I think we all know what "lukewarm" means - it's basically a Christian who claims the title of a Christian, but in his heart doesn't really care about it's values.
But what about "hot" and "cold" then?
You can tell how you see it, but here's what I think: Like fire, hot is a Christian who's really passionate and outward about their faith, and like ice, cold is someone who stays put about their faith and won't let others change or stir their views, but won't speak about it too often either.
Yes, I think the hot would be those with a lot of zeal, hungry for God, wanting to spend time on the things of God, the cold sluggish, perhaps with more carnality, spend less time on the the things of God, maybe like sports too much, maybe read their Bibles less, things like that, but believe the cold at least authentic in their faith. On the other hand, the lukewarm Laodiceans are self sufficient, covetous of things, of wealth, have some sort of religion of carnal and material focus, think they're all that, don't need anything: it almost sounds like they're just some partying church. They're not described in authentic Christian terms, in any case, no humble repentance, no focus on things spiritual and eternal, a focus on now, almost like their attitude is why do we need God, anyway, when there's money? The Lord goes on to describe their utter spiritual poverty. I always get a picture of some of these prosperity gospel services, with people dancing in the aisles that God is about to send them a Cadillac.
I have found the cold terminology mysterious over the years, have mused before whether the Lord is saying He can at least respect somebody who has made up their mind against Him, isn't playing games with lukewarm religion, they at least don't make Him want to vomit, as cold seems the other far end of the spectrum, opposite on fire, alive, for God. Cold seems pretty dead. But this doesn't make sense that the Lord would prefer that sort of cold, in any real sense. So, I mainly threw out that notion.
