Another Fake Deathbed Conversion

This time it's the crocodile hunter, Steve Irwin. Within days of his death, emails began to circulate claiming that he had converted to Christianity just before he died. And guess what? It was spread by creationists. There's a shock. Creation Ministries International broadcast this alleged conversion, which they then had to retract when it turned out to be nonsense. Snopes has all the details here. This really is one of the most annoying things about religious zealots. They simply cannot let a man die in peace if he wasn't one of them. This has been going on for centuries. It happened to Voltaire, to Jefferson, to Darwin, and virtually every other prominent non-Christian who has died.

More like this

Maybe it's time to start a Deathbed Conversion Pool. We have...

Daniel Dennett, 2:1
PZ Myers, 4:1
Richard Dawkins, 100:1

For betting purposes, remember that the odds aren't dependent on actual conversion, only apologetic conversion, salvation by proxy.

Jim;

If one of them appears at a seance, does that count?

It's not quite the same as a deathbed conversion, but there is a Japanese legend that Jesus moved to Japan after escaping the crucifixion. Apparently he lived a long life as a farmer and maried a Japanese woman.

Although I admit, I find that story more endearing- even sweet, since it's like they want to adopt Jesus- than I do these deathbed conversions. Which I think of as stupid lies used to get more converts. If even the worst of the worst like Voltaire and Darwin converted, then surely anyone can...

(And I'd definitely put money on Dawkins, but Steve Irwin? Where did that come from? Totally left field...)

Is this deathbed-conversion stuff done only by christian zealots, or does it happen in other religions as well?

Many alternative-medicine woo-woos insist that Louis Pasteur rejected the germ theory of disease (in favor of Bechamp's "soil theory") on his deathbed.

Non-Christian. Hell! It happens to Christians, too. Consider that Darwin was given a state funeral, with hymns written just for the occasion, and buried in Westminster Abbey. Why would he have needed to "convert?"

It's more than the fictional conversions. It's the fictional attribution of evil philosophy, the fictional attribution of atheism, to anyone who disagrees on any issue, no matter how minor.

I conversed with a Methodist creationist recently who stopped talking when I pointed out his church's official position on evolution was not his position. No doubt he's hoping for a deathbed conversion of the entire church.

You guys are funny. That's what I love about reading this blog. Everyone's the smartest, most educated, beyond reproach, elite, macho and ... great gamblers. You've got a 50/50 chance, so bet the farm. As for me ... I get better odds in Vegas, and Heaven. Can't prove it ... neither can anyone else. However, I don't ever go to sleep wondering ... could it be? ... is it possible? ... am I right? ... what if I'm not? If you are all right, then we'll all have a laugh when we're out of here (or do nothing at all). If I'm right ... well, you know.

That's what I love about reading this blog. Everyone's the smartest, most educated, beyond reproach, elite, macho and ... great gamblers.

So, what you love about reading this blog is making stuff up about the other readers?

Howard wrote:

You guys are funny. That's what I love about reading this blog. Everyone's the smartest, most educated, beyond reproach, elite, macho and ... great gamblers. You've got a 50/50 chance, so bet the farm. As for me ... I get better odds in Vegas, and Heaven. Can't prove it ... neither can anyone else. However, I don't ever go to sleep wondering ... could it be? ... is it possible? ... am I right? ... what if I'm not? If you are all right, then we'll all have a laugh when we're out of here (or do nothing at all). If I'm right ... well, you know.

For crying out loud, Pascal's Wager is convincing only to the delusional and the stupid. You don't have a 50/50 chance because your religion is not the only one that claims that bad things will happen to you if you don't believe. What if you're wrong and the Muslims are right? Your failure to pray 5 times a day toward Mecca will land you in hell. What if the Hindus are right? You'll be reincarnated as a rat. Hell, what if the one true religion died out and it's really Huitzlpocthtli we're all supposed to be worshipping? Pascal's Wager would demand that you follow all of those religions in case one of them is right. So much for 50/50. Sorry, only someone incapable of rational thought would offer this argument up. You're in way out of your depth here, Howard.

Re: Howard and his dumber version of Pascal's Wager...

You know, it's pretty bad when you put forth an argument that was effectively debunked by Homer Simpson.

("But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make god madder and madder!")

By MJ Memphis (not verified) on 27 Sep 2006 #permalink

That's what I love ... you guys have got it all figured out. You are smarter than anyone ... at least in your own mind. OOPS ... the Bible says that each one is only responsible for the amount of "light" that has been shown them. Translation for you bright guys ... the man in Africa who has never heard of Jesus, is only responsible for what he has been shown. So he's covered. How about you "gods"?? Not as smart as you think you are, but I don't mean to insult you ... just your intelligence.

Howard said:

the Bible says that each one is only responsible for the amount of "light" that has been shown them

As soon as you can show me any rational, logical evidence for the existence of your god, I'll be more than happy to listen.

but I don't mean to insult you ... just your intelligence

My, how Christian of you.

.... or should I say ignorance? or dumb-ness? or other insults that really prove a point. Nice debate you have going here.

Jason, that's the problem with blogs/email ... tough to read the body language, eyes, etc. I was using my dry sense of humor, not trying to insult you.
If you can define what "rational" and "logical" mean to you, I would be happy to respond. And define Christian ... because debating a point made by someone else, with a dig or two would not disqualify someone as a Christian ... unless Jesus wasn't. Hey ... He probably wasn't a Christian based on His actions ....

Howard said:

Nice debate you have going here.

As far as I can tell, you're the only one who has no concept of what debate is. Please provide evidence showing the existence of god, and that the religion you follow is the one that god wants everyone to follow.

If you are all right, then we'll all have a laugh when we're out of here (or do nothing at all). If I'm right ... well, you know.

No, actually, I don't. I'm honestly curious as to what your religion says happens to non-believers.

Some definitions: NON-BELIEVER ... someone who has been exposed to the "truth", but chooses to reject it, based on his/her own decision ... logical, illogical, forced, emotional, etc.

The point here, is that Jesus taught that it's a decision. Not His, not mine, not the Pope's ... only your's. Everyone chooses to follow the amount of "light" that they are shown ... the man in Africa, the Muslim, whomever. When you take your last breath, you won't change your mind ... well, maybe there are a few deathbed changes of mind just before the last breath, but not many. So, when you enter into eternity, you won't want to be in Jesus' presence any more than you chose to be in it here ... in other words, you won't love Him any more then than you do here. Therefore, He says, that you have chosen to be separate from Him ... and you will desire that, even if it's punishment. It's logical ... just look at our lives here. I've talked to many people, including some of my own family, who agree that they could be living a better life than they are here, but choose to do what destroys them ... alchohol, drugs, etc. They could go to psychological counseling or whatever, to change their lives, but it's easier not to. So they don't, while others do so to get to a better life ... Christian or not.
So it's a choice ... yours.

Howard-

Seriously, you're adding nothing to this discussion other than irritation and preaching. I could easily ban you, but I'd rather you just took the hint and went away. And feel free to tell all your friends how you were "censored" because we're all "afraid of the truth".

Ah, heck I know I shouldn't but I will feed the troll.

"NON-BELIEVER ... someone who has been exposed to the "truth", but chooses to reject it, based on his/her own decision ... logical, illogical, forced, emotional, etc."

But I thought that "No man is righteous, no not one." And that only those that are predestined or "chosen before the foundation of the world" can be saved.

If you are going to trot out Pascal's Wager, at least be orthodox about it.

Howard,

Jesus did not teach, anywhere, what you are claiming he taught. If you really believe that you are responsible "only for the light you have been shown," then you should view the 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade as mercy killings, since the aborted never heard the gospel and, by your reasoning, are not responsible for it. If they had lived, then presumably many, upon hearing the gospel, would have rejected it.

Jesus taught that a man has to be reborn before he can see the kingdom of heaven, and prior to that he is of the flesh. And he taught that all those the father gave him will come to him and that all those who come will be saved (John 6:35-36). This leave no room for uncertainty in the final population of heaven based on any man's decision. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus teach anything remotely like: "it's a decision, not my decision but your decision." Instead His message is: I have come to save the people that the Father has chosen, and after I leave the Spirit will sanctify them. He teaches of a covenant among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each playing a role in the redemption of certain men.

Because this covenant among the Trinity concerns people who will decide only after they are reborn (you reverse the order) we can take comfort that anyone might be saved--aborted infants, some who never heard the gospel, etc. For those who believe that men must do the impossible: choose God in their natural state before regeneration, they typically supply loopholes for classes of people who never have the opportunity to choose. The real gospel is much simpler with no loopholes required: God will have mercy upon whom God will have mercy.

Oh heck Ed. Censorship is nothing new. You put yourself in good historical company. I'll go to other blogs where open discussion is welcomed. I wouldn't want your server to cost you more because someone disagrees with your "religion".

Hi David, Ed has censored me, so I can't respond in length to you. But, truly, the Black man in Africa has a choice ... and scripture supports that. Sorry, Ed ... just needed to go on record. Last time you'll hear from me ... since you don't want dissenters.

My heart is bleeding from all of the way over here.

Howard, I know from experience that Ed encourages open and rational discussion on his blog. But just blathering pseudo-religious claptrap does not count as dissension or open discussion.

As far as it being my choice, you're absolutely right. I was raised in a Christian household, went to church, participated actively in religious activities. Once I was able to think for myself, and question what I had been taught, I chose to no longer participate in organized religion. This was based on my dislike of much of the oppressive teachings and bigotry that I encountered, and the complete lack of any concrete, tangible, logical evidence supporting Christian religious beliefs. So far, I have yet to see anything to convince me that I made a wrong decision. I choose to live my life as best as I possibly can, and to be the best person I can. I don't need organized religion to tell me how to do that.

The real gospel is much simpler with no loopholes

Ahhh, the real gospel! How funny it is to read such a self assured statement when 1000's of different stances exist.

that anyone might be saved--aborted infants, some who never heard the gospel, etc.

So then a belief in Jesus is simply not necessary.

JimC,

Ahhh, the real gospel! How funny it is to read such a self assured statement when 1000's of different stances exist.

Actually, for Christianity as a whole, there are really only two views, broadly speaking. One is that regeneration precedes faith (Augustinianism or Calvinism) and the other is that faith (drawing upon Prevenient Grace) precedes regeneration. (Arminianism or Semi-Pelagianism). So your "1000's" of different stances turns out to be a bit of an exaggeration. You perhaps refer to 1000's of different denominations which disagree on ancillary doctrines but will fall, one by one, into one of these two categories when it comes to soteriology.

You mock the certainty I expressed--coming close I reckon to using the phrase "True Scotsman," but I wonder: are all your opinions on politics, religion, philosophy, etc. riddled with self-doubt? Is there nothing about which you are sure you are right? Are you that conflicted? And if that's not the case, if you are certain about, say, the scientific merits of ID, do you not write expressing the strength of your convictions or do you sprinkle throughout your writing phrases like "this is just my opinion" or "I might be wrong about this" or "gee, I don't know, it kinda seems this way to me."

So then a belief in Jesus is simply not necessary.

Well there is certainly a normative case described in scripture: a person is regenerated, he comes to faith, he bears fruit. Anyone not of special circumstances (killed in the womb, mentally handicapped, etc.) not following this pattern would have no reason to be assured of their salvation. However, scripture does not say this pattern is the only path. It says God will have mercy on whom it pleases Him to have mercy, and those same are saved by Christ.

but I wonder: are all your opinions on politics, religion, philosophy, etc. riddled with self-doubt?

Not at all. But nor do i pretend to know what I cannot. I prefer the humble stance of provisional knowledge. The 'scientific merits of ID' have nothing in the way of evidence so really it's not worth much pondering.

do you not write expressing the strength of your convictions or do you sprinkle throughout your writing phrases like "this is just my opinion" or "I might be wrong about this" or "gee, I don't know, it kinda seems this way to me."

If I was discussing religion then yes I would add those disclaimers otherwise I would feel myself dishonest without adding that my premises are of course uncertain. It doesn't matter if I have the strength of my convictions privately it only matters what I can adequately address from a factual standpoint.

You expressed an opinion. Thats all it is. Why not say so? You also are likely wrong, very wrong. Why not say so? You not a better person for pretending this isn't the case.

Anyone not of special circumstances (killed in the womb, mentally handicapped, etc.) not following this pattern would have no reason to be assured of their salvation. However, scripture does not say this pattern is the only path. It says God will have mercy on whom it pleases Him to have mercy, and those same are saved by Christ.

Thats a nice bit of speech that also means just no, you don't have to believe in Jesus. No reason to obscure it.

Jason (and Jason only, everyone else will be offended, so stop reading now please),

You are talking about organized religion ... man made institutions attempting to reach God. I am talking about faith, trust and love from and to a living God. Just like being raise in a Muslim household doesn't make you a Muslim, being raised in a Christian household doesn't make you a Christian ... a follower of Christ ... open and seeking Him. You may have learned everything wrong about organized religion from humans, but you couldn't have learned about Christianity from Jesus ... He was the one who criticized and warned against organized religion.
So, there is plenty of proof of a creator, but you have to seek the facts without a pre-disposition of unbelief. If you did that with evolution, you would never believe a word of it. Skepticism is fine, but disbelief is almost impossible to debate, which is what makes this blog what it is.

Howard said:

So, there is plenty of proof of a creator, but you have to seek the facts without a pre-disposition of unbelief.

I treat all facts backed up by evidence equally. I am an agnostic, so I am honestly interested in where the proof of a creator might be found, and I'd be happy to take an open look at any you can provide.

Jason,

Ed is going to shut this dialog down when he sees it in an hour or two. So, if you are truly interested in chatting, use my email account that I turn on for occasional use for things such as this. UNKNOWNPIER@yahoo.com
I'm sure I will get some other fun email, but I'll look for yours.

Hmm. It would appear that the Evil Overlord has been neglecting his duties. Perhaps Ed needs one of those all-seeing eye things, like the one Sauron had.

We should all pitch in and get him one for Chr... Winterval, I mean.

Ah. A schism between the Tolkienites who claim the Eye of Sauron was all-seeing, and those who claim it wasn't. A curiously appropriate epilogue to this thread, I feel

By Nebogipfel (not verified) on 28 Sep 2006 #permalink

Of course you would not respond ... most Clerics wouldn't. They always have a need to protect the unprotectable ... their closed mindedness. I know Ed opened this thread to only have thoughts shared about death bed experiences, so expanding that to include creation may be going too far. I mean really, what does creation have to do with death? Unless there is a Creator, and death is where you get to meet Him.
Oh, but, let's not have open, provable, intelligent discussion about that. It would be way too enlightening.

Oh, but, let's not have open, provable, intelligent discussion about that.

Which is precisely the sort of conversation you were having. Neither open, provable, nor intelligent.

Okay, you win.

On second thought ... you lose. I just clicked through to your journal. You are alive and well in the '60's. Whew!