davidylan:

Peer-review doesnt even acknowledge evolution as anything more than a theory. Its not a coincidence that it isnt called a fact yet.


Aww sorry, did your silly excuse hurt you. I wonder why that is your answer to a valid question reposted here - None of you is yet to show us where voting is regarded as a vital scientific research tool!

It cant be that hard can it?

David, I thought we had thoroughly thrashed out this wrong interpretation you have of what a science theory is. Do you stubbornly refuse to learn? Because i am still amazed that a person pursuing a PHD in Biology does not understand and refuse to learn what a science theory is.

Every accepted principle/formula/or explanation explaining the set of rules governing a phenomena in science is known as a THEORY. that is why we have the theory of gravity, magnetism, relativity, evolution, quantum, and hundreds of other theories in science. it is never called a fact, although laymen can be excused for regarding it as fact. Is your PHD thesis not based on a theory? or It might be based on testing an hypothesis.

David you are just making too much noise, eventually it all comes down to choosing (voting). A referee can either

1 Unconditionally accept the manuscript just like the red bead
2 Accept it if the authors improve it in certain ways just like the[b] pink bead[/b]
3 To reject it and encourage resubmission just like the gray bead
4 To reject it outright just like the[b] black bead[/b]


Stop trying to pull a wool over people eyes all the time, just like the JS the reviewers are anonymous too except under certain circumstances.

Chrisbenogor.

You forgot to tell David that the the books included in the Bible was done by vote. There were several other books and gospels that was rejected based on votes. Additionally, the doctrines of Christianity was adopted in the various conventions by vote, even the trinity was accepted on a very narrow margin of votes.

wirinet:

Chrisbenogor.

You forgot to tell David that the the books included in the Bible was done by vote. There were several other books and gospels that was rejected based on votes. Additionally, the doctrines of Christianity was adopted in the various conventions by vote, even the trinity was accepted on a very narrow margin of votes.

I tire for the boy oh, we will soon put acts 16 31 into a test tube to check for acidity.

wirinet:

David, I thought we had thoroughly thrashed out this wrong interpretation you have of what a science theory is. Do you stubbornly refuse to learn? Because i am still amazed that a person pursuing a PHD in Biology does not understand and refuse to learn what a science theory is.

Every accepted principle/formula/or explanation explaining the set of rules governing a phenomena in science is known as a THEORY. that is why we have the theory of gravity, magnetism, relativity, evolution, quantum, and hundreds of other theories in science. it is never called a fact, although laymen can be excused for regarding it as fact. Is your PHD thesis not based on a theory? or It might be based on testing an hypothesis.

I seriously do not know what to make of a person that keeps crying that he is a "scientist" but makes statements like "Peer-review doesnt even acknowledge evolution as anything more than a theory. Its not a coincidence that it isnt called a fact yet"

Which school is this guy attending? Does he know that there is nothing like a fact in science? There are only theories and hypothesis.

toneyb:

I seriously do not know what to make of a person that keeps crying that he is a "scientist" but makes statements like "Peer-review doesnt even acknowledge evolution as anything more than a theory. Its not a coincidence that it isnt called a fact yet"

Which school is this guy attending? Does he know that there is nothing like a fact in science? There are only theories and hypothesis.

If you have any journal (start with nature or science) that has a paper CLEARLY ARTICULATING EVOLUTION AS A FACT then let me know. Sick of buffoons taking over this forum.

wirinet:

Davidylan, I presented the following quotes from revelation to show that[b] Jesus himself said every man would be judged according to his works;[/b]

And the sea gave up the dead which are in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
- Rev20:11

And, behold, i come quickly and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. - Rev22:12

and you just dismissed my observations without any explanation.

How can you accuse me of misquoting something written in plain english and in black and white, and your answer was not to proffer the correct interpretation to to make assertions outside the quotes in question.

For you to be pursuing a PHD in science, your methods of presenting your arguments is very suspect.

The problem with you is that YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE. You pick one verse and then explain it TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT. The same Jesus said this to the rich young ruler . . .

Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21 And [size=15pt]he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.[/size]
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

Now if justification was by works ALONE . . . verse 21 should simply have sent this rich young ruler to heaven. Why? Afterall he had obeyed ALL the commandments and even Christ agreed. Why did Christ still say he lacked one thing?

Look again at the words of Christ to Nicodemus . . .[size=15pt] John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.[/size]

Nicodemus was a pharisee . . . he was perfectly JUSTIFIED UNDER THE LAW by works! Why did Christ still have the need to talk to him about being born again?

Let me explain with this analogy . . . to graduate from secondary school you must pass WAEC . . . but does that mean you are justified by WAEC alone? What of the entrance exam that you required to gain entrance to secondary school in the first place? Can you simply refuse to take it and then expect to be registered as a student to write WAEC?

Salvation in CHRIST is the first step towards a new life under grace . . . your "works" as a christian are the fruits of the Spirit that you bear by virtue of the Holy Spirit living in you (pls read Gal 5).

The sinner is judged according to his works/sin BECAUSE HE NEVER ACCEPTED CHRIST AND IS CONDEMNED ALREADY (John 3:18)

wirinet:

Chrisbenogor.

You forgot to tell David that the the books included in the Bible was done by vote. There were several other books and gospels that was rejected based on votes. Additionally, the doctrines of Christianity was adopted in the various conventions by vote, even the trinity was accepted on a very narrow margin of votes.

That is comparing apples to oranges, a clear attempt to deceive . . . and a dishonest attitude common with atheists who cant articulate their own point of view coherently.

Those who put together the bible did not do so under the false veil of academic scholarship, they did so as bible theologians. The JS on the other hand CLEARLY PRETENDS to be an association of academic scholars using tools of academic research to determine the validity of the bible!

Chrisbenogor:

I tire for the boy oh, we will soon put acts 16 31 into a test tube to check for acidity.

Again an irrelevant and incomprehensible piece of idiocy to be honest. JS clearly states that their conclusions on the validity of the gospels is based on an extensive scientific research methodology . . . which turns out to be a secret ballot system. At worst we would have expected them to involve history and archeology in their search - - - but since they are simply morons like you with a hidden agenda to CREATE ANOTHER FICTIONAL JESUS (a claim they've never hidden), performing real scientific study is just too cumbersome when they can simply vote on their feelings and emotions.

THAT is the problem at stake, not the nonsensical infantile excuses you people are throwing up as a smokescreen.

The common theme among you hypocritical fools is that since the bible was put to vote, it is unreliable as a divine document . . . how come JS voting system is however ok by you?

wirinet:

David, I thought we had thoroughly thrashed out this wrong interpretation you have of what a science theory is. Do you stubbornly refuse to learn? Because i am still amazed that a person pursuing a PHD in Biology does not understand and refuse to learn what a science theory is.

Every accepted principle/formula/or explanation explaining the set of rules governing a phenomena in science is known as a THEORY. that is why we have the theory of gravity, magnetism, relativity, evolution, quantum, and hundreds of other theories in science. it is never called a fact, although laymen can be excused for regarding it as fact. Is your PHD thesis not based on a theory? or It might be based on testing an hypothesis.
 

What are the "accepted principles" explaining evolution? I'd be awaiting your erudite scholarship there.

Chrisbenogor:

David you are just making too much noise, eventually it all comes down to choosing (voting). A referee can either

1 Unconditionally accept the manuscript just like the red bead
2 Accept it if the authors improve it in certain ways just like the[b] pink bead[/b]
3 To reject it and encourage resubmission just like the gray bead
4 To reject it outright just like the[b] black bead[/b]

Stop trying to pull a wool over people eyes all the time, just like the JS the reviewers are anonymous too except under certain circumstances.

This is again completely stupid . . . this voting is based on exactly what? Have you seen the JS model of the Lord's prayer? It is a mishmash of colors . . . "Our Father" is the only unanimously accepted portion of the prayer, the rest is all pink, black or gray. Now HOW did these men determine that? What was their guiding scientific principle or they were just voting on their feeling?

davidylan:

If you have any journal (start with nature or science) that has a paper CLEARLY ARTICULATING EVOLUTION AS A FACT then let me know. Sick of buffoons taking over this forum.

Why is this charlatan getting all worked up? . No body that knows how the scientific process works will ever make such a stupid comment as you did. This is what you said.

"Peer-review doesnt even acknowledge evolution as anything more than a theory. Its not a coincidence that it isnt called a fact yet".

If you really know how the scientific process works you wouldn't make such a dumb statement. There is nothing like "fact" in science. Theories and hypothesis are the only things that exist in the field of science. The theory of gravity that you love talking about still remains a theory, it is not called the fact of gravity. Stupid charlatan.

toneyb:

Why is this charlatan getting all worked up? . No body that knows how the scientific process works will ever make such a stupid comment as you did. This is what you said.

"Peer-review doesnt even acknowledge evolution as anything more than a theory. Its not a coincidence that it isnt called a fact yet".

If you really know how the scientific process works you wouldn't make such a dumb statement. There is nothing like "fact" in science. Theories and hypothesis are the only things that exist in the field of science. The theory of gravity that you love talking about still remains a theory. Stupid charlatan.

Do you know how the peer-review system works or you're just googling and then bleating? I know how it works because i've had my own personal paper go through it before. So pls keep your snide remarks to yourself . . . u're not talking to the likes of chrisbenogor here.

To say there is "nothing like fact" in science is sheer incredulous stupidity. To say theories and hypothesis are the only things that exist in the field of science only goes to show how porous your knowledge of science is.

Let me use a vivid example . . . in the early to late nineties, scientists postulated (hypothesis) that there must be a master regulator that controlled processes such as inflammation in the cell. It took the discovery of NF-KappaB to finally confirm that theory as FACT.
Today every idiot knows that TNFalpha will activate NF-KappaB . . . its not a theory or hypothesis . . . it is a given fact that is why it is a most commonly used positive control when testing your own hypothesis.

another personal example - when you do experiments to test whether a particular kinase can phosphorylate another protein . . . you usually need a positive control (A GIVEN EXPERIMENTAL FACT!) such as using phosphatase inhibitors to increase intracellular phosphorylation. Without such things as positive controls you cant publish a paper.

Please you fools shld stop insulting our sensibilities with the drivel you spew. I work as a scientist, the rest of you live off what you glean from google.

davidylan:


Again an irrelevant and incomprehensible piece of idiocy to be honest. JS clearly states that their conclusions on the validity of the gospels is based on an extensive scientific research methodology . . . which turns out to be a secret ballot system. At worst we would have expected them to involve history and archeology in their search

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdl_k34VG9Y&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]
[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtfztXpME6c&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

Davidylan, stop talking crap. They aren't going out of their way to badmouth ur faith. they are christians themselves. Some of them preach at prisons and juvenile homes to people that can't afford to pay tithes. just because they don't agree with the crap u believe in u're here shittin on them. .   its not good o.  


why resort to slander, Mr, "Matthew was the 1st gospel".  U're comic relief, at best. A big joke. Just dey slander people up and down. It's one thing to disagree with people, but why make false accusations.

davidylan:

Do you know how the peer-review system works or you're just googling and then bleating? I know how it works because i've had my own personal paper go through it before. So pls keep your snide remarks to yourself . . . u're not talking to the likes of chrisbenogor here.

I laugh when after reading how this pathetic charlatan keeps talking thrash about what he only pretends he knows. Which paper of yours are you talking about your thesis or your own scientific hypothesis or theory . What theory or hypothesis have you ever proposed? . Will you shut up that lying mouth of yours? I am talking about scientific theories and hypothesis and you are talking about your thesis?

To say there is "nothing like fact" in science is sheer incredulous stupidity. To say theories and hypothesis are the only things that exist in the field of science only goes to show how porous your knowledge of science is.

Again there is nothing like "fact" in science. All postulations are known as theories. The postulation about gravity is known as the theory of gravity not the fact of gravity, the postulation about germ is known as the germ theory not the fact of germ. So I don't know what you are saying. All postulations in science are known as theories not facts.

Let me use a vivid example . . . in the early to late nineties, scientists postulated (hypothesis) that there must be a master regulator that controlled processes such as inflammation in the cell. It took the discovery of NF-KappaB to finally confirm that theory as FACT.
Today every idiot knows that TNFalpha will activate NF-KappaB . . . its not a theory or hypothesis . . . it is a given fact that is why it is a most commonly used positive control when testing your own hypothesis.

Is the theory called a "fact" or is it still called a theory? Is there any things as cell fact? There is cell theory but nothing like cell fact. Again all postulations in science are known as theories not facts. Stupid charlatan.

another personal example - when you do experiments to test whether a particular kinase can phosphorylate another protein . . . you usually need a positive control (A GIVEN EXPERIMENTAL FACT!) such as using phosphatase inhibitors to increase intracellular phosphorylation. Without such things as positive controls you cant publish a paper.

Please you fools shld stop insulting our sensibilities with the drivel you spew. I work as a scientist, the rest of you live off what you glean from google.

This stupid charlatan spews nonsense drivels then immediately turns around and starts yelling at others . You work as a scientist? You need to be fired because you have just shown that you do not know what science is all about, since you do not even know that all postulations in science are known as theories not "facts". By the way you don't work as a scientist, you are learning how the scientific process works. If you work as a scientist then we will be reading some of your works and contributions to the scientific process.

as usual, nothing but empty insults. Not worth commenting on unless i stumble upon another piece of idiocy.

He says a lot about the scientific process of peer review, i doubt he's ever experienced one. thank God for the internet . . . what would some do without it?

toneyb:

Again there is nothing like "fact" in science. All postulations are known as theories. The postulation about gravity is known as the theory of gravity not the fact of gravity, the postulation about germ is known as the germ theory not the fact of germ. So I don't know what you are saying. All postulations in science are known as theories not facts.

True . . . but things like gravity, the cell and the germ theory are NO LONGER POSTULATIONS . . . they are now facts! If you buy a cell biology textbook today . . . you wont find such nonsense like cell theory there expect as a historical piece!

. . . the reason we still have stuff like germ theory or cell theory is because that was the ORIGINAL POSTULATION when men didnt know better. Today those "theories" have become proven fact. The cell as the basic unit of living things is no longer a theory, its a fact that even a layman knows. It is the basis behind stem cell research, tissue engineering, drug research e.t.c.

Is the mitochondria still a theory? It was first postulated that it would be the engine room of the cell . . . well no one argues that anymore . . .

toneyb:

Is the theory called a "fact" or is it still called a theory? Is there any things as cell fact? There is cell theory but nothing like cell fact. Again all postulations in science are known as theories not facts. Stupid charlatan.

nothing but verbal gymnastics here. No attempt to convey a coherent point.

toneyb:

This stupid charlatan spews nonsense drivels then immediately turns around and starts yelling at others . You work as a scientist? You need to be fired because you have just shown that you do not know what science is all about, since you do not even know that all postulations in science are known as theories not "facts". By the way you don't work as a scientist, you are learning how the scientific process works. If you work as a scientist then we will be reading some of your works and contributions to the scientific process.

More verbal jingoism . . . insults and adhominems. you'd at least expect him to make a valid point no?

davidylan:

as usual, nothing but empty insults. Not worth commenting on unless i stumble upon another piece of idiocy.

He says a lot about the scientific process of peer review, i doubt he's ever experienced one. thank God for the internet . . . what would some do without it?

You mean your own stupid piece of idiocy like "Peer-review doesnt even acknowledge evolution as anything more than a theory." . Ridiculous charlatan.

Stop talking about peer review because you have never experienced any at all. You have never proposed any new theory or hypothesis or contributed anything new to the scientific process for other scientist to come and review. Sure thank scientist for the internet so that charlatans like you will come and keep embarrassing themselves and claim to be what they are not and will never be.

Davidylan, have u heard of the Didache?

davidylan:

True . . . but things like gravity, the cell and the germ theory are[b] NO LONGER POSTULATIONS [/b]. . . they are now facts! If you buy a cell biology textbook today . . . you wont find such nonsense like cell theory there expect as a historical piece!

What are you saying? . I said all postulations in science are known as theories and this is what you have to say? . The cell and germ postulations are known as theories in science not facts. They still remain theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

http://science.jrank.org/pages/3035/Germ-Theory.html

even for maths sef efritin na theory. Dis man never enter classroom for him life. Na so so pastor dey educate am.

toneyb:

You mean your own stupid piece of idiocy like "Peer-review doesnt even acknowledge evolution as anything more than a theory." . Ridiculous charlatan.

Stop talking about peer review because you have never experienced any at all. You have never proposed any new theory or hypothesis or contributed anything new to the scientific process for other scientist to come and review. Sure thank scientist for the internet so that charlatans like you will come and keep embarrassing themselves and claim to be what they are not and will never be.

Your opinion of course which you are entitled to have.

Krayola2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

http://science.jrank.org/pages/3035/Germ-Theory.html

even for maths sef efritin na theory. Dis man never enter classroom for him life. Na so so pastor dey educate am.

another troll who clearly has no clue what he talks about.

The germ theory of disease, also called the pathogenic theory of medicine, is a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases. Although highly controversial when first proposed, it is now a cornerstone of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices.

The germ theory is now a cornerstone of medicine . . . i.e. it is now an established fact. Too bad you couldnt even read beyond line 2 of your own link.

toneyb:

What are you saying? . I said all postulations in science are known as theories and this is what you have to say? . The cell and germ postulations are known as theories in science not facts. They still remain theories.

And i guess science just gets stuck at postulations right? Here let me help you with what grad school is all about - you think up a postulation . . . your thesis is about either proving or disproving it. There get a brain.

davidylan:



The germ theory is now a cornerstone of medicine . . . i.e. it is now an established fact. Too bad you couldnt even read beyond line 2 of your own link.

hahahahahahhahaha    

Did u ask ur pastor about Enoch today? U betta go and ask him where he gets the nonsense he is teaching u.

david you are a child

davidylan:

A serious non-biased academic study into the validity of the bible has been carried out by so many other scholars who have published their works and had them go through very rigorous peer review groups.

[size=16pt]This is the bottomline - SECRET BALLOTING HAS NO PLACE in a scientific enquiry![/size]

You can whine, lie and pretend . . . that is a fact. JS failed that very simple test and are thus a very unreliable source of serious scholarly opinion on the bible.

You spewed this crap and I simply gave you the similarities between the JS process and the peer review process you divert the issue to something else, your problem was the voting, and when I show you that even the peer review process includes the reviewers having to cast their votes based on their expertise.
You are just pathetic I will let the rest people who have your time continue I am done with your conniving ass.

davidylan:

And i guess science just gets stuck at postulations right? Here let me help you with what grad school is all about - you think up a postulation . . . your thesis is about either proving or disproving it. There get a brain.

When did I ever say or imply anything close to that? All I said was that all postulations in science are known as theories and they remain theories after they have undergone the basic scientific process of verification, they are not called facts after the verifiable process they still remain as theories. I have a brain and I know what I am talking about you on the other hand need a brain so that you understand what others are saying and stop miss-characterizing what they are saying.

Davidylan, why did God give you a brain?

Chrisbenogor:
Dear christian friends, is there anywhere in the bible where Jesus says he was dying to atone for our sins?
I need the verses, thanks.

Jesus Christ was the Passover Lamb that ushered in God's New plan of redemption. The Passover Lamb is not a sacrifice but a marker for things to come. Just as the first Passover marked the occasion when Death passed over those who used its blood to mark their doors - Exodus 12 - Jesus Christ is the Passover lamb to usher in an agreement that delivered those marked by Him eternally from the claws of Death - John 3 vs 9 - 16.

Abuzola:
Each man will have to bear his own burden (load) Galathian 6:5, so jesus paying for anoda man's burden is not on d line

Indeed!

justcool:
Nice and thought provoking thread! The Truth is that Jesus never said such things. Jesus taught people to strive for righteousness because only the righteous person will enter the kingdom of God. He never said that He was dying to atone for our sins. Christ came to teach us how to live a righteous or God-pleasing life. He came to give us the words of God. One becomes righteous by believing the words of Jesus and making the words come alive within, I.e. by living the words. This is the only thing that can save man. What a man sows is what he must reap. Believing that Jesus died for you will not save you. I personally believe that that idea was invented by Lucifer to deter men from striving for righteousness. Jesus urged men to become righteous. According to the bible,
If you read the beatitude you will see that basically what He is saying is that what you give out is what you receive. This is the golden rule -- you reap what you sow. Even in the Lord's prayer He said "forgive us our trespasses as we have forgiven those that trespassed against us." In other words, you must give forgiveness to others before you expect to receive forgiveness from God. This is the same principle of "you reap what you so."
Those that sow righteousness, will receive the reward of righteousness. The reward for righteousness is admission to the kingdom of God. Those that sow evil will not receive this reward irrespective of what they believe. They must pay for their evil, or depart from evil, otherwise they are headed towards destruction irrespective of their belief that Christ had payed for their sins. This belief is a mockery to God's justice, those that believe it are deceiving themselves.
"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."(Galatians 6:7)
Nobody will pay for your sins except yourself. Thanks and remain blessed.

Interesting!

seeklove:


Thank you my brother!!!!! Of course even a child knows that this is symbolic. The wine represented words of Jesus. If it were literal then the bread he gave them is actaully his body.

Symbolic cannibalism...

Christian and paganism are like 5 and 6

Duroe:
Chrisbenogor :Not only did Jesus Christ mentioned that He came to die for mankind, it was in fulfilment of several prophecies by Holy prophets in the old Testament part of the Bible. Read
1: Isaiah 53, Acts 8
2: DAn 9
Jesus prayed that , 'father deliver me from this hour, but for this hour (referring to his imminent crucifixion then) have I come.
Angel Gabriel told Mary His name shall be called Jesus for He shall save, from their sins'
John the Baptist said- Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world'
Abuzola:
Everyman shall bear his own burden (not talking about sin in particular but some repercussions of one actions) for example if you commits abortion and get your wound damaged, you can be forgiven but forgiveness will not necessarily give you another womb. Or if you cach any disease from immorality, forgiveness will not automatically get you healed.
If you are a Saint (your sins forgiven), if you do not work you will be poor and hungary.
The death of Jesus Christ is to redeem us (mjankind) from the eternal consequence of a sinful life, not automatically providing relief or healing for bodily damage, career distortion caused by a sinful life.

As for your word that no one can die for another, it is partilly true. If a convicted prisoner cannot be accepted to stand as surety for the freedom of another convicted prisoner so can no sinful man pay for the sin of another man as far as redemption or securing forgiveness from God is concerned.
However, right from the time of the garden of Eden thru the time of Abraham, Job, and prophets, have the blood of innocent animals been shed to make a form of amend to the sin committed by men. If sin will make u lose your life, then a life have to be given to redeem your life. Te life of an animal is not equivalent to that of man so it is not adequate for man's redemption. It will take someone whose life will be equal to the life of everyman that will ever live to be adequate for man's redemption. So The Word of God (by whom everything was made) became flesh (Jesus Christ) and exchange His life for the redemption of every man.
Now any man that believe in this work of redemption and follow the Saviour till death will have his redemption guarrantteed.
Rejection of Christ means you will bear the burden of your sin alone which is eternal condemnation banishment in hell for eternity from the Almighty God.
This is the message of the Holy Bible- and not becoming millionaires or successful or getting healing etc which are just fringe benefits.
Redemption is the only thing Satan cannot provide. No religion or good work will provide redemption for any man. It is provided in Jesus Christ ONLY.

If everyman is meant to bear the burden of his own sin, I hope you are not here suggesting still that Jesus Christ somehow automatically wiped away your sin debt the moment you became one of his as that would be a contradiction.

God pls save us from these damnable heresies . . . where did the above individual get this lie of the devil? Jesus didnt come to "teach us to strive for righteousness" . . . He came that we may have life and have it abundantly.

Actually, Jesus Christ did tell you to strive for God's righteousness. He said this when He urged you to seek first the Kingdom of God(Holiness) and then God's Righteousness, in order that all these things — the blessings and rewards of the Kingdom of God(including Heaven) — shall be added on to you. Without being approved righteous by God, you can't enter into the presence of God.

that again is untrue. Do you understand that verse or you're just misquoting it as usual? To start with . . . as long as you're not saved by the precious blood of Jesus you are going to hell even if you were the most moral person on earth. Works alone cannot save you! Christ's blood cleanses from all sin!

This is wrong! Eternal damnation is only reserved for those with eternal life, and as Jesus Christ made clear, His gift of Eternal life is only given to those who are born again. So go figure, all those who will eventually end up in eternal damnation are all born-again.