Pagan places

[Shaker]

No it doesn't, but the fact that we already have a dedicated thread saves a lot of repetition.

[Nearly Sane]

No it doesn't, but the fact that we already have a dedicated thread saves a lot of repetition.

if you want to link to an answer to the question in the preexisting thread, please do so.

[Rhiannon]

It's a difficult one. A lot of the time even the correct rites aren't known. There was something on Newsnight ages ago about it, I'll have a rummage and see what I can find.

Here you go. Good starting point.

http://www.honour.org.uk

[Shaker]

if you want to link to an answer to the question in the preexisting thread, please do so.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11146.0

[Anchorman]

I ask because certain controversies arose when displaying ancient remains - e.g. Egyptian mummies. The waters in that particular area are very murky, given many injunctions on tomb stelae to visit the dead and offer them 'beer and bread for millions of years' (so much for the 'mummy's curse'! ) and the fact that the ancients had no compunction when it came to a state sponsored mass stripping of the Valley of the kings, the mummies beindg divested of their finery, and crudely re-wrapped, placed in makeshift coffins, a lable with their name stuck on them, and placed in several, unadorned, crude 'cache' tombs with no equipment for the afterlife. Is displaying these personages in a dignified, educational setting in the Cairo Museum any worse than the state in whiich their own state unceremoniously dumped them?

[Rhiannon]

then don't write nonsense about companies 'hating' things.

It isn't. If it was I wouldn't have written it.

Ok, so a company in and of itself might not - it's just thing - but those responsible for how it operates as a corporation can and sometimes do.

[Rhiannon]

I ask because certain controversies arose when displaying ancient remains - e.g. Egyptian mummies. The waters in that particular area are very murky, given many injunctions on tomb stelae to visit the dead and offer them 'beer and bread for millions of years' (so much for the 'mummy's curse'! ) and the fact that the ancients had no compunction when it came to a state sponsored mass stripping of the Valley of the kings, the mummies beindg divested of their finery, and crudely re-wrapped, placed in makeshift coffins, a lable with their name stuck on them, and placed in several, unadorned, crude 'cache' tombs with no equipment for the afterlife. Is displaying these personages in a dignified, educational setting in the Cairo Museum any worse than the state in whiich their own state unceremoniously dumped them?

It's a difficult one. My local museum has a couple of medieval skeletons on display and I don't like it. That feels horribly disrespectful to both their own beliefs - they were buried in a Christian burial ground - and the fact they were once humans who loved and were loved. Might be irrational but there we are.

[Anchorman]

We might feel that way, Rhi - and excavating the dead is never taken lightly - but did the ancients feel the same way? In many cases, we simply don't know - and projecting our natural unease onto a situation often is no answer. I remember too many years ago watching the uncovering of an individual who died around 3200 BC - a simple 'poor' person, skeletal remains covered wiith a woven grass and reed mat. Since many such burials are known from the vast Umm-el-Qaab Naqadda cemetary, the remains were photographed in situ and re covered. Some would see even this as desecration; others as science; a message from the past for us to interpret. Incidentally, if you want to see the remains I spoke of previously, found in the various cache tombs (plus KV 55 and 62), here's the site. You may need a strong stomach. http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/intro.htm

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't. If it was I wouldn't have written it.

Ok, so a company in and of itself might not - it's just thing - but those responsible for how it operates as a corporation can and sometimes do.

You did write that oil companies 'hate' stuff and now you say that's not actually what you think. And it was both 'right' and 'wrong' in some way.

[Rhiannon]

You did write that oil companies 'hate' stuff and now you say that's not actually what you think. And it was both 'right' and 'wrong' in some way.

Oh come on. You know exactly what was being meant. Either this is argument for argument's sake or you just like to patronise. And quite frankly I've had enough of both.

[Nearly Sane]

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11146.0

So which post in the thread do you think covers the issue raised?

[Nearly Sane]

Oh come on. You know exactly what was being meant. Either this is argument for argument's sake or you just like to patronise. And quite frankly I've had enough of both.

I pointed out that what seemed to being meant was nonsensical, apparently that is 'argument for argument's sake'?