We don't wish to have funerals we we die

[Trailblazer]

Humans are animals and no different to any other species in many respects. When we die we cease to be just like any other animal. The idea of a 'soul', which lives on after death, is a fanciful notion for which there is not the slightest bit of evidence.

Certainly the idea of a soul comes from religion and it cannot ever be proven to exist. The soul is a sign of God whose mystery no mind can ever hope to unravel.

There is a boatload of evidence for the afterlife. Nonbelievers simply do not LIKE the evidence so they dismiss it out of hand.However, evidence if not the same as proof. The afterlife cannot be proven as a fact because it is an immaterial existence. As such, a degree of faith must be coupled with the evidence that is available.

 

[Trailblazer]

Watch the video that was linked in the post.

Thanks... That was funny and it made its point.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'll take God's knowing over man's supposition. When God said all in the inspired work in Ecclesiastes who am I to say he didn't mean animals? All things are created of God.

Ecclesiastes was right about the bodies of both men and beasts but it did not address the soul of man. The bodies all return to dust but the soul of man continues to exist forever. That is not based upon man’s supposition, it is based upon the Writings of Baha’u’llah, who was a Manifestation of God.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 155-156

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Send the corpse off to a medical school, for experimentation for all I care.

I'm now old enough, that the parts are worn and pretty much useless-- I had thought the corneas useful, but alas, LASIC has ruined those too (or so I was told--after).

I suppose the blood could be drained, if done quickly enough, and put to some use.

But I'll be dead, and have no immediate family who could give a fig, so off to Medical Experiments it is.

I have absolutely zero desire to spend hard earned $$ on a stupid piece of property I'll never see the use of. Even less, on a stupid wooden box which is inserted into a concrete one anyway. What a dumb bunch of ideas that was! Money to be made, don'cha know.

I have seriously considered registering as Jewish, just so that I can get an exception, and be put in a pine box-- no concrete vault-- so that the whole thing rots quickly.

But I rather like the idea that some Freshman Class of Medical Students can have the fun of disassembly of my corpse. Mayhap one will go on to Cure Some Dread Ailment? Or heck-- be one of those Emergency Rescue Folk-- thus, in my Death, I'll do more to help people than ever in Life.

Either way-- don't care-- won't be around to care. Dead is dead is dead.

I was dead for 14+ billion years before the Earth finally got around to existing, then I wasn't-- and it's only been 61 years-- and I absolutely was not bothered by being dead for so long, before finally being born.

I'm told, that my atoms once existed in the heart of a star. Pretty cool! (irony intentional)

So, once dead, I'll go back to how I was before I was born.

However. If Ever I Win The Lottery? Things Will Be Different: I'll be cremated, and then rent an open air stadium. I'll have an unlimited open bar, dancing girls on the stage, the Best Musicians Live. Everyone Invited-- especially anyone who asked me to give them money.

Then? At the height of festivities? A helicopter flies just over head-- and my ashes will be dumped out into the downward airstream-- to blow into everyone's faces.

HA! I WILL HAVE DONATED ALL MY RICHES TO A CHARITY AN NONE TO YOU PEOPLE. Enjoy the free drinks-- that's the sum of your inheritance.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I feel that the land taken up by graveyards is a waste, even though they are interesting places. Besides... all we're doing by putting a body in a box is making it harder for the rest of nature to do the job of breaking the body down and recycling it into the materials of the Earth.

Not sure I've heard of such a perspective on graveyards before, but I suppose they take up room that would otherwise have a couple dozen houses. The one across the street from me relieves me of having so many neighbors however, and it is home to some giant oak trees and cedars, probably some of the oldest in town. I think wildlife likes to live in it too, I kept seeing a mother deer in there with a trio of fawns last year.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not sure I've heard of such a perspective on graveyards before, but I suppose they take up room that would otherwise have a couple dozen houses. The one across the street from me relieves me of having so many neighbors however, and it is home to some giant oak trees and cedars, probably some of the oldest in town. I think wildlife likes to live in it too, I kept seeing a mother deer in there with a trio of fawns last year.

I'm not so much concerned with the space being wasted for human consumption (houses, buildings, etc.) but more just that it is land that could otherwise be even more free/open for wildlife and just Earth being Earth in general.

The more you have people hanging around an area, and the more you lay land bare, without cover for some of the more timid animals, the more you are taking from nature and setting aside for humans. I know you said you see wildlife in the graveyard, but it is, I am sure, superficial amounts and types - not the plethora that would exist there were it allowed to grow over and be more natural, without human interference.

We're really the only species that cordons off huge tracts of land and reformats it to suit our needs - removing trees, flattening hills, keeping grass cut short. We should take that into consideration and act responsibly if we care at all about keeping ecological systems healthy - another thing only we really take into consideration or understand. Funny that - we're the only species capable of understanding the abstract of ecosystem health and function, and yet the absolute worst when it comes to fostering/nurturing it... or even remaining neutral to it!

 

[amorphous_constellation]

We're really the only species that cordons off huge tracts of land and reformats it to suit our needs - removing trees, flattening hills, keeping grass cut short. We should take that into consideration and act responsibly if we care at all about keeping ecological systems healthy - another thing only we really take into consideration or understand. Funny that - we're the only species capable of understanding the abstract of ecosystem health and function, and yet the absolute worst when it comes to fostering/nurturing it... or even remaining neutral to it!

I'm not sure that's really exactly the case. I'm not a biologist, but I think if you allowed ungulates total free reign in America once again, a lot of it would turn savanna like. Pigs even eat grass roots, I'm not sure how that would work out if we weren't just talking bovines. Another thing a lot of people don't realize, is that human forestry methods simulate what was once accomplished naturally with fire, an impasse of brambles at walking level doesn't seem natural. I think I heard of some seeds not even working right unless a fire was in an area. Research also seems to indicate that fungal mass also can alter landscapes through decomposition. Algae can take over a lake, bacteria can devastate new hosts like I think may be happening right now with European salamanders.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm not sure that's really exactly the case. I'm not a biologist, but I think if you allowed ungulates total free reign in America once again, a lot of it would turn savanna like. Pigs even eat grass roots, I'm not sure how that would work out if we weren't just talking bovines. Another thing a lot of people don't realize, is that human forestry methods simulate what was once accomplished naturally with fire, an impasse of brambles at walking level doesn't seem natural. I think I heard of some seeds not even working right unless a fire was in an area. Research also seems to indicate that fungal mass also can alter landscapes through decomposition. Algae can take over a lake, bacteria can devastate new hosts like I think may be happening right now with European salamanders.

Consider the sheer, mountainous amount of unique-molecular-compound materials we've produced in just a few decades. Substances that barely bio-degrade and possibly never would have existed in any quantity had we not come up with the processes to manufacture them. Consider the portion of the oceans and land mass that is taken up by exactly such debris.

You mention bovines and pigs, but with our breeding of them for agricultural purposes, neither of these animals resemble the hearty wild versions of the animals they are descended from. To the point that some of those animals wouldn't even properly survive if reintroduced to the wild. A quick search on Google, asking if there are any wild cows left produced this:

There are 12 species of Wild Cattle (tribe Bovini) in the world but several have either been entirely domesticated or else hunted to extinction. Domestic cows Bos primigenius exist in the billions but their wild ancestors died out by 1627.

Algae taking over a lake, or bacteria running rampant for a time are completely natural phenomena, lead to evolution of species, and ultimately lead to some more apt balance. Can the argument be made that what we do with our activities is completely natural? That our creation of toxic or non-biodegradable material is expected naturally from members of the human species? With the speed with which we're churning this stuff (and newer discoveries) out, do you feel that we're giving nature time to recoup, evolve and adjust?

You mention land becoming "savanna-like" given free-roam of certain animal types, etc., and something like that probably is what would happen. But honestly now... when do you ever see that in our future? Which species most stands in the way of anything becoming more "natural?" And which species has the know-how to foster its populations growing and growing and growing unchecked - as has been happening for centuries?

It comes down to a question of whether we care for the environments that currently exist or not. If we don't, and we want to simply say that whatever survives and adapts to the conditions we've newly made will be the ultimate product of nature's path - well, then we also need to live with the consequences of any such world we create. Because make no mistake, we alter this planet in ways that no other species even comes close to. And in no small part because we are an extremely needy bunch, as animals go, requiring a lot more resources and land than many others, and at the same time populating the world in numbers that no other comparably "needy" animal will ever see.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Consider the sheer, mountainous amount of unique-molecular-compound materials we've produced in just a few decades. Substances that barely bio-degrade and possibly never would have existed in any quantity had we not come up with the processes to manufacture them. Consider the portion of the oceans and land mass that is taken up by exactly such debris.

Yeah, but also consider the vast myriad expanse of life that all seems to have sprung out of green slime on sea rocks a couple billion years ago. It's true that we seem to be producing heaps of trash to the detriment of nature, but I don't know if that's categorically more tumultuous that other things nature historically unleashed, from volcanoes to asteroids. Like 10,000 years ago, is it true that we really hunted out all the bigger mammals, or was a relative selection of dwarfing involved after the supposed warming from glacial conditions.

I think maybe the real question has something to do with whether we are driving a process or a sub-process. I mean that seriously. If there are greater powers in the universe or the earth trying to use us to produce some kind of new configuration of energy or material, then are we really in the steering wheel. Or to entertain the diametrically opposed view, are we actually set up to be in charge of our destiny, which each decision affecting some fragile balance on our journey toward whatever it is we could become.

I think in a way, one can see that a lot depends on hoping that what we produce isn't biodegradable as whatever hope mankind has seems to rest on artificial material. If nature catches up and decomposes all the cars and buildings, then we probably have a serious problem.

You mention bovines and pigs, but with our breeding of them for agricultural purposes, neither of these animals resemble the hearty wild versions of the animals they are descended from. To the point that some of those animals wouldn't even properly survive if reintroduced to the wild. A quick search on Google, asking if there are any wild cows left produced this:

Well I think they might be having some kind of issue with them in Australia, though I'm not sure. Texas as well I thought.

You mention land becoming "savanna-like" given free-roam of certain animal types, etc., and something like that probably is what would happen. But honestly now... when do you ever see that in our future? Which species most stands in the way of anything becoming more "natural?" And which species has the know-how to foster its populations growing and growing and growing unchecked - as has been happening for centuries?

Well if we somehow make a major population dip, I don't see what would eventually stop the bovines or the pigs from resuming some more major spot I guess.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

... but I don't know if that's categorically more tumultuous that other things nature historically unleashed, from volcanoes to asteroids. Like 10,000 years ago, is it true that we really hunted out all the bigger mammals, or was a relative selection of dwarfing involved after the supposed warming from glacial conditions.

Volcanoes and asteroids are decidedly different than the scenario we are discussing... which is the willful alteration of the planet without regard to the change this alteration may very well cause to our ability to exist - because it alters the parameters of the Earth's condition that we evolved to live "comfortably" within. Theists are always going on about "fine tuning." Well, all indication point to humans inadvertently "tuning" the Earth's conditions right out of our ability to survive as comfortably on it.

I think maybe the real question has something to do with whether we are driving a process or a sub-process. I mean that seriously. If there are greater powers in the universe or the earth trying to use us to produce some kind of new configuration of energy or material, then are we really in the steering wheel.

So, have you any evidence of anything like this being the case? If you don't, then you're talking science fiction. Good luck writing your first book. Sounds interesting.

Or to entertain the diametrically opposed view, are we actually set up to be in charge of our destiny, which each decision affecting some fragile balance on our journey toward whatever it is we could become.

You mention "fragile balance", but all your other comments are to the tune that the Earth is just going to bounce back from anything we throw at it. Which actually is probably entirely true... but the pressing question is whether or not we humans will be here to witness it bounce back.

I think in a way, one can see that a lot depends on hoping that what we produce isn't biodegradable as whatever hope mankind has seems to rest on artificial material. If nature catches up and decomposes all the cars and buildings, then we probably have a serious problem.

Everything "alive" that you can bear witness to requires constant refresh, constant energies being input. Everything that the imaginative powers of life creates also needs maintenance, upkeep, input. You couldn't build an object that would literally last forever given the "normal" conditions of Earth atmosphere and material turn-over. The problem is when things we treat as garbage last for so long that there is nothing to be done with it except let it all sit somewhere taking up space. Not to mention that objects are not our only waste product. We're growing literally billions of animals per year, feeding them crops and effectively converting the energy of the sun and materials of the Earth into millions of tons of fecal matter. Under "normal" lifetimes and living conditions of animals, the amount of waste produced is no problem, as there are natural "clean up crews" for that waste. But the "lagoons" on factory farms are concentrated to such a toxic level that those "clean up crews" can't even survive to do the job of cleaning up. Another source of waste created by humans that has nowhere to go without causing serious problems. Like poisoning area water supplies.

Well I think they might be having some kind of issue with them in Australia, though I'm not sure. Texas as well I thought.

I'm quite sure those wild cattle populations would consider humans an "issue" as well if they could think in abstract terms like we do. When something is an "issue" for humans, it doesn't necessarily mean it is causing any real harm to anything except human property. That is an important idea to understand.

 

[Katja]

I'm not so much concerned with the space being wasted for human consumption (houses, buildings, etc.) but more just that it is land that could otherwise be even more free/open for wildlife and just Earth being Earth in general.

The more you have people hanging around an area, and the more you lay land bare, without cover for some of the more timid animals, the more you are taking from nature and setting aside for humans. I know you said you see wildlife in the graveyard, but it is, I am sure, superficial amounts and types - not the plethora that would exist there were it allowed to grow over and be more natural, without human interference.

We're really the only species that cordons off huge tracts of land and reformats it to suit our needs - removing trees, flattening hills, keeping grass cut short. We should take that into consideration and act responsibly if we care at all about keeping ecological systems healthy - another thing only we really take into consideration or understand. Funny that - we're the only species capable of understanding the abstract of ecosystem health and function, and yet the absolute worst when it comes to fostering/nurturing it... or even remaining neutral to it!

Unfortunately, it's not like it would just be plain nature. Someone would build a shopping center or apartment building on it. There's something to be said for that song about "take paradise, and put up a parking lot." Frankly, as a graveyard it's maybe allowed to be more natural than it would otherwise. Human beings apparently just can't stand a bare space.

 

[Flame]

I'd do a sky burial if given the choice. I wouldn't mind being fed to carrion birds. At least it'd be used for something useful than being burnt or buried in a box.

 

[arthra]

My husband and I do not want funerals, our bodies are to be taken straight to the crematorium when we are dead, after any useful bits have been removed. We are not in the least bit sentimental about dead bodies, which we regard as waste products, if they can be put to good use after death we are all for it. Our family will abide by our wishes. I would be happy if they wanted to have a party to celebrate my death. I have attended very few funerals in my 69 years, not even my mother's , and don't wish to attend anymore, as I don't see the point. I prefer to remember how a person was in life, not in death.
Some elderly relatives of mine died last year, even though they were religious I heard their bodies were taken straight to the crem. What do other posters think about having a funeral?

My family has a long history where I live going back to the 1880's and my son and I visit their resting places.. My Grandparents are in a Mausoleum … My Great Grandparents are resting in the same cemetery on a hillside.

My parents are also buried a short walk away... All the memories of our family are there when I visit their resting places.

In the Baha'i Faith we don't cremate the body :

"The spirit has no more connection with the body after it departs, but as the body was once the temple of the spirit, we Bahá'ís are taught that it must be treated with respect."

~ Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 46

Last Saturday I was at a memorial for a lady who had her remains cremated and shot off in a firework. Her son told me he found this disturbing.

So anyway we do have funerals and prayers for the departed souls.. The prayer for the dead is congregational:

Prayer for the Dead • The Departed • Bahá’í Prayers

 

[amorphous_constellation]

by odd coincidence, I just watched this video which features a homeless man who seems to have a business idea to build a virtual graveyard. youtube.com/watch?v=Fn3A0p9tJsw

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Funerals are for the benefit of those who survive us. I think it is wrong to deprive them of a ritual designed to help them through their grief.

 

[Unguru]

I think letting a corpse rot in the ground is revolting

We're not asking you to be there with them

 

[metis]

My wife and I want a short & sweet funeral whereas we'll have one evening of viewing, followed by a funeral mass the next morning with a luncheon afterward; then cremation and then ending it all with just an internment into our cremation niches at our local Catholic cemetery where my wife's parents are laid out.

The only thing we may vary from that is that instead of having us in a casket, we may do the cremation before the funeral mass. The last funeral we went to was this way, and it seemed to work out quite well and is less expensive.

Since my wife is from Italy, we will be mixing in much of the old tradition with the new.

 

[JJ50]

Funerals are for the benefit of those who survive us. I think it is wrong to deprive them of a ritual designed to help them through their grief.

I hope no one grieves for my husband and I. We want our children to remember us without tears, and laugh at the crazy things their old mother got up to.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I hope no one grieves for my husband and I. We want our children to remember us without tears, and laugh at the crazy things their old mother got up to.

That is so utterly unreasonable. You can't expect your children not to grieve for you. That's like expecting someone not to feel pain when they are stabbed. For crying out loud!

 

[Vinayaka]

I hope no one grieves for my husband and I. We want our children to remember us without tears, and laugh at the crazy things their old mother got up to.

The mystic Hindu perspective is to rejoice at death, and mourn at birth. Death is like the end of a game, or the end of a school year, it's over, we celebrate. My brother and I, and a cousin, had people laughing for an hour or more at Dad's funeral. It was a joke fest. We thought of hooking up the corpse so it would pop up somehow, as he was a great practical joker, and that would have been appropriate, but we couldn't get the funeral director to go along.

Birth on the other hand, means another round of suffering. The soul has to go through some more karma, and live in this disgusting bag of bones for another lifetime.

I totally concur with your perspective. Hope my kids can rejoice too. A life well lived is cause for celebration.