By Diana Hsieh
As a Christian, I have further trouble with this kind of advice. Think of the eucharist. How are we to know what kind of bread to use in the eucharist if we do not become skilled at baking bread, bake better and better bread, pass on the art of baking bread, etc? Are Christians only supposed to think that the world was set up so that grain will only be grown for the eucharist, and bread only be baked for the eucharist? That all the loaves of bread to be baked should be tasted, notes should be made about what worked or didn't, and then the loaves cast away? It makes no sense. The eucharistic meal is a real meal. It shouldn't be the only place we or our children encounter bread. The eucharist is an overflowing of what culture should be like. We should be a bread-loving, wine-loving culture, with artisans getting as good at baking bread as they are at making wine. Finally, Jesus describes himself as the "bread from heaven" - connecting himself with the whole flow of redemptive history from the manna in the wilderness to bread baked in haste to the grain sack that never ran out after being blessed by the prophet. I don't want to raise my children to wonder why Jesus connected his life-giving body with something "so unhealthy."Then, in a separate comment by the same author:
To clarify, I'm not saying that we need to eat what Jesus ate. I'm just saying that, as a Christian, if Jesus ate it, I can't very well say that eating it is evil or inherently bad for me. Otherwise I'd have to conclude that Jesus was damaging his health and encouraging others to do the same.Well, Barlow, I'll make a modest proposal. I propose that you eliminate the symbolic cannibalism of the Eucharist from your diet. Even apart from the absurdly mystical mumbo-jumbo of transubstantiation, eating your man-god is just plain gross.