Which one is in hell and which is in heaven?

[Stranger in a strange land]

This is why I can't believe in salvation by faith alone.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I have no idea whether either of them are in heaven or hell; as others have stated I cannot know contents of one's heart, but there is one thing I am entirely certain of: the OP is not God.

if I'm not God I'll go to hell, so basically I need to believe I'm God. I'm not entirely sure I'm real though, or that the world isn't just a figment of my imagination, I think at some point if I'm not God, God will rip the earth away to send me to hell.

If I'm God incarnate, my mother is the Devil incarnate. However, I may just be a demon myself. I don't know.

All I'm sure of is that if I'm not God I'll go to hell, it's been told and shown to me.

If you can touch the tip of your nose to the top of your buttcrack (this is what we call tip-top shape), then you are God.

But if you can’t and you’re totally jealous but you can fart the alphabet song but it’s okay cuz your sh**t don’t stink, then you’re probably the devil.

[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.

[RFayette]

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.

Wouldn't any religion by definition apply to its unbelievers?  The truth is the truth for all people irrespective of what we believe.  I get what you mean though in that Christianity seems awfully narrow - other faiths place less of an emphasis on right belief than Christianity.    

The Biblical worldview is predicated on the notion that God is good and his judgments are just.  God is love (1 John 4: and his decrees are just (Genesis 18:25).  The question comes with how to reconcile this with other verses which unequivocally teach about God's wrath and judgment.  And to be frank, I agree with Luther on this one:  it's a matter of faith.  We have to say that because God is omniscient, his ways are higher than our ways and that we must trust and obey him because that is what is good for us and good for others.  

Let me make it clear:  I think the path to faith can't come from a discussion about hell.  People's minds work differently, but here's my perspective.  I became convinced of the truths of Christianity by studying the events surrounding the life and ministry of Jesus.  I think the historical case for the resurrection is quite solid.  You can research things like Gary Habermas's minimal facts argument or books and debates by people like Frank Turek, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, J Warner Wallace, and Norman Geisler to learn more.  I would argue that the scholarly consensus on Christ's crucifixion, empty tomb, the disciples' visions of the risen Jesus, the conversion of Paul (an enemy of Christianity) and James (the brother of Jesus) after being skeptical, and the early dating of much of the New Testament  all point to the truth of Christianity.  For example, the earliest letters of Paul were written 20 years after the crucifixion in the 50's AD, and 1 Corinthians 15 documents the resurrection of Christ; this is generally seen as quite early for legendary embellishment by historical standards.   Think about it from a Bayesian perspective:  what is the likelihood that we would have volumes of literature from the first century about a Jewish carpenter from a backwoods place like Nazareth?  Doesn't that suggest something pretty special right away?  Obviously, how you evaluate that evidence is going to depend on your prior presuppositions and initial probability for supernatural events, but my point is that I think the case for Christianity is best argued on historical grounds.  

In other words, because I believe Jesus rose from the dead, I take on faith that what Jesus said is true (and his view of the scriptures); as such, I do believe that God is good and just even though hell also exists.  However, I can't truly justify this logically in my mind.  Yes, I know that you have to punish wrongdoing and that there may be reasons some things are sins for reasons God knows but we don't, and there are philosophers who can speculate as to reasons why as to these doctrines, but they are still difficult.  I can only take them by faith.  But I have that faith on the basis of real historical evidence that Jesus Christ is who he said he is. 

[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.

[RFayette]

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.

First, I appreciate the discussion.  I think it's good to flesh these disagreements out.

With respect to other miracles stories, I concede parallels, but I believe the empty tomb is pretty strong evidence, and the majority of New Testament scholars concede it according to Habermas's research.  I'd argue that with respect to Islam, there is far less evidence of miracles - in fact Muhammad said he didn't do miracles, and those don't pop up until Hadiths 150 years after his death.  As for Hindu and Sikh gurus and yogis, I am not very familiar with those figures, but I can say that none of them were predicted to be a Messiah hundreds of years before their birth, as I'd argue Jesus clearly is.  Also, one has to look at the relative strength of the miracle claims, which I think clearly favor Jesus. 

This comment intrigues me a bit.  I agree the Old Testament documents we have a lot less information about and historical context from, but the New Testament era had a fair amount of documentation.  My question for you is if God decided to reveal himself authoritatively 2000 years ago, how much evidence would suffice for you?  What would be required?

I am curious:  if God were to have revealed himself 2000 years ago and sent his son to Earth, what evidence would convince you that this was so? 

[afleitch]

That 'Jesus is the messiah' is only relevant if the Jews-as-chosen-people narrative and their relationship with their god has any meaning to you. To those it should matter most, the Jews, well he doesn't fulfill the conditions. The Jews as a people have suffered probably more than most for maintaining that stance. Therefore the claims that Jesus fulfills a prophecy and that that prophecy has any bearing on anyone else is only strong if you already argue for it. I happen to think Celtic are the best football team in the world but people will contend otherwise and others don't care about football so such arguments don't even matter.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm not sure anybody goes straight to heaven or hell before Jesus returns, so I'll hedge my bets and say neither of them are anywhere.

[SingingAnalyst]

That 'Jesus is the messiah' is only relevant if the Jews-as-chosen-people narrative and their relationship with their god has any meaning to you. To those it should matter most, the Jews, well he doesn't fulfill the conditions. The Jews as a people have suffered probably more than most for maintaining that stance. Therefore the claims that Jesus fulfills a prophecy and that that prophecy has any bearing on anyone else is only strong if you already argue for it. I happen to think Celtic are the best football team in the world but people will contend otherwise and others don't care about football so such arguments don't even matter.

Good point. Consistent with my Catholic upbringing, I have always believed something remarkable was observed one early spring Sunday morning, so many years ago, as the waning gibbous moon hung low in the southwest--something that has been called a Resurrection.

Having said that, the one I believe was resurrected is alleged to have said "whatsoever you did (or did not do) to the least of my people" (to the extent that Jesus was G-d or the Son of G-d, that would include all people) (Matthew 25:31-46). Did Falwell do what he could to the least of us-- the most vulnerable (members of what is now called the LGBT community were particularly vulnerable at the height of Falwell's "ministry")? How about the gay artist? Only G-d knows (but if I were a betting man I'd put my money on the gay artist tbh).

I most certainly do NOT believe that all who subscribe to a particular religious tradition are going one way, and those who don't, the other way.  I can't imagine anything other than how one treats (a) others and (b) life generally, would have anything to do with it (and that Matthew 25:31-46 expresses this idea reasonably well, notwithstanding the modern usage of "sheep" as one who follows blindly or ignorantly).

[Georg Ebner]

gay man who helped to spread love and awareness of social issues through art

Nobody cares about other human beings.
Normal humans are driven by genetical egoism (altruism being part of that).
The homo religiosus loves the next, if he can detect HIM in that person.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

I have no idea whether either of them are in heaven or hell; as others have stated I cannot know contents of one's heart, but there is one thing I am entirely certain of: the OP is not God.

if I'm not God I'll go to hell, so basically I need to believe I'm God. I'm not entirely sure I'm real though, or that the world isn't just a figment of my imagination, I think at some point if I'm not God, God will rip the earth away to send me to hell.

If I'm God incarnate, my mother is the Devil incarnate. However, I may just be a demon myself. I don't know.

All I'm sure of is that if I'm not God I'll go to hell, it's been told and shown to me.