OK, that’s interesting, and I’ve heard something like it before.
Two things:
1. As I believe I have been saved eternally, the fate of the unsaved soul is of minimal, if any, relevance to me and not worth arguing with fellow believers.
2. When faced with alternative interpretations of doctrine, it is my habit to assume the more... restrictive version, thus avoiding assuming a permissivenes which may or may not exist.
(Short version for phone posting. Cheers!)
I’m with you. The reason that issue is so important to me, though, is that I don’t see it as a benign teaching. Put yourself in the shoes of a man who has never heard of Jesus. You’re living your life, having good days and bad days, but overall, as with any natural man (your “animal” existence) you are living and taking one day at a time.
Then some guy comes along and says, “believe in jesus and be saved!”. And you say, “Saved from what?” He says that God is going to torture for all eternity all men who don’t accept his death as an atonement for their “sins”.
The guy is gonna say, “you’re nuts”. Happens a lot.
But what if he answeres, “Saved from death. After your body dies, you will be given a new, imperishable body to live in the ages with your creator.”
Now, he may or may not accept, but trying to first make his situation worse, and with no scripture to back it up, is not only pointless, but seriously damages the credibility of the message.