Cryonics raises profound theological questions within the framework of religious beliefs of millions of people.
The theological questions that are raised by a notion
as profound as reviving a cryogenically preserved
human are not simple. These belong to such august
bodies as the College Of Cardinals, the faculties
of philosophy departments at respected universities,
the Cosmopolitan and other Coptic theologians ...
the credentialed and published theologians of our
time. Among those who believe the soul leaves the
body and proceeds as a sentient entity when the body
dies, cryonics raises the ultimate in profound questions.
These are not the realm of the local Deacon.
If cryonicists are someday successful, if a human
who has been medically dead, with an internal temperature
way below the freezing point of water, someday gets
up and walks it will be stunning. If he is self aware
and has his memory intact, it would seem at a glance
to defy Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox beliefs.
If he has the ability to do abstract reasoning (which
is done in words, Jeff) it will establish his "soul" is present.
However, theology isn't done at a glance. If these
things happen they may actually confirm the
teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and they may confirm
the words of John the Apostle, as written on the Island
of Patmos, around the year 66 CE. That is, the whole
body has been resurrected, is in perfect health, is
incorruptable (handy things those nano-doohickies) and
the soul has returned to it. This, then, would be
John the Apostle's Kingdom Of God.
You cannot, ever, settle any part of the mandatory
autopsy problem by appealing to Judeo-Christian
theology. Nothing in such theology anticipates
cryonics yet cryonics raises theological questions
far too profound for a layman with a bible in one
hand and a Roman Catholic Catechism in the other.
The Nazarene may, himself, have anticipated cryonics;
the great apologists and philosopher/theologians
did not.