4 ms·

> what actually makes you sad is the hands-off approach we take to funerals in general That is a component, not the root. > done in the traditional way—on a f

> what actually makes you sad is the hands-off approach we take to funerals in general That is a component, not the root. > done in the traditional way—on a funeral pyre lit by the grieving loved ones who watch as the body is consumed? Yes, that would be better. I still don't like cremation, but that is also a true sense of finality and closure. Would stink to high heaven, though. > For myself, I'm all for cremation, and I say that as a devout Christian. When I'm dead I don't want my family to make a big deal out of my mortal remains. That's not me, it's a shell that I left behind on my way home. Cremation emphasizes that I've moved on in a way that for me burial just doesn't. I am as well, but most traditional Christians do not believe in Ghost in the Shell. The body is an essential part of our being, and does not lose that aspect of our being after death. Cremation was previously only practiced by cultures that believed in a split reality—for example, the Norse pagans and Valhalla. As Christians, we all believe in the bodily general resurrection and heaven being in "the same place" as we are now (assuming all Christians believe in one of the two forms of the Nicene creed). Working from there, burial seems more appropriate.

MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
Another believer with an alternate take on cremation that doesn't require body/spirit duality: God made man from dust, and even without cremation, to dust we shall return. It is really no trouble or extra work for God to raise the dead from scattered dust than it is for a relatively intact body, since that's what most resurrections would require anyway. Besides, when the resurrection occurs, we're getting better bodies anyway, so why worry about what happens to the old one? Intact burials are a tradition (which is totally fine), but not a commandment.
- rpmisms 2y ago
  I did say "Working from there, burial seems more appropriate." It's not about what God can or cannot do, it's about treating the body with the honor due as a member of the Body of Christ. Someone who is burned to death does not die at a disadvantage at the last judgement. > Intact burials are a tradition (which is totally fine), but not a commandment. Correct. I see your point, but lean towards tradition in cases of questions.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > treating the body with the honor due as a member of the Body of Christ Is cremation not being respectful? Burning something to retire it can IMO be very respectful.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lolinder 2y ago
> assuming all Christians believe in one of the two forms of the Nicene creed I guess this is where we part ways somewhat—I'm a devout Christian who does not accept the output of the First Council of Nicea as authoritative. I understand it to be a good faith effort to standardize what had already become a very diverse religion, but I don't hold it in higher regard than any other post-apostolic interpretation of divinity. That said, I'm not sure that Nicea is relevant when it comes to cremation—the Creed itself doesn't have much to say about death and resurrection except that there will be one, which I accept wholeheartedly, but which at the same time doesn't persuade me that the mortal body sown in corruption is something God expects us to feel attached to or to attempt to keep intact after death.
vel0city 2y ago
> heaven being in "the same place" as we are now > I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. I don't see how this implies heaven being in "the same place" as we are now. I also don't see how our bodies can be made perfect but only if we don't burn them up first. Seems like a major limitation of God's infinite power if he can take someone that's nothing but bones and make them perfect but someone who is a pile of ash is just too difficult.
- rpmisms 2y ago
  Here's my answer to this from another comment > It's not about what God can or cannot do, it's about treating the body with the honor due as a member of the Body of Christ. Someone who is burned to death does not die at a disadvantage at the last judgement.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    So having care in the process of burning the body and honoring the cremains isn't treating the body with the honor due but putting someone in a pine box and burying them in the dirt to be eaten by worms and "leach corpse juice into a water table" is treating the body with the honor due? How is burying more honorable than cremation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6IShnqPY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6IShnqPY0
    - rpmisms 2y ago
      Because burning a body is inherently disgusting. Try it with a small animal, see how it is. Commiting someone to the earth is far less awful, far more natural, and just generally better. In concept, cremation is lovely. In practice, you need a bone grinder, a cremation chamber that requires you to break the femurs of the dearly departed to fit them inside, and massive filtration to prevent the entire area from smelling of burnt corpse. Burial requires a box.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        And rotting in a box "leaking corpse juice" isn't disgusting. Try it with a small animal, see how it is. Honestly though, I can't really try it with a small animal as I don't have a cremation retort capable of reaching the ~1,500-2,000F that are common on actual cremation retorts. I don't know what kind of oven you rock in your kitchen but mine tops out ~500F.

MrDrMcCoy 2y ago

Another believer with an alternate take on cremation that doesn't require body/spirit duality: God made man from dust, and even without cremation, to dust we shall return. It is really no trouble or extra work for God to raise the dead from scattered dust than it is for a relatively intact body, since that's what most resurrections would require anyway. Besides, when the resurrection occurs, we're getting better bodies anyway, so why worry about what happens to the old one? Intact burials are a tradition (which is totally fine), but not a commandment.

rpmisms 2y ago
I did say "Working from there, burial seems more appropriate." It's not about what God can or cannot do, it's about treating the body with the honor due as a member of the Body of Christ. Someone who is burned to death does not die at a disadvantage at the last judgement. > Intact burials are a tradition (which is totally fine), but not a commandment. Correct. I see your point, but lean towards tradition in cases of questions.
- vel0city 2y ago
  > treating the body with the honor due as a member of the Body of Christ Is cremation not being respectful? Burning something to retire it can IMO be very respectful.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lolinder 2y ago

> assuming all Christians believe in one of the two forms of the Nicene creed I guess this is where we part ways somewhat—I'm a devout Christian who does not accept the output of the First Council of Nicea as authoritative. I understand it to be a good faith effort to standardize what had already become a very diverse religion, but I don't hold it in higher regard than any other post-apostolic interpretation of divinity. That said, I'm not sure that Nicea is relevant when it comes to cremation—the Creed itself doesn't have much to say about death and resurrection except that there will be one, which I accept wholeheartedly, but which at the same time doesn't persuade me that the mortal body sown in corruption is something God expects us to feel attached to or to attempt to keep intact after death.

vel0city 2y ago

> heaven being in "the same place" as we are now > I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. I don't see how this implies heaven being in "the same place" as we are now. I also don't see how our bodies can be made perfect but only if we don't burn them up first. Seems like a major limitation of God's infinite power if he can take someone that's nothing but bones and make them perfect but someone who is a pile of ash is just too difficult.

rpmisms 2y ago
Here's my answer to this from another comment > It's not about what God can or cannot do, it's about treating the body with the honor due as a member of the Body of Christ. Someone who is burned to death does not die at a disadvantage at the last judgement.
- vel0city 2y ago
  So having care in the process of burning the body and honoring the cremains isn't treating the body with the honor due but putting someone in a pine box and burying them in the dirt to be eaten by worms and "leach corpse juice into a water table" is treating the body with the honor due? How is burying more honorable than cremation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6IShnqPY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6IShnqPY0
  - rpmisms 2y ago
    Because burning a body is inherently disgusting. Try it with a small animal, see how it is. Commiting someone to the earth is far less awful, far more natural, and just generally better. In concept, cremation is lovely. In practice, you need a bone grinder, a cremation chamber that requires you to break the femurs of the dearly departed to fit them inside, and massive filtration to prevent the entire area from smelling of burnt corpse. Burial requires a box.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      And rotting in a box "leaking corpse juice" isn't disgusting. Try it with a small animal, see how it is. Honestly though, I can't really try it with a small animal as I don't have a cremation retort capable of reaching the ~1,500-2,000F that are common on actual cremation retorts. I don't know what kind of oven you rock in your kitchen but mine tops out ~500F.