Deathbed Confessions

[durangodawood]

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

People arent always alienated from their own motives. I'm a little concerned that you cant see how the kindness motive could be genuine.

 

[durangodawood]

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

What did they do?
How did they feel about later?

 

[grasping the after wind]

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

They lied to their mother on her deathbed about their religious convictions? I don't doubt that or contend that that part does not correspond to the way humans actually function. However, why someone does something is not as easily verified. No matter what they may or may not tell you, you , and I would wager they, don't really know all their actual motivations or which motivations were the primary ones any more than I do.

 

[Caliban]

They lied to their mother on her deathbed about their religious convictions? I don't doubt that or contend that that part does not correspond to the way humans actually function. However, why someone does something is not as easily verified. No matter what they may or may not tell you, you , and I would wager they, don't really know all their actual motivations or which motivations were the primary ones any more than I do.

One was a 34 year old man who said the sinners prayer with his grandfather. His grandfather had been worried about his salvation for about five or so years because he walked away from religion after the Iraq war. I served with him--he's not lying to me about his experience.

The other is a 40 year old female friend of mine who's mom died of cancer. She wanted to see her daughter in heaven. My friend had been an outspoken atheist since high school; she told her mom that she would see her in heaven with Christ.

In both cases, the dying family members had comfort that their younger family members were saved.

It isn't always hypothetical. I made it hypothetical for this discussion to generate conversation. But this stuff actually happens.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

One was a 34 year old man who said the sinners prayer with his grandfather.


His grandfather had been worried about his salvation for about five or so years because he walked away from religion after the Iraq war. I served with him--he's not lying to me about his experience.

The other is a 40 year old female friend of mine who's mom died of cancer. She wanted to see her daughter in heaven. My friend had been an outspoken atheist since high school; she told her mom that she would see her in heaven with Christ.

In both cases, the dying family members had comfort that their younger family members were saved.

It isn't always hypothetical. I made it hypothetical for this discussion to generate conversation. But this stuff actually happens.

Does that get one there?
M

 

[Caliban]

Does that get one there?
M

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking if the sinners prayer can get someone to heaven? My answer would be no.

 

[grasping the after wind]

People arent always alienated from their own motives. I'm a little concerned that you cant see how the kindness motive could be genuine.

People are complex they can have multiple motives for doing things. They can also convince themselves that they are motivated only by kindness instead of mostly by self interest because they want to see their actions in the best possible light. IMO The more one is truthful with oneself, the less one will be false with others and the less one will look for reasons why being false with others is a good thing.

 

[grasping the after wind]

One was a 34 year old man who said the sinners prayer with his grandfather. His grandfather had been worried about his salvation for about five or so years because he walked away from religion after the Iraq war. I served with him--he's not lying to me about his experience.

The other is a 40 year old female friend of mine who's mom died of cancer. She wanted to see her daughter in heaven. My friend had been an outspoken atheist since high school; she told her mom that she would see her in heaven with Christ.

In both cases, the dying family members had comfort that their younger family members were saved.

It isn't always hypothetical. I made it hypothetical for this discussion to generate conversation. But this stuff actually happens.

As I said I don't doubt that it happens. I just cannot assume the motive , nor can I assume the loved one is fooled. Motive and gullibility aside, my opinion that telling a falsehood to another because one wants to control the others emotional state is a form of self supremacy. One is considering that one is in a position to control the emotional state of another by what one tells them that is false. That infantilizes the person and elevates oneself to superior status over them. It is somewhat narcissistic to believe that one has such control over the emotional state of another that one can manipulate that person into whatever state of contentment with their life's end that one wishes by lying to them.

 

[Caliban]

As I said I don't doubt that it happens. I just cannot assume the motive , nor can I assume the loved one is fooled. Motive and gullibility aside, my opinion that telling a falsehood to another because one wants to control the others emotional state is a form of self supremacy. One is considering that one is in a position to control the emotional state of another by what one tells them that is false. That infantilizes the person and elevates oneself to superior status over them. It is somewhat narcissistic to believe that one has such control over the emotional state of another that one can manipulate that person into whatever state of contentment with their life's end that one wishes by lying to them.

I don't think the son's action infantilizes the mother in this case. In emotional state, she has weakened her own ability to negotiate with herself concerning the religious conclusions her son has made. Her inability to come to terms with her sons non belief has caused her distress. Instead of spending her remaining time with him in positive conversation, she has somehow caused enough tension that the son is considering lying to her just to get passed the tension and allow her to have some semblance of peace before she dies. He is not infantilizing her; he is responding to her inability to come to terms with the fact he doesn't share he belief.

Maybe, like you said, he is trying to control her emotional state. I see no problem with that. We do that every day. A child is upset, the parent tries to comfort them. A wife is sad, the husband brings flowers home. Many people pay therapists to help regulate their emotional state. The son is simply attempting to be kind to her in her last moments.

I don't think I would handle the situation in such a way, but I don't think it is wrong.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't think the son's action infantilizes the mother in this case. In emotional state, she has weakened her own ability to negotiate with herself concerning the religious conclusions her son has made. Her inability to come to terms with her sons non belief has caused her distress. Instead of spending her remaining time with him in positive conversation, she has somehow caused enough tension that the son is considering lying to her just to get passed the tension and allow her to have some semblance of peace before she dies. He is not infantilizing her; he is responding to her inability to come to terms with the fact he doesn't share he belief.

Maybe, like you said, he is trying to control her emotional state. I see no problem with that. We do that every day. A child is upset, the parent tries to comfort them. A wife is sad, the husband brings flowers home. Many people pay therapists to help regulate their emotional state. The son is simply attempting to be kind to her in her last moments.

I don't think I would handle the situation in such a way, but I don't think it is wrong.

People have different codes. I speak for myself when I say something is immoral. It is something I believe that people ought not do. Sometimes I will be faced with the dilemma that there are no completely morally upright courses of action open to me. Then I must decide which immoral action I find the least offensive. That is no science or art just a personal preference. When i consider other people's actions I will first be struck with whether the other person did what I would have done. I perceive their action as immoral if it varies from the action that I want myself to take. That does not mean the other person finds it immoral and that doesn't mean either fo us is correct. Morality is completely subjective but I don't believe considering one's morality to be relative is going to produce the most beneficial results. Human nature will cause one to rationalize immoral behavior as moral relative to the circumstances apart from any actual necessity for that behavior under those circumstances.

 

[Caliban]

Morality is completely subjective

I agree. We all decide what we think is moral and immoral. I don't believe in a universal standard of morality. I think these things are negotiated.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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

Ok... when I was young my family went through something similar. My grandmother died while my great grandmother was in the hospital, close to death herself. My great grandmother, who was very worried about her child, asked how she was doing. My mother, who was in the room, told the dying woman that her daughter was going to recover. She was very, very pleased at this news. She died shortly after, content. I know this to be true, because she specifically told my mother that she was content.

This was done solely to make her feel better, which it did. And honestly, even if it wasn’t solely to make my grandmother feel better, it did anyway. The amount of potential suffering in this case was reduced, with no negative effects.

Now you have an actual example to respond to.

 

[Caliban]

Ok... when I was young my family went through something similar. My grandmother died while my great grandmother was in the hospital, close to death herself. My great grandmother, who was very worried about her child, asked how she was doing. My mother, who was in the room, told the dying woman that her daughter was going to recover. She was very, very pleased at this news. She died shortly after, content. I know this to be true, because she specifically told my mother that she was content.

This was done solely to make her feel better, which it did. And honestly, even if it wasn’t solely to make my grandmother feel better, it did anyway. The amount of potential suffering in this case was reduced, with no negative effects.

Now you have an actual example to respond to.

Thanks for sharing that story.

 

[com7fy8]

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.

Then if you are consistent, in my opinion > if God knows an unborn child is a living human, you agree that it is immoral to kill kids while they are unborn and have done no wrong, at all. After all, if it is evil to execute a man who has refused all legitimate efforts to correct him and has rejected the loving and good example of everyone, then certainly it would be wrong to kill a child unborn who has not done any wrong!!

As far as I know, this topic needs to be in its own thread > so, I have started another thread to cover this topic > starting with your quote, above, here >

Would it be "moral" for God to order the killing of children? | Christian Forums

Heaven must be unbearable if you know your eternity is matched by the eternal torment of people you loved on earth.

In the new thread, linked above, I have also shared my personal perspective about you have said here.

 

[com7fy8]

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.

I keep finding it so interesting how we humans can have different ways of understanding things.

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?

Its all about giving the mother comfort.

he feels pity for his confused mother.

So, this mother is a "confused" person, and God's word says,

"God is not the author of confusion but of peace," in 1 Corinthians 14:33.

So, she is not ready to die right; so it would be wrong just to emotionally euthanize her and send her on not really ready to die with an unconfused and sound mind. So, in case he would be happy to do this, I see a problem with that.

Indeed, there are people claiming to be Christian, but they are not living God's way. And there are unbelievers who claim to pity them. But they do not help them to genuinely get into living and loving in God's peace. So, in case she is someone who is wrong, it is wrong to tell her she is right by making a false confession to her wrong way of Christianity which has brought her to a confused deathbed. Plus, the lier needs to get with God, too.

But, yes, we have humans who are happy to be wrong. There are ones who were extremely feeling happy while speeding along driving drunk, right before they died in a fatal crash and brought other people's children along with them. So, happy is not a measure of morality, I would say.

And being happy to emotionally euthanize a confused person is not right; but, of course, the person needed earlier to get with God so He would make her clear and make her a good example to help people, including her son, before she died.

But it is indicated you do not think she provided him with a genuine example which would be worthy of him to follow; and so he merely pitied her, at her end. That on the overall is not moral, from an emotional and spiritual . . . and eternal . . . perspective, I would say.

So, now you will possibly reword your question, again. It seems you are steering your rewording in a direction to hypothesizing that there is no God and so her son is right to be happy and she has to be confused by being any sort of a Christian. Well, if there is no God > that would leave the evolutionary "survival of the fittest" possibility, I understand.

She would be only a bunch of molecules and atoms and photosynthesized sun energy going into recycle mode. Making her feel good for an instant . . . I guess . . . would make no real difference. The neurons would fire up, some oxycontin would flow, then the light is out. And the molecules and atoms and converted sun energy can be recycled in other life forms and as nonliving materials.

But, of course, he might feel good. And if this is your standard for what is moral, then by your standard it would be moral.

But if there is God, she could die and then find out he lied to her. Also, if she really was confused because she was not with God and ready to die well . . . already for years she has been fooling herself; so her son keeping that going instead of trying to help her would be him only helping her to keep fooling herself so she would die confused.

I mean, in case you can understand my explanation > if he makes her feel good - - by confessing to her false way of Christianity which has gotten her into confusion instead of with Jesus in "rest for your souls" (Matthew 5:46) . . . then he would not be loving her, in my opinion. But even if he prayed for her and used scripture to try to help her, she could have become hardened so she would not listen to him, even at her time of death.

Maybe you will reword your question now, with other than an eternal or evolutionary perspective to it? Your hypothesizing seems to be steering and re-steering so only your answer can become acceptable. Be we are in a Christian forum, where we do share Christian and Biblical perspective.

 

[Caliban]

I keep finding it so interesting how we humans can have different ways of understanding things.





So, this mother is a "confused" person, and God's word says,

"God is not the author of confusion but of peace," in 1 Corinthians 14:33.

So, she is not ready to die right; so it would be wrong just to emotionally euthanize her and send her on not really ready to die with an unconfused and sound mind. So, in case he would be happy to do this, I see a problem with that.

Indeed, there are people claiming to be Christian, but they are not living God's way. And there are unbelievers who claim to pity them. But they do not help them to genuinely get into living and loving in God's peace. So, in case she is someone who is wrong, it is wrong to tell her she is right by making a false confession to her wrong way of Christianity which has brought her to a confused deathbed. Plus, the lier needs to get with God, too.

But, yes, we have humans who are happy to be wrong. There are ones who were extremely feeling happy while speeding along driving drunk, right before they died in a fatal crash and brought other people's children along with them. So, happy is not a measure of morality, I would say.

And being happy to emotionally euthanize a confused person is not right; but, of course, the person needed earlier to get with God so He would make her clear and make her a good example to help people, including her son, before she died.

But it is indicated you do not think she provided him with a genuine example which would be worthy of him to follow; and so he merely pitied her, at her end. That on the overall is not moral, from an emotional and spiritual . . . and eternal . . . perspective, I would say.

So, now you will possibly reword your question, again. It seems you are steering your rewording in a direction to hypothesizing that there is no God and so her son is right to be happy and she has to be confused by being any sort of a Christian. Well, if there is no God > that would leave the evolutionary "survival of the fittest" possibility, I understand.

She would be only a bunch of molecules and atoms and photosynthesized sun energy going into recycle mode. Making her feel good for an instant . . . I guess . . . would make no real difference. The neurons would fire up, some oxycontin would flow, then the light is out. And the molecules and atoms and converted sun energy can be recycled in other life forms and as nonliving materials.

But, of course, he might feel good. And if this is your standard for what is moral, then by your standard it would be moral.

But if there is God, she could die and then find out he lied to her. Also, if she really was confused because she was not with God and ready to die well . . . already for years she has been fooling herself; so her son keeping that going instead of trying to help her would be him only helping her to keep fooling herself so she would die confused.

I mean, in case you can understand my explanation > if he makes her feel good - - by confessing to her false way of Christianity which has gotten her into confusion instead of with Jesus in "rest for your souls" (Matthew 5:46) . . . then he would not be loving her, in my opinion. But even if he prayed for her and used scripture to try to help her, she could have become hardened so she would not listen to him, even at her time of death.

Maybe you will reword your question now, with other than an eternal or evolutionary perspective to it? Your hypothesizing seems to be steering and re-steering so only your answer can become acceptable. Be we are in a Christian forum, where we do share Christian and Biblical perspective.

But what if you don't base your moral reasoning on the Bible? Would that change how people might think about the situation?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I agree. We all decide what we think is moral and immoral. I don't believe in a universal standard of morality. I think these things are negotiated.

I don't agree with that. I think that morality is subjective but not collaborative. I don't need to negotiate with anyone to come to conclusions about what is right and wrong. I also subscribe to a universal standard of morality. A subjective one.

 

[Caliban]

I don't agree with that. I think that morality is subjective but not collaborative. I don't need to negotiate with anyone to come to conclusions about what is right and wrong. I also subscribe to a universal standard of morality. A subjective one.

I said nothing about collaboration--again you inferred incorrectly. We are individuals--we make moral decision based on what we think. You do, I do, we do. We are all human, therefore we process similarly.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

I don't know that there is an objectively right answer to this question. If it alleviates her suffering, even in some very tiny way, I think that's a good thing. On the other hand, there is a part of me that finds it very sad that one of the last things one might do is deceive someone they live.

So I don't even know that there is a right answer to the question. I think, honestly, this is just one of those things an individual would have to decide for themselves, it has to be a personal choice of conscience for the individual.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

No. I think it shows a lack of integrity.

In thinking about the video more, I think that honesty in a radical, absolute type sense it can work. Basically, people like to come up with extreme case "thought experiments", dilemmas etc. But generally it never explored the notion of the path that got you there. Hitler and concentration camps did not just appear over night for instance. There is a gradual build up to that, and along that path there is lots of people doing things like "picking their battles", "taking the path of least resistance" etc. and kind of lying to themselves, turning a blind eye etc. that actually allows that sort of thing.

So the radical truth end of things can work, that is if you can stomach immediately standing up to it and being one of the first casualties of Totalitarianism or whatever Social Ill is running around. Martyred Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer being an example often cited for such things.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I like that perspective. And as a lapsed Lutheran, I approve.

If you are going to lie about something expediently, don't put yourself in the position to dodge the consequences of doing so. A false deathbed confession is one such occurance. A "little white lie" of that type doesn't hurt anybody, does it? Of course it does. It encourages people to live dishonest lives in general. Much better for people to face up to their religious differences before they die, than to be so careless with truth.