Would they worship a chair?

[Sal]

There would not be a redemption if Judas didn't betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, yet those fools worship Jesus, and not the one which ensured their redemption.

[Pat Mustard]

I might worship this chair.



But there is also a good chance of cursing it.

If it was the Persians rather than the romans who ruled Palestine, Jesus might have been executed by Scaphism instead of crucifixion.    In this case Christians today would worship a pile of shit with blow flys on them rather than the cross.

A) Scaphism was Greek propoganda. There are no records of it ever being used. B) If Yeshua (assuming he lived) was judicially killed it would have been by stoning or hanging. There was no reason for Rome to interfere in the internal minor religious squabbling in a client kingdom.

[Fake Messiah]

Sorry to burst this bubble, but Catholics, (and I assume at least some Anglicans) do not hold that there would be "half the Eucharist". 
They believe that they get "body and blood, soul and divinity" even if they receive communion under one form. 
(It would be interesting to have them defend the "soul part", as in general they don't talk about the second person in their Trinity having a "soul"). 
https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship...sence-faqs
I paid attention in Catechism class.   Of course, you could go to Catholic Answers and ask the question, (LOL).
It's also interesting that their deity seems to be required to accept the nature of (their) reality with respect to what constitutes redemption.

Does one receive the whole Christ if one receives Holy Communion under a single form?

Yes. Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior, is wholly present under the appearance either of bread or of wine in the Eucharist. Furthermore, Christ is wholly present in any fragment of the consecrated Host or in any drop of the Precious Blood. Nevertheless, it is especially fitting to receive Christ in both forms during the celebration of the Eucharist. This allows the Eucharist to appear more perfectly as a banquet, a banquet that is a foretaste of the banquet that will be celebrated with Christ at the end of time when the Kingdom of God is established in its fullness (cf. Eucharisticum Mysterium, no. 32).

Still, don't you think that Christians are inhumane towards Jesus? Shouldn't Christians already make Jesus climb down from the cross and go on living? Or is the language of the Christians just too full of blood for that? Just as the Spaniards won't give up their bullfights, the Christians can't be persuaded to give up their redemption through blood.

Take the movie that infuriates Christians, the blasphemous "The Last Temptation of Christ", whereas Jesus hangs dying, he has a dream: A woman balks his plan and sabotages his redemptive death. Also, while hanging on the cross, he dreams that his "Father" has allowed him to live. Even the cinematic angel says: "Your Father is the God of compassion, not of punishment, ... the Lord doesn't want your blood." Jesus then climbs down from the cross, walks down Calvary, and marries Mary Magdalen.

That angered Christians to their bones because married Jesus disturbs the Christian image of God, while the though the cruel Father of "The Passion" doesn't. The Son's love has to manifest itself in a bloody sacrifice, but never in the act of love. Jesus has to pay a high price for his father's compassion. And even in "The Last Temptation of Christ" it is all just Jesus' dream because even as a dream it is infuriating. Dreams of God's compassion are just deviant fantasies.

[Bucky Ball]

Sorry to burst this bubble, but Catholics, (and I assume at least some Anglicans) do not hold that there would be "half the Eucharist". 
They believe that they get "body and blood, soul and divinity" even if they receive communion under one form. 
(It would be interesting to have them defend the "soul part", as in general they don't talk about the second person in their Trinity having a "soul"). 
https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship...sence-faqs
I paid attention in Catechism class.   Of course, you could go to Catholic Answers and ask the question, (LOL).
It's also interesting that their deity seems to be required to accept the nature of (their) reality with respect to what constitutes redemption.

Does one receive the whole Christ if one receives Holy Communion under a single form?

Yes. Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior, is wholly present under the appearance either of bread or of wine in the Eucharist. Furthermore, Christ is wholly present in any fragment of the consecrated Host or in any drop of the Precious Blood. Nevertheless, it is especially fitting to receive Christ in both forms during the celebration of the Eucharist. This allows the Eucharist to appear more perfectly as a banquet, a banquet that is a foretaste of the banquet that will be celebrated with Christ at the end of time when the Kingdom of God is established in its fullness (cf. Eucharisticum Mysterium, no. 32).

Still, don't you think that Christians are inhumane towards Jesus? Shouldn't Christians already make Jesus climb down from the cross and go on living? Or is the language of the Christians just too full of blood for that? Just as the Spaniards won't give up their bullfights, the Christians can't be persuaded to give up their redemption through blood.

Take the movie that infuriates Christians, the blasphemous "The Last Temptation of Christ", whereas Jesus hangs dying, he has a dream: A woman balks his plan and sabotages his redemptive death. Also, while hanging on the cross, he dreams that his "Father" has allowed him to live. Even the cinematic angel says: "Your Father is the God of compassion, not of punishment, ... the Lord doesn't want your blood." Jesus then climbs down from the cross, walks down Calvary, and marries Mary Magdalen.

That angered Christians to their bones because married Jesus disturbs the Christian image of God, while the though the cruel Father of "The Passion" doesn't. The Son's love has to manifest itself in a bloody sacrifice, but never in the act of love. Jesus has to pay a high price for his father's compassion. And even in "The Last Temptation of Christ" it is all just Jesus' dream because even as a dream it is infuriating. Dreams of God's compassion are just deviant fantasies.

Whatever you say. 
The concept of redemption through blood did not originate with Christians. They were quite late to that game, in fact. 
The history of sacrificial blood goes way back. You should look into it sometime.

[Anomalocaris]

If it was the Persians rather than the romans who ruled Palestine, Jesus might have been executed by Scaphism instead of crucifixion.    In this case Christians today would worship a pile of shit with blow flys on them rather than the cross.

A) Scaphism was Greek propoganda.  There are no records of it ever being used.  B)  If Yeshua (assuming he lived) was judicially killed it would have been by stoning or hanging.  There was no reason for Rome to interfere in the internal minor religious squabbling in a client kingdom.

There is definitely record of it being used.  It so happens the only record is Greek, which makes the record suspect, but that is not the same as there being no record, or that the record must be false.

[Bucky Ball]

Actually in the Pax Romana, there was a standing order in the Roman provinces, that trouble-makers were summarily exectuted with no trial.
If Jesus existed, that's what happened. He started a ruckus in the temple concerning the conversion of money.
Roman money was unclean, and could not be used to pay the priests or buy the animals. Thus the "money-changers" incident.
It was not a religious squabble. The entire economy of the city of Jerusalem was built on, and dependent on the temple based economy.
The Jewish festivals, (including the Passover) drew thousands of visitors to the city, and it's what the entire city depended on for revenue.
A nobody-preacher from Hicksville who threatened that was a gonner. There was every reason for a Roman governor to get rid of someone who was a threat to the peace and Roman revenue.

[ignoramus]

^Money. It always comes back to money...

Anyway, if our man Jebus was like normal men. he would have died from Syphilis.

And then Christians would be wearing this around their necks!

Warning! Open at your own peril!

---

---

[Drich]

It is often said that if Jesus was killed by the guillotine or the electric chair or lethal injection that Christians would be wearing golden lethal injections around their necks or golden electric chairs.
And that their prayers like the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in September, that goes:
"O Lord our God, ... with the unfailing support of the Holy Cross uphold us whom thou makest rejoice to do it an honor."
Would go:
" ... with the unfailing support of the holy electric chair uphold us whom thou makest rejoice to do it an honor"

But that doesn't seem to be the case, because there is not enough blood and the whole Jesus execution is about the worship (if not fetishization) of blood.

Protestants and Catholics may disagree about many things, but they are bound together in an inexorable blood brotherhood when it comes to the meaning of blood for redemption. They value this execution very highly, and they refuse to do without it. That's probably why Mel Gibson's "Passion" was so popular because it is so bloody that most Christian denominations saw it as the right portrayal and enjoyed it.

Just as if Jesus had died of old age or food poisoning, the so-called "redemption of the human race" would not come to grief because no blood would have flowed. Christians would be missing half of the Eucharist--the wine, otherwise known as the blood. And at mass, the priests would get to use only half their words for transubstantiation. Incidentally, this shows that today's eucharistic feasts stand or fall not only with the death of Jesus, but, above all, with the proper kind of death for Jesus.

(Practically speaking, then, it was the Romans who so-called redeemed us: Thanks to their bloody, cruel penal justice, the world found salvation.)

Indeed, Christianity is a religion that glorifies one concrete execution--the execution of Jesus--because the Church sees in it an act of redemption through blood.

God is then the supreme advocate of the death penalty since he condemned his son to death and willed his crucifixion as the means of redemption. But, of course, the death penalty had to be instituted at some point before Jesus arrived, in time to make the redemptive death of Jesus possible. Thus all the people executed before Jesus are the prerequisite, the precursors, the pioneers of his redemptive death. And all the people executed after Jesus are victims of this idea of redemption through the cross. Because the institution of the death penalty, which was divinely willed concerning Jesus, cannot be against God's will in the case of other people. From this standpoint, all the executed are martyrs of sorts. They died then and die even now for the best of all causes: the redemption of the world.

this is a very dated RC view.. what we worship is not the death but the resurrection, yes it took the shed blood of Christ to wash away our, sins but according to Paul in the book of romans this act alone means nothing without the resurrection because without the resurrection we have no reason for redemption as the shedding of blood represents our death to this life of sin, and if Jesus simply died, then death is all we have to look forward too, but because Jesus mastered death and rose from the grave to go on to eternal life this proves his promise to us of eternal life is possible, if we follow him. which is why we take the empty cross as a symbol of the resurrection. so we do not worship the death of Christ but his resurrection.

[Angrboda]

How does one "worship" a resurrection? (And the numerous passion plays argue otherwise.)

[Bucky Ball]

So.... Dripshit has now become a Catholic. LOL THAT's a big change. "We" ?? LMAO
No Catholic "worships" the resurrection. They never did worship a death, either. They ONLY worship God. They never did worship anything but their God.
Saying "it's dated" is 100 % false and total bullshit. There is absolutely nothing in the Roman Catechism about worshiping the resurrection. And in fact there always have been
numerous discussions about what exactly they do "worship" in light of their "devotion" (not worship) to saints and Mary etc etc.
He simply has no clue, (and never has) what he's babbling about. He has absolutely NO education on the bullshit he pretends to know about. He's a total fraud.
Jesus (according to Cathoilic dogma) was already the divine second person of the Trinity, thus it was impossible for him to actually die ... and the entire pile of crap is totally meaningless.
Drippy best go back to making stupid boring YouTubes and give up pretending to be a theologian.

This is what Catholics believe.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a...22a4p2.htm
"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" (The suffering and DEATH was what purchased salvation).
601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.

If it took the "shed blood" to effectuate salvation, then God is not actually in charge of Reality, but subject to it, isn't he ? That's hardly a real deity.
A really merciful / loving god could have just said, "I forgive you". But then that would be "cheap grace" (as Bonhoeffer says), and we've already been through that here, haven't we Drippy ?