Talk:Incorruptibility
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Two questions
- Is it worthwhile to include an explanation of the difference between a body being incorruptible or well preserved?
-
- If there are useful things to say about it, sure!
- The article currently discusses incorruptibility in Christian cultures, but there are examples of it from other cultures - secularly, well preserved corpses could be seen as incorruptible, some Buddhist monks have their bodies preserved through a system of drying and coating in gold leaf, in another example a well preserved or incorruptible corpse of a monk was found and venerated, and some followers of Paramahansa Yogananda claimed his body was incorruptible. Would it be appropriate to expand the article in this way? MrTrev 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think yes. That's why I added the subheading "Incorruptibility in Christianity", because the concept is wider than Christianity alone. Additional subheadings might be useful. As a Christian myself, I personally tend to give more credence to the Christian claims, but I'm also an NPOV fanatic and thus I think this article needs to be as complete as possible! Lawrence King 06:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok, I've added a couple of possible examples. I decided not to include the Buddhist monks, as they are deliberately preserved. You could argue the same for Paramahansa Yogananda, but his followers maintained otherwise. I felt it worthwhile to show there was disagreement over the cause, but this is a tricky area to get NPOV, so I'd appreciate you double checking. I'm not happy with the Incidence of Incorruptibility section but don't know how better to phrase what I'm trying to say here. MrTrev 19:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Erm
Just a question, but should this article also deal with instances where a specific body part was found incorruptible? (Typically a heart, but other instances are also in folklore/religion) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Appropriatness of tone
Given that incorruptability is mythic, I find it odd that the Wikipedia choses to discuss it as if it were real. The section on "causes of incorruptability" is hardly good writing. Its a bit as if we had an article on flat Earth mythology that discussed "why the Earth is flat" as if it truly was flat. sotonohito
- Is it really fair, or even true, to say that it's mythic? There are dozens of reports of holy people whose bodies remain incorrupt years, sometimes centuries, after their deaths. Do you have cites proving that all of those incidences are false? -RaCha'ar 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'd disagree it is mythic. The explanations are mythic, but there are a number of cases where bodies have been found to be remarkably well preserved. Myself, I lean towards a physical explanation, probably related to the physical environment the corpse is in, but we have to acknowledge that others see it as metaphysical, spiritual, divine, or suchlike. MrTrev 13:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly some distinction needs to be made. Some cases are more inexplicable than others. The body of St. Innocent of Irkutsk was the only incorrupt one found in the cemetery, or even in the same part of the cemetery, although it was treated no differently. On the other hand, no matter how much I venerate him it must be admitted that the relics of St. John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai and San Francisco occupied a metal casket inside an airtight sarcophagus in what must have been a completely anaerobic environment after a portion of the inner casket oxidized. Even a devout believer might be excused for thinking there was not much miraculous about incorruptibility in that case, although it is a blessing to have intact relics for veneration. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)