Which one is in hell and which is in heaven?

[catographer]

"Only God knows"

By this logic, is it always wrong to ever say someone is going to Heaven or Hell? Or judge someone as being a sinner or not?

[catographer]

"Only God knows"

By this logic, is it always wrong to ever say someone is going to Heaven or Hell? Or judge someone as being a sinner or not?

What I would say is that Jesus is the only way to heaven and that salvation comes through faith in him alone.  Those who have knowledge of the truth of the Gospel and reject it are condemned already, because they do not believe that Jesus is the son of God (John 3:18).  

Nonetheless, going from making these kinds of statements to actively commenting on the state of individuals is problematic - we don't know how much of the Gospel someone has heard. We certainly can make inferences based on the works of someone's life (Matthew 7:16) whether or not they have saving faith, but sanctification can be a gradual process and may be different in people's lives; some people bear much fruit, others not so much, so even if a professing Christian seems not to bear marks of saving faith, they could still be saved.   The other factor is that for those who have not heard the Gospel, I think a case can be made Biblically for inclusivism - especially verses like 1 Peter 4:6 which seem to indicate someone can accept the Gospel after death in some circumstances.  The extent of this is unknown - the vast majority of Evangelicals would agree that infants and small children will go to heaven regardless of what they believe; how much further this mercy may extend I would argue is debatable Biblically.   My point is that the Bible makes it very clear that God is the judge, and I would rather state explicitly how the Bible says to go to heaven - repent and believe the Gospel - and leave judgment up to the Lord.  

We can absolutely call out sinful behavior and say that it is not the mark of someone who is in a right relationship with God, but the scriptures make clear that true believers can and do sin.  Also, I think it's important to show humility in judgment - the scriptures say we all deserve to go to hell, so I find it presumptuous to state that I know for sure where someone else is - James 4:12 says not to judge your neighbor, and I think it is better to proclaim the truth unapologetically in a universal sense rather than discuss specific people. 

do you think God actually cares whether people believe in Jesus or not? like, if he's condemning people for not believing in jesus, why is that? is it to incentivize living according to how he wants you to live (be good, etc)? cuz if so, I feel like as long as you try to live well and appropriately, and recognize that you're imperfect and don't be arrogant about it, that God would probably be satisfied and not care.

[catographer]

The problem is that from a Biblical perspective, God's understanding of what it means to be good is far different than ours.  Jesus equates hatred with murder and looking at a woman with lust as adultery (Matthew 5).  The Bible says explicitly that there is none righteous in Romans 3:10.  James 2:10 says that if you offend the law in one point, you are guilty of all.  So the default position for all of us is hell.  How far God decides to extend his mercy is something I don't think the scripture is entirely unambiguous about:  what we know is that if you have true, saving faith - which is embodied by a zeal for good works and repentance of sins - you will be saved.  

I'm not going to lie; I think this is exceptionally difficult.  In fact I think Martin Luther had this quote from The Bondage of the Will
“This is the highest degree of faith — to believe that He is merciful, who saves so few and damns so many; to believe Him just, who according to His own will, makes us necessarily damnable, that He may seem, as Erasmus says, ‘to delight in the torments of the miserable, and to be an object of hatred rather than of love.’ If, therefore, I could by any means comprehend how that same God can be merciful and just, who carries the appearance of so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no need of faith. But now, since that cannot be comprehended, there is room for exercising faith, while such things are preached and openly proclaimed”

I have a different view of hell than Luther (I believe in annhilationism rather than eternal conscious torment), but I think the problem of the gate to destruction being wide (Matthew 7:13) and the way to life being narrow is problematic.  But I just don't think we'll know how it all shakes out this side of eternity; but indeed, I agree with CS Lewis when he said this is the hardest Christian doctrine and would be great to dispense with entirely (the doctrine of hell); unfortunately, Jesus talks more about hell than anyone else in the Bible, so we can't really get away from it, I'm afraid.

Hmm, I guess maybe what I mean more explicitly is this: would God extend his mercy to someone who has "zeal for good works and repentance of sins," a.k.a. "striving to be generally good and also humble about our imperfections," but doesnt believe in jesus or god?
cuz i mean isn't the point of having faith is that "yeah our default is hell cuz humans suck, but if u acknowledge that and dont be a dick then congratulations you're saved?" or is it more "humans suck, and yeah it's a good idea to acknowledge that and dont be a dick, but what's important is this narrow focus of having faith in god"

[catographer]

Hmm, I guess maybe what I mean more explicitly is this: would God extend his mercy to someone who has "zeal for good works and repentance of sins," a.k.a. "striving to be generally good and also humble about our imperfections," but doesnt believe in jesus or god?
cuz i mean isn't the point of having faith is that "yeah our default is hell cuz humans suck, but if u acknowledge that and dont be a dick then congratulations you're saved?" or is it more "humans suck, and yeah it's a good idea to acknowledge that and dont be a dick, but what's important is this narrow focus of having faith in god"

Part of the problem here is that the Bible considers unbelief itself a sin - unbelief is listed in numerous times in the scriptures as a reason for why people will not enter into life (Revelation 21:8, John 8:24, Hebrews 11:6).  What's clear in context is that if you have clearly heard and understood the Gospel and choose not to believe it, you will not enter life.  I wish this weren't true, but it is what the scriptures clearly and unequivocally teach.  Thus, you can't truly "repent of your sins" unless you believe, because that unbelief is in and of itself a sin. 

Yes, faith is the basis of salvation - you are saved by repenting and believing the Gospel.  It is a key message of the New Testament and it is something God cares greatly about.  However, we can't speak decisively on someone's final state, and we don't know fully how God takes into account the amount of revelation you have.

so i guess it's predicated on agreeing that all the sins listed are in fact bad. see, my biggest problem with christianity is that it applies to nonchristians. christian belief essentially punishes and condemns those who disagree with them philosophically.

[catographer]

personally i think whatever happened surrounding jesus was simply that he was some kind of ancient equivalent of a "magician," or "healer" or "mystic/psychic." people thought he was doing miraculous stuff, but if he showed up today people would debunk and discredit him easily. many ppl claimed supernatural powers back then, even to this day. just something about jesus made him particularly more popular than the rest. back then, ppl were more willing to believe people who claimed to have these kind of abilities, and sometimes even the individuals themselves were convinced of it but alas had something else.
frankly, the claims of being spoken to by God like from Muhammad (Islam) or Guru Nanak (Sikhism) sound just as plausible to me as Jesus'. lots of people wrote about their visions of God, their miracles or supernatural events that happened.
around jesus's story, there's so little basis for establishing anything miraculous he did as historical fact. obviously we have no direct evidence. we have writings, but lots of ppl wrote lots of things that could be false or misunderstood/mistaken. the books are so old, so unreliable, so scant with anything conclusion or provable that it really takes a huge leap of faith (pun intended) to buy it all.