That it strives towards altruism maybe even?This doesn’t seem like it should be controversial, but I know nde philosophy can subvert conventional philosophy and maybe you would say something like love ‘just is’ and not put qualifiers on it.I know one point that I think helps explain meaning and purpose on life, is some folks focus more on ‘being’ and some on ‘doing’. A purpose to be, versus to do. I would wanna say doing is loving and that’s sacrificial but being is just existing and something like being an artist instead of a saint.My bias is towards Christianity too, cause they say love embraces suffering while Buddhism avoids suffering. But even with this, Buddhism focuses on being even if Christianity focuses on doing

fear death experiences are where the person doesn’t die but is majorly scared. they say these experiences, if i’m not mistaken, can be the same as NDEs where the person actually died.NDEs have solid evidence for their authenticity both philosophically and scientifically, see ‘evidence of the afterlife’ by doctor jeffrey long. but FDE the person didn’t actually die, so isn’t the authenticity of the death version compromised, and how much?

as a believer in NDEs and as someone who likes to read about afterlife science, there is this point that i see that troubles me. when we read about people seeing for the first time during an NDE, i see two types of outcomes. one, is where the person inexplicably describes what they were seeing using words only a person who has the experience with sight could say. like, a child sees, but they can’t call a tree a tree unless someone told them it is a tree etc. next, we have people who more convincingly ‘know’ they saw, but they dont have the language to describe it, as that’s not formed within them yet.what should we make of this discrepancy? like with religious claims, a lot of believers would like to say it’s sort of like a ‘miracle’ and if someone can describe what they saw, that’s just more to the power of the afterlife. then, we have the skeptics, who think that shouldn’t be possible that blind people can describe what they saw. this discrepancy doesn’t debunk the science that the blind can see, but it’s such a tall order thing to believe that i can understand why someone who is already profoundly skeptic just would insist on not believing it. i mean, even if the other types of ‘seers’ were accurate, and they only knew they saw but couldn’t describe it, then all we would have for sure is their claim, and no way to verify it. i have no doubt there are senses on other side that we can’t know of here, but it seems to always be the case with good afterlife science, that it’s beyond description. like trying to describe 4D or 5D in a 3D world

I think it’s fair to expect an orthodox person to submit to the seven ecumenical councils. Beyond that, there seems too much either split decisions or things that could change. I asked on here, how much submission to one’s priest was required and there was split ideas on that. Some say it’s not like the orthodox sit around worrying about submitting to the priest or the priest worrying about getting submitted to. While others say submission is necessary at least on open questions. In another thread I asked if there was anything like the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium from catholcism in orthodoxy, which means formal teachings to be submitted to, and informal teachings to be submitted to. The responses said it’s not like there’s an exhaustive list but that it works sort of like that.The issue seems to be that each orthodox seems to figure out for themselves what’s expected of course with the guidance of priests but still ulrltimately on one’s own. Somewhat like each is somewhat winging it. Take contraceptives or remarriage or emerging or even classical bioethics or ethics in general, and a lot of religious p​eople think this or that must be submitted while other people say otherwise. Or that the holy spirit is guiding the church this way or that way. I’d consider joining orthodoxy but the authority and submission expectations seem arbitrary and stifling to one’s conscience especially when a teaching turned put mistaken to begin with

Catholicism and protestants generally believe in penal substitution as an atonement theory, and eastern christians and the orthodox believe in christus victor, as did a majority of church fathers

here are some verses from the bible that id like your views on…

“By his wounds we are healed” – This phrase is based on Isaiah 53:5 (Old Testament):

“But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds, we are healed.” (NIV)

“Cursed is he who hangs on a tree” – This refers to Galatians 3:13 (New Testament):

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” (NIV)

“He became sin for us” – This phrase is based on 2 Corinthians 5:21 (New Testament):

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (NIV)

i think christus victor makes more sense as jesus conquering sin and death and focus on his resurrection, than penal substiution of only appeasing God’s wrath with a blood sacrifice to take the punishment and focus on jesus’ death. but these verses could be interpreted as penal substitution so id like some ideas from the community

I have this impression that identity in the afterlife can only be understood metaphorically. One though many. I am myself yet the whole or part of the whole at the same time. Like how the gulf of Mexico is unique yet is part of and comingles with the Atlantic. Or even more precisely said, when a person dies they are like a cup of water that is dumped in the ocean. The water stays separate yet comingles. This is only an analogy and is imperfect yet can only be understood analogously and metaphorically.

To take the analogy to reincarnation. When we die we are like a cup of water that’s dumped into the ocean. When reincarnation occurs, it’s like scooping a cup of water and placing it in a body. It’s sort of an individual yet group thing.

the bible does have a verse that says we live once and then the judgment. Assuming this verse is from God, perhaps each individual only lives once and future lives are more of a collective experience.

This is just some ideas I have after having read about the spiritual aspect of the afterlife. Does anyone else particularly nders themselves think this might be a good way of describing it or is this just some silly musings on my part?