|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Against Cremation
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
We are not going to agree Scot but I will make just one attempt to refute your arguments.
quote:
Gregory, it seems a bit odd to say that burning a body is active while burying it is not.
Destruction is the point. Nobody stands inert and says "beam it up / down Scotty." (pun intended).
quote:
you don't explain why activity or passivity is a theological issue.
In Orthodoxy ANYTHING humans do is by definition a theological issue. To talk of God is to talk of humankind. To talk of humankind is to talk of God.
quote:
This assumption is nothing more than a cultural preference. Cultures other than yours would say just the opposite.
It is a cultural preference with religious significance and, therefore, it is not "nothing more" than a cultural preference. The religious significance kicks in because certain acts-in-culture are not entirely relative to themselves. They have universal meaning. Humans destroying a body (or not) is one such act. However, you and I have crossed theological swords before on the significance of the cross in the "Red Cross." There was no resolution of that similar issue then so I doubt whether there will be any such closure here now either. You and I are working within radically different epistemologies.
quote:
I say that deliberately isolating human remains from the cycle of decay and growth is a a clear denial of God's will as expressed in nature.
Eh???!!! In the ground the body dissoves, coffin or no coffin. Personally I would prefer the shroud only method but even wood rots eventually and in any event is not sealed against the agents of decay.
I WANT to be eaten by worms rather than incinerated by my fellow humans ... NOT because it will make the slightest difference to "me" as a corpse but because it will be consistent with my Orthodox faith (ante).
quote:
I say that you are mistaking historical context for principle.
Back to my comments about "mere" culture.
quote:
If we understand that matter does not vanish and if we assume that God can resurrect whomever he chooses, then your argument is completely spurious.
It is not spurious because I have not based my argument about the resurrection on what God can do but rather on what we should do.
The fundamental problem here Scot is that I give more credence to human acts in relation to Christian belief than you do. Christ is not in contradistinction to culture but IN culture to transform it.
[ 23. August 2006, 19:08: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Herodotus concludes that impiety is in the eye of the beholder: "For if one were to offer men to choose out of all the customs in the world they would examine the whole number, and end by preferring their own; so convinced are they that their own usages far surpass those of all others".
What's amusing, though, is that Fr Gregory has adopted the usages of another culture which he believes far surpasses the usages of his own.
And so he begins thread after thread on this board to prove to us that our post-Enlightenment culture is hideously gone astray.
Too bad some of us are happy to live in a post-Enlightenment culture.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't see anything in these arguments that lifts them out of a particular symbolic interpretation.
I think I'd repeat what I said above.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Hooker's Trick
quote:
What's amusing, though, is that Fr Gregory has adopted the usages of another culture which he believes far surpasses the usages of his own.
Correct ... but the culture of which I speak is a Judaeo-Christian culture which in this matter remained in tact for 4000 years.
quote:
And so he begins thread after thread on this board to prove to us that our post-Enlightenment culture is hideously gone astray.
Not "thread after thread" but in this matter and in this OP you are correct as to the second half.
quote:
Too bad some of us are happy to live in a post-Enlightenment culture.
Yes, too bad indeed (with "post" in the sense of chronology not transcendence or negation).
Dear mdijon
quote:
I don't see anything in these arguments that lifts them out of a particular symbolic interpretation.
There is nothing symbolic about fire, the worm and the risen body of Christ; nothing symbolic about my flesh and yours, corruption and incorruption.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I'll take a stab at it, Father Gregory.
From the Old Testament post-Adam, the physical manifestation of God most often given in scripture is "wind" or "ruah (ruach)." God is not Earth in Christian scripture; God is Wind. Again, God is a spirit and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and in Truth, two formless modes of interaction.
The scriptures speak over and over of subjugating Flesh to Spirit, notably in the writings of Paul. Any clinging to the flesh is depicted as wrong and sinful.
In death, we will be made into Wind by slow or rapid oxidation of our carbon. Fire does so rapidly; biological processes slowly.
Before the oxidation of carbon to carbon dioxide was known, our ultimate fate as Wind was not known. We now know and are free in Christ to choose slow or rapid oxidation to Wind. Christ did not have this choice because he had to rise physically from the dead to insure the weak of faith that we do in fact survive death. But he showed that he was Wind as well, blowing through the cracks in walls and ascending like smoke into Heaven.
The strong in faith have always known that we do indeed survive to fill the nostrils of those who come after. We can raise a stench, or a sweet smell. After we die, however, there is no hope of joining the sweet smell of the Ruah. Our chance has come and gone.
Is this more what you had in mind?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
...Correct ... but the culture of which I speak is a Judaeo-Christian culture which in this matter remained in tact for 4000 years....
Hmmmm.... ossuaries abound in the mid-east. But the practice of temporary burial and subsequent storage of the bones is not the current standard of burial. Nor is it particularly what you advocated.
Let's be clear:
What is the system of handling human remains that has "remained in tact[sic] for 4000 years"?
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by Gregory:
In Orthodoxy ANYTHING humans do is by definition a theological issue. To talk of God is to talk of humankind. To talk of humankind is to talk of God.
Now we come to the root of the thing, We are not discussing "in Orthodoxy". We are discussing the rest of Christendom. The OP even specified "apart from the Orthodox..." Your position is untenable without resort to Orthodox tradition to lend doctrinal weight to cultural preferences.
quote:
I WANT to be eaten by worms rather than incinerated by my fellow humans ... NOT because it will make the slightest difference to "me" as a corpse but because it will be consistent with my Orthodox faith (ante).
How wonderful for you! Your personal desires are in line with the teaching of your denomination. Good for you! Our disagreement begins when you suggest that baby Jesus is crying because the rest of us don't all see things the same way as you.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't see anything in these arguments that lifts them out of a particular symbolic interpretation.
Me neither. And I like Jim's symbolic interpretation better. The meaning of symbols depends in part upon their context, and his interpretation comes out of the cultural context in which I live. Gregory's belongs to some other culture.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I know what and to whom I belong thank you Ruth.
Dear Jim
Au contraire. In the teaching of St. Paul flesh is contrasted with spirit in the dimension of carnal or wordly thinking ... most definitely not physicality.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I know what and to whom I belong thank you Ruth.
I said nothing about "what and to whom" you belong. I said your interpretation belongs to a culture which is not mine.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
In that case, I don't understand your response.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In that case, I don't understand your response.
Let me make a stab at it:
Ruth = bad secular modern western culture
Fr Gregory = good Christian Traditional eastern culture
Probably could throw in some "sads" and "deludeds" in there, too, but I'll let the fair reader decide into which cultural description those adjectives belong.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I must be sad and deluded too, because I like JimT's theological standpoint as well.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
Another question:
is cremation "bad" in a "too bad/ nostalgic longing for the past" sense (in the same way that I think it's bad that one can now have a drink at Simpson's without a jacket and tie)?
Or "bad" in the sense that people whose bodies are cremated are screwed out of the general resurrection and "bad" because the church lets this happen?
(if it's "bad" in the latter sense then Fr Gregory should actually be happy, since it means all the Protestants who got cremated won't be there to clutter up the Last Day, and the Orthodox can have the New Jerusalem all to themselves).
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Neither HT. Have you REALLY read all my posts here? If you had I don't see how you could have said all that.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Cremation involves ACTIVE destruction of the deceased's body by humans. (It wouldn't matter for this argument whether this destruction was by fire, explosion or by a big mincing machine).
Agreed, but it will matter in a minute.
quote:
ACTIVE destruction of remains by humans assumes that the deceased's body is deserving of no special respect
unjustified assumption. I don't think anyone is arguing here that we should treat dead bodies with no special respect. We are discussing what treating dead bodies with special respect entails.
Here are two actions:
(A) removing a body from a chilled mortuary and placing it into an environment where it is surrounded by all kinds of bacteria, fungi and intertebrates which are very good at decomposing it
(B) removing a body from a chilled mortuary and placing it into an environment where it is surrounded by lots of heat, fire, etc which is very good at decomposing it
I don't see why (A) is less "active" than (B).
In either case, the action can be done with respect or without respect.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Custard
It's the agent of the action that is the matter of concern, not the means of dissolution. If in an alternative universe dead bodies automatically spontaneously combusted that would be fine.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
ACTIVE destruction of remains by humans assumes that the deceased's body is deserving of no special respect
I'm not sure this exceedingly commonplace treatment is particularly respectful.
JimT: Excellent points.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
No, neither do I ... which is why we don't like it either. As I said before, embalming does not have to happen for burial to happen. Wash, present, inter promptly. It's quite straightforward really.
JimT's point is construed from a misunderstanding of St. Paul's flesh / spirit antithesis, (again, as I said before).
[ 23. August 2006, 23:04: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Gregory, your response to Custard didn't address his point about your unjustified assumption regarding the degree of special inherent in cremation vs. burial.
It was a very good point. I'm sure that Custard and I aren't the only ones who will be interested to hear your response.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I'm not sure this exceedingly commonplace treatment is particularly respectful.
Ross
Following Ross' link, this jumped out at me:
quote:
10. The funeral industry promotes embalming and viewing as a means to show "proper respect for the body," and to establish the "clear identity" of the corpse so that the reality of death cannot be denied by those who view the body. Many funeral directors are convinced that seeing the body is a necessary part of the grieving process, even if the death was long anticipated.
And the funeral industry's reasons for promoting embalming aren't exactly theological:
quote:
12. Embalming gives funeral homes a sales opportunity to increase consumer spending (by as much as $3,000 or more) for additional body preparation, a more expensive casket with "protective" features perhaps, a more expensive outer burial container, and a more elaborate series of ceremonies.
OliviaG
ETA one more point
[ 23. August 2006, 23:15: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
From a purely practical point of view, burial has major implications for land use in heavily populated countries. What do you think would happen if, as of tomorrow, everyone who died was buried ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Oh yes I did answer it. Whether you are persuaded by it or not is another matter. Allow me to repeat.
It is the AGENCY of the destruction / dissolution that matters not the dissolution per se. In other words 'human burns human' or 'bug eats human.' I don't think that I can make that simpler.
Dear Doublethink
The oft quoted "no room, no room" has already been dealt with Divine Outlaw Dwarf. Please read his post.
[ 23. August 2006, 23:16: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
Father Gregory, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I'm even trying to comprehend how what you're saying could be a compelling argument. Either what you're saying is too complex for me or it's just mince.
Can you explain again in very simple terms so I can make my decision please?
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
Fr Gregory while I agree with you that the issue is respect for the corpse, isn't respect cultural and temporal. What is respectful in one culture may be insulting in another.
Trying to impose a theological value to what is in the end just a consequence of time and place is a bit pointless.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Fr. G--
Is it proper, respectful, etc. when the Orthodox monks on Mt. Athos pile the skulls of their brethren in a room?
Pardon me if you've addressed this and I missed it.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Doublethink
The oft quoted "no room, no room" has already been dealt with Divine Outlaw Dwarf. Please read his post.
Father Gregory, is this the post you are referring to?
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Problems with land for cemetries, in the UK, and probably in Greece, issue from land prices. These are the fault of capitalism, not of the practice of any particular Church!
I don't see how blaming capitalism deals with the problem. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It is the AGENCY of the destruction / dissolution that matters not the dissolution per se. In other words 'human burns human' or 'bug eats human.' I don't think that I can make that simpler.
Ok, so "bug eats human" is natural and right, and "human burns human" is not?
Following that logic, should we do *anything* about a dead body? Doing anything disturbs the natural process in *some* way.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
From a purely practical point of view, burial has major implications for land use in heavily populated countries. What do you think would happen if, as of tomorrow, everyone who died was buried ?
If you mean this post, no he didn't. I mean these kind of problems:
Overcrowded cemetaries
Chinese estimate of land use
Not financial problems. There are more detailed historical accounts, of bodies being buried on top of each other in victorian graveyards - the diggers simply stamping down on the coffin below to crush it and make more space. And the effects of U-turns on Chinese state funerary practice on the availability of farmland.
There are approximately 600,000 deaths per year in the UK. So imageine a 6 by 2 foot plot for each of the that's 12 square foot per person. That's 0.25 square miles in a year or 2.5 square miles in a decade. (I am not allowing for space around graves, fancy tombs or anything else - just going for the bear minimum here.) Britain as a whole is 94,251 square miles - about the size of Oregon - with a population density of 650 per square mile. 23% of that land is is arable, god only knows how much is under concrete, then there's the mountains and other unusable bits.
(Though OK I accept that between 2.5 and 5 square miles a decade is not a high speed take over - I would still argue that building cemetries on that scale would have a significant impact in the medium term.)
DT
(With thanks to MSN Encarta)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
No, neither do I ... which is why we don't like it either. As I said before, embalming does not have to happen for burial to happen. Wash, present, inter promptly. It's quite straightforward really.
So... you "don't like" embalming and -- by extension -- using a metal coffin that will ensure no contact between the body and earth, much less worms. Fair enough. I don't either. That that's what your version of burial means to tens of millions of people doesn't matter of course, because they aren't part of your personal experience.
You believe cremation to be theologically wrong -- not just misguided, but wrong -- even though there is ample evidence that most of your assumptions about what it implies (in terms of respect for the body, opportunity for grieving and so on) are demonstablly wrong. But of course, I forgot -- that's other peoples' experience, not yours, so it doesn't count.
But let me ask -- why is something far more disrespectful of what you value (embalming, metal coffins and so on) just something you dislike, but something that can be very respectful so egregious a theological error that it almost amounts to a sin?
Could it possibly be because for you culturally, burial and cremation mean something different than they mean to many of us?
Because, frankly, I don't recognize your picture of either burial or cremation. So I'll conclude we have different cultures and be happy (certainly I have no desire to force cremation on anyone). But you seem to want to force your cultural assumptions on the rest of us.
Don't see that happening, some how.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
...you better have a damn good justification if you are overturning 4000 years, at least from where I am standing....
Scientology + 4000 years = Orthodox
Fascinating.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
The Father Gregory opinion, if I understand.
The very thought of setting a human body on fire cannot but help to bring a feeling of desecration in the faithful, regardless of the ceremony or thoughts surrounding the act. When you burn something, you are saying it is trash and you want to get rid of it.
But we bury trash to get rid of it. We bury our own human waste to get rid of it sometimes. Burying a dead body reminds me as much of that as it does planting a seed or fertilizing the soil with compost. It is all about attitude, custom, and context. Burning and burying are not in themselves respectful or disrespectful. One could burn with respect and bury with disrespect I'm sure.
Perhaps your real objection is that cremation really doesn't have a ceremony like that. You kind of call up the cremation folks like calling garbage collectors? I could see that point. But the same would be said of calling up someone and asking them to please take the body away and bury it some where, who cares. After the dirty business of getting rid of the body, we can have a nice clean little ceremony with no body around.
So if the ceremony were right; if a human waps a dead human in cloth, gathers wood, places the body on the wood, and starts a fire with flint and steel, invites all those in attendence to light candles one from another, reads about us being the light of the world, letting our light shine before men, God fom God, Light from Light, we are the Light of the World, speaks of the Spirit being more important than the Flesh in proper metaphorical terms that do not misunderstand Paul (you pick the words; you know what I mean), couldn't it be possible to construct a respectful and theologically appropriate cremation?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
In the ground the body dissoves, coffin or no coffin. Personally I would prefer the shroud only method but even wood rots eventually and in any event is not sealed against the agents of decay.
Am I correct that this means Orthodox burials never involve metal coffins, much less the concrete vaults which are the norm, if not actually required by law or cemetery covenants in much of the US and Canada.
It's going to be a long time before my mother's molecules (simple pine coffin, no vault, but she was rather full of embalming fluids) manage to comingle with my father's (body bag, heavy-duty cherry coffin, concrete vault, no embalming) even though they are buried side-by-side and my father has a fifteen year head start on natural bodily deterioration. He may or may not have "dissolved", but I'm quite sure that he is pretty welled "sealed" against the normal "agents of decay" - not to mention the pesky question of how even those anaerobic agents of decay which might try to operate inside the body bag are coping with all that jet fuel he got soaked with. At any rate, I suspect it's going to be a long time before his molecules make it past all those barriers and contact the actual dirt.
But you'll surely be happy to hear that they both are wrapped in very nice white silk shrouds (in accordance with an obscure Baha'i burial requirement that is probably observed less often than RC priests wear maniples).
If you're going to argue against cremation, Fr Gregory, you need to stop presenting a rose-tinted ideal version of burial.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
When does ... "This behaviour is not part of Christian tradition" as part of a forum debate become a "sin" or an attempt to "force your cultural assumptions on the rest of us?"
Others used the word "sin" not I. "You're oppressing us" isn't an argument.
There is a casuistry here that seeks to make something very simple essentially very complicated ... which is deeply ironic since some have accused me of being obscure!
The natural, non violent, reverent committal to the earth is but one argument in my list of objections. OK, so it doesn't persuade you. Fine. You think it's merely culture, a practice devoid of theological significance. Fine. But 4000 years of unbroken practice until now stands against you. So, you're Protestant and couldn't give two hoots about Tradition? Fine. But yours is not the only account of Christian praxis ... not even in the history of your Protestant forebears. So please do excuse me. I am deeply sorry for having a contrary position on the matter and going against the grain. I guess that makes me a Protestant too eh?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[ 24. August 2006, 07:11: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Trouble is, though, Fr. Gregory, that your "having a contrary position on the matter and going against the grain" has basically let all your opposnents off the hook. Because they can represent you as an extremist, they don't actually have to look at the death-phobic aspects of the way in which the practice of cremation meshes with contemporary culture.
And for the record, I'm not terribly keen on having Protestantism misrepresented as not giving two hoots about tradition. The world may be full of Protestants who haven't a clue about how the Protestant tradition works, but that doesn't make that the definition of Protestantism. There are some of us with a workingt knowledge of what the Reformation stood for.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Fr. G:the depth of visceral disgust I feel on account of the disrespect for the body and the desacralisation of the same that is involved for me as an Orthodox Christian when contemplating cremation.
This is the crux of the issue. Cremation outrages your Orthodox sensibilities.
Since the Orthodox Church's traditions aren't wrong (according to your own doctrine) as the "One True Church", therefore all of Christendom ought to be equally outraged. When we aren't, rather than you examining your beliefs and realizing they're provincial to *you*, you judge believers who support cremation as either second-class or you infer they're not really Christians at all, and you call them names.
This entire thread isn't about cremation at all. It's about you getting your panties in a twist because people dare disagree with you, and by extension, your Church.
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Psyduck
I am not unaware of course of that and indeed the Wee Frees have themselves opposed cremation from time to time. To be more accurate I should have said "liberal Protestant" but hey that would have unleashed another torrent of scorn.
I am well used to being labelled an extremist. As I said, 4000 years of unbroken tradition was once considered mainstream and cremation unthinkable THEOLOGICALLY. Once, therefore, everyone was an "extremist." I can live with that knowing my support from Christian history. I am well used to the tactic of some contributions here on the Ship being not reasoned theological arguments at all but rather thinly disguised attempts to traduce a theological opponent. The last few threads have exhibited that particularly. So be it.
Not one person has engaged with the biblical and theological data ... well, perhaps JimT but he misjudged the nature of Paul's antithesis between flesh and spirit. All the arguments have been utilitarian ... and therefore, predisposed to make my arguments (and yours for that matter) fall at the first hurdle. If this thread has done nothing else other than mark a voice or two of dissent, I shall be satisfied.
I am going out now for the day ... which is just as well since this is becoming a boring duelling session with me.
[ 24. August 2006, 07:31: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I'll take a stab at it, Father Gregory.
From the Old Testament post-Adam, the physical manifestation of God most often given in scripture is "wind" or "ruah (ruach)." God is not Earth in Christian scripture; God is Wind. Again, God is a spirit and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and in Truth, two formless modes of interaction.
The scriptures speak over and over of subjugating Flesh to Spirit, notably in the writings of Paul. Any clinging to the flesh is depicted as wrong and sinful.
In death, we will be made into Wind by slow or rapid oxidation of our carbon. Fire does so rapidly; biological processes slowly.
Before the oxidation of carbon to carbon dioxide was known, our ultimate fate as Wind was not known. We now know and are free in Christ to choose slow or rapid oxidation to Wind. Christ did not have this choice because he had to rise physically from the dead to insure the weak of faith that we do in fact survive death. But he showed that he was Wind as well, blowing through the cracks in walls and ascending like smoke into Heaven.
The strong in faith have always known that we do indeed survive to fill the nostrils of those who come after. We can raise a stench, or a sweet smell. After we die, however, there is no hope of joining the sweet smell of the Ruah. Our chance has come and gone.
Is this more what you had in mind?
First of all, in a perfect and roomy world, burial may be preferable, but practically, as has been demonstrated, this is not really possible. I am prepared to be cremated - though I wouldn't mind burial - I like the 'drama'. I have no theological objections to cremation.
Can I address the above post?
It smacks heavily of the sort of thinking that actually the New Testament is dead against! i.e. the assumption that spirit = good, matter = bad.
This is why the Greeks were so hot on immortality as opposed to resurrecton because they couldn't wait to 'shuffle off this mortal coil' and leave this filthy body behind and be free of its taint - an evil that was inherant in it simply because it was 'created'.
This is why the Docetists couldn't bring themselves to believe that Jesus was fully human, flesh and blood, etc. Did I read that some believed that Jesus cast no shadow and left no footprints?
Anyhow. The view expressed:
The scriptures speak over and over of subjugating Flesh to Spirit, notably in the writings of Paul. Any clinging to the flesh is depicted as wrong and sinful.
is correct in one sense - and Fr Gregory has mentioned this - we are speaking 'carnaility' here. In the NT 'flesh' doesn't mean skin and bones, it refers to the entirety of human nature. 'The Word became flesh' doesn't mean that the Son of God jumped inside a skin and walked about, it means he took on the entire human 'thing' - body, soul and spirit (Hence the Swedenborgian error of divine soul, human body - tangent, sorry).
'Lo, he abhors not the Virgin's womb' is as much to do with fully accepting total humanity as it is a reference to Mary and her devotion.
So 'flesh' (in this context of total human nature) does need to be overcome by yielding to the Spirit of holiness - but it does not mean that physicality is evil, unimportant or irrelevant when looked at in the context of eternity. Don't forget that Paul tells us that our bodies (not flesh this time) are to be presented as living sacrifices, that our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and that our mortal bodies will be raised incorruptible. (Not left behind because they are filthy).
Finally, I would have to disagree with your opening point about 'the physical manifestation of God most often given in scripture is "wind" or "ruah (ruach)." God is not Earth in Christian scripture; God is Wind'
Way to go to destroy the entire theology of the Incarnation! The physical manifestation of God is Jesus of Nazareth, not the Holy Spirit. And even in the Old Testament there are times when the physical manifestation of YHWH is an actual physical being - the Angel of the Lord, as had dinner with Abraham and who tried to beat Jacob up.
There is nothing about physicality that is less holy, less divine, etc.
And Jesus is not the Ruach of God - and neither did he waft around entering rooms through cracks in the plaster.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
There is nothing symbolic about fire, the worm and the risen body of Christ; nothing symbolic about my flesh and yours, corruption and incorruption.
What a complete non-answer.
These are either elements of the funeral (eg fire) which may or may not be interpreted as symbolism of a sort... or things that don't seem to me to be directly involved. The concepts of corruption, incorruption... and the risen body of Christ don't feature except by symbolism in a funeral, surely?
Or is my partaking in the risen body of Christ actively and in real terms inhibited by cremation? And the promise of putting on the incorruptible inhibited by cremation?
Very Odd.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
There is a tradition in parts of India where the widow throws herself on the funeral pyre. With all the multi-culture and diversty stuff being bantered about is there anyway we could suggest this tradition to Tony and Cherie
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Gregory,
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It's the agent of the action that is the matter of concern, not the means of dissolution. If in an alternative universe dead bodies automatically spontaneously combusted that would be fine.
I'm making sure I understand:
So if an area had been stripped of soil - say by a flash flood, and the soil had been artificially reconstituted and artificially repopulated with decomposers, burying someone there would be a Bad Thing, even if it could be shown there wouldn't be another flood.
On the other hand, leaving a body in the path of a forest fire would be fine?
Oh, and this 4000 years thing... I guess that's going back to Abraham? As far as I recall, he placed his wife Sarah in a cave, rather than in the soil...
And I'm evidently being really stupid today because I really can't see where you answered my point about burning as disrespectful being a cultural assumption.
[ 24. August 2006, 07:53: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory: quote:
Not one person has engaged with the biblical and theological data ... <SNIP> All the arguments have been utilitarian ... and therefore, predisposed to make my arguments (and yours for that matter) fall at the first hurdle.
Actually,the point is that on those criteria yours do but mine - which are actually variously grounded in sociology and psychology, and represent an inner-modern counter-narrative to scientistic positivism - don't. Unless you take a John Milbank position that ultimately theology is the only game in town, in which case you are really hanging about in church, and not representing a churchly presence in the public square, it really is necessary to debate, and not just assert. Milbank, if I interpret him correctly, wanted to make theology back into the "queen of sciences" by subordinating all other narratives, especially social-scientific narratives, under theology as a "postmodern metanarrative". (!) That really gives you just one set of choices. Either you sieze power, and start burning heretics (and yes, I'd probably agree with you that that very Western mode of cremation does demonstrate a departure from tradition, though maybe someone will be along in a minute to argue for it) or you lock the church door and we talk amongst ourselves. (It seems to me that the Greek Orthodox Church has fallen precisely between these two stools on the issue of cremation in Greek society.)
If you don't want to construe theology like this - if you're seriously interested in talking to people who potentially disagree with you - then it's necessary to do theology with a little more humility, and to try to presuade people. And yes, I'll concede that you've been trying some of that, too, but it obviously strikes people as the velvet glove round the iron fist. Because ultimately for you this is a non-negotiable, surprise surprise, no debate is taking place. Because you are driving people back on their sundry non-negotiables, amny of them drawn from various modern metanarratives, some of them drawn from various conceptuions of freedom of choice, and some from religious traditions.
But that's why this thread, which is potentially so interesting with regard to contemporary understandings of what it means to be human beings who in some sense have and in some sense are and in some weird sense are not, their bodies, has turned so damnably boring.
So let me say it again. I'm not absolutely against cremation. I respect individual positive options for it, and some of the rationalizations of it I find interesting and moving, even if I could never espouse them. But I think that the generalized assumption that cremation is better than burial, and that it's irratonal to think differently, both proceed from something deeply wrong with our culture, and feed it.
For God's sake can't we talk about that...?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
As I said, 4000 years of unbroken tradition was once considered mainstream and cremation unthinkable THEOLOGICALLY.
I repeat my contention that the same could be said of slavery. Care to comment?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
As I say, if we continue the discussion in the terms of the OP, we're not going to get anywhere. The OP embodies theological truth as Fr. Gregory understands it. It's a completely self-consistent statement of what he believes. Eutychus, you aren't going to overthrow his theological position, because he isn't going to step outside it to discuss with you on any other basis, and he's been completely consistent in this. We are trading, not in arguments of what's better or worse, but in statements of what's right and wrong. There isn't a debate going on here.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
I don't see how blaming capitalism deals with the problem.
After the revolution, people like you will be put up against the wall and shot, before being buried in picturesque country churchyards. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
I'm new to this thread, so sorry if repeating previous concerns.
Basically, whilst there are some sound practical reasons for burial, the whole concept of a bunch of bones being reanimated on the day of judgement doesn't carry much weight (no pun intended ). Even if one takes the resurrection literally as 'the risen body', Jesus's physical body was three days not three years, thirty years or three centuries dead. And also, what about people whose bones have been destroyed in an explosion? Are they to be excluded from the 'kingdom'.
J
[ 24. August 2006, 08:28: Message edited by: dorothea ]
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
