Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Christian conversions that were not


questionmark

Recommended Posts

Quote

As fans of David Bowie, Prince and Lemmy can attest, death is not the end in contemporary culture. Those who achieve true fame are waved through the pearly gates of marketing heaven, immortalised as a product, a brand – and, on occasion, a spectral arbiter in the battles of the terrestrial plane.

In 2016, the ultimate celebrity endorsement is posthumous. The remain and the leave campaigns have both claimed that Margaret Thatcher would have supported their respective arguments in the EU referendum. The same treatment has been meted out to Churchill, and even Shakespeare.

In this respect the trail was blazed by the world’s great religions, which routinely claim recruits among the dying. Indeed, the faithful have form when it comes to falsifying deathbed conversions – notoriously so in the case of Darwin. In 1915 the evangelist Elizabeth Cotton, better known as Lady Hope of Carriden, declared that the great scientist, readying himself for the end in April 1882, had repudiated his life’s work (“How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done”) and asked her to gather an audience so he could “speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation”.

 

Read more in The Guardian

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does deathbed conversion mean you can commit all sins possible and at the last moment accept Jesus and all will be forgiven?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lying for God is no sin."  --Eusebius

This statement is reprehensible to my concept of morality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

Does deathbed conversion mean you can commit all sins possible and at the last moment accept Jesus and all will be forgiven?

No. In my opinion, the test of a persons morality after "offending" is what they do and not do.

Death-bed confessions are just that, confessions... it means nothing as to the persons future intent or desire because they are dying and have no chance to demonstrate "change"

Confessions are good though, better than nothing at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

Does deathbed conversion mean you can commit all sins possible and at the last moment accept Jesus and all will be forgiven?

That was widely believed in ancient times.  Constantine who displayed the symbol of Christianity - the Chi Rho - on his soldier's shields at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312, did not become a Christian until just before his death in 337.  According to tradition, that was so he would not go to hell for offending Christ after he had become a Christian.

Many Christians believe that once forgiven, it does not matter how one behaves.  It is called "Sola fide" and has been the doctrine of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and some Protestant denominations.  Though many Protestant denominations claim not to accept it, the behavior of some of their members suggests otherwise.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StarMountainKid said:

 

 

This statement is reprehensible to my concept of morality.

Mine too.  But it was "God's Liar" who said it.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the sola fide is not carved in stone forever and ever. only applies if you maintain your relationship with Christ/God. 

we catholics dont think we are "saved" just because we accept jesus like many protestants do. we realize that one can lose their way. 

BTW. do realize that the church is the authority on christianity since they started it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pbarosso said:

 

BTW. do realize that the church is the authority on christianity since they started it.

A big claim, when you consider their history lol. "Invented it" some would say. It would be interesting to know what the early, original christians really believed. It seems that by the time the church gained sway, there was quite a lot of disagreement and diversity of beliefs regarding christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pbarosso said:

the sola fide is not carved in stone forever and ever. only applies if you maintain your relationship with Christ/God. 

we catholics dont think we are "saved" just because we accept jesus like many protestants do. we realize that one can lose their way. 

BTW. do realize that the church is the authority on christianity since they started it.

That would be typical of some protestant sects in the US, at the origin of Protestantism there is "Von der Freiheit des Christenmenschen" and that specifies that it is only your deeds that lead to salvation, nothing else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug

Quote

"Lying for God is no sin."  --Eusebius

I have a sense of deja vu here. Didn't I once ask you for a source for that purported quote?

Regardless, Edward Gibbon stated it (or something much like it) about Eusebius. Gibbon offered two bases for his view. One was a discussion by Eusebius in the context of Greek philosophy about whether lying to somebody "for their own good" was justified. The other was a strained reading of introductory matter from Eusebius' book about the last persecution of Christians in his diocese. Eusebius said he was going to focus on the persecution, rather than rehash controversies within the congregation.

Neither cited matter supports the claim that Eusebius held the view that the quote entails. Eusebius isn't especially reliable, but it may be sloppiness rather than deceit. As the proverb has it, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

On another matter, I agree that one or more Christian emperors did delay their baptism (with its supposed forgiveness of sins) until the end. This reflected political reality (being baptized would subject the empror to pressure from Christian authorities) as well as spiritual calculation.

Whether Constantine was ever Christian is an open question. Constantine may have been a very early example of the phenomenon which is the topic of the thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, they tried to say crap about Crowley, too. They figure it boosts their case somehow if enemies of the church can be made to appear as if they recanted in the end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

Doug

I have a sense of deja vu here. Didn't I once ask you for a source for that purported quote?

Regardless, Edward Gibbon stated it (or something much like it) about Eusebius. Gibbon offered two bases for his view. One was a discussion by Eusebius in the context of Greek philosophy about whether lying to somebody "for their own good" was justified. The other was a strained reading of introductory matter from Eusebius' book about the last persecution of Christians in his diocese. Eusebius said he was going to focus on the persecution, rather than rehash controversies within the congregation.

Neither cited matter supports the claim that Eusebius held the view that the quote entails. Eusebius isn't especially reliable, but it may be sloppiness rather than deceit. As the proverb has it, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

On another matter, I agree that one or more Christian emperors did delay their baptism (with its supposed forgiveness of sins) until the end. This reflected political reality (being baptized would subject the empror to pressure from Christian authorities) as well as spiritual calculation.

Whether Constantine was ever Christian is an open question. Constantine may have been a very early example of the phenomenon which is the topic of the thread.

 

Actually, no you didn't ask for a source.  And it has been so long since I heard it that I would now have no idea where to look.

But thanks for the clarifications.

I have defended Eusebius a couple times in spite of that quote.  He cited a lot of previous books and authors, thus proving that those books existed in his day.  He puts a maximum age on a lot of ancient texts.  Was he lying about them?  How can one mention a book that hasn't been written yet?

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, pbarosso said:

the sola fide is not carved in stone forever and ever. only applies if you maintain your relationship with Christ/God. 

we catholics dont think we are "saved" just because we accept jesus like many protestants do. we realize that one can lose their way. 

BTW. do realize that the church is the authority on christianity since they started it.

As I said:  "...has been...."  I don't know what the currents status of this doctrine is.  Such doctrines are subject to change.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/30/2016 at 7:31 AM, pbarosso said:

the sola fide is not carved in stone forever and ever. only applies if you maintain your relationship with Christ/God. 

we catholics dont think we are "saved" just because we accept jesus like many protestants do. we realize that one can lose their way. 

BTW. do realize that the church is the authority on christianity since they started it.

When you say... "they", I suppose you mean the Catholic Church. If so that is incorrect. Historically there was no Catholic Church until centuries later. The church began in Jerusalem not Rome, so that should be an indication of something not being on the up and up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jor-el said:

When you say... "they", I suppose you mean the Catholic Church. If so that is incorrect. Historically there was no Catholic Church until centuries later. The church began in Jerusalem not Rome, so that should be an indication of something not being on the up and up.

Jor-el -

Do you have a date for the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church? What event indicates its existence at that time?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were 5 Apostolic Sees, of which Rome was only one. As each was destroyed over the centuries or captured by Islam, they all lost prominence to Rome, which insisted in having complete authority over all Christianity. The process was completed when Constantinople fell, leaving Rome to dominate western Christianity. Of course things aren't so simplistic as I stated, but the essence of the idea is present.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jor-el said:

There were 5 Apostolic Sees, of which Rome was only one. As each was destroyed over the centuries or captured by Islam, they all lost prominence to Rome, which insisted in having complete authority over all Christianity. The process was completed when Constantinople fell, leaving Rome to dominate western Christianity. Of course things aren't so simplistic as I stated, but the essence of the idea is present.

 

In other words:  the transition took a long time?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

In other words:  the transition took a long time?

Doug

A few centuries at least, but the process itself started with the council of Nicaea even though before then Rome was already flexing its muscle metaphorically speaking trying to get supremacy. The mythical stories of St. Peters martyrdom in Rome, and his tomb being deep within the Holy See of Rome simply aid that claim, trying to legitimize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the church is continuous from the transition of authority to peter, whether it was called the catholic church then or not. whether or not early churchmen created the story of christ handing peter the responsibility or not, its clear that peter was important even in paul's time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The church, yes. The RCC? No. And these are not necessarily the same thing. And authority was not handed to Peter. The rock was not a reference to Peter. That is yet another mythicism that justified the usurping of authority.

Edited by Jor-el
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea of deathbed confessions are so mutable as to be pointless. Unless there are many witnesses, the observer can say whatever they want and have to be taken at their word. Also, the dying words of someone who could very well be afraid to die are not necessarily an indicator of their innermost thoughts. When scared, humans try to comfort themselves in any way that they can. But, a deathbed confession has the potential to hold as much (and as little) water as a confession prompted via torture.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Podo said:

I think the idea of deathbed confessions are so mutable as to be pointless. Unless there are many witnesses, the observer can say whatever they want and have to be taken at their word. Also, the dying words of someone who could very well be afraid to die are not necessarily an indicator of their innermost thoughts. When scared, humans try to comfort themselves in any way that they can. But, a deathbed confession has the potential to hold as much (and as little) water as a confession prompted via torture.

Not to mention that their brains are likely in a state that facts can easily become obfuscated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Podo said:

 Also, the dying words of someone who could very well be afraid to die are not necessarily an indicator of their innermost thoughts. When scared, humans try to comfort themselves in any way that they can. But, a deathbed confession has the potential to hold as much (and as little) water as a confession prompted via torture.

People who are at ease with their fate and beliefs usually welcome an inevitable death with serenity. An individual who is having second-thoughts to the point of converting on his deathbed must be grappling with doubts and indeed, fear.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that person just loved life so much they didn't want to leave it. As for a death bed confession, that could just have been something they needed to get off their mind before dying. Don't worry truthseeker, death's coming for you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.