|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Against Cremation
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
OloviaG: Frederic Jameson argues that postmodernism is the culture of late capitalism. Postmodernism is characterized by all sorts of death-phobic impulses - it's been suggested that the astronomical body-count of Schwarzenegger movies is death-phobic inasmuch as the whole point of the film is that after the slaughter, the only people guaranteed to be left alive are Arnie, the Linda Hamilton type person, the "her son who the evil terminator is after" type person, and me, the viewer. The worst thing you can be, or be called, in postmodern culture, is a "loser", and dying is the ultimate in being a loser. Ergo death is denied by making slaughter into a balletic carnival celebratory of the viewer's immortality.
Equally, death is denied by the profession of the "mortician", the privileging of youth, the consequent significance of cosmetic surgery and cosmetics generally (neither Cleoparea nor Marie Antoinette made up so as to appear youthful ) and even by such things as "Campaigns for real Beauty" which appear to affirm ageing. And all of this is a cultural imperative of the phase of capitalism which we have entered.
Relevance - of course there are other reasons for choosing cremation, but the prevalence of cremation and the horror of burial in our culture are plausibly attributable to a death-phoboia connected with what late "disorganized" capitalism makes of us as human beings.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I have to say, Psyduck, that although cremation as part of a death-phobia cult might make sense... and be arguable... I suspect the reality is rather more stark.
I think that cremation has become acceptable simply because of the limitation of space in churchyards, and the expense of the funeral. The same forces that appear to be driving some in Greece to want cremations legalized.
Funerals are events where most people don't want to do anything different. Most people follow the default position that they'll do what their parents did burying the grandparents... and what Joe Bloggs next door does.
When that was burial, I suspect that's all anyone ever considered doing.
Until finance become such a serious pressure, it wasn't possible anymore. I expect cremation took some time in the UK before it was considered acceptable - until the critical mass of Joe Bloggses and parents built up enough.
You might be able to trace death-phobia developing among it, but I'd find it hard to believe that was the driving force. Similarly, I've seen just as death-phobic grief-phobic funerals using coffins - where no-one speaks of the "deceased" unless completely unavoidable, the service is held before a quick race to the graveside and huried departure...
I'd suggest the post-modern analysis is this;
That there are two seperate narratives, with a degree of cross-talk, which you are forcing into a single narrative.
[ 24. August 2006, 09:03: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Scot and Ruth
ACTIVE destruction of remains by humans assumes that the deceased's body is deserving of no special respect which, contrastingly, would be indicated by committal without HUMAN violence.
There is of course the other side of the coin of those who use cremation as a committal process, reverently and prayerfully, in reducing to dust and ash what has already been given to God in love. To say that mourners and funeral takers who use cremation have no respect for the remains of the deceased is clearly untrue.
quote:
That the body of the deceased can be ACTIVELY destroyed does injury to the Christian doctrine that human physicality has permanent value in:-
(1) The creative purpose of God. (The "good" of Genesis).
(2) The assumption of our flesh in the Incarnation. The myrrh-bearing women were equippped to anoint the body of Jesus ... not burn it.
(3) The hope of resurrection.
While wishing to respect your preferred interpretation of the symbolism of the above, I can't see any clear connection at all of cremation being a denial of any Christian doctrine, least of all the hope of the resurrection which you yourself say has nothing to do with the state of the remains.
quote:
This injury is a "denial by act" in relation to the body. I am not talking about soul or spirit since crematers seem to ascribe some preferential aspect to these - but this is not what I understand by the resurrection.
You talk of 'injury' and 'denial' for a process that others understand as reverent and prayerful, and not at all disrespectful to the person who inhabited that body, or to their remains. Of course, people may in ignorance do something that is actually harmful, which I suppose is what you're implying, but cremation, imo, isn't an example of this.
quote:
The best way to roll back cremation is to present authentic Christianity as "with the body" - ALWAYS subsisting that is; in life, in death and after death - not in spite of it. God having take our flesh to himself forever enhanced status and character of that flesh (beyond even its existing high status in Judaism) whether or not it is now recognised by humans themselves.
'Authentic' Christianity being what you believe, naturally, and any divergence from that obviously must be in-authentic! Predictable. This just reminds me of the Corinthian passage where Paul has been questioned 'with what kind of body are the dead raised?' I wonder if Paul sensed that some might wish to make a kind of fetishist or cultic approach to the remains of the deceased (and I'm not saying this is what you're doing, Fr Gregory!) and therefore gave them the answer he did?
quote:
That Christians should not now see this is, to me, most sad.
Well, we know that you find it sad that everyone doesn't agree with you. I find it sad that you should assume all Christians should.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
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.
Well, if all we are doing is proclaiming our respective positions, I guess you're right. Move along folks, there's nothing Purgatorial to see here...
--------------------
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
mdijon: quote:
I have to say, Psyduck, that although cremation as part of a death-phobia cult might make sense... and be arguable... I suspect the reality is rather more stark.
I think that cremation has become acceptable simply because of the limitation of space in churchyards, and the expense of the funeral. The same forces that appear to be driving some in Greece to want cremations legalized.
I wouldn't disagree with you, but I see these things as deeply interconnected. I think it's got to do with the way rationality works in modern societies. I think Max Weber is right when he suggests that in modernity, what increases is "instrumental" rationality, which is really about the most efficient means to achieve your ends. It's basically a value-free rationality that tells you the best way to do whatever you want to do. The trouble is that because of the decline of what he calls "substantive" rationality - that lets you work out what it is you want to do, and to evaluate your choices - we can't resist, because we have no grounds on which to resist - the argument that this is a better way to do something because more rational because more efficient. I think that marries quite well with Jameson's cultural logic of late capitalism argument. And also, if he wasn't so determined that theology can hold itself up by its own bootstraps, and is absolute with respect to culture, with something like Fr Gregory's position.
quote:
Funerals are events where most people don't want to do anything different. Most people follow the default position that they'll do what their parents did burying the grandparents... and what Joe Bloggs next door does.
Exactly why people who have deep misgivings about cremation go along with it because they can't rationalize their alternative. It seems to me that the situation in Greece may be a mirror image of this.
quote:
When that was burial, I suspect that's all anyone ever considered doing.
Until finance become such a serious pressure, it wasn't possible anymore. I expect cremation took some time in the UK before it was considered acceptable - until the critical mass of Joe Bloggses and parents built up enough.
Quite - and this is an economic argument, which brings us back to the implication of capitalism in all of this. Jameson, as a good ol' Marxist boy at heart, privileges the economic - i.e. the substructural - over the superstructural cultural and religious - dimensions, but simultaneously as a good little postmodernist he aserts that everything has collapsed into culture. He can't really have it both ways - but it's why his essay is so instructive.
quote:
You might be able to trace death-phobia developing among it, but I'd find it hard to believe that was the driving force. Similarly, I've seen just as death-phobic grief-phobic funerals using coffins - where no-one speaks of the "deceased" unless completely unavoidable, the service is held before a quick race to the graveside and huried departure...
If I were proposing causal explanations, I wouldn't be a postmodernist, now, would I? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) What I'm proposing is a significant intertextuality - or congruence, if you will. This, all at once, is what's going on in contemporary culture. We are immersed in late-stage capitalism with its death-phobia, which is both inimical to, and threatened by, the Christian tradition. We have to be that paradoxical thing - postmodern Christians. Which Father Gregory is doing, as Hooker's Trick said: 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.
And so he begins thread after thread on this board to prove to us that our post-Enlightenment culture is hideously gone astray.
And he's quite right to do so. What is a bit weird is that he appears -and I'm open to his correction on this - to believe that theology gives him an archimedean point outside culture which will enable him to move the world. To that extent, he's as Enlightenment-modern as anyone. He wants theology to be the metanarrative.
quote:
I'd suggest the post-modern analysis is this;
That there are two seperate narratives, with a degree of cross-talk, which you are forcing into a single narrative.
Bingo! You see precisely what I'm doing! Just as longas you understand that I understand it too! The one word I have problems with is "force". I'm really just reading them together, and enjoying the intertextuality... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And as long as you understand I understand you understand that...
I guess my interpretation of the inter-textuality is that it is almost accidental - that were cremation to be the expensive rite of old, invested with great meaning... and burial a johnny-come-lately method, cheaper and easier to organise, we could as very well have the same inter-textuality between modern grief-phobia and burial.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Absolu... Sorry, postmodernists aren't supposed to say that. So - yes...
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Absolu... Sorry, postmodernists aren't supposed to say that.
That would be the übernarrative, you mean.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Psyduck:
quote:
Postmodernism is characterized by all sorts of death-phobic impulses - it's been suggested that the astronomical body-count of Schwarzenegger movies is death-phobic inasmuch as the whole point of the film is that after the slaughter, the only people guaranteed to be left alive are Arnie, the Linda Hamilton type person, the "her son who the evil terminator is after" type person, and me, the viewer.
Have you ever seen Terminator II?
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
yup
--------------------
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
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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?
The christian attitude to slavery changed for theological reasons - i.e. it was seen to be immoral. As we've seen from this thread, the acceptance of cremation was largely pragmatic.
The 4,000 year tradition which Father Gregory mentions was not exclusively Orthodox. The tradition was grounded in shared theological considerations. Almost everybody except the Orthodox have changed the tradition for almost any reason except theology. And almost nobody is prepared to say why.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It may not be that theology demanded a change (as in the case of slavery) - it may be a recognition that there was no sound theological reason for insisting on burial.
Other than symbolism (see above).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Psyduck:
quote:
quote:
Have you ever seen Terminator II?
yup
So you've forgotten the bit when John Connor tells Arnie that he's not allowed to kill anyone?
I think there are six deaths in Terminator II. The two policemen killed by the T-1000, Connor's foster parents, the scientist who gets blown up with the prototype Skynet, and the chap caught in the cross fire between Arnie and the T-1000. Oh, and both Terminators end up being melted in a vat of molten metal.
So, not exactly a balletic carnival of slaughter with only Arnie, Linda Hamilton and the kid the terminator is after as the only survivor.
Now, if you'd talked about Commando you might have had a point but I'm not sure that it's any more Thanatophobic than the Song of Roland or the book of Joshua, for that matter. Good guys killing bad guys has been a staple of narrative since Homer smote his bloomin' lyre.
Callan
Postmodernity sceptic and bad movie buff.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think there are six deaths in Terminator II. The two policemen killed by the T-1000, Connor's foster parents, the scientist who gets blown up with the prototype Skynet, and the chap caught in the cross fire between Arnie and the T-1000. Oh, and both Terminators end up being melted in a vat of molten metal.
There are a few more than that - the T-1000 bumps off the driver of every vehicle it wants for a start. And there's the security guard at the hospital...
quote:
Now, if you'd talked about Commando you might have had a point
Or, indeed, Total Recall.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Callan appears to have repressed his memory of some of the deaths.
Perhaps the memories were just subsumed in appreciation of the balletic carnage... perhaps this denial speaks volumes concerning his latent death-phobia.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The Orthodox alone have remained opposed for various reasons:-
(1) It denies SYMBOLICALLY (not actually) the resurrection promise in the context of death being "sleep."
(2) It promotes human violence against the body rather than a natural return to the earth.
(3) It makes honouring the dead, the body and the rituals of grief associated with the grave much more problematic.
(4) It is in clear violation of millennia of practice and Christ's own example.
Let me try again.
The Orthodox are alone and wrong because
1) To some, burial denies SYMBOLICALLY (not actually) that the body is a means to the spirit and that spirit should rule the body. To some, cremation affirms this SYMBOLICALLY (not actually). Post Christ, Christians should have OPTIONS that are symbolically meaningful to them.
2) Burial can promote equation of a dead human form wrapped in a shroud with a turd wrapped in a piece of toilet paper to some people. For others, cremation equates the dead form with a candle that brings light into the world. Post Christ, Christians should have OPTIONS that are symbolically meaningful to them.
3) Burying makes honoring the dead, the body, and the rituals of grief associated with cremation much more problematic for those predisposed to cremation. For others, the problem is reversed. Post Christ, Christians should have OPTIONS that are symbolically meaningful to them.
4) The continuation of burial alone as the only option available denies Christ's example of freeing us from the inflexible Law. Post Christ, Christians should have OPTIONS that are symbolically meaningful to them.
Is that any better? Orthodox inflexibility on the issue is simply that. It is not a sign that it actually is the One True Church, but the Last Holdout in Error (Rome being second to last in 1963).
Two cheers for Rome! None for Orthodoxy!
[ 24. August 2006, 15:37: Message edited by: JimT ]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
The christian attitude to slavery changed for theological reasons - i.e. it was seen to be immoral. As we've seen from this thread, the acceptance of cremation was largely pragmatic.
Cremation has always been tolerated on pragmatic grounds. Bodies were often burned in time of plague, for fairly obvious reasons. Given the choice between cremation and interment and the nineteenth century practice of chopping up bodies to make more room in graves, the decision to opt for cremation strikes me as being compassionate and humane. If everyone had a straight choice between being buried in an idyllic country churchyard and cremation, I'm sure most of us would choose the former but as, practically, that is rarely the case the introduction of cremation was the least worst option. I don't particularly mind being considered pragmatic in this instance. As no-one on this thread has yet suggested a means by which vast tracts of land on a crowded island could be converted into cemeteries, we're saddled with the current situation. Banging as if a pragmatic decision was some kind of horrific apostasy won't alter that in the slightest.
mdijon - it's a fair cop
--------------------
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
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Neither HT. Have you REALLY read all my posts here? If you had I don't see how you could have said all that.
I'm not as smart as you are. I don't understand your posts. So I asked a simple clarification.
It seems to me you only want to argue on your own terms, abiding by your own agenda, and do so in a way that doesn't ever quite come clean about that agenda.
But like I said, I'm not as smart as you are, so I've probably got it quite wrong.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
It seems to me you only want to argue on your own terms, abiding by your own agenda, and do so in a way that doesn't ever quite come clean about that agenda.
No, say it isn't so HT!
--------------------
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Yes, I give up; it's true. I do believe that theology takes precedence over sociology when it comes to Christians considering their mortality and their hope in Christ. Why should I want to argue someone who isn't a Christian into my inhumation practice? Not at all. If, however, such a person was to leave a body by the roadside, as experienced by my predecessors in the early church, I would bury him / her.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
If, however, such a person was to leave a body by the roadside, as experienced by my predecessors in the early church, I would bury him / her.
As would us Buddhists, thanks. But the fun here is watching you trying to use theology to beat other Christians up, with no theology apparent except "We've done this for 4000 years so we must be right".
--------------------
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
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Yes, I give up; it's true. I do believe that theology takes precedence over sociology when it comes to Christians considering their mortality and their hope in Christ. Why should I want to argue someone who isn't a Christian into my inhumation practice? Not at all. If, however, such a person was to leave a body by the roadside, as experienced by my predecessors in the early church, I would bury him / her.
If you have advanced any explicity theological arguments whatsoever on this thread, then I am afraid my repeated readings of your posts have not helped me to realise to any extent at all what they may possibly be.
Here is what I see happening:
Father Gregory - "rotting is ok, but being burned is not ok".
Everyone else except DOD - "why?"
Father Gregory - "because they show a different attitude to the body and by extension God's creation"
Everyone else except DOD - "are you sure that you are not mistaking a personal preference for a theological argument?"
Father Gregory - "how many more times? being buried and rotting is ok, but being burned is not ok"
Everyone else except DOD - "why?"
and round and round and round and round and round.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
This is the game we play here ...
(1) I explain the theological rationale for inhumation against cremation.
(2) Those who take a utilitarian approach cover over one eye and declare "I see no theology."
(3) I say: "I am not going to repeat myself nor flog a dead horse."
(4) Others reply by traducing my theology into absurd vacuous sound bytes and then have the gall to challenge me to justify my position based on those garbled versions.
Sorry, not playing.
--------------------
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:
(1) I explain the theological rationale for inhumation against cremation.
(2) Those who take a utilitarian approach cover over one eye and declare "I see no theology."
Well, not in my case. I buy your theology of the human body, and like you I reject the dualism that sets spirit separate from and above flesh. I believe in the goodness of God's creation, in the Incarnation of Christ, and in the resurrection of the body.
I just don't buy the notion that burning the human body is inherently disrespectful of it. It depends on how you do it, just as burial being respectful depends on how you do it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
FG,
Speaking as a semi-disinterested semi-objective observer that really doesn't care about how one gets buried or burned, I take umbrage at how you characterized Their theology:
Yours is as Utilitarian as Theirs.
Theirs is as Theological as yours.
The problem here is not Their gall, it is yours for thinking you have a corner on this truth with nothing more than your opinion and a bunch of people that did things a certain cultural way 4000 years ago, or so your people say. I had an ancestor 4000 years ago that crapped standing up, it doesn't mean I mean I want to now.
[ 24. August 2006, 18:11: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...I just don't buy the notion that burning the human body is inherently disrespectful of it. It depends on how you do it, just as burial being respectful depends on how you do it.
Rather like the case of burning flags - there are respectful ways, and there are protests that use disrespectful ways.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Sorry, not playing.
I told you I was not as smart as you.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory;
now you've got me hooked. Do Orthodox insist that you bury body parts. Are you allowed in if the body is tatooed?
For sure, not in an Orthodox Jewish cemetary where for 4,000 unbroken years they've theologically speaking made sure that all your body parts are there for the Resurrection in an unblemished state.
So I hope the Orthodox Christians continue this 4,000 year tradition otherwise,theologically you don't make sense.
the Pookah
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
How is all the piety about burial reconciled with things like this, BTW?
How come these fellas didn't merit a decent burial, one wonders - or at least a decent cremation?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I have attended funerals where the show made by some of the (very) Christian mourners was an absolute denial anything that Christ taught - obsessive weeping (with one eye open to be sure people saw them doing it), clutching at the corpse in the coffin in a "last goodbye" that was positively creepy, large amounts of money spent on preserving the body and laying it in absolute finery in a steel box (presumably so that all the bits were "saved" forever)...
I have attended funerals where the ashes were in a tidy "decent" box, but were not held up so that the mourners could "worship" it, just as I have been at funerals where a pall covered a plain casket. In both styles, the funeral service was a reminder of our mortality in the flesh and our promise of the life to come.
It seems to me that "dust to dust, ashes to ashes" implies that the church (Church?) had decided long ago that ashes were OK. I haven't seen any argument that I find convincing that burial or cremation is inherently more dignified or "religious" or whatever. The attitude of those attending matters more than some statement about "we've always done it this way".
Some of the arguing does help me to determine which sects/denominations/One True Churches offer less attractive points of view!
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
The christian attitude to slavery changed for theological reasons - i.e. it was seen to be immoral.
I think it found its theological defenders prior to that. And it's hard to see how even theology could change if continuity is your prevailing value.
quote:
As we've seen from this thread, the acceptance of cremation was largely pragmatic.
Since when were theology and pragmatism mutually exclusive? Paul has scarcely finished spreading the good news that no-one needs to be circumcised when he goes and does just that to Timothy 'for the sake of the Jews'. In fact "by all possible means save some" sounds like extremely pragmatic theology to me.
quote:
The tradition was grounded in shared theological considerations. Almost everybody except the Orthodox have changed the tradition for almost any reason except theology. And almost nobody is prepared to say why.
If you have a theology which allows for the concept of change of praxis with respect to social realities (and I think I've only just started on how one could find that in the NT without too much difficulty), the distinction you draw falls away.
--------------------
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
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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?
The same could be said of the old view of women, who, in 4000 years of unbroken tradition were seen as spiritually, mentally, and physically inferior to men, and --
Oh, wait.
Never mind.
Father Gregory does seem to be using this issue as just another club with which to beat those who disagree with him. All the actual discussion is taking place among the latter group. He's just doing Theme & Variations, with no genuine interaction.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Actually, I don't find this at all . The thought I had while walking home this evening is that the requirement of specific burial practices reminds me of the Orthodox requirements of incense and icons; perhaps the comparison is not apt, but if so one of the Orthodox can let me know. I can see the theology these things are supposed to express, but I don't see that burying an unembalmed body, using incense in church or kissing/venerating icons are the only ways of expressing, communicating or embodying that theology.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
But Gregory's argument appears to be that the Orthodox have always said that it is the only way to expres that theologically, so it MUST be....
And anyone who challanges that is told that they are just a stupid heretic and that they have "gall" and that they are being wilfully ignorant.
And it is impossibly to argue with that. And that it is impossible to argue with says nothing about the validity or otherwise of Gregory's assertations. Because that is what they are: assertions, not arguments.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory's further explanations of his position have got me thinking about "the resurrection of the body," and what that really means (or might mean), which I've never thought about much before.
It does make my head hurt pretty quickly and for once want to quickly prooftext with Paul about our resurrected bodies being different -- what I read behind that statement is that actually we don't really know what comes next.
Psyduck, thank you for the custom deconstruction. I have grasped onto
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
the "skin-bound" self that is one referent of "I" is really just a part of something vastly more complex.
to mull over.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I'm hoping to find out why this particular burial practice is seen as being the only way to express the Orthodox theology of the human body at this point in life/death. Fr Gregory insists that there is a necessary connection between the two, and I'd like to take a shot at trying to understand how that could be.
quote:
Fr Gregory:
The tradition was grounded in shared theological considerations. Almost everybody except the Orthodox have changed the tradition for almost any reason except theology. And almost nobody is prepared to say why.
quote:
Eutychus:
If you have a theology which allows for the concept of change of praxis with respect to social realities (and I think I've only just started on how one could find that in the NT without too much difficulty), the distinction you draw falls away.
I'm interested in seeing how Fr Gregory responds to this.
It seems to me that all manner of things could be appropriate expressions of a theology that honors the human body as part of God's good creation and as the flesh honored and undertaken by Christ in the Incarnation. The showers offered at my parish to people living on the street, for instance. My admittedly quite incomplete understanding of the Orthodox approach to praxis makes me wonder why things like washing visitors' feet when they enter our homes wasn't enshrined in tradition as one of those things you gotta do.
[ 25. August 2006, 02:09: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
As always, the physical symbolism of traditional ritual clouds the meaning of repeated practice till the original purpose is lost. Icons are meaningless in themselves and are only focal points for something deeper. And so it is with our bodies. They are physical manifestations, meaningless in themselves, and serve only as focal points for a greater purpose. Worrying about how the body is disposed is no more or less important than how you care for an icon. Is Simple Green, Windex or mild soapy water more venerable for its cleaning?
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
I have no theology of interment based on church tradition. The interment practices of Iron Age Jews, Moslems, or even of Neanderthal man are of no more than minor historical interest to me because IMO their interment practices have no significant connection to or impact on the Gospel and to the Christian faith.
What I do have is whatever knowledge of scripture I possess, direct experience of the issues involved in cremation (having been involved in the decision to cremate my parents after their deaths), and an ability (such as it is) to reason through this issue given the tools I have.
In my theology, tradition is a fine thing, honorable, but never, ever authoritative in the same fashion as scripture. I see tradition as a useful resource in my faith and my theology, as a means of continuity to my ancestors of faith, as a history of God's interaction with believers during a time, but not at all co-equal with what I see as the written, revealed, inerrant, inspired Word of God.
My view of scripture is a minority opinion on the Ship (or at least it feels like one), but it's one I've held for a long time and it's one I've examined and will continue to examine. I am open to the possibility I am wrong in my view of scripture, and that's one of the reasons I hang around the Ship--exposure to differing views. As a result, I examine my own beliefs against them, looking for where I might be wrong or where I might be right. To paraphrase Socrates, "The unexamined faith is not worth living" and I want an examined faith.
Thus, my stance on cremation. I don't agree with any of Fr. G's assertions against cremation, and I can offer arguments that interment offers more violence against the deceased and his soul than cremation, which offers none.
[ 25. August 2006, 06:09: Message edited by: KenWritez ]
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
This is the game we play here ...
(1) I explain the theological rationale for inhumation against cremation.
(2) Those who take a utilitarian approach cover over one eye and declare "I see no theology."
(3) I say: "I am not going to repeat myself nor flog a dead horse."
(4) Others reply by traducing my theology into absurd vacuous sound bytes and then have the gall to challenge me to justify my position based on those garbled versions.
Actually, I think that (2) is misinterpreted.
My position (and the position ruthW, JimT and others have articulated) was "I see that there is theology here - however, it all depends on symbolism. And in my/our hands, that symbolism doesn't necessarily carry the same meaning. It seems to be a mistake to impute the same theological meaning on anothers symbolism".
And I would submit that (3) is then inappropriate. (3) actually needs to be a cogent argument as to why one interpretation of the symbolism is to be universal. You did answer in terms of incorruptible, corruptible, risen Christ etc. - but to me those things are not materially influenced by the funeral - only symbolically.
Now it may be that I'm being obstinate in my refusal to see why that is not so - but I honestly don't see it, and you'll need to humour me with monosyllabic explanations if you want me to get it.
[ 25. August 2006, 08:02: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ruth
(The quote was from Isaac David but of course I agree with it ...)
ANYTHING that we do to cherish the human, and that includes first and foremost the body, physical needs etc. etc. is God pleasing. So whether it's the Salvation Army's "you can't preach the gospel to an empty stomach" (St. John Chrysostom would have approved), a gay man tending to his lover dying of Aids or simply giving a hug to a lonely person; all of this is venerating and chershing God's handiwork.
The Orthodox have deeply rooted in their theology of the HUMAN a respect for physicality similar to the Jains who sweep the paths before their ascetics lest they tread on an insect, (although not as extreme as that of course!)
If, for example, I, as a driver, inadvertently killed a child who ran out into the road without warning, I could no longer from that moment serve as a priest. The Church only changed from her pacifistic stance in the early centuries as she became necessarily embroiled in the project of transforming earthly kingdoms. However, violence against the person, even when this fulfils the criteria of the so-called "Just War" or the legitimate use of deadly force by the State ... all of these remain sins needful of repentance.
Nothing remains covered in Orthodoxy. What I do or do not do, what I see or choose not to see, what I accept or rationalise away ... all these are as if I am doing themselves myselves without mediation. So, there is absolutely no difference in Orthodox thought between pressing a button for committal to the flames in a crematorium and, instead, wandering around with a blow touch for 3 hours personally incinerating the body. The finger that hovers over the nuclear button is no different in character from the personal active and individual prospect of vapourising (were it possible) each fatality of a nuclear strike, face to face by the assailant himself.
The modern funeral "industry" (actually whether by burial or burning) has succeeded in distancing us from the object of our fears. Let's just deal with burial for a moment for contemporary practice exhibits the same pathology.
Embalming, funeral homes as "parlours", pretending that the person is "not dead really ... just around the corner" and all that crap, coffins rather than shrouds (coffins only started to be used in a widespread manner in the 19th century), sentimental secularised eulogies rather than realistic gospel messages about mortality and hope ... all these have conspired to sanitise death and distance its reality from human experience. Even when pain and blood and mess have preceded a funeral, the funeral is all about extirpating that from the memory. In this context we can barely watch the crufixion of Jesus in Gibson's Passion ... we are far happier with mass slaughter a la Arnie where we THINK we have dealt with death, but not at all.
Now that this has happened, cremation is made to look no more objectiinable or praiseworthy than burial because the mourners' hands no longer often attend the lowering into the grave with hands full of dirt nor do they think of cremation as anything other than the disappearance behind a curtain and the almost magical appearance later of the ashes. I respect Hindus far, far more for insisting on going round the back to the actual furnace ... as many insist on doing in the UK. I would respect the cremation position here on this thread much more if proponents were henceforth only prepared to attend open pyres as in India, (not that this is legal of course ... just more aspects of The Great Cover Up).
I don't think I can add anything more right now. Again, I am out now the for the day so I will look at this later.
[ 25. August 2006, 08:14: 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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Now that this has happened, cremation is made to look no more objectiinable or praiseworthy than burial because the mourners' hands no longer often attend the lowering into the grave with hands full of dirt nor do they think of cremation as anything other than the disappearance behind a curtain and the almost magical appearance later of the ashes.
That's one heck of a claim. I know that when my grandmother was cremated none of us thought of it as "disappearing behind the curtain". And we knew damn well where the ashes came from and how they got there.
Your position seems to have evolved into some kind of bizarre "if you aren't actually there at the graveside shovelling in the soil on top of the body then you're denying the reality of death" idea. I call bullshit.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The Church only changed from her pacifistic stance in the early centuries as she became necessarily embroiled in the project of transforming earthly kingdoms.
Um... would this be an example of social reality affecting theology?
quote:
The modern funeral "industry" (actually whether by burial or burning) has succeeded in distancing us from the object of our fears.
"whether by burial or burning"...?!! You've moved a long way from your OP. The issue for you is no longer whether cremation is theologically inferior to burial, it's about the removal of the starker realities of death from society.
Me, I call moving the goalpoasts.
--------------------
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
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
If, for example, I, as a driver, inadvertently killed a child who ran out into the road without warning, I could no longer from that moment serve as a priest.
Why not? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
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
Raja Rammohun Roy campainged to end that in 1822 and Gandhi managed to get it made illegal in the Twentieth Century, though it may linger on in remote villages.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
Tsk, tsk Father Gregory, never answered the leg question.hmm or that pesky tatoo issue.
Really the ancient Hebrews didn't even have a feel for the afterlife, all that dreary Sheol stuff.
It was after the Babylonian Exile & getting Zoroastrian ideas of heaven, hell & a resurrection that it came up.
So in truth Father Gregory should go with the vultures a la Parsi, but eheu they are not doing the job & parabolic mirrors are de rigueur in Bombay.
the Pookah
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
From Eutychus:
it's hard to see how even theology could change if continuity is your prevailing value.
Sure, but it isn't our prevailing value. Any attempt to reduce Orthodox theology in that way results in an oversimplification. I don't have time right now to tell you how to do Orthodox theology, but even if I did, I suspect I would fail. Explaining Orthodox theology is rather like explaining a poem or a piece of music. It may help, but the best explanation is the poem or piece of music itself. Maybe that's why repetition is such a strong feature of our contributions. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) quote:
Since when were theology and pragmatism mutually exclusive?
They aren't. The problem at hand is pragmatism divorced from theology or even pragmatism as a substitute for theology.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'm still unclear what this theology is - except a particular interpretation of the symbolism of cremation that may or may not hold for all concerned.
FGs last post certainly doesn't contain any theology.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The modern funeral "industry" (actually whether by burial or burning) has succeeded in distancing us from the object of our fears. Let's just deal with burial for a moment for contemporary practice exhibits the same pathology.
Embalming, funeral homes as "parlours", pretending that the person is "not dead really ... just around the corner" and all that crap, coffins rather than shrouds (coffins only started to be used in a widespread manner in the 19th century), sentimental secularised eulogies rather than realistic gospel messages about mortality and hope ... all these have conspired to sanitise death and distance its reality from human experience. Even when pain and blood and mess have preceded a funeral, the funeral is all about extirpating that from the memory. In this context we can barely watch the crufixion of Jesus in Gibson's Passion ... we are far happier with mass slaughter a la Arnie where we THINK we have dealt with death, but not at all.
Actually, I think this is totally ridiculous.
All of this tremendous hoo-hah you're going on about revolves around a period of about 12-24 hours, according to you. If you don't embalm, you must bury within a day or so. So you're making a big federal deal out of a half day in most people's lives. As if somehow this half-day could or should have a outsized and monstrous effect on people's psyches - and as if the "theology" were able to penetrate the grief of losing people you love.
Please. To blame the "funeral industry" for "distancing people from death" is simply absurd, when the "funeral industry" deals with people for a couple of days, at most. What about all the days and months and years preceding the death? Any notion at all that they might be more important and more formative?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
