Does anyone think that John 6:25 - 66 implies that Jesus equated ‘eating’ his flesh as believing Him? It does seem that Jesus was using eat/bread etc in a metaphorical way there …
Oh no, of course He was being metaphorical. But on the other hand, in a very, very literal sense, that is all we ever have available TO eat. So while it’s true both ways (imo), I don’t think we need to take it overly literally in an immediate sense. All of our sustenance comes FROM Him, and that means from what He is. That’s all it can mean. That’s all there IS. He is creating us as separate though derivative beings. Nevertheless, we are and can and could only be derivative beings because He has always been ALL.
That’s (again imo) another reason to expect UR. How could He ever discard bits of Himself, and where would the bits go? Certainly not to ECT. Annihilation? I don’t think that’s even possible. He can do all things that can be done, but would that be a thing that could be done?
He feeds us – all of us including the lower creatures – from His own life. ALL of us. What else or who else could give us life? And that’s what food is; energy to sustain life. The energy can only come from life if it’s to produce or sustain life. Certain non-living things can support life (minerals) but they cannot sustain life. And ultimately, even these things come from Him. And if they come FROM Him, that means they ARE Him. They have to come from Him – that is, from Himself – because He is all there is.
‘Creating us as separate though derivate beings’ - I like that, Cindy, very nice - especially the continuing ‘creating’ 
I might not go quite so far as you do, since I’m wary of pan- or even perhaps panen- theism, but the sentiment is still shared. Nice.
As with Cindy, I’m inclined to think the points of doctrine picked up and applied as tran/con-substantiation were meant to reflect God’s continuing self-sacrificial sustenance of all reality and especially of derivative rational creatures; which is naturally and logically connected to the Passion on the cross; and so which we emblematically participate in when we partake of the Lord’s Supper.
However, precisely because of that, I not only can’t rule out the possibility of God regularly enacting some kind of special presence in the elements of communion, but I tend to expect He actually does.
At the same time, I can (still) see some technical problems with both transub and consub, so I also suspect a coherent form of the doctrine hasn’t been formulated yet (or not in a widely public fashion. Who knows what mystics and scholars have managed to work out but were never able to promote publicly for various reasons?)
For me, the idea that the bread and wine are MERELY symbolic is not enough, and the idea that they are in some sense the literal (although transformed) body and blood of Christ is too much.
Whenever we experience the reality of Christ within, and are receiving whatever He communicates to us, we are experientially “eating his body and drinking his blood.” But when that happens during communion, we “eat his body and drink his blood” in a special way. Outwardly, we are merely eating bread and drinking wine (nothing supernatural — no transubstantiation or consubstantiation). But inwardly, in our hearts and minds, the real miracle is taking place — Christ within us in a special way, so that we experience his inner presence, and feed upon “the bread from heaven.” The transformation doesn’t take place in the bread and wine we have consumed. The transformation takes place in ourselves.
Thanks, Pog
I have to credit Jason, tho, with his Sword to the Heart book (link in his signature). I don’t understand it all, but I think I understand a little bit – though what I understand might or might not be what he intended to say. 
He brings up a lot of good points that I hadn’t even thought to wonder about before.
Blessings, Cindy