A procession of devils, ghosts and zombies through the historic Spanish city of Toledo has been branded blasphemous by the Catholic Church.
Actors from the Morboria theatre company performed a representation inspired by the medieval Dance of Death in Toledo’s streets provoking an angry reaction from the cathedral pulpit.
“We ask forgiveness for those who insulted the body of Christ,” said Archbishop Antonio Canizares, quoted in newspaper El Pais.
He told worshippers the procession, which also included a Virgin Mary and a Saint Peter, made a mockery of the Catholic celebration of Corpus Christi…
Toledo retains a reputation as one of the most conservative towns in Spain. It was once home to a permanent office of the Spanish Inquisition, which had more painful methods of dealing with blasphemy than those available to Canizares.
Who do you trust with your freedom? Mel Brooks or the Archbishop?
#30 – Mr. Mustard,
I don’t see how your view is more or less liberal than mine. It’s just different, not on the liberal scale.
You’re correct, I never thought you were trying to convert me, though your reference to an awakening does seem to me to be judgmental in small amount.
It would be like referring to the more scientific viewpoint as enlightened, which would imply that you are in the dark, similarly to the way in which you subtly refer to me as asleep.
So, yes, sometimes you do seem to make your dragnostic or dragnistic viewpoint seem somehow superior to my own adragonistic viewpoint. And, that to me is not always fully respectful.
By wording things in a way that makes you seem superior, you do come across not as if you are trying to convert me or any of the other atheists on this blog, but as if you are judging us, and not particularly fairly.
>>And, that to me is not always fully respectful.
Scottie, if you want to see “not always fully respectful”, read the archives of hatred, ridicule, digital face-spitting, and all the rest contained in the 53098302860938 “Xtian”-bashing posts here on dvorak dot org slash blog.
With the occasional exception of biting back when I’m attacked for being the moral equivalent of a FUCKING RETARD for my own personal spiritual beliefs, I don’t think I’ve ever been disrespectful to ANYONE for their beliefs, be they beliefs or non-belief beliefs.
Your comments about my alleged soi-disant “superiority” fly in the face of the overwhelming majority of posts here on D dot O slash B; I would have to go back to Quattro Pro (with its greater row/ column capabilities) to tally up all the times believers have been called “sheeple”, mentally defective, murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, nimrods, stupid, and every other pejorative term in the book. I can’t think of a single instance where Atheists were treated with anything other than kid gloves.
btw, when I said “liberal” I didn’t mean in the “groovy” sense. I mean it was more inclusive, broad-minded, less restrictive.
#33 – Mr. Mustard,
Depends on what you consider broad-minded. If you consider allowing people to express their own viewpoints for themselves, then my way is more broad minded. If you mean by opening up definitions to their broadest possible definition, then your way is more broad minded.
Of course, your way also might lump musicians as mathematicians because the timing of the music is expressed as a fraction or lump billiard players with physicists because both are studying the laws of motion or astrologers with astronomers because both look at the sky.
In fact, what you are doing to some extent is lumping atheists with theologians. I’m not that broad minded.
>>In fact, what you are doing to some extent is
>>lumping atheists with theologians. I’m not that
>>broad minded.
I’m not lumping Atheist with theologians, I’m lumping them with mainstream Christians, Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, and all the others who profess a belief regarding the existence and/or nature of a higher power.
I might lump some of the more strident and vocal Atheists (i.e., their leaders) with other religious spokesmodels, like the Pope, but most rank-and-file Atheists are just believers, like the folks sitting in the pews on Sunday.
Hey Mustard–what was your personal experience?
I don’t know. I think you’re starting to convince me the other way again.
Personally, I’m an antitheist, as you know. This does make me outspoken in my belief that religion is bunk, and dangerous murderous bunk at that.
However, to call atheists, who are likely not antitheists believers is a bit like calling me an avid non-football player. In fact, for my part, I’m an avid non-Quarterback.
“Who do you trust with your freedom? Mel Brooks or the Archbishop?” – Well, if you are an Altar Boy, I would suggest you go with Mel Brooks !!!
>>Hey Mustard–what was your personal experience?
Oh no, Bobbolina. You’re not sucking me into another twelve million posts of weird punctuation, leaving me calling for the paramedics after you talk me to death.
>>I think you’re starting to convince me the
>>other way again.
Scottie, haven’t you been paying attention? I have never tried to convince you of ANYTHING, other than that your beliefs are beliefs. That seems self-evident to me, but it seems to be a big bone of contention around here.
In any case, you are free to believe what you choose, I am free to believe what I choose, and we all go home happy.
I think we’ve beaten this dead horse beyond the point of recognition, so I’m Audi 5000!
>>This does make me outspoken in my belief that
>>religion is bunk, and dangerous murderous bunk
>>at that.
Well, I consider Atheism to be bunk, but I try not to let my personal beliefs color things.
As for being “murderous”, for every Inquisition or witch burning, you’ve got a Mao, a Stalin, or a Pol Pot.
Fanatics can take any belief system and twist it to their own evil ends.
#39, 35 – Musty,
You’re at it again, I think.
I might lump some of the more strident and vocal Atheists (i.e., their leaders) with other religious spokesmodels, like the Pope, but most rank-and-file Atheists are just believers, like the folks sitting in the pews on Sunday.
And here is the biggest point you are missing. There are no pews. There are no congregations of atheists. There are no rule books to follow, not rites to perform, and no dogma.
Perhaps the biggest reason atheists have not demanded the respect that, for example, the LBGT community has done so admirably, is precisely because of this.
We’re not organized. We have no rules. We don’t all agree on anything except the requirement for evidence.
In any case, you are free to believe what you choose, I am free to believe what I choose, and we all go home happy.
But, I’m not. You keep stuffing your words down my throat. I’m not free not to believe. You keep telling me I must believe.
I do not and will not believe.
I think we’ve beaten this dead horse beyond the point of recognition, so I’m Audi 5000!
Um … that’s sadistic equine necrophilia, no?
Well Mustard, there you go again, “I believe but won’t give any details.” Thats ok, just be honest.
I’m curious how any “personal experience” can be more than a glimpse of God playing a harp or whatever. How did your experience identify the correct tenets and so forth?
As I have posted, I have had ONE “supernatural” experience in my life and I put it down to a rush of endorphins due to being drunk and in love. My personal experience led me to understand brain chemistry controls everything.
#35: My real spiritual awakening was when I was 19. I had just left the Ash Wednesday service at a Catholic church (with an ash mark), and suddenly realized I didn’t believe that stuff anymore. I went to my dorm (this was when I was in college), washed the mark off, and felt better almost immediately. Shortly thereafter, I realized that not only was the existence of any specific deity/FSM/xenu/whatever unprovable, but that the question was completely moot because proof/disproof of the existence of any deity is impossible. That’s why I’m agnostic.
>>You keep telling me I must believe.
Scottie. Scottie, Scottie, Scottie.
Are you seriously saying that I have ever told you that you “must believe”? Big frownie face. I would have expected more from you.
>>Well Mustard, there you go again, “I
>>believe but won’t give any details.”
Scottie. Scottie, Scottie, Scottie
This is the fucking INTERNET, Scottie, not some hot-apple-cider-and-donuts get-together among friends.
If I were trying to convert you, I’d supply you with all the details you seek, over hot apple cider and donuts. I’m not, so I won’t.
The one thing I find annoying about Atheists (or “anti-theists”, if you will) is there abrasive and overbearing demeanor. “If you don’t prove to me what you believe is captured in a Kodak moment, like the Colorado guy’s outer-space alien, then you’re a retard, a fool, a liar, murderer, cheater, thief, and you probably voted for Genital Warts Bush”.
Pfffft. For a self-proclaimed “liberal”, you seem to have a real hard time with the “live and let live” part of the program.
Sorry, Scottie. I attributed Mista Bobbolina’s comment to you. My bad.
Now I’m REALLY Audi 5000.
The internet. It is what it is. A virtual community with all its hopes and dreams frustrated, just like the real world.
Mustard–you have not tried to convert anyone except as an unavoidable consequence of your religious themed postings.
I have never been religious so I wonder how it happens. “God revealed himself to me” is very common. But details beyond the wonderful feeling are mostly lacking. No details. How does god reveal himself as christian and not muslim or buddhist or whatever? How does he reveal he wants you to go to church? Why go to church if he doesn’t want you to? Does the revelation say “believe in the parts of the bilbe you like?”
Details. The stuff of life.
10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer.
Mister Mustard,
I say I do not believe. You tell me that anything I do is believing. If I believe, I believe. If I don’t believe, I believe. You don’t have a concept of non-belief. So, because you don’t have the concept of “not belief” in your mind, it means that I believe.
The world according to Mustard: Everyone is a believer. There are no non-believers.
Actually, I think I’ve finally hit on the crux of the matter, so to speak. You quite literally cannot conceive of the possibility that someone has no belief.
Why is that? I thought you were the open-minded one, at least according to you.
😛 Peter Jackson’s early movie creation “Dead Alive” has a great scene in the cemetary with the priest, who upon spotting the zomies says, “the living dead!, stand back son”, then does some nija style moves over several headstone, lands and shouts “I kick ass for the lord!!!”
#47–Jag==great link and a good start for all the Xians. (Mustard?)
Although I’m sure its in the supposed difference between the old and new testament–that seems to be “au current” among the believe in the bible as the absolute truth but understand it correctly for the intended audience. Yes, the crazy train left about 2000 years ago.
>>You quite literally cannot conceive of the
>>possibility that someone has no belief.
Sure I can, Scottie. We call them agnostics.
Mustard, good to see you continue on your wayward way. Ignore the dictionary. Did you have a “personal experience” about this as well?
Personal experience is just great. Every meglomaniac has them. Reasonable people moderate/control their personal experiences by reference to external realities.
I guess you think an empty glass is not empty. It is full of nothing.
>>10 questions that every intelligent Christian
>>must answer.
This could be a textbook case of “Straw Man Argumentation” in a Logic 101 course.
#53–Mustard==how is that? Get out of your Audi 5000 (or remain out of it and stop lying) and take any one of the ten arguments and show how it is wrong.
Go ahead. I wager you cant and your excuse “I Believe” will be apparent.
#51 – Mister Mustard,
>>You quite literally cannot conceive of the
>>possibility that someone has no belief.
Sure I can, Scottie. We call them agnostics.
No fucking way, Musty old man. Agnostics believe god or gods may exist. This is more of a belief than atheists have. And, it’s totally based on faith, believe it or not, because, there is not a shred of evidence to support the claim. Therefore, it is purely a leap of faith to believe that there may be a god. What else would foster such a belief?
#50 – bobbo
Mustard is a lost cause… but perhaps there are other intelligent Christians out there who dare to challenge their mind.
And yes, there’s quite a – bloody 😉 – difference between the testaments. Still, they’re part of Christianity.
#52 bobbo,
I guess you think an empty glass is not empty. It is full of nothing.
Perfect and succinct!! You really nailed it on that one.
#28 – In my lexicon, a belief relating to the existence or nature of God(s) is a religion.
You have elevated being wrong to an art form.
#44 – For a self-proclaimed “liberal”, you seem to have a real hard time with the “live and let live” part of the program.
We learned that from religious people.
Bobbo, STFU. You’re beginning to annoy me. Stop trolling.
>>Agnostics believe god or gods may exist. This
>>is more of a belief than atheists have.
No, Scottie, it’s not. I can only infer that you are jerking my chain. To suggest that saying “gee, I don’t know” is more of a belief than “no fucking way does God exist, never happened, never will, and anybody who says otherwise is a delusional psychopath who should probably be in a strait jacket” is silliness of the first water.
Give it up, Mister M (heheheheh, you’ve got the same name as I do!), you BELIEVE, with all your heart, that there’s no God. Not a lack of belief, but an affirmative statement “I BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD”.
Gosh darn it, why won’t you admit that you’re a believer??? And a hard-core one at that.
#48 – “Actually, I think I’ve finally hit on the crux of the matter, so to speak. You quite literally cannot conceive of the possibility that someone has no belief.”
WELCOME TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT!!!! Good to have you on board Scott. I was worried you might not make it.