Cremation

[SoonerCoug]

Cremation: Good? Bad? Implications for the resurrection?

I'm going to go with bad because it limits biomolecule recycling.

[imanihonjin]

Cremation: Good? Bad? Implications for the resurrection?

I'm going to go with bad because it limits biomolecule recycling.

I never understood the argument about cremation having any implications for the resurrection. So God is powerful enough to resurrect us and cause us to live forever, and he is powerful enough to create all matter, yet he must have our bone structure in place in order for us to be resurrected. I don't buy it.

[Northwestcoug]

On a related note, this is why my mom told me once she didn't want to donate her organs. It would just make it too difficult for her to get her corneas back, I suppose.

[Katy Lied]

Cremation: It's good for the planet and good for your wallet.

[Moliere]

On a related note, this is why my mom told me once she didn't want to donate her organs. It would just make it too difficult for her to get her corneas back, I suppose.

To even think that we'll be resurrected with the exact same atoms that we were when we were alive is lunacy...and I'm sure the idea of resurrection is lunacy to Sooner.

Cremation is a better alternative, IMO, as it is less costly and still provides a way for someone to have something tangible to remember the person by.

[SoonerCoug]

Cremation: It's good for the planet and good for your wallet.

Cremation is not good for the planet.

[PaloAltoCougar]

My wish would be for someone to drill a deep, cylindrical hole near the base of a fairly young tree with a long life expectancy (e.g., a Giant Sequoia), and then drop me in (preferably after I had died) and cover me over. I'd love for my earthly remains to serve the future as a kind of Miracle Gro Stick. I'm not just saying this to curry Sooner's favor.

[pellegrino]

Cremation is not good for the planet.

it's much better for the planet than the typical American custom of being pumped with chemicals and buried in a virtually impregnable box six feet under.

If you really want something that's going to be better for the planet, then you're talking about being wrapped in a burlap sack and thrown in a pauper's grave. That allows for some serious biomolecular recycling.

[Northwestcoug]

To even think that we'll be resurrected with the exact same atoms that we were when we were alive is lunacy...and I'm sure the idea of resurrection is lunacy to Sooner.

Cremation is a better alternative, IMO, as it is less costly and still provides a way for someone to have something tangible to remember the person by.

I think it's an instance of trying to make sense of why cremation was/is frowned upon in the church. And, not really thinking of the implications of the theory you come up with.

it's much better for the planet than the typical American custom of being pumped with chemicals and buried in a virtually impregnable box six feet under.

If you really want something that's going to be better for the planet, then you're talking about being wrapped in a burlap sack and thrown in a pauper's grave. That allows for some serious biomolecular recycling.

If you truly want to love the planet, a sky burial is the only way to go.

[SoonerCoug]

To even think...and I'm sure the idea of resurrection is lunacy to Sooner.

I'm not the only one who thinks this is a little crazy.

I'm sure geoducks will be resurrected right alongside you. Makes perfect sense. Everything comes right back to life. Why would things ever die and not come back to life? It doesn't matter if there is zero evidence of dead things coming back to life. If you want it to be true it can be true--no matter what the evidence is.

I sacrificed 200 mice the other day to study their brains. But I'm sure I'll see them again in the CK so it's cool.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Cremation

it's much better for the planet than the typical American custom of being pumped with chemicals and buried in a virtually impregnable box six feet under.

If you really want something that's going to be better for the planet, then you're talking about being wrapped in a burlap sack and thrown in a pauper's grave. That allows for some serious biomolecular recycling.

Yep. This is why I've signed up for the pauper option with my local mortician.

There's always bio cremation.

http://www.biocremationinfo.com/WhatisBioCremation.aspx

[Non Sequitur]

it's much better for the planet than the typical American custom of being pumped with chemicals and buried in a virtually impregnable box six feet under.

If you really want something that's going to be better for the planet, then you're talking about being wrapped in a burlap sack and thrown in a pauper's grave. That allows for some serious biomolecular recycling.

If you've got persistence and the right set of tools, they're not nearly as impregnable as you'd think.

[clackamascoug]

My wish would be for someone to drill a deep, cylindrical hole near the base of a fairly young tree with a long life expectancy (e.g., a Giant Sequoia), and then drop me in (preferably after I had died) and cover me over. I'd love for my earthly remains to serve the future as a kind of Miracle Gro Stick. I'm not just saying this to curry Sooner's favor.

Me too, I've long thought that being sucked up into a tree would be the best option.

[RC Vikings]

Being warm for just a little while sounds much better than being stuck in a box and then buried underground. I'm so claustrophobic I freak out just thinking about it even though I would be dead.

[Katy Lied]

If you've got persistence and the right set of tools, they're not nearly as impregnable as you'd think.

Lol. quickly covered up by a cough because I am in a place where laughter is not appropriate. But I'm still smiling.