After reading your post, there are a few things that I would like to address. First, "the devil does not guide the hand of Eugen Ramos. He raped a child all by himself." are valid statements even within a Christian good and evil concept. You even commented in your blog your understanding of the Christian doctrine of original sin. But perhaps it may need a little clarification or even application to these two quoted sentences. It is very true that the devil did not make or guide Eugen Ramos to commit the rape of that two year old girl, in fact it was his own free choice. Now to say that he was not effected by his sinful nature would be wrong, but it would be correct if the situation was described where Ramos freely chose to follow the sinful desires within his thoughts.
To further validate the reality of original sin in humanity, you stated it the best when you said, "This man is defective (From original sin like the rest of humanity). He may even be mentally ill. While in this state (of original sin), he should never be allowed in public. It’s wrong (for sinful humanity) to desire his death (but God cannot be in the presence of sin and rightfully demands death as a punishment and not just earthly physical death, but eternal punishment)." I would even agree that it is right to incarcerate him, because as a society, we have a right to punish this wrong doing and evil act.

The doctrine of transubstantiation was a very debated thing during the Reformation period. Even Reformers like Martin Luther held to a view similar to the Catholics. It should be noted though that although the Catholic Church believes this, not all Protestants follow this today. They view it as you said "The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ." This simple understanding of the bread and wine during communion has a direct effect on what separates the doctrine of the Catholic Church and Protestants in relationship to Christ's atonement of the Cross for sin. Catholic's believe that the Eucharist (bread and wine) function as a means of grace that are necessary for people to be save. It is an work based salvation that is put forth compared to a faith alone salvation put forth by most Evangelical Protestants.

There are two things that stick out to me after reading this blog post.
First, the person who scolded you should be ashamed to call themselves a "Christian." As a Christian, they have been given a command to go and share what Christ has done in their life, not to judge and mock people who are not apart of the local church meeting on Sunday (whether by difference in religion or laziness).
Second, I want to clear up the definition of Church that the American Christian Faith has presented our culture. In the language of the Bible Belt, the church is most often and wrongly defined by the building that is used to meet in during the week for a local congregation. This is a total misrepresentation of what the Bible actually describes. The church is not a building, but the actually people that have been saved by faith in what Jesus has done for them.
In response to any future question that is raised from this coworker, I would suggest offering your true honest feelings and maybe through your honesty, this coworker will be confronted with her lack of understanding of the faith she professes.