Ignorance of the Lord Justifies Being Sent to Eternal Damnation

I would like to start by requesting my opponent to explain himself further. I'm not sure why he thinks the Bible is not an accurate source. In my opinion, the Bible is the most accurate and reliable source in the world. For instance, there are 643 original manuscripts of Homer's "Iliad." There is a 500 year span between the first manuscript and when the Iliad was authored. The New Testament, however, has 24,000 manuscripts and only 25 years between the first manuscript and the year it was authored. Most people believe the Iliad was accurately recorded, so why is the Bible's validity in question? (http://www.creatingfutures.net...) The Bible is an accurate source. It's been proven, people just don't realize that. That being said, my opponent never disproved the Bible verses I used. Psalm 19:1-4 speaks of God being made evident throughout creation. Specifically, verse 3 says, "There is no speech or language where their voice ('their voice' refers to all the earth calling out towards God) is not heard." "NO SPEECH OR LANGUAGE" refers to "NO SPEECH OR LANGUAGE." Everyone has an internal being called their conscience that knows God is real and alive. God put your conscience there for a reason. Romans 2:15 says this: "Since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." My opponents first example described a women's horrible captivity and her torture. He then went on to say that there are probably other situations similar to this where the captive is murdered and never gets the opportunity to hear the gospel. I have two responses to this. 1. I don't appreciate the fact that my opponent is using hypothetical situations to debate my proven points. He started with a story about a women, then evolved the story into a "what if" situation. I would like to see more facts than opinions. 2. Taking my opponent's hypothetical situation, the only thing I know to do is reference him back to the Bible verses. They clearly state all have seen and heard. Since, this is a hypothetical situation, I'll provide hypothetical results. Maybe the women murdered heard the gospel before captivity, but still refused it. Maybe the women heard the gospel before captivity and accepted it. News coverages never provide this information to us. There in no way to either prove or disprove whether or not the women was exposed to the gospel in some way shape or form. My opponent also gives the example of a child in who have only be exposed to one religion, that one not being Christianity. He uses the verse 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12. This verse doesn't really help either of our cases. It just says that people who have chosen to live their lives for themselves instead of for God, they will be sent to Hell. This point is fairly obvious, so I'm not sure why it was used in this debate. I would like to finish my point by apologizing for "negating the resolution." If it's possible, I'll retract that statement and say this instead: God does send ignorant people to Hell. I make this statement only on my opponent's definition of ignorant. It's not so much about what you did or didn't do to deserve Hell, but whether or not you trusted Jesus to get into Heaven. Nothing imperfect can be near God. Ignorant people are imperfect therefore cannot be in Heaven. Christians are not perfect either, but they trust and believe that the death of Jesus will cover all their sins. That's the only way someone can get to heaven, ignorance alone will not get someone there.