I always thought the doctrine that said if someone didn't accept Christ, even if Christ hadn't shown up in history or geographically yet as somewhat unfair.
Yes. To my limited understanding, that's the kind of thinking that led to the Catholic doctrine of Limbo -- ditto for unbaptized dead babies.
but you know. Who said God has to be fair? Or that our ideas of morality apply to the realm outside of this one?
You're so Calvinist. . .. But I think places in the Bible, it does mention that God has something to do with justice. As for morality in this realm vs morality outside of this realm, that's the type of thing that makes me a moral agnostic.
Well, like Isaiah 55:9 says:
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
I mean, who knows if we could even grasp the fullness of His morality... theoretically our sense of morality is based on His, and we also have the Holy Spirit to nudge us along, but I think it's historically been considered poor form to try and judge God.
But yet, the Bible says in Micah 6:8 -

You probably recognize that one from a UU service. . .. ;b I think there's something to be realized that man would never be able to live up to God's morality. Which would be the clincher of sacrificing Jesus Christ on the cross for people to accept Jesus.
Still, true ignorance of Jesus Christ because of lack exposure just really seems downright unjust rather than some kind of willful ignorance (which some might say that I could fit into that category).
Then there's issues of accepting Christ for the reward or because someone sincerely believes in "cause" and a whole bunch of issues that I can't think up right away.
One passage that I find helpful, if not totally clear - Romans 2:12-14 (The Message):
"If you sin without knowing what you're doing, God takes that into account. But if you sin knowing full well what you're doing, that's a different story entirely. Merely hearing God's law is a waste of your time if you don't do what he commands. Doing, not hearing, is what makes the difference with God.
When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God's yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences."
Thanks, YELM. In adding to this conversation, you've helped clear up the source of where philosopher came up with the idea of the conscience as being put in us by God. Now if they would come up with a better explanation of why some people follow their conscience and others don't. If non-Calvinists can't come up with a good explanation other than utter Free Will while promoting the development of one's moral fortitude, the Calvinists come out as being more coherent with that argument, which kind of annoys me.