Replies

[ "If he knew what we really teach about the Eucharist he might not be so very against it, certainly not in the same manner and with the same arguments as those being brought forward now." ]

I already know what transubstantiation is.. and is not..
Assuming I do not know is, well, assumptive..

It is a best weird and at worse cultish... to be nice..
Transubstantiation is only one of hundreds of questionable(to me) practices of the RCC and others.. The protestants are not without felony either, according to me.. But I tolerate some of it because its at heart a lack in human nature generally.. As is many pagan practices..

Of course you might disagree, but you are probably wrong about other things as well.. Jesus didnt call us to be smart but just sheep.. Sheep are known for not being smart..

I already know what transubstantiation is.. and is not.. Assuming I do not know is, well, assumptive..

(The assumption is another doctrine altogether, Oh wait, you mean ...)

Who assumed? I concluded -- tentatively, from the use of such phrases as
Transubstantiation is only one of hundreds of questionable(to me) practices ...

(Hint: It's not a "practice".)

You said
Eucharist is Jesus becoming once again flesh to be consumed by the flesh.. an insult to the Holy Spirit.. in essence.. and in reality.. It flys in the face of the Holy Spirit performing spiritually.,. The Eucharist raises the flesh to preposterous import.. and reduces the spirit/Spirit to figurative character..

There may be an indication I'm not able to see that you understand the doctrine, but I sure don't see it. "Flesh"? Precluding the spiritual work of the Spirit, when the "body" in question is a "spiritual body"?

I don't see, though I could be wrong, how someone could at once understand the teaching and use language like that. So, conclusion, not assumption.