On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[GrandizerII]

Your error was in that "clearly is a sociopathic way of thinking, but it's the most logically consistent answer to the question" I grant that from an exlucive-ist perspective it would seem that way.

You could argue the sociopathic bit was just my opinion (and even say that it was rude of me to say that), but I have no idea how that bit is considered an error nevertheless. And if you're referring to the logically consistent bit, I'm still not sure where I went wrong (after reading your whole last post). Christians have been exclusivist more often than inclusivist AFAIK, and many many Christians have held to the interpretation I'm currently defending because books like Romans and John provide good evidence for such interpretation.

This is not to say that you can't find a verse anywhere in the Bible that supports inclusivism, but if we consider the New Testament overall, an exclusivist interpretation makes a lot more sense than an inclusivist one. With inclusivism, you pretty much have to make more assumptions that are not based in the Bible itself, but based in the modern notion of such things as fairness and justice.

If the only way to be saved from Hell is from hearing and knowing about Jesus then the simplest course would be just to not tell anyone and hope they're judged by being good.

Uh, I'm not sure how you reasoned that out. If the only way to be saved is to hear the Gospel to thereby accept the gift of salvation through faith, and especially because one cannot be saved by being good enough, then Christians should hope to preach the Gospel to every person the planet.

On the contrary, it is with inclusivism that you won't have to worry about preaching the Gospel to everyone, not exclusivism.

I was outlining why, from my inclucive-ist perspective it wasn't sociopathic, but it was promoting an easier way to salvation.

I agree that wouldn't be sociopathic, but the question is how supportable this is by passages in the Bible itself, especially the New Testament.

Where you have it wrong again is in Romans
If "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin"
and 2 "no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law"
and 3 "Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law ... show the work of the Law written in their hearts"

We have Law working to point out our sinful natures. You don't need religion to tell you you're wicked or to be wicked. What Romans points out mainly is that it does take religion to show you that what you consider good, isn't good compared to God. I can be perfectly nice and friendly and charitable, but be doing it all for selfish reasons, therefore not objectively good. The law (on stones or in hearts) is a tool to point out our repeated willful disobedience to our Heavenly Father. You're absolutely correct in that we can do nothing of our own to be saved. That's why the source is independent of our actions. Jesus did die for all and it's by His power we are saved. You can stand before God's judgment, on your own or covered by Jesus' sacrifice.

So where was the wrong in my POV exactly? Don't you see that what you're saying here points to exclusivism as much as you think it does to inclusivism?