• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Morality of Deathbed Conversions

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
It's reasonable, the drive for security is universal. Obviously I can't predict this, but I highly doubt I will do anything other than stare off in my last moments, and though it wouldn't affect me, being dead, the thought of my belief system being posthumously twisted is a little enraging.

I respect you for saying what you expect to happen, but realizing that it's not 100% guaranteed, as you can't know for sure until you're in that situation. It drives me nuts when people are sure of how they'll react in an unfamilar situation, you can't know that.
 

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
most people aren't devout atheist, put them in a dangerous situation that brings them close to death 9 out of 10 times they'll pray and ask god to save them. I'm not saying everyone's like this. but most of the people I've met that have been in such a situation has said fox hole prayers. I know this wasn't your point, I just felt like it

That reminds me of a Regina Spektor song:

No one laughs at God in a hospital,
No one laughs at God in a war.
No one's laughing at God,
When they're starving or freezing,
Or so very poor.

Atheism isn't like Religion, you don't feel the need to cling to it, because there's nothing to cling to. It's an absence of belief. So I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to lapse into belief.

My gut response is anger. At the same time, though, it might have offered her peace of mind in her last moments, and the priest/her daughter probably had the best intentions. I would worry more about its influence on other possible believers; if a devout atheist changed her mind on the brink of death, she must have seen something they don't, right?


You may be right. I'm not super sceptical that my aunt might have gave in to the prodding of a priest. I'm not even sceptical that God exists. I am sceptical of stuffy old priests.

She had been beaten down by cancer, she was mentally disoriented, and she was facing her own annihilation. Who knows what she felt in those moments (God, perhaps)? I just don't think that counts as a real conversion, and as real faith. And I think it's disingenuous to extrapolate from this deathbed conversion to presume she had always secretly loved Jesus. She had a lot of problems with the Church, and deathbed panic shouldn't whitewash those concerns.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
You may be right. I'm not super sceptical that my aunt might have gave in to the prodding of a priest. I'm not even sceptical that God exists. I am sceptical of stuffy old priests.

She had been beaten down by cancer, she was mentally disoriented, and she was facing her own annihilation. Who knows what she felt in those moments (God, perhaps)? I just don't think that counts as a real conversion, and as real faith. And I think it's disingenuous to extrapolate from this deathbed conversion to presume she had always secretly loved Jesus. She had a lot of problems with the Church, and deathbed panic shouldn't whitewash those concerns.

of course she hadn't secretly loved Jesus, that would be absurd. I'm talking about people who are of sound mind
 

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
of course she hadn't secretly loved Jesus, that would be absurd. I'm talking about people who are of sound mind

Yeah sorry, I was still rearranging my final post before you quoted it. Should have previewed it first. I was actually responding to someone else.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Maybe Pascal's Wager seemed a little more rational right at the last minute of life? ;)

Yeah, like if their idea of God existed, he'd be such a naive intellectual lightweight that he'd say, "Oh, well, they blew me off their whole lives, and finally just got chickenshit right before they were about to die and just wanted to save their own skin from hell rather than actually giving a darn about me and what I value or being aligned with what I wanted to accomplish in the universe -- but yes, I'll let them game the system and be rewarded with eternal life with me."

Srsly?

She had been beaten down by cancer, she was mentally disoriented, and she was facing her own annihilation. Who knows what she felt in those moments (God, perhaps)? I just don't think that counts as a real conversion, and as real faith. And I think it's disingenuous to extrapolate from this deathbed conversion to presume she had always secretly loved Jesus. She had a lot of problems with the Church, and deathbed panic shouldn't whitewash those concerns.

Who really knows, but yes.

I mean, in the end, if that is the God who exists, then only God would know and could make that determination. But I think it's kind of a moot point here for people to go for feel-good moments and lay claim to nebulous deathbed conversions so they don't have to imagine their loved one burning in hell for eternity or so that the church can put another notch on its belt in terms of people saved.

I also find it a complete violation of every person's autonomy / right to decide who they are and what they believe, to take advantage of their fears and insecurities in this kind of way. People should be respected enough to let stand how they lived their lives, rather than having people try to rewrite their lives for them at the very end or even after the fact; you might as well eradicate them from existence if you're going to erase who they were and how they lived.
 

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Yeah, like if their idea of God existed, he'd be such a naive intellectual lightweight that he'd say, "Oh, well, they blew me off their whole lives, and finally just got chickenshit right before they were about to die and just wanted to save their own skin from hell rather than actually giving a darn about me and what I value or being aligned with what I wanted to accomplish in the universe -- but yes, I'll let them game the system and be rewarded with eternal life with me."

Srsly?

:rotfl:

Yeah I know. I've never been thrilled by his wager, but I think he meant it more as a way to say: it couldn't hurt to try to get to know God, and practice Christian values. If you're wrong, you're only missing out on material/finite things. If you live an UnChristian life and he does exist, you lose FOREVER.

Still, viewing faith so pragmatically, as a spiritual expedience, seems to defeat the entire purpose of God.
 
A

A window to the soul

Guest
Short story: If an atheist is babbling incoherently on their deathbed, is it ethical to coerce a deathbed conversion out of them? Does it even "count"?

Long story:


Great questions. I'm so tired. I'll be back.
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
Yeah, like if their idea of God existed, he'd be such a naive intellectual lightweight that he'd say, "Oh, well, they blew me off their whole lives, and finally just got chickenshit right before they were about to die and just wanted to save their own skin from hell rather than actually giving a darn about me and what I value or being aligned with what I wanted to accomplish in the universe -- but yes, I'll let them game the system and be rewarded with eternal life with me."

Srsly?
Ha ha. This isn't really an issue though if God is defined as "a being beyond that which can be conceived." Our psychological anthropomorphisms then become irrelevant.

Taking Pascal's Wager is a sign of a poor character.
Just like Pascal himself, huh? ;) He was of such poor character. *sarcasm*
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
The morality of deathbed conversions is inversely proportional to the mortality of deathbed converts.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Ha ha. This isn't really an issue though if God is defined as "a being beyond that which can be conceived." Our psychological anthropomorphisms then become irrelevant.

How are we supposed to discuss a statement made by a professed Christian using constructs from Christian theology if you're going to state that none of the examples, symbolism, or language involved is relevant?

It seems clear Pascal himself was using that symbolism and notions of heaven/hell when he described his Wager.

Just like Pascal himself, huh? ;) He was of such poor character. *sarcasm*

He was a human being and thus potentially faulty.

There's also a problem where he could have easily just been speculating on paper (testing out his own theories), but the literalists in their anxiety try to recast his speculations into some kind of definitive rational support for their belief system. Do you know how many freaking times I have seen Pascal's Wager used to convert people over the last 45 years? Arrrg....

I'm sure Pascal was intelligent enough to acknowledge the faults of his own speculations, if confronted with them.

EDIT: Yes, I know that comment was directed at Mole, but I had an answer anyway. ;)
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
How are we supposed to discuss a statement made by a professed Christian using constructs from Christian theology if you're going to state that none of the examples, symbolism, or language involved is relevant?

It seems clear Pascal himself was using that symbolism and notions of heaven/hell when he described his Wager.
I didn't reject the symbolism, just the anthropomorphic comparison of God as a "naive intellectual lightweight" if he accepts the Wager.


He was a human being and thus potentially faulty.

There's also a problem where he could have easily just been speculating on paper (testing out his own theories), but the literalists in their anxiety try to recast his speculations into some kind of definitive rational support for their belief system. Do you know how many freaking times I have seen Pascal's Wager used to convert people over the last 45 years? Arrrg....

I'm sure Pascal was intelligent enough to acknowledge the faults of his own speculations, if confronted with them.

EDIT: Yes, I know that comment was directed at Mole, but I had an answer anyway. ;)
Really it's a pretty simple and straightforward issue and pragmatic argument. There's no character fault in going with the safe choice in the face of uncertainty.

For example, if the FBI informs me that they've determined the boogeyman is real, can only attack me in the dark, and is likely targeting me and trying to hide in my closet, then I'm likely to think that's a bit silly. But, chances are, I'll probably turn on the light and check the closet before I go to bed. People might think I'm ridiculous, but it's not any significant extra effort for me because I walk within 3 feet of there when brushing my teeth before bed. Maybe it's a grand deception instigated by the power company moguls to get people to turn on their lights more often and generate more revenue, but it's insignificant to me.

Do you know who the boogeyman checks his closet for at night before he goes to bed?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I didn't reject the symbolism, just the anthropomorphic comparison of God as a "naive intellectual lightweight" if he accepts the Wager.

Really it's a pretty simple and straightforward issue and pragmatic argument. There's no character fault in going with the safe choice in the face of uncertainty.

For example, if the FBI informs me that they've determined the boogeyman is real, can only attack me in the dark, and is likely targeting me and trying to hide in my closet, then I'm likely to think that's a bit silly. But, chances are, I'll probably turn on the light and check the closet before I go to bed. People might think I'm ridiculous, but it's not any significant extra effort for me because I walk within 3 feet of there when brushing my teeth before bed. Maybe it's a grand deception instigated by the power company moguls to get people to turn on their lights more often and generate more revenue, but it's insignificant to me.

Do you know who the boogeyman checks his closet for at night before he goes to bed?

:doh:

Could you really have missed the point so badly, or did I miss something all these years?

Heaven/Hell are not a naturalistic cause/effect of real life that you can "game" to produce a desirable result.

The way it is approached is that you have to be in a "right relationship with God" to get to heaven, if you are going to accept Christianity. Some people disagree on the detailed specifics of this (aside from the "believe and commit to Jesus" aspect), but the whole idea of heaven is not as something you can game, nor is it some squidgy Wonderland meant to reward human beings for happening to pick the "correct solution."

Heaven is being in proximity to God, and it is reserved for those who are in alignment with his wishes and with "his heart." Even if you don't anthropomorphize God, the gist still is that to reach heaven, you will have to have become the kind of person who is essentially aligned with the "good" of the universe.

You can't "game a system" in order to fulfill that requirement. You can't "not be aligned" with Good/God in terms of who you are as a person, and just by saying some magic words on your deathbed to hedge your bets suddenly find yourself in heaven. (What such mechanism can even be shown to exist, naturalistically? heaven can't even be shown to exist.)

In fact, such a "heaven" would be hell to you, if you were not aligned with it... just like Westboro can't comprehend the signs by protestors saying, "Sorry for your loss" at the death of their founder and relative. Selfish or self-centered people are unable to trust that unselfish people are authentic. Now put someone next to "God / the ultimate Good" for eternity; it would DESTROY them, not be bliss for them.

Do you see where I'm coming from here? Unless your view of heaven is completely disconnected from morality, I'm not sure how you can support the idea that Pascal's Wager can work, it's just magical thinking. If you are just trying to save your own skin, either you don't get to heaven (because you're a selfish fraud) OR you get to heaven and it's hell to you. Neither outcome is "heaven."

And of course, if one DOES anthropomorphize God (which Christianity does, actively -- sorry; even salvation and God's son is literally incarnate according to the tenets, that's the whole point of the "religion" of Christianity, although you could still follow some of its precepts if you think Jesus was a good guy), then you have an additional layer of a conscious eternal omniscient person being able to recognize the duplicity involved in anyone who thinks they can act selfishly all their lives and just get a free pass to heaven at the last minute because they cried the safe word.
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION], I see (and saw) your point, but God as a "naive intellectual lightweight" seemed to be a different anthropomorphic perspective than the one you're describing now. It makes some big assumptions about a person's perspective. The assumptions could also be overcome at deathbed conversion time easily, so I don't see them as all that relevant. The following points/statements could overcome these, and I think these are fairly common beliefs and statements.

God is love (rather than a naive intellectual lightweight).
All that matters is your decision and state of mind and heart now, not the past.
You are not saved by something you do, but by what God does.
You can't play games with God or life, as you might not get the last turn.


By the way, since you didn't know the answer to my question, the answer is Chuck Norris. :alttongue:
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION], I see (and saw) your point, but God as a "naive intellectual lightweight" seemed to be a different anthropomorphic perspective than the one you're describing now. It makes some big assumptions about a person's perspective. The assumptions could also be overcome at deathbed conversion time easily, so I don't see them as all that relevant. The following points/statements could overcome these, and I think these are fairly common beliefs and statements.

God is love (rather than a naive intellectual lightweight).
All that matters is your decision and state of mind and heart now, not the past.
You are not saved by something you do, but by what God does.
You can't play games with God or life, as you might not get the last turn.

By the way, since you didn't know the answer to my question, the answer is Chuck Norris. :alttongue:

Uhhh....why the diversion? :huh:

Pascal's Wager does not discuss "authentic conversions," so I'm not sure why you are dragging "love" into it. The logic is: "If I'm not sure if God exists, I should convert and thus escape hell to hedge my bets." What on earth does that have to do with loving God, following God, or asking for forgiveness? Maybe that's where this discussion is getting sidetracked.

If you examine the essence of Pascal's Wager, it should be clear that it refers to "fire insurance" conversions ("I voice belief in God to cover my ass") rather than authentic choices to repent ("I voice belief in God because I realize I was wrong and want to repent, even if I'm still a creep in some ways"), and that is what I have an objection to and what I think the faith itself + JHWH cannot accommodate.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
the purpose of a spiritual ritual is not to judge/grade the past but to make a difference in the present moment. if her soul changes, it is changed. all that matters. big irony here, christianity is occasionally on to something, for brief moments, until it relapses into the conformist kindergarden logic of judging you by the past and condemning you to be who you are forever. you can surrender to truth anytime, god forgives the past, always.

it's neither amoral, nor moral, only a hackjob, because jesus doesn't really exist and you don't really know what happens in her soul (brain, whatever). but all of life is like that. a hackjob. the experience of being converted is no more than another dream she had. you have had many dreams of jesus, even though you are not a christian and even though jesus doesn't exist as anything but a symbol of our culture. it's your culture, after all. and even though jesus doesn't exist, the symbol has a function, that function may have been applied successfully. she may have experienced a moment of being accepted, at peace with all, etc. at least she doesn't have to fear jesus, the dream character, the symbol in her soul, if she makes friends with him. you can't get rid of ideas of that caliber, by disagreeing, you know.

i'm an atheist with spiritual experience.
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
Uhhh....why the diversion? :huh:
Chuck Norris jokes amuse me more than this topic? Humor. Life is funny.


Pascal's Wager does not discuss "authentic conversions," so I'm not sure why you are dragging "love" into it. The logic is: "If I'm not sure if God exists, I should convert and thus escape hell to hedge my bets." What on earth does that have to do with loving God, following God, or asking for forgiveness? Maybe that's where this discussion is getting sidetracked.

If you examine the essence of Pascal's Wager, it should be clear that it refers to "fire insurance" conversions ("I voice belief in God to cover my ass") rather than authentic choices to repent ("I voice belief in God because I realize I was wrong and want to repent, even if I'm still a creep in some ways"), and that is what I have an objection to and what I think the faith itself + JHWH cannot accommodate.
I suppose so, if one values being part of a narrowly-defined Pascal cult. ;) I'm more into Pythagorean Mysticism myself. :D
 

SensEye

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
486
MBTI Type
INTp
Re the OP: It's disrespectful of the deceased person to not honor their funeral wishes. As is revisionist history of her life. So it's kind of sad. But the whole post death ritual is for the living anyways, so if the believers need the conversion crutch to make them feel better, meh.


Do you know who the boogeyman checks his closet for at night before he goes to bed?
If you read the book "I Am Legend" you'd know the answer to this (book, not movie).
 
Top