Questions have been asked of christians whether ancient righteous men who never came across the christian gospels or heard of jesus because they lived at a time that predated christianity, or the missionaries never reached them, will go to hell.The answers have always been that ,"ofcourse,they will go to heaven because of their righteousness alone."
Then they always follow this with,"but if a righteous man has received the gospel and heard of jesus and refused to accept him as his lord and saviour,will definitely be sentenced to eternity in the hellfire despite having lived a righteous life."
So one might need to ask,"what is the difference between the two instances here"? Why does a righteous man has to go to hell as christians claim in the second instance? The answer,ofcourse, is that the righteous man was unlucky to have been exposed to the christian gospel and the name of jesus before he passes on.Had he not been exposed to these christian gospels, the work of his hands would have been enough to get him into heaven.

So,what does that say about the christian gospel and the spreading of it around the world? It shows that the spreading of the christian gospel is the same as spreading the plague of hell,a pollutant that pollutes righteous men/women and prevents them from attaining heaven in the afterlife just by coming in contact with them. 

So,your best bet of making it into heaven(if you believe such,that is) is to be righteous person who lives in a very remote part of the globe that has not yet been polluted with the plague of hell christian gospel and the name of jesus.

Funny ain't it?

@Jagunlabi

Nice one, the logic is totally warped and sounds very petty. Definitely not coming from a loving god but one interested in affirming his own self importance.

Yep, that's the bizzare doctrine intelligent people like Noetic and Davidylan bandy about.

Deep Sight:

Yep, that's the bizzare doctrine intelligent people like Noetic and Davidylan bandy about.

No surprises there, dogma makes a monkey of the most intelligent of men. Once you put "anything" above logic and reason, you basically become an idiot.

@duduspace
and they can see the faults and inconsistencies in other religions but not thier own

There is no person alive who is associated with an organised religion who can assert with a reasonable degree of success that all his beliefs are concomitant with reason. When you accept a religion, you accept everything that goes with it - doctrine, rituals, etc. When uncomfortable topics like this one are raised, you gloss over them. Lawyers make a fortune out of this - glossing over points that create ripples in the client's case. A religious person does this without even thinking of it. The lawyer does it because his viewpoint is governed by his percuniary interests. So what is the religious person's motive? Is he disingenuous? Sometimes. Sometimes not. The problem is that he accepted the religion as (1) something revealed and (2) express train to salvation.
To convert someone to a religion, you don't need logic. All you need to tell him is that this is what is revealed. Then tell him (1) The "miracles" and signs that accompanied the revelation (appeal to belief in the supernatural). (2) That millions have embraced it and there is an endless queue of millions more waiting to cuddle it (appeal to the band wagon effect) (3) That there is salvation here (appeal to self preservation) (4) That anyone who does not belong here is lost ("come out and be saved", appeal to the feel special effect). (5) That it is urgent (appeal to fear). For without an obsession with the five highlighted elements religion would fail. These five elements appeal to the emotion. Once the emotion processes them a dislocation takes place in the brain and the inborn psychological defenses therein get displaced. The rational part of the brain shuts down and you get a convert.
It is impossible to be a good follower of a religion and reject aspects of its teachings no matter how ludicrous. Being intelligent of having a PhD is rewarding, but does not usually help in this matter.

MyJoe:

There is no person alive who is associated with an organised religion who can assert with a reasonable degree of success that all his beliefs are concomitant with reason. When you accept a religion, you accept everything that goes with it - doctrine, rituals, etc. When uncomfortable topics like this one are raised, you gloss over them. Lawyers make a fortune out of this - glossing over points that create ripples in the client's case. A religious person does this without even thinking of it. The lawyer does it because his viewpoint is governed by his percuniary interests. So what is the religious person's motive? Is he disingenuous? Sometimes. Sometimes not. The problem is that he accepted the religion as (1) something revealed and (2) express train to salvation.
To convert someone to a religion, you don't need logic. All you need to tell him is that this is what is revealed. Then tell him (1) The "miracles" and signs that accompanied the revelation (appeal to belief in the supernatural). (2) That millions have embraced it and there is an endless queue of millions more waiting to cuddle it (appeal to the band wagon effect) (3) That there is salvation here (appeal to self preservation) (4) That anyone who does not belong here is lost ("come out and be saved", appeal to the feel special effect). (5) That it is urgent (appeal to fear). For without an obsession with the five highlighted elements religion would fail. These five elements appeal to the emotion. Once the emotion processes them a dislocation takes place in the brain and the inborn psychological defenses therein get displaced. The rational part of the brain shuts down and you get a convert.
It is impossible to be a good follower of a religion and reject aspects of its teachings no matter how ludicrous. Being intelligent of having a PhD is rewarding, but does not usually help in this matter.

Brilliant!!!!!!! You gotta be a psycologist!

MyJoe:

There is no person alive who is associated with an organised religion who can assert with a reasonable degree of success that all his beliefs are concomitant with reason. When you accept a religion, you accept everything that goes with it - doctrine, rituals, etc. When uncomfortable topics like this one are raised, you gloss over them. Lawyers make a fortune out of this - glossing over points that create ripples in the client's case. A religious person does this without even thinking of it. The lawyer does it because his viewpoint is governed by his percuniary interests. So what is the religious person's motive? Is he disingenuous? Sometimes. Sometimes not. The problem is that he accepted the religion as (1) something revealed and (2) express train to salvation.
To convert someone to a religion, you don't need logic. All you need to tell him is that this is what is revealed. Then tell him (1) The "miracles" and signs that accompanied the revelation (appeal to belief in the supernatural). (2) That millions have embraced it and there is an endless queue of millions more waiting to cuddle it (appeal to the band wagon effect) (3) That there is salvation here (appeal to self preservation) (4) That anyone who does not belong here is lost ("come out and be saved", appeal to the feel special effect). (5) That it is urgent (appeal to fear). For without an obsession with the five highlighted elements religion would fail. These five elements appeal to the emotion. Once the emotion processes them a dislocation takes place in the brain and the inborn psychological defenses therein get displaced. The rational part of the brain shuts down and you get a convert.
It is impossible to be a good follower of a religion and reject aspects of its teachings no matter how ludicrous. Being intelligent of having a PhD is rewarding, but does not usually help in this matter.

Word!!!

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
touche! bingo! gbam!

The wisdom of men is like foolishness unto God

Especially if the god is a false god like the christian god.

ccollins:

The wisdom of men is like foolishness unto God

jagunlabi:

Especially if the god is a false god like the christian god.

. . . . I wonder why the christian god is always afraid of wisdom. . . .

jagunlabi:

Especially if the god is a false god like the christian god.

lmao that gotta hurt.

mazaje:

. . . . I wonder why the christian god is always afraid of wisdom. . . .

Because he is an insecure, limited, and terribly imperfect entity. Above all, because he is a false god, an impostor trying to usurp the position of the creator, a wolf in a sheep clothing . . .

Where is olaadegbu & co? The spreaders of the plague of hell, the beloved ones of evil.