What differences do you see between what you described and what we may call the exclusive claims historically held within Christianity? With a few changes, "I even recently had one tell me that Billy Graham was going to hell because he is not Catholic!" can become "I even recently had one tell me that Gandhi was going to hell because he is not Christian!" I will not be linking to anything of this sort, but it shouldn't be hard to find a "skeptic" complaining about Christian non-universalism.
I am not trying to merge or equate the two "exclusivities" (although I can see how some people would), but I got reminded of the similarity pretty quickly.
(From Mark 16:16, at least if one does not question it as scriptural: "he that believeth not shall be damned." From John 3:18, which does not have the same questions concerning the ending of Mark: "he that believeth not is condemned already." If the original quotation, and the resulting title of this thread, had been "Whoever does not embrace the Christian religion will be damned"--and I'm not saying that it should've been--this thread would've taken some different directions.)
The distinction is this, Rome claims you must be a card carrying member of that particular faith group to be saved.
Jesus states you must believe in him to be saved, not an institution.
If Jesus is who he claimed to be, we as his followers are obligated to follow his teachings.
Your reply is incoherent...and, I asked my priest about what your claim is and he said that you are mistaken on Catholic doctrine.
Not sure what your point about Ghandi is...do you wish to elaborate, perhaps a little more coherently?