>>109245613I think this is where the argument needs to slow down a bit. Saying “almost every single one of them” describes hell exactly as the Bible does is a very strong claim, and right now it’s being asserted without any specific sources, studies, or even named testimonies. Ironically, that’s the same problem you’re accusing skeptics of, broad generalizations with no documentation.
When researchers do catalogue NDEs (like in medical or psychological literature), the data doesn’t show near-uniform descriptions. Experiences vary widely: some report peace, some fear, some nothing at all, and interpretations often align with prior cultural or religious frameworks. That doesn’t mean God can’t use NDEs but it does mean we shouldn’t exaggerate their consistency to make a theological point.
The Buddhist example has the same issue. You’re presenting a very specific and extreme story as representative of Buddhism or Buddhist-influenced NDEs, without citing where it comes from. Buddhism itself doesn’t even have a single unified view of heaven, hell, or the afterlife, so claiming a near-universal pattern there, again, needs evidence, not just assertion.
From a Christian perspective, NDEs are not authoritative revelation. Scripture is. Christianity has never taught that personal experiences, especially experiences occurring under severe physiological stress, should be treated as doctrinal proof. Even Paul warns that spiritual experiences can be misinterpreted or distorted (2 Corinthians 12), and Scripture repeatedly tells us to test experiences, not absolutize them.
That said, you’re right about one thing: God can use NDEs as a means of mercy, just as He can use ordinary life events to draw someone to repentance. But that doesn’t require claiming that nearly all NDEs perfectly match biblical descriptions or that they function as evidence in themselves. Testimonies point to Christ; they don’t replace discernment or Scripture.
If we’re going to argue for the Christian interpretation of NDEs, it needs to be done carefully, truthfully, and without overstating the data, otherwise we weaken the very witness we’re trying to defend.
