt to understand the world in a time before science, when the world was dangerous and random. The history of religion is the history of human institutions, no more no less. The catholic church was an outgrowth of the Roman Empire, Islam is generally an outgrowth of Arab nationalism. Structured religion was just human constructs, and non-structured, spiritualist religion was just a blancmange pretending to fill in the gaps of science, but offering no more explanation.

In the end, we have naturalist explanation of the way the world works with all kinds of human institutions built on that, but no god. and that is why I am an Atheist. I realise that people seek meaning in all kind of places and some choose religion, and as long as they dont try and push it down other peoples throats I am fine with that (which is why I like the Anglican church but not the Catholic). But I am happy with my world view.

Reading the weekend paper a few weeks ago, I came across this “advertisement”:

They are always interesting, these notes put in national newspapers, that are not adverts or job ads, indicating that some section of the community has some (at least what they perceive as) interesting information for the rest of us.

It is surprising that the ad does not really give you much information at all about the organisation. The only description is that the Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood is “dedicated to understanding and ameliorating the human condition”. This unfortunately could be used to describe half the organisations in the world! The “human condition”, at least on plain reading, could cover most human traits: love, hate, addiction, depression, religion. They only other real pointer is the description of the defamation case that the article is about, one where the SMH apparently implied that the Foundation “placed demands on its members which tore families apart”. From that one could infer that it might be a religious organisation or other such organisation (although on closer inspection it is not, see below).

Nonetheless a visit to the organisation’s website does not really help to clarify matters. It mentions the court case above, a book called “Freedom”, and an interestingly a link to a discussion forum post that makes positive comments about someone called “Griffith”. This stood out a bit for a foundation website, this Griffith must somehow be central to the foundation.

The description of the FHA page adds little, although it does mention a Foundation Director, Jeremy Griffith. More information on him is available on wikipedia:

The FHA promotes and provides a forum for Griffith’s theory of human nature. Between the years 1975 and 1988 Griffith developed a theory which claims to explain human nature, good and evil and provide a way to a better life. Griffith’s theory developed from reflections on the nature of human beings as both loving and hateful, a state of being he refers to as the human condition. He also wished to develop an explanation for humanity’s destructive effect on the natural environment. In 1988 he established the Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood as an organization to promote, support and discuss his theory.

The organisation has about 50 members who support the program of FHA, which seem to be based around the philosophical like writing of Jeremy Griffith.

The understanding of the human condition explains the difference between our instincts and intellect and the effect that difference has had on our behaviour. It describes how the anger and selfishness felt by humans is the result of these two factions within ourselves—the gene-based instinctive learning system struggling against the nerve-based intellect’s capacity to understand.

This conflict, which started some two million years ago when consciousness emerged, causes humans to live with an undeserved sense of guilt that is characterised by competition and aggression. Once guilt is removed by being explained—which the FHA says is now possible—the competition and aggression in humans naturally subsides.

He appear to use some aspect of biology to construct a theory around our instincts and intellect on how that can improve our understanding of our condition – and maybe provide guidance to future actions.

Without going into it deeper I am not sure how far this advances us. Dualism has been around for a long time.

There was a case a few months ago regarding a 9-year old girl in Brazil who was raped by her step-father and subsequently had a abortion. At that time the Catholic Church in Brazil excommunicated the family of the girl as well as the doctors who performed the operation (original story).

As you could imagine there was some consternation over these action. But it was just the church in Brazil. But now the Catholic Church Hierarchy has made its position clear. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (previously known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition) has made it clear that the actions of the Brazilian Church was no mistake but rather official Church policy. The National Catholic reporter:

The doctrinal congregation said the statements from church leaders led to some confusion about the position of the church, “taking into account the dramatic situation of the child — who, it turns out — was accompanied with pastoral delicacy by the then-archbishop.”
“In this regard, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirms that the doctrine of the church on procured abortion has not and cannot change,” the statement said.
To deliberately abort a fetus is to kill an innocent human being, it said.
“Regarding procured abortions in certain difficult and complex situations,” the doctrinal congregation said that “the clear and precise teaching” of Pope John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), remains valid.

The Catholic Church continues to hold one of the most conservative positions on abortion, not providing even a exemption for children who are raped.

I came across an example of Poe’s Law in practice today. as described on RationalWiki:

Poe’s Law relates to fundamentalism, and the difficulty of identifying actual parodies thereof. It suggests that, in general, it is hard to tell fake fundamentalism from the real thing, since they may both espouse equally extreme beliefs. Poe’s law also works in reverse: real fundamentalism can also be indistinguishable from parody fundamentalism.

PZ Myers link to this post on the discussion forums of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry:

So moms are everywhere in nature. Females often go to great lengths to feed, save, and protect their young. Many construct homes and shelters…(all without knowing/understanding she’s even pregnant) and do so with great care and attention to detail.

So I’ve got two questions about this:

1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young? And remember, mothers often give food to their young that they might otherwise eat. And going out into the world to look for food is often dangerous — she could be killed looking for food. Wouldn’t there be an advantage to her personally just to forget about the kid and go about her own business of eating and finding a mate? Why the unnecessary risk? Why go to the trouble of building a nest to protect the young? Wouldn’t it be easier just to skip all that? I thought evolution was all about being selfish……….so why do so many animals put others’ needs before themselves? What’s the advantage to that?

2) Why wouldn’t it be an evolutionary advantage for mothers to eat their young? I know it sometimes happens in nature…..but not as a general rule. As a general rule, mothers and fathers very rarely eat their young…even when they’re hungry. But wouldn’t an animal be more likely to breed if it didn’t starve? Mothers should be consuming their offspring everywhere in nature — afterall, it would advantageous getting that extra nourishment.

How do the evolutionists here get around this? Where does this “love” or devotion for child come from? Got a gene you can show me? What’s the evolutionary advantage for all this? And remember — evolution cannot plan ahead.

Now the answer is fairly obvious just through think about how natural selection works, the mothers who look after her child will be more likely to have their children survive, and thus will more likely pass on their genes. That is why it is called natural selection. As PZ says “Wouldn’t an animal be more likely to breed if it ate its own babies?”.

But the interesting thing is that this is a great example of Poe’s Law. For there were a number of responses to the post. Including:

Ur…survival of life….?

Oh wait—you just posted this to get a rise out of scarlets! He thinks you’re serious!!

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Well done, sporty!!!11!!1!11!

You can’t know if the post is true or a parody of the truth, hence poe’s law!

In a recent article in the Spectator, journalist Melanie Phillips criticizes Richard Dawkins for sloppy quoting during a discussion on the case for deistic god.

In essence the article argues that there had been a bit of a gotcha moment when Dawkins, in a debate with John Lennox, had said: “…you can make a respectable case for deism – not a case that I would accept but I think it is a serious discussion that you could have.” Dawkins then subsequently claimed that he had been misquoted by Lennox later on when Lennox only quoted the first part and not the following qualification.

Melanie Phillips then accuses Dawkins of misquoting her, of using text from a website that discussed her, rather than her actual quote, and that by doing so he does not acknowledge that she had acknowledged the second part of his point about deism as well as the first. This appears to be the substance of her argument in the article. It should be noted that the thrust of the text Dawkins quoted and Phillips own argument are pretty much the same.

Now, as described it does look like an error on Dawkins part, I am not sure it warrants a whole article. But some people have got hot under the collar about it, including the author who Dawkins actually quoted:

Indeed, we are left with only two possible explanations for all this. He is either incompetent as a writer and researcher, or he has deliberately set out to misinform and deceive his audience. Either option is not very pretty. Considering that this guy actually calls himself a “Bright”, he does not seem so bright after all. He is either quite a dolt who cannot even do the most basic of quotations and referencing, or he has deliberately and maliciously made these gross misrepresentations and distortions in order to promote himself while he seeks to demonise Phillips.

In the end it was an error and Dawkins apologised in this post:

In my Atlanta talk, I briefly quoted the journalist Melanie Phillips, as a possible source of John Lennox’s ‘stunning revelation’. Unfortunately, I also attributed another, similar quotation to her, which was in fact from another blogger who had referred to her. This was inexplicably slipshod on my part. I apologise, and have asked Josh to remove the brief section of my talk where I spoke about Melanie Phillips. Richard

Of course Melanie Phillips is not quite, well, I would say accurate, in her article. For a start she states that:

In a lecture earlier this month to the American Atheists’ Convention in Atlanta, Georgia, Dawkins chose to attack Lennox …describing Lennox belittlingly as a ‘Christian apologist’ and an ‘Irish mathematician’

It is not quite clear why these are belittling comments. He is a Christian apologist, and this is not a term of derision, this is the term Christians use themselves. See for example the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.

As for being called an Irish Mathematician, well I guess it could be a racial slur, but I suspect, given that he is, in fact, Irish and a mathematician, that is just a description of him.

And to some extent Phillips put words in the mouth of Dawkins, for example saying:

…given his previous absolutism in stating that anything unsupported by evidence is superstitious mumbo-jumbo and that anyone who believes that matter must have had an original creator is a cretin…

Now I know from Reading him that Richard Dawkins does not have great respect for religious belief, but I don’t think he has described all religious people as cretins.

She also subtly changes Dawkins argument. So while Dawkins is quoted as saying “…you can make a respectable case for deism”, a few paragraphs down it is changed to “a respectable scientific case could be made for deism”. This is a completely different proposition, and one I am sure Richard Dawkins would disavow.

And this gets to the the actual core of the issue, one that the article dances around – there can be made a respectable case for deism. I saying this I mean deism of the most general kind, that behind everything thing there might be some god, or creator, or mystical force (which is a quite different proposition that any earthly religion puts forward, which is for a much more involved deity).

I have no problem with that proposition, that accepting all the scientific evidence for the big bang, for evolution, for the universe as we understand it, behind it might be some, well supernatural force. It is not an argument I would make or would accept, but I can see how a reasonable argument for it might be made, as there really are mysteries as to why the big bang occurred.

Of course this is of no use to any christian or creationist argument, since that is not the case that any of them put forward. There proposition is for theism, for a much more invovled supreme being.

But it is an interesting proposition, and one worth discussing, and while I think Melanie Phillips has the right to defend her position, I don’t think the article moved the debate forward.

It has not be pleasant writing this, these kind of nit-picking arguments are not really enjoyable. Despite that I definitely support Richard Dawkins, his forthright approach is needed. Atheism has often been a silent voice drowned out by religious views and I appreciate that there are individuals out there taking the debate into the public sphere.

This is certainly necessarily when you have individuals, such as Cormac Murphy-O’Connor claiming atheists are “not quite human”.

Pharyngula is a science blog by PZ Myers, and he does not take much liking to the suggestion that Alzheimer’s is caused by extraterrestrials.

I can see why a scientist would not be a great fan of the article:

Dr. Salla specifically documents Manipulative Extraterrestrials that use mind control weapons technologies, that interfere with human cognitive functions. Could Alzheimer’s be a side effect of an alleged interference in human cognitive functions?

…Dr. Salla, Dr. Lash, and other learned researchers suggest that such human conditions as Alzheimer’s and Dementia may be appreciated by becoming aware of Manipulative Extraterrestrial interference against human free will.

…The Bible itself in pre-translated forms, as presented by Biblical scholars, actually contains specific warnings against these apparent Manipulative Extraterrestrials, who have apparently sought to interfere in human cognitive/neurological processes.

It would appear that aliens are “Archons” are manipulating our minds, causing diseases and we were warned in the bible before the aliens manipulated our minds to remove the references in later bibles.

Where are these ideas coming from? Searching on the name Dr John Singh turns up another interesting article, also on the website of “The Canadian” this one entitled Totalitarianism as a Manipulative Extraterrestrial Ruse:

…research on the Gnostics, suggests that Manipulative Extraterrestrials called “archons” as “trojan horses”, seek to infiltrate human institutions. David Icke’s testimony inspires consideration on whether signs of activity, that is voided on basic human decency do not suggest the work of an alien intruder, operating in a mimicked human form, using the simple technology of virtual reality…Adolf Hitler, another dictator that ruled over Nazi Germany, in the same era of Joseph Stalin, has been documented as acting as an operative of Manipulative Extraterrestrials, in the perpetration of Crimes Against Humanity, which include the Holocaust. Adolf Hilter has been historically documented as being a member of the UFO oriented Thule society, before his rise to power.

The David Icke reference is an interesting one, but for the moment continuing with the current path the presentation of these articles on a seemingly mainstream paper’s website does seem a bit funny. Admittedly I haven’t heard of it, but I have heard of the Australian, and this seems comparable? Looking at the front page, the first article is about Obama, uh oh….

Hitler became infamous for talking “hope” and peace through “non-aggression packs”, as he prepared for the violence of invasion and “Blitzkrieg” (lightening war).

“Hitler? Are you kidding me?” you might ask. But, who in Germany during the 1930’s in a time of sought democratic renewal, would have predicted the that Germany would start a World War, under a dictatorial government, that would seek to use concentration camps? “Concentration camps? We don’t have those.” Well, that’s not what the evidence suggests, according to investigative journalists that notably include Alex Jones. Mr. Jones and others allege such camps are ready and waiting to accept “designated occupants”

I should note that the article is also written by Dr John Singh. I suddenly realise we are in woo-woo territory. When you scroll down the articles, an awful lot of them seem to involve extraterrestrials:

Manipulative extraterrestrials and mind control

Capitalism: An alien ideology from who were as human being [sic]

Hurricanes and the Bermuda Triangle

Ethical Extraterrestrials and the maturation of the galactic culture

Florida: UFO’s, extraterrestials and the parachutist

(I would also note a number of articles about transgender issues. Go figure).

So we are talking about a UFO website with links to Gnosticism and thus to broader Conspiracy Theory issues. Which provides the link to David Icke, who, on googling, turns out to be a leading proponent of conspiracy theories. From his wikipedia article:

At the heart of Icke’s theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group referred to as the “Global Elite” or “Illuminati,” which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, while not denying that these are an anti-semitic hoax. In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.

This is great, you want your conspiracy theories Big and Beautiful. The Jews running the world was a bit simple, and the ET’s going around re-writting the bible and giving us all headaches is not really up there. But George Bush and the Queen being secret reptilian humanoids, now that is a conspiracy theory you can love. We are in Dr who territory with that one.

I always kind of knew these theories were out there, but to see them all out there so blatantly makes you pause. Kind of like running bare foot into bindies in the grass and having to back out very slowly. In this particular case there is also a big turd with the bindies:

David Icke is coming to Melbourne in April 2009! Truth Movement Australia is putting on an event- you can book tickets now!

One of the things that has always struck me about religion is the apparent conflict between the enormous powers of the creator and the feeble manifestations of those powers in the real world of people.

This particularly struck me while listening to the Religion Report on ABC, the episode was about Pope Pius XII, the pope during Hitler’s reign. The discussion centred around the relationship of the church and the Pope with the Nazi regime. The conclusion of Dr Paul O’Shea seemed to be that the pope was all too human and that while he generally had good intent, the way that this played out in his public statements and actions lead many to condemn him unjustly for his acquiescence on nazism.

But at the same time the Pope is God’s envoy on earth, a role set down in the bible. He is the Vicar of Christ and his pronouncements on faith and morals are infallible. As wikipedia reports the second Vatican said:

And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.

Am I the only one who finds these two descriptions of the pope to be in conflict?

As stated in this Canadian National Post article, a group in Quebec is advocating the banning of the Hijab by teachers in public schools (the Hijab is the item of Islamic dress that covers the hair and neck, but does not obscure the face). As the article states:

The Quebec Council on the Status of Women, a 20-member body that advises the government on issues relating to women, is urging the province to force public employees to remove visible religious signs when they are on the job. Aside from large Christian crosses, Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulkes, these also include the hijab, a veil that generally covers the hair and neck, and the more controversial niqab, which covers the face, leaving only the eyes exposed. The council argues that equality between men and women trumps religious freedoms, and that the symbols oppress.

I have always found this debate interesting and consider that the answer to these issues are not at all straight-forward, as they deal with the intersection of two different kind of rights, the right to self expression and freedom of religion, and the right to freedom from oppression.

(more…)

Why is it that I sometimes see people write god as g-d? I know there is some thing about not writing god?s name, but g-d is a name as well – I mean assumably gods name wasn?t in english, so its some translation anyway, god is not some literal name handed down in an eveolpe from the heavens. God is just some english translation of some other name, so g-d is just as much a translation. It makes no sense at all.

This is a pretty good Jesus and Mo strip:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/10/22/women/

It has often been argued that one of the differences with Islam (compared to western christianity) is that it has not gone through a reformation, as the christian world has, and this is one of the causes of the existence of Islamic extremism. See for example this Washington Post article. The argument is that without a reformation, Muslims still treat their holy works as the word of god in a way that christians in the West no longer do. For example, in the above article it is argued that:

However, few Muslims have been permitted to study their religious book in this way. The insistence that the Koranic text is the infallible, uncreated word of God renders analytical, scholarly discourse all but impossible.

To my mind this seems to misunderstand the nature of the reformation. The reformation was not some challenge to the central role of the bible in religion, instead it was an attempt to return to it, against the perceived corruption of the catholic church and its top down interpretation of the bible. The first group to break away from the Catholics were the Lutherans, and in wikipedia we have this description:

Lutherans believe that the Bible, as a divinely inspired book, is the source of all revealed divine knowledge. Scripture alone (Sola scriptura) is the formal principle of the faith, the final authority for all matters of faith and doctrine.

Thus the reformation, to some extent, was the attempt to return to the scriptures and away form the interpretations of the Catholic Church. This does not seem to me a useful to think about Islam. A more appropriate example might be the Enlightenment.

&tBrowsing around the interweb, I came across the site “christian apologetics”, which provides arguments to non-beleivers. I find the term apologetics a bit unusual, but Wikipedia describes christian apologetics as coming ;…from the Greek word apologia, which means in defense of; therefore a person involved in Christian or Bible Apologetics is a defender of Christianity”.

An example of some of the reasoning given on the site is the section on responses to unbelievers. See for example the responses to :I can’t believe in a God who would send people to Hell:        

1.        Hell was originally created for Satan and his angels. In the future it will contain those who join Satan in rejecting God. If you reject God’s provision for the forgiveness of your sins, then you will join the Devil who rejected God from the beginning. Is that what you want?        

2.        Could you believe in a God who would become a human, suffer at the hands of humans, and be killed by them, all so that His death could be the payment for their sins? That is extremely loving. God is saving people who deserve to go to Hell – and we all deserve that. Remember that the same God that sends people to Hell also died for them. If they reject what God has provided, then what is God left to do? He would have to judge them.        

3.        Whether you believe in something or not does not change the fact of its existence. Jesus spoke often of Hell (Matt. 25:41-46; Mark 9:47-48; Luke 16:19-31), and warned us so we would not go there. Would you say Jesus didn’t know what He was talking about?        

4.        Are you implying that it is unjust for God to send people to hell? If so, then you accuse God of injustice. Sin is wrong and it must be punished. What would you have God do to those who oppose Him and do evil? Do you want Him to ignore that which is wrong? Do you want Him to turn His head and not be holy and righteous?

In essence the response is to someone who says “I don’t want to worship a god who is so bad that he would send people to an incredible torture (hell) for not meeting a set of rules of his devising”. And what are the proposed responses? to paraphrase:

1. Hell was created for bad people, if you are judged a bad person, you will go there as well. This is just restating the proposition that has been rejected in the first place, maybe with the addition of personalising it to the specific doubter. Hardly a convincing argument to repeat that which has just been rejected.

2. This one is multipart. The loving god (jesus) sacrificed lots so he could save you from going to hell. This kind of misses the point that it was the very same god who created hell in the first place. Essentially the argument in response to sending some people to hell is that he doesn’t send others. This is fairly obvious from the initial proposition, and doesn’t really offer any refutation. Then, remember that the same god that sends people to hell also died for them. This is not the most compelling argument: he is doing something bad to you, but something bad happened to him, so its OK. And while this is a pretty poor argument, it is even worse, since he is not actually dead. According to the scriptures, he rose from the dead and is sitting pretty in heaven, something I assume those committed to hell don’t get. If they reject what God has provided, then what is God left to do? He would have to judge them. If people reject being saved from going to hell, he will send them to hell. Gee, that will bring them around.

3. This is the most compelling argument, which comes down to well too bad he did it, do you want to burn in hell? But of course, assumably the doubter had considered this: it is the whole point behind their rejection of such a god.

4. This brings some whole new concepts into the argument, and duplicitously confounds some arguments. See “…oppose Him and do evil” and “turn his head and not be holy and righteous”. So suddenly everyone who rejects his concept of hell is now lumped in the group “evil”, and sending people to hell is righteous. But no argument is actually put forward to support why you are evil and why god is righteous. So someone who has rejected this cruel god is unlikely to turn around and support him because of the introduction of the unjustified labels “evil” and “righteous”. To top it off, the argument states that the unbelievers views accuse god of injustice and should be punished. So if you say “I don”t want to worship a god who is so bad that he would send people to hell” the response is that such a position is you are evil and you should go to hell.

I wouldn’t call any of these arguments at all persuasive. Now I know why it it seems appropriate to call it apologetics.

The newspaper reported on the Pope’s humility recently.

Its good how the Pope reflects Jesus’s humility, by washing the feet of some other Vatican priests using water poured from an ornate gold jug, into an ornate gold dish. Jesus was well known for his humility and how he would keep his gold items down to a bare minimum, just his jewelry, clothes, furniture and toilet, eating utensils and of course gold foot washing items. This was how Jesus demonstrated his humility. He also demonstrated it by building gigantic cathedrals.