"AIN'T NO ASH WILL BURN"

"Ain't No Ash Will Burn."

And, my music knowledge ain't what it could be either. "Ain't No Ash Will Burn" is the title of a Bluegrass tune, maybe. Perhaps it's just a standard old country western tune. I don't know. While "Ain't No Ash Will Burn" could be a correct statement in the context of the song and love relationships, it is not a true statement, because it is not true in all cases.

Some ash does burn.

"Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime:" (Amos, Chapter 2, Verse 1, King James Bible).

Do you see where this is going?

It is not that someone is going to be burned by the Lord because they burned someone else's bones or converted them to ash. Although that may very well be, That is not what I am getting at.

The ashes themselves will burn you. Here and now and in this world.

It is amazing to discover that this chemistry was understood quite well in Biblical Days, perhaps better than modern "scientists" and our "leaders" (rulers would be more appropriate) are willing to admit, and almost certainly, permitting us to understand, even though the concept is the foundation of the cement industry. Have you ever worked with cement and had it burn your hands? It is the lime in the mixture that does that. No, there is no flame, but, still, it burns. In the cement industry, lime is made from, yup, limestone, which is just calcium carbonate rock, the same as our bones. Heating calcium carbonate causes it to give off carbon dioxide, CO2, and leaves calcium oxide as a residue. Calcium oxide absorbs moisture readily giving off heat and becoming calcium hydroxide, or 'caustic' lime. (There is also 'sweet' lime, the kind that you put on your lawn to reduce acidity or that schools use to make the lines on football fields. A few years back, a high school on the Washington State coast used the wrong lime, and the players suffered burns to their eyes and skin. Oops).

Some would try to pass off the burning of the king's bones as a cremation (or a method of murder?). Now, why would that make the Lord angry? If a murder, why bother to be angry with the method? We may be in dangerous territory, trying to attribute motives to God, so beware. I choose to take the passage literally. There was nothing but bones, the flesh having already disappeared. It was not a murder. It was only a bone burning. Just a 'clean-up' detail? Why would that offend?

I would like to know more about this. Perhaps you have information. Later, in history, burning bones was a rather routine practice to exorcise evil spirits from the remains of persons later discovered to have been heretics. For example, many of the Cathars who escaped detection by the Catholic Church in the 1200 and 1300's subsequently had their bones dug up and burned when their heresy was proved. I suppose burning bones was a general means of desecration. The bones of ancestors, particularly of great leaders, were revered. Can we conclude that the Lord did not think the King of Edom deserved to have his remains desecrated? Is there something more? Was He worried that the ash would get in someone's eyes? Was He concerned that someone would use it to make mortar? Or, perhaps He was concerned about the carbon dioxide it produced. Let's leave it for now.

We have an example, in modern history, of a nation that may have developed the burning of bones into a 'fine art.' Have you seen the photographs of huge piles of bones that were stuffed into the ovens at Nazi concentration camps?

Now the cover story that has been invented was that the Nazis were trying to destroy the evidence of what they had done. They had dug up the bones of victims and were attempting to burn them when defeat interrupted them. Really? Perhaps.

And, perhaps God was angry at Moab because He anticipated the Nazis' efficiency. I bet you thought 'recycling' was invented by caring environmentalist in the 1970s. Ha!

What if instead of a last minute attempt to destroy evidence of the crimes, what was photographed at the ovens was simply standard operating procedure at the death camps? We must never forget the Nazis' efficiency. Waste nothing.

Have you also seen the picture(s) of the trucks with the hoses connected to the exhaust pipe and the explanation that carbon monoxide was used to gas the victims? Now, were those diesel trucks? Diesels weren't as 'clean burning' back then, but they still produced more carbon dioxide than gasoline powered trucks. With huge demands on scarce amounts of fuel to power the vehicles on the Eastern Front, would the Nazis come up with a more fuel efficient way to dispose of their 'problem?' Do you suppose the Nazis knew the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide?

It is a little slow waiting for people to suffocate on the carbon dioxide being exhaled in sealed chambers. It is messy and gruesome. People have too much time. Clawing and beating each other, fighting for the last bits of breathable air. Too messy and gruesome for meticulous Nazis. (Even the most monstrous among them apparently had their limits).

Carbon monoxide would be superior. The victims would just go to sleep. But, what if some realized what was happening? More carnage? And, it wastes too much fuel.

Zyclon B? Ok, but the historical record may indicate that there just was not enough of it manufactured to account for the large number of deaths asserted, thus lending support to "Holocaust" deniers or minimizers. Could Zyclon B have been just an experiment? Why bother with it when there was something much better, and it was a byproduct to be had for free? A Nazi's dream.

Have you seen news reports of floods in places like India and Bangladesh? Large numbers of drowned animal carcasses to be dealt with. Do you know what is done? The usual method is to bury the animals in mass graves, first covering the bodies with adequate quantities of lime. Keeps the flies and rodents at bay. Sanitary. Another Nazi pre-occupation.

How much fuel would be required to roast the bones of the victims? Lime would be the product as well as carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide could be piped into the gas chamber in sufficient quantity to make death nearly instantaneous. Did you know that was possible with CO2? No time to claw at your neighbor. Barely enough time to grasp your own throat and expire. Neat. Diabolical. Typical Nazism.

Place the bodies in mass graves and add ash. Wait. Remove bones. Repeat steps as often as necessary.

And, who was there to observe and investigate the real truth? Why the OSS, predecessor to the CIA. Do they know the truth? Why is CO2 "good for us because it is good for trees?" Are you a tree? Or do you just have a wooden head?

Why does our government encourage us to make our own self-inflicted CO2 gas chambers? "Weatherized" lately? What about the 'energy codes' that have been forced upon us to insure new construction gasses the residents? Just as diabolical as our Nazi monsters?

Why did God not choose complete combustion? He didn't, you know?

May those who have burn in Hell, incompletely and forever.

Copyright © 2002, Donald L. Beeman. All rights reserved.

Other Essays
Table of Contents (up, more)
HOME (up, most)