Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Actually, we're talking about the inside of one specific monastery. One 
> which is decorated with the bones of dead monks. It's not like anyone 
> decorating the ceiling *or* looking at the ceiling is going to be surprised 
> at what they see.

  I just find it curious that there isn't eg. any law there that forbids
such a macabre practice (even back then, and especially today).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 7/15/2011 23:07, Warp wrote:
> > so after a long time there really isn't anything left to
> > speak of.)

> I think the word you're looking for is "miracle". ;-)

  Yes, but the actual details vary from denomination to denomination.
AFAIK the most common interpretation is that it's not the physical body
you had that is raptured, but a new "spiritual" body of sorts. After all,
it makes little sense to resurrect the old body because in most cases it
will have completely decomposed until there's nothing left of the original.
(After a sufficiently long time all of your the molecules in your body will
have been consumed by bacteria and fungi, scattered in the soil, which is
then scattered even more by rainwater and such, consumed by plants, which
is then consumed by animals, and so on.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/14/2011 11:51 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Every now and then, Wikipedia throws up something utterly baffling.
> Today, it gave me this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sedlec_Ossuary_chandelier.JPG
>
> I don't... OK, wow. Just wow.

and interesting addition to the discussion?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14176471

Post a reply to this message

On 7/17/2011 6:57, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Actually, we're talking about the inside of one specific monastery. One
>> which is decorated with the bones of dead monks. It's not like anyone
>> decorating the ceiling *or* looking at the ceiling is going to be surprised
>> at what they see.
>
>    I just find it curious that there isn't eg. any law there that forbids
> such a macabre practice (even back then, and especially today).

Sure. In the USA, it would be a religious practice, and therefore outside of 
what people would be allowed to legislate. I honestly don't know why the 
monks thought it reasonable or desirable to do this, really.  I'll have to 
look into that next time I see something like this.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 17-7-2011 15:57, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Actually, we're talking about the inside of one specific monastery. One
>> which is decorated with the bones of dead monks. It's not like anyone
>> decorating the ceiling *or* looking at the ceiling is going to be surprised
>> at what they see.
>
>    I just find it curious that there isn't eg. any law there that forbids
> such a macabre practice (even back then, and especially today).

Really depends on what you think is macabre. Strangely enough, I don't 
think it is in this context.



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

Le 17/07/2011 23:44, Darren New nous fit lire :
> On 7/17/2011 6:57, Warp wrote:
>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>> Actually, we're talking about the inside of one specific monastery. One
>>> which is decorated with the bones of dead monks. It's not like anyone
>>> decorating the ceiling *or* looking at the ceiling is going to be
>>> surprised
>>> at what they see.
>>
>>    I just find it curious that there isn't eg. any law there that forbids
>> such a macabre practice (even back then, and especially today).
> 
> Sure. In the USA, it would be a religious practice, and therefore
> outside of what people would be allowed to legislate. I honestly don't
> know why the monks thought it reasonable or desirable to do this,
> really.  I'll have to look into that next time I see something like this.
> 
I'd like to remind the lovely audience about the appearance of Vanitas
in the painting of 16 & 17th centuries, also common in other periods.

From the religious (christian/catholic) point of view, the soul is the
only eternal "thing". The corpse and its remains are not. Denying the
death of the corpse (such as forbidding its representation) would be a
bigger trouble than reminding it to everyone in the monastery.

On the same way as Vanitas, Ubi Sunt (qui ante nos fuerunt) are also
common poetry related to the shortness of life.

Moreover, usually there is 2 parts in a monastery: one only for the
monks and one shared with the male adults from the civil society.
(Female or children in a male monastery would not be tolerated unless a
responsible civil male do guard them, and even... well, depends on the
abbot and the rule of the order)

Which part of the monastery were the bones in ?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Sure. In the USA, it would be a religious practice, and therefore outside of 
> what people would be allowed to legislate.

  That sounds like anything is allowed in the USA as long as it's religious
practice. I find it hard to believe that's the case.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 7/17/2011 23:40, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Sure. In the USA, it would be a religious practice, and therefore outside of
>> what people would be allowed to legislate.
>
>    That sounds like anything is allowed in the USA as long as it's religious
> practice. I find it hard to believe that's the case.

No. The rule is basically that congress can't promote religion or restrict 
it. So if you want to bury sanitary bones in the attic, and that's your 
religion, you get to do that. They can't say "your burial customs are 
offensive." They'd actually have to cite some other law that has nothing to 
do with religion, like health regulations. Otherwise, the whole "you're 
offensive for putting a crucifix instead of a cross on your building" 
problem starts coming up.  Obviously they wouldn't be regulating religion if 
your religion says you're allowed to shoot people on the street, because the 
law about not shooting people has nothing to do with religion.

There are, for example, religions whose ceremonies include smoking 
hallucinogenic drugs that are illegal for anyone not of that religion. That 
comes up in court every once in a while, but last I heard it's still legal.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> On the other hand, what is
>> considered "decent" and what counts for "respect" varies wildly by
>> culture.
>
>    That's true, but this is Italy we are talking about, not some exotic
> niche culture in some isolated place. In western European societies there
> are certain norms and standards with respect to deceased people's remains
> (which are, in fact, largely shared by most of the rest of the world as
> well), and it can be generally assumed that if these standards are not
> followed, it's considered abhorrent.
>

True, but those "standards" DID change a LOT over time, from regions to 
regions, and from common peoples, clergy and nobility.

There is also the fact that, over time, cemetaries become overcrowded, 
can't be extended and new can't be established. That's particularly true 
in Europe. They NEED to remove older remains from time to time. The 
removed remains are often placed in some ossuaries or catacombs.

In some religious orders, it's considered an honour to have his body 
momified and placed in niches. In others, that honour is having his 
remains incorporated in some religious construction.
It's strange, disturbing, for most of us, but it's perfectly normal for 
those conserned.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/07/17 17:44, Darren New a écrit :
> On 7/17/2011 6:57, Warp wrote:
>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Actually, we're talking about the inside of one specific monastery. One
>>> which is decorated with the bones of dead monks. It's not like anyone
>>> decorating the ceiling *or* looking at the ceiling is going to be
>>> surprised
>>> at what they see.
>>
>> I just find it curious that there isn't eg. any law there that forbids
>> such a macabre practice (even back then, and especially today).
>
> Sure. In the USA, it would be a religious practice, and therefore
> outside of what people would be allowed to legislate. I honestly don't
> know why the monks thought it reasonable or desirable to do this,
> really. I'll have to look into that next time I see something like this.
>

A very probable reason: For several centuries, they did NOT have any 
reliable access to a cemetary. They where probably required, by law or 
regulation, to only use a single, small, cemetary within the monastry 
confine. That cemetary got filled up.

Post a reply to this message