Here's where the logic of Christianity both works and falls down for me. On the one hand, humanity - all humanity - is flawed. It's part of the definition. But there are still degrees of flawedness: if offered the choice between two soiled shirts, we can still declare one to be 'cleaner' than the other. Similarly with people: once you take our base limits into account, you've got room for discussion.
Christianity says that even though all men are flawed, God still loves them, and that obediance to God's will - and belief in God - is the path to heaven. Equally important is that even though God loves all men, some will still go to hell; and this is my point. By abstracting the OP's question to 'God loves everyone', you're not actually giving an answer. You're copping out of the harder question, viz: if all men sin, and all men are equal in sinning, then what good behaviours will lead to heaven? Which man, here, seems closer to God in his actions?
Some have said that it's not their place to judge. I submit that having an opinion is not judgement, because your reaction either way condemns nobody. Ultimately, if the OP's uncles were folk you knew, you'd have an opinion. You might seek forgiveness for it, or acknowledge that God's will was higher, or that your reasoning could be faulty because - after all - you're only human; but you'd nonetheless have an opinion. Here, it seems, you are taking the highground only because the question is an abstract, or because (perhaps) you suspect a trick. You don't know these people, true. But it seems dishonest to pretend that, even if you did, you'd still shrug and feel nothing.