‘Green’ burial alternatives

[Jazzy]

A large faith conference is pushing back on "green composting" as a way to handle human remains.

It is improper to compost human remains and the practice is disrespectful to the body of the deceased, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement released Thursday, March 23.

"The guidance offered by the Congregation regarding burial and cremation reflects the Church’s overarching concern that due respect be shown to the bodily remains of the deceased in a way that gives visible witness to our faith and hope in the resurrection of the body," said the statement, authored by the conference's doctrine committee.

Continue reading

---

The body is not going to be resurrected. Your spirit/soul is resurrected, not the physical body. While I personally wouldn't do a composting of a body, I see no religious reason why is can't be done. We are all from dust (Genesis 2:7), so why not go back from whence you came? The Catholic Church allows cremation, why not composting, which is more natural?

Your thoughts?

 

[Lamb]

The physical resurrection is what Christians look forward to when Christ returns. His actual physical resurrection from the dead is the sure sign for believers that we too will be resurrected.

As for burial over cremation, God can do anything, but most Christians prefer burial because it's a sign to non-believers that God is not yet done with that body.

 

[tango]

As for burial over cremation, God can do anything, but most Christians prefer burial because it's a sign to non-believers that God is not yet done with that body.

I'm not sure leaving a body to turn to dust over the course of years, decades, centuries, makes a whole lot of difference when compared to cremation.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure leaving a body to turn to dust over the course of years, decades, centuries, makes a whole lot of difference when compared to cremation.

But it does.

It's mainly a matter of imagery because, as Lamb suggested, God can do anything and there's no reason to think that if a body has been reduced to particles it cannot later be 'raised' by him in some way or other. He said he'll do it, so he will do it.

If that WERE NOT the case, there'd be literally millions of people through the centuries who have been reduced to fragments and/or scattered for reasons other than cremation.

 

[tango]

But it does.

It's mainly a matter of imagery because, as Lamb suggested, God can do anything and there's no reason to think that if a body has been reduced to particles it cannot later be 'raised' by him in some way or other. He said he'll do it, so he will do it.

If that WERE NOT the case, there'd be literally millions of people through the centuries who have been reduced to fragments and/or scattered for reasons other than cremation.

Presumably the same God who can raise a body turned to dust by the passage of centuries can also raise a body turned to ashes by the fires of a crematorium, or indeed a body turned to ashes in the case of people killed in a fire. Presumably God can also raise a body torn apart by wild animals, or used for organ donation or otherwise less than perfectly intact?

 

[Lamb]

Presumably the same God who can raise a body turned to dust by the passage of centuries can also raise a body turned to ashes by the fires of a crematorium, or indeed a body turned to ashes in the case of people killed in a fire. Presumably God can also raise a body torn apart by wild animals, or used for organ donation or otherwise less than perfectly intact?

That isn't why Christians prefer burial. It's the point of telling others that their body isn't yet finished by God, that He will return for us.

 

[Albion]

Presumably the same God who can raise a body turned to dust by the passage of centuries can also raise a body turned to ashes by the fires of a crematorium, or indeed a body turned to ashes in the case of people killed in a fire.

Exactly.

HOWEVER there's also that other issue which both Lamb and I referred to. It means something, even if God is not stymied by a cremation or a soldier being blown to bits on the battlefield, etc.

And, there may also be one more consideration as well.

Burial is what Jesus taught, but it's also more respectful than deliberately and completely destroying any real trace of the deceased.

 

[tango]

That isn't why Christians prefer burial. It's the point of telling others that their body isn't yet finished by God, that He will return for us.

I'm not sure how putting a body in a solid box in the ground to turn to dust says anything of the sort. If we believe God can raise a body back to life, whatever has happened to it and however much time has passed, I don't see how one process or another indicates anything.

If we were talking about an expected wait time of a few days I'd see the point. But when we can walk around a graveyard and see graves from sufficiently long ago that the bodies would have long since turned to dust, I really struggle to see the difference. It seems to be something more about personal preference than any universal thing.

 

[tango]

Exactly.

HOWEVER there's also that other issue which both Lamb and I referred to. It means something, even if God is not stymied by a cremation or a soldier being blown to bits on the battlefield, etc.

And, there may also be one more consideration as well.

Burial is what Jesus taught, but it's also more respectful than deliberately and completely destroying any real trace of the deceased.

In the days of Jesus they probably didn't have crematoriums so there were only so many options.

If you prefer to be buried than cremated obviously you're free to do that. I just don't see anything to back your claim that one option over another "means something", I don't see how one is more respectful than another, and I don't see how letting a body turn to dust over the course of several years is inherently any different to turning the same body to dust over the course of a few hours. You talk of "completely destroying any real trace" but how does a body sitting in a box for decades do anything differently - the body turns to dust (as decreed by God back in Adam and Eve's time), it just does it much more slowly.

 

[Albion]

In the days of Jesus they probably didn't have crematoriums so there were only so many options.

That seems true enough, but he could have chosen not to make this a point of emphasis or simply said to dispose of the remains in some respectful way, etc.

If you prefer to be buried than cremated obviously you're free to do that. I just don't see anything to back your claim that one option over another "means something",

At that point I was referring back to Lamb's statement which you had chosen not to comment on.

I don't see how one is more respectful than another, and I don't see how letting a body turn to dust over the course of several years is inherently any different to turning the same body to dust over the course of a few hours.

If you don't think that an intact corpse, even when reduced to bones, is more representative of a formerly alive human being than something resembling a handful of gravel inside a "baggie," I am most likely not going to convince you otherwise. And that's okay. We can differ on this. I just thought that there are a couple of good reasons for preferring burial over cremation.

You talk of "completely destroying any real trace" but how does a body sitting in a box for decades do anything differently - the body turns to dust (as decreed by God back in Adam and Eve's time), it just does it much more slowly.

Well, that's one reason in itself for burials. It takes some time for the remains to degrade. With cremation, it's immediate. And we have not yet considered the burial ceremony. It is meaningful in several ways; cremation by contrast normally does nothing at all in that department.

 

[Lamb]

I'm not sure how putting a body in a solid box in the ground to turn to dust says anything of the sort. If we believe God can raise a body back to life, whatever has happened to it and however much time has passed, I don't see how one process or another indicates anything.

If we were talking about an expected wait time of a few days I'd see the point. But when we can walk around a graveyard and see graves from sufficiently long ago that the bodies would have long since turned to dust, I really struggle to see the difference. It seems to be something more about personal preference than any universal thing.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. It's to show non-believers that we trust that God will return and we'll be resurrected. Just because that hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it doesn't make our point. It still makes the point.

 

[tango]

That seems true enough, but he could have chosen not to make this a point of emphasis or simply said to dispose of the remains in some respectful way, etc.

Maybe he could have. We can only take coulda-would-shoulda so far before it turns into speculation.

At that point I was referring back to Lamb's statement which you had chosen not to comment on.

If you don't think that an intact corpse, even when reduced to bones, is more representative of a formerly alive human being than something resembling a handful of gravel inside a "baggie," I am most likely not going to convince you otherwise. And that's okay. We can differ on this. I just thought that there are a couple of good reasons for preferring burial over cremation.

Anyone is free to prefer one or the other. My issue was that when you presented one option as "more respectful" than the other without anything to back your assertion it looked like a statement that one was objectively better than the other. If it's a simple case that you prefer the thought of one over the other that's a different proposition.

Well, that's one reason in itself for burials. It takes some time for the remains to degrade. With cremation, it's immediate. And we have not yet considered the burial ceremony. It is meaningful in several ways; cremation by contrast normally does nothing at all in that department.

Having been to a few funerals that involved burial and a few funerals that involved cremation, I don't really consider one to be inherently more meaningful than the other. You commit a body to the ground, or you commit a body to the flames. You say your final farewell to someone. You gather with others to share memories of the deceased.

 

[tango]

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. It's to show non-believers that we trust that God will return and we'll be resurrected. Just because that hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it doesn't make our point. It still makes the point.

Can you explain how you think it makes the point? If God can resurrect a body that has turned to dust because it has been in a box for 200 years, if God can resurrect a body that was crushed beyond recognition because the former owner died when a building collapsed, if God can resurrect a body that was eaten by wild animals because someone died in the woods, if God can resurrect a body with organs missing because they were donated to someone else, what point are you trying to make? Presumably that same God can resurrect a body turned to ashes by the fires rather than turned to dust by time?

 

[Albion]

Maybe he could have. We can only take coulda-would-shoulda so far before it turns into speculation.

That's true, but I was pointing out that it's a bit of a leap to conclude that when Jesus said to bury the dead, that this was because there wasn't any other method of disposing of bodies. Of course there were others at that time in history.

Anyone is free to prefer one or the other. My issue was that when you presented one option as "more respectful" than the other without anything to back your assertion it looked like a statement that one was objectively better than the other.

I DO think that a respectful burial service along with some ceremony IS more dignified than being given a baggie containing a mixture of burned body parts mixed in with fragments of the container in which the body was destroyed, that's right.

 

[Lamb]

Can you explain how you think it makes the point? If God can resurrect a body that has turned to dust because it has been in a box for 200 years, if God can resurrect a body that was crushed beyond recognition because the former owner died when a building collapsed, if God can resurrect a body that was eaten by wild animals because someone died in the woods, if God can resurrect a body with organs missing because they were donated to someone else, what point are you trying to make? Presumably that same God can resurrect a body turned to ashes by the fires rather than turned to dust by time?

You keep looking at it in the eyes of a believer. Of course believers trust that God can resurrect any body. That's not the point. The point is to let non-believers see that believers don't think that God is done with us.

 

[tango]

That's true, but I was pointing out that it's a bit of a leap to conclude that when Jesus said to bury the dead, that this was because there wasn't any other method of disposing of bodies. Of course there were others at that time in history.

Or maybe references to "bury" were metaphorical rather than literal, or cultural?

I DO think that a respectful burial service along with some ceremony IS more dignified than being given a baggie containing a mixture of burned body parts mixed in with fragments of the container in which the body was destroyed, that's right.

And that is absolutely your right, but to assert as an outright declaration that burial is more respectful implies it's a universal thing rather than a matter of opinion or preference.

 

[tango]

You keep looking at it in the eyes of a believer. Of course believers trust that God can resurrect any body. That's not the point. The point is to let non-believers see that believers don't think that God is done with us.

I'm still not seeing the point you're trying to make.

Not to be flippant here, but this seems like the kind of argument that suggests a lack of faith in God rather than anything else. We believe God can and will raise us, but we're afraid in case we do something that makes it too difficult. If we truly look forward to a heaven where there sickness goes away, where the severely disabled are restored, why do we need to do anything particular to a dead body in the here and now?

How does this look to a non-believer? What a great God we must serve, if we feel the need to protect the integrity of a dead body in case it's too difficult for him to resurrect something we didn't look after, even though we apparently trust that he can resurrect the remains of someone who died when a building collapsed in an earthquake, or in a plane crash, or some way that liberally distributed what was left of them over a wide area.

 

[Albion]

And that is absolutely your right, but to assert as an outright declaration that burial is more respectful implies it's a universal thing rather than a matter of opinion or preference.

Well, I did explain why it is more respectful, so hypothetical exceptions or the strange customs of some tribe somewhere are not serious considerations when we're discussing why and how our society perceives such things.

Having been to a few funerals that involved burial and a few funerals that involved cremation, I don't really consider one to be inherently more meaningful than the other. You commit a body to the ground, or you commit a body to the flames.

Okay, educate me about that. So, the mourners are gathered around the oven to watch the remains of their loved one pushed into the flames and destroyed, after which the widow, etc. is given the ashes to dispose of as she wishes, within the confines of the law, that is. Is that about it?

 

[Albion]

How does this look to a non-believer? What a great God we must serve, if we feel the need to protect the integrity of a dead body in case it's too difficult for him to resurrect something we didn't look after,...

Me thinks that you are now arguing for the sake of arguing. No one suggested that God would have a hard time resurrecting a dismembered or fragmented corpse. It was just the opposite, in fact.

Not to be flippant here, but this seems like the kind of argument that suggests a lack of faith in God rather than anything else.

Really? THAT's what you really and truly think?