Taste and see...

[daver49]

I grabbed this off the Center for Action and Contemplation Website:
If it's too idealized and pretty, if it's somewhere floating around up in the air, it's probably not the Gospel.

I certainly don't see Christianity as a 'pretty' religion, whatever that means. It is an ugly religion headed by a cruel dictator god.

Maybe you mean "pretty ugly?"

---

To be honest, I am underwhelmed by that quote. Is Eliot presenting that statement as a profound insight into the Eucharist or is this quote meant to give insights into the thinking of a fictional character in a story? (I've never read Eliot, so I have no idea of the context.)

I was hoping for other people's take on it, not to express my own. You were underwhelmed. Thanks for not dismissing it out of hand, but of being honestly aware of your response.

[Joods]

I grabbed this off the Center for Action and Contemplation Website:

"T. S. Elliot said in the Four Quartets, "[Human]kind cannot bear very much reality." What humans often prefer are highly contrived ways of avoiding the real, the concrete, the physical. We fabricate artificial realities instead, one of which, I'm sad to say, is religion itself. So Jesus brought all of our fancy thinking down to earth, to one concrete place of incarnation--this bread and this cup of wine! "Eat it here, and then see it everywhere," he seems to be saying. (Munch it, chew it, gobble it.) If it's too idealized and pretty, if it's somewhere floating around up in the air, it's probably not the Gospel. We come back, again and again, to this marvelous touchstone of orthodoxy, the Eucharist. The first physical incarnation in the body of Jesus is now continued in space and time in ordinary food."

So how do you all interpret this?

I'm looking at this and I see some sarcasm mixed in. I also see that perhaps it's Elliot's way of dumbing down religion into a nice, neat, little package for followers of god. In other words - all that's really necessary to know about religion is to be comforted by simply taking part in the Eucharist. Don't question religion. Accept it and don't worry about reality.

I could be totally misreading this. I took a nap this afternoon, dinner is in the oven and I'm hungry. Hunger tends to screw with my train of thought a little bit.

[daver49]

I'm looking at this and I see some sarcasm mixed in. I also see that perhaps it's Elliot's way of dumbing down religion into a nice, neat, little package for followers of god. In other words - all that's really necessary to know about religion is to be comforted by simply taking part in the Eucharist. Don't question religion. Accept it and don't worry about reality.

I could be totally misreading this. I took a nap this afternoon, dinner is in the oven and I'm hungry. Hunger tends to screw with my train of thought a little bit.

You read it as you read it. I don't see any of the responses as "misreading." They are however, individual and unique, reflecting the opinion of the reader. Ten people can make chicken cacciatore from the same recipe and they all taste different. Have a good dinner!

"Don't seek the truth, Just don't cherish opinions"
---Some Old Sage whose Name I Forget

[Whateverist]

I grabbed this off the Center for Action and Contemplation Website:

"T. S. Elliot said in the Four Quartets, "[Human]kind cannot bear very much reality." What humans often prefer are highly contrived ways of avoiding the real, the concrete, the physical. We fabricate artificial realities instead, one of which, I'm sad to say, is religion itself. So Jesus brought all of our fancy thinking down to earth, to one concrete place of incarnation--this bread and this cup of wine! "Eat it here, and then see it everywhere," he seems to be saying. (Munch it, chew it, gobble it.) If it's too idealized and pretty, if it's somewhere floating around up in the air, it's probably not the Gospel. We come back, again and again, to this marvelous touchstone of orthodoxy, the Eucharist. The first physical incarnation in the body of Jesus is now continued in space and time in ordinary food."

So how do you all interpret this?

It strikes me as a highly contrived way of avoiding the actuality of our being in this moment.

[daver49]

It strikes me as a highly contrived way of avoiding the actuality of our being in this moment.

This moment now? How about this one? Now?

[Joods]

So I guess any being who isn't human, has no problem in dealing with reality. There's that too. I'm eating dinner so my clear thinking might be returning.

[daver49]

So I guess any being who isn't human, has no problem in dealing with reality. There's that too.

I don't know Judi, it's looking pretty grim out there:

http://www.justanswer.com/sip/dog-psycho...aQod1w8AvA

[watchamadoodle]

Maybe nobody else was confused, but the only part of the quote written by Eliot was:

... human kind
Cannot bear very much reality

Silly me, I thought Eliot's quote included the Eucharist verbage too. I couldn't understand how a famous writer like T.S. Eliot could write something so unimpressive. It's almost criminal that the people on that website would misappropriate a snippet of a poem that seems to be talking about free will and determinism and imply that it applies to the Eucharist (WTF?)

Here is a longer quote from the poem and a link. (I had never read anything Eliot wrote before, so I'm glad that I looked this up )

---

Burnt Norton

I

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.
But to what purpose
Disturbing the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves
I do not know.
Other echoes
Inhabit the garden. Shall we follow?
Quick, said the bird, find them, find them,
Round the corner. Through the first gate,
Into our first world, shall we follow
The deception of the thrush? Into our first world.
There they were, dignified, invisible,
Moving without pressure, over the dead leaves,
In the autumn heat, through the vibrant air,
And the bird called, in response to
The unheard music hidden in the shrubbery,
And the unseen eyebeam crossed, for the roses
Had the look of flowers that are looked at.
There they were as our guests, accepted and accepting.
So we moved, and they, in a formal pattern,
Along the empty alley, into the box circle,
To look down into the drained pool.
Dry the pool, dry concrete, brown edged,
And the pool was filled with water out of sunlight,
And the lotos rose, quietly, quietly,
The surface glittered out of heart of light,
And they were behind us, reflected in the pool.
Then a cloud passed, and the pool was empty.
Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of children,
Hidden excitedly, containing laughter.
Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.
Time past and time future
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.

---

http://www.coldbacon.com/poems/fq.html

---

It strikes me as a highly contrived way of avoiding the actuality of our being in this moment.

Obviously, you know the poem.

[Bob Kelso]

So how do you all interpret this?

I interpreted this as a dirty race: Picture it, Sicily, 1922... er, sorry, I've been watching Golden Girls again.



Anyway:

"T. S. Elliot said in the Four Quartets, "[Human]kind cannot bear very much reality."

Right out of the gates with an old religious tone-setter that denigrates humanity at large.



There are weak minded people that turn to religion because they can't handle what life dishes out, sure, but it's an egregious generalization to throw every religious person under that hat.

What humans often prefer are highly contrived ways of avoiding the real, the concrete, the physical. We fabricate artificial realities instead, one of which, I'm sad to say, is religion itself. So Jesus brought all of our fancy thinking down to earth, to one concrete place of incarnation--this bread and this cup of wine! "Eat it here, and then see it everywhere," he seems to be saying. (Munch it, chew it, gobble it.)

Here we see Christianity trying to break away from the competition, with an unsportsmanlike smokescreen.

I'd ask if the author had any self awareness but I feel that I have a good guess already. The Eucharist does nothing to set Christianity apart from other "highly contrived ways of avoiding the real, the concrete, the physical" as it was put earlier. Unless you count the creepy pretend cannibalism factor, 'cos that's just fucked up.

---

---

If it's too idealized and pretty, if it's somewhere floating around up in the air, it's probably not the Gospel. We come back, again and again, to this marvelous touchstone of orthodoxy, the Eucharist. The first physical incarnation in the body of Jesus is now continued in space and time in ordinary food."

As for this bit? Just some mumbo jumbo gobbledygook.

[daver49]

Maybe nobody else was confused, but the only part of the quote written by Eliot was:

... human kind
Cannot bear very much reality

Silly me, I thought Eliot's quote included the Eucharist verbage too. I couldn't understand how a famous writer like T.S. Eliot could write something so unimpressive. It's almost criminal that the people on that website would misappropriate a snippet of a poem that seems to be talking about free will and determinism and imply that it applies to the Eucharist (WTF?)

Here is a longer quote from the poem and a link. (I had never read anything Eliot wrote before, so I'm glad that I looked this up )

---

Burnt Norton

I

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.
But to what purpose
Disturbing the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves
I do not know.
Other echoes
Inhabit the garden. Shall we follow?
Quick, said the bird, find them, find them,
Round the corner. Through the first gate,
Into our first world, shall we follow
The deception of the thrush? Into our first world.
There they were, dignified, invisible,
Moving without pressure, over the dead leaves,
In the autumn heat, through the vibrant air,
And the bird called, in response to
The unheard music hidden in the shrubbery,
And the unseen eyebeam crossed, for the roses
Had the look of flowers that are looked at.
There they were as our guests, accepted and accepting.
So we moved, and they, in a formal pattern,
Along the empty alley, into the box circle,
To look down into the drained pool.
Dry the pool, dry concrete, brown edged,
And the pool was filled with water out of sunlight,
And the lotos rose, quietly, quietly,
The surface glittered out of heart of light,
And they were behind us, reflected in the pool.
Then a cloud passed, and the pool was empty.
Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of children,
Hidden excitedly, containing laughter.
Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.
Time past and time future
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.

---

http://www.coldbacon.com/poems/fq.html

---

It strikes me as a highly contrived way of avoiding the actuality of our being in this moment.

Obviously, you know the poem.

But a little bird told me it was so...