Deathbed Confessions

[Caliban]

Must be a very fine line
when calling lieing the moral thing to do.

Seems the devil might often use that tool?

M

I'm pretty sure there is no devil; but there are people who behave like one. Lying to Nazis in order to protect Jews during the Holocaust is the classic example of when truth telling is immoral. Telling a terminally sick patient it's going to be okay, is probably not immoral.

 

[com7fy8]

For example, The NT says to hate your mother and father. Now I understand the difference context makes, and that passage is in relation to Christ, but it still does not elevate family. Other passaged however do elevate family. It requires a lot of cherry picking for me.

The Trinity has Persons with family names > Father and Son.

My personal take about "hating" my mother and father is this means for me to get rid of anything in me which is a selfish personality way that I picked up from my parents. But there are good things I have gained because of my parents, and I would say Jesus does not mean for me to get rid of these. But do make good use of things. And do not put pride in things which can be good, but humble it all. "Hate" might mean, then, to humble myself with all I have gotten through my parents. I think of this, right now.

So . . . thank you for making me think, this early in the morning lololololololol

1 Timothy 3:1-10 to me means God wants an experienced family man to be a pastor. His seminary has been his home, his wife his main professor to help him find out how to love and care for people, in God's family caring and sharing way. Our Apostle Paul has given these standards.

But, of course, ones claim Paul is anti-woman. But I will offer 1 Thessalonians 2:7 which says Paul and Silvanus and Timothy related with the Thessalonians "just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children." So, from this I can see how maybe these great men learned how to love with the help of Christian women and how they took care of their children.

Now I think of this > Jesus says,

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" in Matthew 5:46.

We humans can have a way of only loving those we can use and possess. Families, then, can be little in-crowds so they do not love any and all people the way God wants. But Jesus wants us to become all-loving and ready to adopt others who have trusted in Jesus, so we can help each other grow in how God has us loving. So, hating our own family members can mean we stop loving them in our selfish way and possessive and exclusive ways, but love them along with any and all people, as ourselves.

With Jesus, we adopt and discover others who are with God our Father, and these are our brothers and sisters, in His love family all-loving, not only loyal to a few others and maybe with some code of silence to cover up wrong things. But we help one another to get rid of wrong things which are anti-all-loving, like can be in families.

In my case, I think my family was white upper-middle class; we were not racist, but I think we had exclusive ways which effected how we related with various people, while my parents had an in-crowd for parties and tennis. And from this I picked up that it was fine to judge women by what they looked like, and I could bully kids who were less popular in school > my parents could talk down about certain people; so I maybe took that further to find it was ok to also bully kids who were talked down upon in school > obviously my parents did not approve of that, but my bullying could have been a step from how they could do things in their conceit . . . something Jesus would mean for me to hate, so I now can see this and invest in becoming more of an all-loving person with more and more adopted love-family people.

And so, Jesus is not really anti-family, but pro-bigger-family!

 

[Caliban]

The Trinity has Persons with family names > Father and Son.

My personal take about "hating" my mother and father is this means for me to get rid of anything in me which is a selfish personality way that I picked up from my parents. But there are good things I have gained because of my parents, and I would say Jesus does not mean for me to get rid of these. But do make good use of things. And do not put pride in things which can be good, but humble it all. "Hate" might mean, then, to humble myself with all I have gotten through my parents. I think of this, right now.

So . . . thank you for making me think, this early in the morning lololololololol

1 Timothy 3:1-10 to me means God wants an experienced family man to be a pastor. His seminary has been his home, his wife his main professor to help him find out how to love and care for people, in God's family caring and sharing way. Our Apostle Paul has given these standards.

But, of course, ones claim Paul is anti-woman. But I will offer 1 Thessalonians 2:7 which says Paul and Silvanus and Timothy related with the Thessalonians "just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children." So, from this I can see how maybe these great men learned how to love with the help of Christian women and how they took care of their children.

Now I think of this > Jesus says,

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" in Matthew 5:46.

We humans can have a way of only loving those we can use and possess. Families, then, can be little in-crowds so they do not love any and all people the way God wants. But Jesus wants us to become all-loving and ready to adopt others who have trusted in Jesus, so we can help each other grow in how God has us loving. So, hating our own family members can mean we stop loving them in our selfish way and possessive and exclusive ways, but love them along with any and all people, as ourselves.

With Jesus, we adopt and discover others who are with God our Father, and these are our brothers and sisters, in His love family all-loving, not only loyal to a few others and maybe with some code of silence to cover up wrong things. But we help one another to get rid of wrong things which are anti-all-loving, like can be in families.

In my case, I think my family was white upper-middle class; we were not racist, but I think we had exclusive ways which effected how we related with various people, while my parents had an in-crowd for parties and tennis. And from this I picked up that it was fine to judge women by what they looked like, and I could bully kids who were less popular in school > my parents could talk down about certain people; so I maybe took that further to find it was ok to also bully kids who were talked down upon in school > obviously my parents did not approve of that, but my bullying could have been a step from how they could do things in their conceit . . . something Jesus would mean for me to hate, so I now can see this and invest in becoming more of an all-loving person with more and more adopted love-family people.

And so, Jesus is not really anti-family, but pro-bigger-family!

I'm sorry, but stoning your wife and kids for any reason is anti family--regardless of what Jesus later said about it (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). God said to stone family members--wait--wasn't Jesus God? So Jesus said to stone your kids, and then changed his mind. Who can believe this is moral?

 

[com7fy8]

Telling a terminally sick patient it's going to be okay, is probably not immoral.

That could depend on context. You would not say everything is going to be ok, because you will be dead . . . obviously.

If the person could need to take care of certain concerns and relationship issues, and has little time to do so, it might not be ethical to tell the person he or she is going to live a long time and recover, just to make him or her feel good.

But in an Alzheimer's unit of a nursing home, a lady can come and ask if she can get in touch with her sister who you know has died. If you tell her her sister died, she could break down in a major emotional turmoil and torment for who knows how long . . . as long as it might take for her to forget what you told her. At least her memory of what you say could be limited to a few minutes at the most.

But then five minutes later, here she is again asking for her sister!!

If you don't believe in lying, you at least don't keep telling her all day long so she is freshly grieving her sister twenty times a day.

I guess you could deflect, by saying, "Oh, do you have a sister? Tell me about her." And maybe after a few seconds she will forget what the subject is, and you might suggest she do some thing, ask her how she's doing; and then ask if there is anything you can do for her; and if she does not mention her sister, this can help confirm she has indeed already forgotten even why she came to you, in the first place.

Ones say that you can tell certain nursing home residents the same joke, and after every five minutes they will laugh at the same joke because they already have forgotten it.

 

[Caliban]

That could depend on context.

Of course it does because morality is relative. This is why people need to be better at developing critical thinking tools and apply them to morality--also called situational ethics.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Usually we hear about a person confessing belief on their deathbed. But, imagine a non-believer at the bed of their mother who is a believer. She emotionally suffers because her son is not saved. He could make a false confession of faith before she dies and limit her emotional suffering by thinking he is now saved.

Is it moral or immoral for him to lie to her about his confession of faith in order to give her comfort before she dies?

@Caliban I was very curious about your avatar and thought it looked like Picasso and did a search on it. lol never heard the story of him carrying the gun filled with blanks before!

 

[com7fy8]

I'm sorry, but stoning your wife and kids for any reason is anti family--regardless of what Jesus later said about it (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). God said to stone family members--wait--wasn't Jesus God? So Jesus said to stone your kids, and then changed his mind. Who can believe this is moral?

And if I remember correctly, adultery is a stoning offense; so is raping another man's fiancée.

And Jesus did not say not to stone the adulteress, but let the one without sin cast the first stone.

This scripture you have quoted is not talking about stoning a kid, if kid means a child. This is talking about a drunk and sloth, I understand, because I do not think younger children already became alcoholics and independent enough to escape responsibilities. And the scripture says the son was taken to the authorities, only after parents have done all they reasonably can to bring up and correct their son. And still he is so anti-family and anti-responsibility and so dishonoring his own parents who have done all within reason to help him grow up to be about family and love and responsibility.

And he knows what God's word says is to be the result of what he is doing.

The scriptures are clear what to do with him.

But this is in context of a family culture. The Jews with God were to consider themselves a family nation of God, all brothers and sisters. There was meant to be a good example to help show children the right way to go to love as a family nation; so I see this command is meant in a situation of such a culture of family love and example.

So, if a child went around drunk and not helping, this was directly against who and how God is and how the Jews were . . . were supposed to be, maybe I should say . . . sharing and caring as His family.

Actually, the Jews never stayed permanently with loving God and sharing as His family. Even with the death penalty to enforce this, along with how God proves Himself so, it did not work! All that was not enough!! That is an object lesson of how nothing can work, without Jesus.

And now we can see how ruining and destructive and cruel people can be, by drinking and drugging and how this can effect families, and result in various sorts of deaths; so what we are seeing now could show how God knows that substance abuse can result in the killing of innocent people; so, practically, I can see how the death penalty could be helping protect innocent family members from being killed and from evil example which could help cause younger kids to grow up to become ruined in substance abuse and various horrible ways of relating in households, like abusers can do. But our present abuse problem is in a culture where anyone can pretty much do what he or she jolly well pleases > there is no family example of a nation as a whole and this for God. And so Jesus likely would say let the one without sin cast the first stone; and if you don't like what your culture has produced; stop the selfish culture of independence which helps to produce it.

 

[Caliban]

@Caliban I was very curious about your avatar and thought it looked like Picasso and did a search on it. lol never heard the story of him carrying the gun filled with blanks before!

Ya, it's funny. Apparently he used to pull it out and fire it at people--snooty art collector types. He sounds fun.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Ya, it's funny. Apparently he used to pull it out and fire it at people--snooty art collector types. He sounds fun.

I take it the laws against assault were liberal or not really enforced, since that could get you in jail in the US.

 

[Caliban]

And if I remember correctly, adultery is a stoning offense; so is raping another man's fiancée.

And Jesus did not say not to stone the adulteress, but let the one without sin cast the first stone.

This scripture you have quoted is not talking about stoning a kid, if kid means a child. This is talking about a drunk and sloth, I understand, because I do not think younger children already became alcoholics and independent enough to escape responsibilities. And the scripture says the son was taken to the authorities, only after parents have done all they reasonably can to bring up and correct their son. And still he is so anti-family and anti-responsibility and so dishonoring his own parents who have done all within reason to help him grow up to be about family and love and responsibility.

And he knows what God's word says is to be the result of what he is doing.

The scriptures are clear what to do with him.

But this is in context of a family culture. The Jews with God were to consider themselves a family nation of God, all brothers and sisters. There was meant to be a good example to help show children the right way to go to love as a family nation; so I see this command is meant in a situation of such a culture of family love and example.

So, if a child went around drunk and not helping, this was directly against who and how God is and how the Jews were . . . were supposed to be, maybe I should say . . . sharing and caring as His family.

Actually, the Jews never stayed permanently with loving God and sharing as His family. Even with the death penalty to enforce this, along with how God proves Himself so, it did not work! All that was not enough!! That is an object lesson of how nothing can work, without Jesus.

And now we can see how ruining and destructive and cruel people can be, by drinking and drugging and how this can effect families, and result in various sorts of deaths; so what we are seeing now could show how God knows that substance abuse can result in the killing of innocent people; so, practically, I can see how the death penalty could be helping protect innocent family members from being killed and from evil example which could help cause younger kids to grow up to become ruined in substance abuse and various horrible ways of relating in households, like abusers can do. But our present abuse problem is in a culture where anyone can pretty much do what he or she jolly well pleases > there is no family example of a nation as a whole and this for God. And so Jesus likely would say let the one without sin cast the first stone; and if you don't like what your culture has produced; stop the selfish culture of independence which helps to produce it.

Jesus did not say not to stone the adulteress, but let the one without sin cast the first stone.

You missed my point. God instructed the Jews to stone rebellious family members--Jesus is God. So logic dictates...

It doesn't matter why God instructed children to be stoned--it is immoral.

 

[com7fy8]

It doesn't matter why God instructed children to be stoned--it is immoral.

. . . not what God means.

Also, it was intended so it would not be necessary. I see how now "children" . . . people old enough to make choices are causing various ways of people getting killed and families being ruined, because of how they go about their substance abuse. Ones are directly killing and indirectly killing people. So, I can see why the death penalty could be used to protect people's lives.

But ones do not even take such lethally dangerous people out of commission, but they enable them with short prison terms and renewed licenses and catering to how certain ones put on that they can't help it and everyone has to do what they want so they will be happy and behave themselves, which ones turn out not to do . . . while they kill directly and indirectly kill > this includes how they show off what they are doing so kids can pick up from their bad example and themselves get killed or kill.

So, I think it is moral to effectively defend people from such people. And God says how, but this does not work, of course, not to mention how most will not obey this, because the world takes care of its own. Only Jesus works.

 

[Caliban]

. . . not what God means.

Also, it was intended so it would not be necessary. I see how now "children" . . . people old enough to make choices are causing various ways of people getting killed and families being ruined, because of how they go about their substance abuse. Ones are directly killing and indirectly killing people. So, I can see why the death penalty could be used to protect people's lives.

But ones do not even take such lethally dangerous people out of commission, but they enable them with short prison terms and renewed licenses and catering to how certain ones put on that they can't help it and everyone has to do what they want so they will be happy and behave themselves, which ones turn out not to do . . . while they kill directly and indirectly kill > this includes how they show off what they are doing so kids can pick up from their bad example and themselves get killed or kill.

So, I think it is moral to effectively defend people from such people. And God says how, but this does not work, of course, not to mention how most will not obey this, because the world takes care of its own. Only Jesus works.

I think it helps to quote the passage at length:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 ESV
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

It says stubborn and rebellious--nothing about "lethally dangerous people," as you say. You have misrepresented what the text actually says. There is zero excuse for this. This cannot be justified no matter the what. This is horrible and you wouldn't do it to your own family because you have better moral instincts. You are a better person--I'm sure.

This is morally unjustifiable. Any attempt to defend it is repulsive. This is obviously why Jesus thought it was a bad idea. He understood it was wrong. But, in Christian theology, Jesus is God. That causes an inherent moral problem that my position is not tainted with. I understand that people had different moral instincts in the ancient world, but I one believes in an eternal and omniscient God, it is a problem. I would advise that people not attempt to defend obvious immorality simply because they venerate the texts of their religious scripture.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Usually we hear about a person confessing belief on their deathbed. But, imagine a non-believer at the bed of their mother who is a believer. She emotionally suffers because her son is not saved. He could make a false confession of faith before she dies and limit her emotional suffering by thinking he is now saved.

Is it moral or immoral for him to lie to her about his confession of faith in order to give her comfort before she dies?

Lying to make someone feel better abut you is immoral IMO. Just because mother is dying why would one treat her as an inferior incapable of handling the truth ? Infantilizing her by making decisions for her about what will ease her passing rather than respecting her strength and character that give her the ability to deal with the truth ? Telling her a lie might make her passing more difficult as she will most likely see through the subterfuge and feel much worse knowing how little her child thought of her ability to cope with the truth.

 

[Caliban]

Lying to make someone feel better abut you is immoral IMO. Just because mother is dying why would one treat her as an inferior incapable of handling the truth ? Infantilizing her by making decisions for her about what will ease her passing rather than respecting her strength and character that give her the ability to deal with the truth ? Telling her a lie might make her passing more difficult as she will most likely see through the subterfuge and feel much worse knowing how little her child thought of her ability to cope with the truth.

For the sake of the hypothetical we can assume the mother would believe him/her.

Why would lying to make someone feel better be immoral?

 

[durangodawood]

Lying to make someone feel better abut you is immoral IMO. Just because mother is dying why would one treat her as an inferior incapable of handling the truth ? Infantilizing her by making decisions for her about what will ease her passing rather than respecting her strength and character that give her the ability to deal with the truth ? Telling her a lie might make her passing more difficult as she will most likely see through the subterfuge and feel much worse knowing how little her child thought of her ability to cope with the truth.

Its not about her feeling "better about you". Its just her feeling "better". Clearly the OP is not talking about assuaging one's own ego, or relieving oneself from guilt. Its all about giving the mother comfort.

 

[grasping the after wind]

For the sake of the hypothetical we can assume the mother would believe him/her.

Why would lying to make someone feel better be immoral?

First, assuming that the mother would believe is not reasonable. No one knows that the person one is intending to tell a lie to will believe them. One that assumes such a thing is already guilty of dealing in confirmation bias.

Second, I am skeptical that people 's strongest motivation for lying is to make someone else feel better. I suspect that there is often a double lie going on. The lie to the other and the lie to oneself that one is only lying to make the other feel better. I can't read minds so I cannot say what any other person is actually thinking, but I do know from my own experience that when I have lied in any such similar situation that I rationalized that it was because I wanted to make someone feel better when in reality it was because I wanted to make myself feel better or to avoid the consequences of telling the truth. I always wanted very much to believe the lie I told myself and it has taken a lot of years of self examination and soul searching to admit the truth to myself. I believe people often lie a s a way of avoiding telling the truth in order to make their own life easier but tell themselves they are doing it to make others feel better.

Third, is what I said earlier about placing oneself in the position of the superior dealing with an inferior and taking away that person's right to not be lied to based upon one's feeling that one knows better than that person does what would make that person feel better.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Its not about her feeling "better about you". Its just her feeling "better". Clearly the OP is not talking about assuaging one's own ego, or relieving oneself from guilt. Its all about giving the mother comfort.

I am skeptical that it is all about giving the mother comfort. People are hard wired to assign the most benevolent motives to self serving actions.

 

[durangodawood]

I am skeptical that it is all about giving the mother comfort. People are hard wired to assign the most benevolent motives to self serving actions.

Those were the terms of the hypothetical.

The point is to discuss the moral problems reveled by that hypothetical and not some other one.

(I do agree that we often paper over our own real motives. But its not always that way.)

 

[grasping the after wind]

Those were the terms of the hypothetical.

The point is to discuss the moral problems reveled by that hypothetical and not some other one.

A hypothetical that does not correspond to the way people actually function is useless in discussing a moral problem that actual people would encounter.

 

[Caliban]

A hypothetical that does not correspond to the way people actually function is useless in discussing a moral problem that actual people would encounter.

I know two people whom this actually happened to. It happens.