E-Mail 'Does Transubstantiation Really Happen?' To A Friend

by Jack Wellman · Print Print · Email Email

Email a copy of 'Does Transubstantiation Really Happen?' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...


Share this post:  |  |  |  | Twitter
Jack H May 15, 2014 at 11:50 am

Hello, Pastor Jack! 😀 A very good article, and I agree that transubstantiation doesnt really happen, as like you said, it would go against God’s own commands forbidding drinking blood. Additionally, I must inform you of something very important! You know that accursed theory, evolution? There is a flaw that is as great as the difference between land and water, quite literally!! If organisms were borne in the sea, and attempted to get on land, they’d die instantly, because they’d be used to their contrastly different environment. Evolution would never fix the flaw, because the organisms would just keep dying and dying on land, because they are too used to a marine environment!! I am obviously excited about this, Pastor Jack, and I recommend you report this to the AAAS and the education department of government ASAP! 😀 I apologise for rambling on about a completely different topic, but I just had to share the information with you. TTFN, and God bless you, my friend!

Thanks, Jack H 😀

Jack Wellman May 15, 2014 at 12:25 pm

Wow, this indeed is exciting my friend. As for evolution, here it is, what, 150 years after this “theory” was believed that it still has never been proven, it has never been duplicated and that the word “theory” is doomed to be attached to something that is a belief system and a “hope-so” and not a “know-so.” Richard Dawkins, evolution’s most vehement proponent, has always attacked Creationist’s writings about the irreducibility complex problems of life evolving on its own, yet his book, Climbing Mount Improbable, is all about probabilities. He ignores the astronomical odds of life creating itself, but seems fine with using the same outrageous probabilities. For example, Dawkins debunks creationists ideas of the impossibility of naturalistic mechanisms being the way that life could not evolve, but its no problem for him to state that the odds-to-infinity claim that over eons of time, this hill-climbing change made life possible to self-evolve. What sort of duplicity there is in this book and what hypocritical analysis for odds being okay for life evolving on its own while refuting the enormous odds that life could not have possibly evolved on its own as claimed by creationists. He wants it both ways apparently.

Dawkins blatantly suggests that the God Hypothesis is wildly improbable, yet he uses improbable in the title of his book. Look at the odds for life evolving on its own, according to Dawkins own words, “So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet-because here we are talking about it.”1

Thanks Jack, I will have to check this out. Thanks for the heads up on this my friend.

1. Dawkins, R. 1996. Climbing Mount Improbable, Norton Publishing, New York. (p. 261, 3, 283). ISBN 0393039307

Tony Vance May 26, 2014 at 12:13 pm

I’ve written a BLOG on the importance of the Blood here: http://revtonyvance.wix.com/tonyvance#!BLOODY/ca6m/78D76B68-D16B-42B2-8D2B-3B6BE09B6366





Previous post:

Next post: