Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on April 06, 2017, 04:31:33 AM
-
Does anyone here feel the same way?
1) Funerals are for the living, not the dead.... To me personally, they are a waste of money and a public display of grieving that for many people, is better done in private. If the person who dies is elderly, there's a good chance most of their contemporaries are already dead or too infirm to travel to a funeral. It's also very possible in this economy, people who would like to attend simply can't afford it. I am a notorious funeral skipper. But I went to see the people I cared about before they died. I shared time with them. I was there during those lonely times when no one else was around. I didn't feel guilty in the least about not attending their funerals. I was there when they were alive. When my parents died, we elected to have no funerals. All their loved ones were quite old or couldn't have easily afforded the trip. We told people to donate to charities in their name if they wished to do something in their memory. My sister and I spent more than a decade taking care of our parents when they were ill and dying. We had both already done more than our share. Funerals? BAH. Where were all those people who loved our parents so much when they were alive? Their time would have been much better spent if they had come over once or twice and sat with mom or dad for an hour so we could make a trip to the store or get some important errand run.
2) In the days right before my father's death, we had a chance to hear him say I love you, tell him what we wanted. Laugh sitting around him on his bed. After he died, we saw him. We knew he was gone and all that was left was his body. We had no funeral, no obituary and a direct cremation per his wishes and scattered his ashes in a river 48 hours later with just my mother, my brother and our spouses. A funeral was not needed. Two days after his death was my parents 55th anniversary. We cried a little, but told stories and laughed. My dad is a part of me and I don't need to have a funeral, a cemetery or a monument to tell me that. Hospitals and funerals are a result of death moving away from the family and the family away from the person. They are not needed. I personally will be cremated upon death and the money that would be spent on a funeral and all the paraphenalia will be used to send those I love the most on a nice trip or have a nice dinner.... to have fun and not worry about a funeral ceremony.
-
I agree that how we treat people when they are alive is more important than funerals and speeches.....though we should obviously treat their body with respect and dignity.
As Hindus we cremate our dead and usually do not keep the body for long. Rarely more than a day, unless the son, daughter or wife/husband has to travel long distances. We prefer to cremate the body as soon as possible. We are also forbidden from keeping the ashes at home which must be immersed in a river or sea asap.
We of course have elaborate religious rituals subsequently to enable clear passage of the dead to the higher worlds and to prevent their negative energies (if any) from staying on on earth.
-
I completely agree, Keith.
-
As I posted on another thread recently, when two friends died in shocking incidents, in their early fifties, the huge funerals allowed many people to connect and reconnect. The impact of that is still very significant. Obviously funerals are for the living and 'good' funerals have that clear. I think what you do and how you do it depends on many circumstances. Even in your case Keith, your description of what happened a few days later on the date if the anniversary reads to me of what s funeral should be.
I think people can feel forced into things more elaborate than they want, but I don't see that as a reason to to say that any funeral is somehow irrelevant.
-
For once I agree with Keith. I want my remains disposed of as cheaply as possible. Feed me to zoo animals for all I care, if it wouldn't choke the poor things! ;D
-
Does anyone here feel the same way?
1) Funerals are for the living, not the dead.... To me personally, they are a waste of money and a public display of grieving that for many people, is better done in private. If the person who dies is elderly, there's a good chance most of their contemporaries are already dead or too infirm to travel to a funeral. It's also very possible in this economy, people who would like to attend simply can't afford it. I am a notorious funeral skipper. But I went to see the people I cared about before they died. I shared time with them. I was there during those lonely times when no one else was around. I didn't feel guilty in the least about not attending their funerals. I was there when they were alive. When my parents died, we elected to have no funerals. All their loved ones were quite old or couldn't have easily afforded the trip. We told people to donate to charities in their name if they wished to do something in their memory. My sister and I spent more than a decade taking care of our parents when they were ill and dying. We had both already done more than our share. Funerals? BAH. Where were all those people who loved our parents so much when they were alive? Their time would have been much better spent if they had come over once or twice and sat with mom or dad for an hour so we could make a trip to the store or get some important errand run.
2) In the days right before my father's death, we had a chance to hear him say I love you, tell him what we wanted. Laugh sitting around him on his bed. After he died, we saw him. We knew he was gone and all that was left was his body. We had no funeral, no obituary and a direct cremation per his wishes and scattered his ashes in a river 48 hours later with just my mother, my brother and our spouses. A funeral was not needed. Two days after his death was my parents 55th anniversary. We cried a little, but told stories and laughed. My dad is a part of me and I don't need to have a funeral, a cemetery or a monument to tell me that. Hospitals and funerals are a result of death moving away from the family and the family away from the person. They are not needed. I personally will be cremated upon death and the money that would be spent on a funeral and all the paraphenalia will be used to send those I love the most on a nice trip or have a nice dinner.... to have fun and not worry about a funeral ceremony.
-
Sorry, I disagree.
Oh, I agree that there is a waste of cash on flummery, and that there are no words we can use which will help the body in the box.
As a Christian, I believe that's God's business, not ours.
However I'm able to conduct funerals - and have taken more than one at the request of the family involved.
While never beating about the bush as far as my understanding of the concept of eternity goes, the funeral is centred round the famikly; its' sole purpose being to try to help them begin the grieving process with something posituive out of what is a terrible experience.
-
Does anyone here feel the same way?
1) Funerals are for the living, not the dead.... To me personally, they are a waste of money and a public display of grieving that for many people, is better done in private. If the person who dies is elderly, there's a good chance most of their contemporaries are already dead or too infirm to travel to a funeral. It's also very possible in this economy, people who would like to attend simply can't afford it. I am a notorious funeral skipper. But I went to see the people I cared about before they died. I shared time with them. I was there during those lonely times when no one else was around. I didn't feel guilty in the least about not attending their funerals. I was there when they were alive. When my parents died, we elected to have no funerals. All their loved ones were quite old or couldn't have easily afforded the trip. We told people to donate to charities in their name if they wished to do something in their memory. My sister and I spent more than a decade taking care of our parents when they were ill and dying. We had both already done more than our share. Funerals? BAH. Where were all those people who loved our parents so much when they were alive? Their time would have been much better spent if they had come over once or twice and sat with mom or dad for an hour so we could make a trip to the store or get some important errand run.
2) In the days right before my father's death, we had a chance to hear him say I love you, tell him what we wanted. Laugh sitting around him on his bed. After he died, we saw him. We knew he was gone and all that was left was his body. We had no funeral, no obituary and a direct cremation per his wishes and scattered his ashes in a river 48 hours later with just my mother, my brother and our spouses. A funeral was not needed. Two days after his death was my parents 55th anniversary. We cried a little, but told stories and laughed. My dad is a part of me and I don't need to have a funeral, a cemetery or a monument to tell me that. Hospitals and funerals are a result of death moving away from the family and the family away from the person. They are not needed. I personally will be cremated upon death and the money that would be spent on a funeral and all the paraphenalia will be used to send those I love the most on a nice trip or have a nice dinner.... to have fun and not worry about a funeral ceremony.
A very moving and thoughtful post, Keith.
I'm with your father on this, and having discussed it with my wife and kids I'm not going to have a formal funeral event.
For others a formal funeral (grand or low-key) may be important to them or their family, so I suppose it really is a matter of combining personal preferences of the deceased with how the family prefers to do things.
-
As a Christian I certainly do believe that a Christian burial is for the benefit of the deceased, to help them on their way. A funeral liturgy will therefore have a Eucharist attatched for the deceased.
-
As a Christian I certainly do believe that a Christian burial is for the benefit of the deceased, to help them on their way. A funeral liturgy will therefore have a Eucharist attatched for the deceased.
How can it be for the benefit of the dead, I don't get that at all?
-
Of course you don't get it.
-
Of course you don't get it.
No I don't get it, a dead person doesn't have the ability to 'enjoy' their own funeral.
-
I agree the funeral isfor the loved ones & have asked for simplicity for my own.
I do however agree with NS-
As I posted on another thread recently, when two friends died in shocking incidents, in their early fifties, the huge funerals allowed many people to connect and reconnect. The impact of that is still very significant. Obviously funerals are for the living and 'good' funerals have that clear. I think what you do and how you do it depends on many circumstances. Even in your case Keith, your description of what happened a few days later on the date if the anniversary reads to me of what s funeral should be.
I think people can feel forced into things more elaborate than they want, but I don't see that as a reason to to say that any funeral is somehow irrelevant.
People must be free to do what they want with the funerals of their relatives, they can be moving occasions and even inspirational. They give people an opportunity to pay respects and openly grieve. Rituals have their place in the grief process.
-
No I don't get it, a dead person doesn't have the ability to 'enjoy' their own funeral.
See, you just don't get it. The benefit to the deceased isn't in the ability to "enjoy" the liturgy.
-
No I don't get it, a dead person doesn't have the ability to 'enjoy' their own funeral.
-
Oh, heck - I agree.
What is in the coffin is simply flesh which decays.
Originally - before Christianity, oils, salves and incence were used to sweeten the air at a funearal in lieu of preservation techniques.
The incence (and to some extent the flowers) are the last vestiges of this.
There's no indication that any prayer for a body at a funeral is Scriptural.
I'll pray for the family, give thanks for a life lived, rejoice in the hope of eternity for the believer, but that's about it as far as prayer goes.
-
Prayers for the dead are entirely scriptural. Oh but I forget, the Protestants conveniently chucked those books out of the Bible.
-
See, you just don't get it. The benefit to the deceased isn't in the ability to "enjoy" the liturgy.
Well go on explain how it can benefit the dead? Where in the Bible does it tell you to pray for the dead, chapter and verse, please? That sounds like Catholic nonsense to me.
-
Prayers for the dead are entirely scriptural. Oh but I forget, the Protestants conveniently chucked those books out of the Bible.
"Let the dead bury the dead" - Jesus. I'm not going to go against Scripture. No prayer we pray will affect the individual's decision for Christ. That is only always and completely between God and the individual. We can kneel for eternity and pray them into heaven, but it will only give us arthritis. Besides, if the family don't want that sort of thing at this most heartbreaking of times, to impose it on them is callous and simply wrong.
-
Second Maccabees off the top of my head, but again we don't believe in sola scriptura. The benefit to the deceased is the grace available in the Eucharist being offered to the soul of the deceased.
-
"Let the dead bury the dead"
- Jesus.
Then you shouldn't have funeral services and burials at all because, apparantly, dead bodies can bury dead bodies.
-
Burials are a waste of space I think cremation is better, or donated bodies to medical science.
-
2 Maccabees is deuterocanonical/apocrypa, and not accepted as scripture in full. Nice study in history, though.
-
2 Maccabees is deuterocanonical/apocrypa, and not accepted as scripture in full. Nice study in history, though.
To Protestentism, perhaps, but for the Church Christ founded they are fully canonical and authoritative.
-
To Protestentism, perhaps, but for the Church Christ founded they are fully canonical and authoritative.
HA! HA! If Jesus was a round today the Catholic Church and their 'traditions' might well be an anathema to him, and be roundly condemned as they have caused so much harm over the centuries. >:(
-
HA! HA! If Jesus was a round today the Catholic Church and their 'traditions' might well be an anathema to him, and be roundly condemned as they have caused so much harm over the centuries. >:(
Good job I ain't a Roman Catholic then. You're no better than Sass.
-
I understand what you mean ad_o.
People must arrange funerals as they see fit, what is important to one is not so to another. There's no right or wrong about it but for ad_o itwould be right to have an Orthodox funeral because that's his belief. He's not saying that funerals for those not Orthodox have no value or effect the deceased.
-
Good job I ain't a Roman Catholic then. You're no better than Sass.
But you lot are of the Catholic tradition, with all its craziness!
-
But you lot are of the Catholic tradition, with all its craziness!
::) Clueless!
-
::) Clueless!
Talking about yourself again? ;D
-
What have I taken?
-
Floo, Orhtodox are quite distinct from Catholics.
What you'd call Roman Catholics are Catholics with a big C. Before Catholicism there was Orhodoxy. There are also different branches of Orhtooxy.
Speaking of catholic tradition, eg the Anglican, Episcopal, Methodist or Orthodox, you use lower case c. It means 'universal' and when speaking of Christian faith,applies to all whatever their differences.
You come across as prejudiced against Catholics but when you say ad-o is a Catholic you show you don't know that much & its not fair. If you engage in debate with people of other faiths or traditions you owe it to them to have some reliable information from which to start.
(sorry abouttyping, theres something about this laptop keyboard! Workman/woman blaming toolsof course.)
-
To Protestentism, perhaps, but for the Church Christ founded they are fully canonical and authoritative.
-
Not to any reader of the New Testament, they aren't.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm
-
-
Not to any reader of the New Testament, they aren't.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm
That's no more than Protestant drivel. They were accepted by the Church since the beginning. The Protestants did a Marcion and conveniently scrapped books they didn't like.
-
That's no more than Protestant drivel. They were accepted by the Church since the beginning. The Protestants did a Marcion and conveniently scrapped books they didn't like.
If anyone is speaking drivel it is you!
-
If anyone is speaking drivel it is you!
Go away!
-
Go away!
Oh dear, obviously you don't like your silliness being challenged! ;D ;D ;D
-
That's no more than Protestant drivel. They were accepted by the Church since the beginning. The Protestants did a Marcion and conveniently scrapped books they didn't like.
-
We also scrapped stuff such as icons, mariolatry, hagiolatry, insence, robes and titles which aren't in the NT either.
Norty norty, eh?
-
Oh dear, obviously you don't like your silliness being challenged! ;D ;D ;D
Challenged? But you don't even do that. You just rotate a number of opinions you have about "the deity". If they had any less substance they'd cease to exist altogether.
-
YAWN!
-
Oh dear, obviously you don't like your silliness being challenged! ;D ;D ;D
Floo, did you read my last post? I'm not setting myself up as authority but i do think it is worth a read. Please.
-
-
We also scrapped stuff such as icons, mariolatry, hagiolatry, insence, robes and titles which aren't in the NT either.
Norty norty, eh?
Again, tell me where Jacob's Cream Crackers and Ribena are in the NT. But then we're not the ones claiming to be scripture alone. We consider the scriptures to be one part of a much wider tradition. Take the scriptures out of that tradition then you can't understand them properly.
-
Honestly! I understand you &Flu scrapping but not you & Anchorman. You both think you're right but where is the grace?
You both worship the same Christ.
-
Getting back to the subject of funerals, I think the day will come sooner or later, when burial space runs out and cremations will be insisted upon. It would be a fantastic if the energy produced by cremating the dead could be linked to the National Grid in some way.
-
I presume you didn't read my last but one post, floo.
Crematoriums are already linked in some areas to local heating - swimming pools are an example.
There are more cremations than burials but one can have an eco-friendly burial with biodegradable coffin. Daisies will be pushed up and no air pollution.
-
I presume you didn't read my last but one post, floo.
Crematoriums are already linked in some areas to local heating - swimming pools are an example.
There are more cremations than burials but one can have an eco-friendly burial with biodegradable coffin. Daisies will be pushed up and no air pollution.
Yes I realise that, but I think all should be linked up to the National Grid if that was possible, and hopefully that would help to bring down the cost of fuel.
You might have a biodegradable coffin, but bodies don't completely biodegrade. Besides which, space which could be put to much better use, has to be provided for even so called eco-friendly burial.
-
Getting back to the subject of funerals, I think the day will come sooner or later, when burial space runs out and cremations will be insisted upon. It would be a fantastic if the energy produced by cremating the dead could be linked to the National Grid in some way.
There's no way I'm going out like a heathen. Burial expresses our hope in the resurrection.
-
Honestly! I understand you &Flu scrapping but not you & Anchorman. You both think you're right but where is the grace?
You both worship the same Christ.
Maybe we do, maybe we don't. Protestantism makes it up as it goes along.
-
The same accusation is levelled at your beliefs ad_o.
I sit on the fence here because I see integrity in both. It isn't worth scrapping about.
-
The same accusation is levelled at your beliefs ad_o.
I sit on the fence here because I see integrity in both. It isn't worth scrapping about.
I'm sure there are many Protestants who do think that of us. In fact I've stumbled across many on other forums. I tend not to take any notice of them. I would go so far as to say discussion with Protestantism is unfruitful at best. That is why I'm not an ecumenist, at least not in the modern sense.
-
Thank God - literally - that the Orthodox lecturer (and later bishop) under whom I studied at Glasgow did not share the same opinion, and that ecumenism was his great passion. He shared fellowship in Christ with CofS, Congregationalists, Baptists and Independent Evangelicals without batting an eyelid. He used to drive a rather reprehensable VW beetle - with the car sticker "All one in Christ Jesus!" Works for me!
-
Thank God - literally - that the Orthodox lecturer (and later bishop) under whom I studied at Glasgow did not share the same opinion, and that ecumenism was his great passion. He shared fellowship in Christ with CofS, Congregationalists, Baptists and Independent Evangelicals without batting an eyelid. He used to drive a rather reprehensable VW beetle - with the car sticker "All one in Christ Jesus!" Works for me!
I'm not an ecumenist in the modern sense. Ecumenism in the traditional sense means bringing those Christians outise the Church back to Orthodoxy which begins, of course, with prayer.
-
Thank God - literally - that the Orthodox lecturer (and later bishop) under whom I studied at Glasgow did not share the same opinion, and that ecumenism was his great passion. He shared fellowship in Christ with CofS, Congregationalists, Baptists and Independent Evangelicals without batting an eyelid. He used to drive a rather reprehensable VW beetle - with the car sticker "All one in Christ Jesus!" Works for me!
He sounds good, would work for me too.