Oddbean

Ha, that's funny how St. John of Damascus won by being in Muslim lands, won against the Muslim position. Anyways, its nuanced. I do think veneration is the same as idolatry, but I also can't be an iconoclast because I would never smash art. The paintings inside Orthodox churches are really interesting, sometimes even beautiful, but I don't see any need to bow and scrape before them. Just... Have art.

Admittedly, iconography was a very difficult hurdle for me when it came to Orthodox Christianity, but it occurred to me that, to deny the icon, is to deny the incarnation....which is what Muslims and rabbinic jews do. God, for his own reasons, decided to use the material to bring forth His divine revelation. This idea also coincides with the Holy Eucharist...it's not just a symbol but His actual body and blood.

Ehh.. This is evolving into a much bigger thing... I disagree that the Eucharist is Christ's 'actual' body and blood. The tradition is only useful as long as the meaning is understood. And there may be a lot more meaning than I can think of... If taking the Eucharist represents living and breathing Christ's teaching, and you actually do what he said to do, then it is meaningful. If it gets all messed up with a demand that believers take it literally, holding multiple irreconcilable beliefs simultaneously, then the meaning is lost. In that case I feel pretty confident in saying that Jesus would tell you to cut it out. And I guess I have to balance this out by also criticizing the evangelical belief that all you have to do is confess belief and you'll be saved. Jesus said what you have to do to be saved. Its not just say the magic words. The Eucharist should be a reminder of that. But also, no way I'm putting that spoon in my mouth that everyone already put in their mouth. That's gross.

Yeah I could read it. My difference in understanding is simply this : the symbolic is rational. To call a thing symbolic is not to lower it in any way - the opposite, actually. Matter has no meaning all by itself. It takes human understanding to see meaning, which means that symbolism is the primary reality we inhabit. Everything is symbolic, no matter how much anyone tries to pretend that it isn't. It seemed like the reformers contradicted themselves by saying the bread and wine are just matter but simultaneously saying they're symbolic. All things are symbolic. Matter may be matter, but before matter can be a thing, it must be a symbol, conform to a symbol commonly held. The symbol sits between your comprehension and the real thing - such that no one has ever seen any real things. Only symbols. But likewise, the earthly church seems to have invented some nonsense... The first of the three numbered paragraphs says that Jesus spoke symbolically, then says that this particular part isn't symbolic simply because Jesus didn't say its symbolic. He never said anything was symbolic, as far as I can recall. What about the part where he fed the crowd with bread and fish, then had his disciples collect the crumbs, asked how many baskets were left over, and they said seven, and he responds with (something like), "don't you understand?" I'm not sure what the symbolism was, but it was obviously symbolic. I'm not saying the material happening didn't happen. This is the problem with these discussions : people understand by reduction, when they should understand by expansion. I think the material event did occur. But I also think the symbolic event is the thing of primary importance. So anyways... Eucharist. It also seems like its supposed to be any time people eat together, not a big religious event. I don't think God actually likes religion, tbh.