N Korea and testing Nukes

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:09 pm

Ah here comes the word of reason.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:10 pm

ok, i say we turn this into a "flame N. Korea and their nukes" thread

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:11 pm

Nah, go make a new one in the flame forum.

P Gizzle · Post by **P Gizzle** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:12 pm

all right i will

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:31 am

heavycola wrote:what for?

In BCE times they knew about fire intense enough to melt iron and they knew what happened to animal flesh when it is subjected to strong heat. They also knew that rotting is what happens when you leave food or dead bodies out in the air for a few days. Why would you depend for your prophecy on a word that means to decay slowly when BCE man (who was being inspired to write this by an inerrant god, remember) could have used any number of more fitting phrases - 'disappear in a blast of heat', say, or 'have his flesh stripped instantly from his body by a white light'?

or - and here is my point - if, as you say, BCE man was simply using the only concepts he understood to describe something he could not explain, then why do we have to take genesis literally? Could BCE man not have been inventing a description of the universe with his limited understanding?

You can't have it both ways.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:54 am

heavycola wrote:
heavycola wrote:what for?

In BCE times they knew about fire intense enough to melt iron and they knew what happened to animal flesh when it is subjected to strong heat. They also knew that rotting is what happens when you leave food or dead bodies out in the air for a few days. Why would you depend for your prophecy on a word that means to decay slowly when BCE man (who was being inspired to write this by an inerrant god, remember) could have used any number of more fitting phrases - 'disappear in a blast of heat', say, or 'have his flesh stripped instantly from his body by a white light'?

or - and here is my point - if, as you say, BCE man was simply using the only concepts he understood to describe something he could not explain, then why do we have to take genesis literally? Could BCE man not have been inventing a description of the universe with his limited understanding?

You can't have it both ways.

Because Genesis wasn't a vision, Moses wrote down what God told him to write down.

Pedronicus · Post by **Pedronicus** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:58 am

Moses wrote down what he liked. He went off on his own - so no one saw him.

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:06 am

jay_a2j wrote:
heavycola wrote:
heavycola wrote:what for?

In BCE times they knew about fire intense enough to melt iron and they knew what happened to animal flesh when it is subjected to strong heat. They also knew that rotting is what happens when you leave food or dead bodies out in the air for a few days. Why would you depend for your prophecy on a word that means to decay slowly when BCE man (who was being inspired to write this by an inerrant god, remember) could have used any number of more fitting phrases - 'disappear in a blast of heat', say, or 'have his flesh stripped instantly from his body by a white light'?

or - and here is my point - if, as you say, BCE man was simply using the only concepts he understood to describe something he could not explain, then why do we have to take genesis literally? Could BCE man not have been inventing a description of the universe with his limited understanding?

You can't have it both ways.

Because Genesis wasn't a vision, Moses wrote down what God told him to write down.

Ah. So that's all right then. Where in the bible does it make it clear that Zechariah wasn't inspired by god but Moses was?

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:13 am

heavycola wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
heavycola wrote:
heavycola wrote:what for?

In BCE times they knew about fire intense enough to melt iron and they knew what happened to animal flesh when it is subjected to strong heat. They also knew that rotting is what happens when you leave food or dead bodies out in the air for a few days. Why would you depend for your prophecy on a word that means to decay slowly when BCE man (who was being inspired to write this by an inerrant god, remember) could have used any number of more fitting phrases - 'disappear in a blast of heat', say, or 'have his flesh stripped instantly from his body by a white light'?

or - and here is my point - if, as you say, BCE man was simply using the only concepts he understood to describe something he could not explain, then why do we have to take genesis literally? Could BCE man not have been inventing a description of the universe with his limited understanding?

You can't have it both ways.

Because Genesis wasn't a vision, Moses wrote down what God told him to write down.
Ah. So that's all right then. Where in the bible does it make it clear that Zechariah wasn't inspired by god but Moses was?

Oh Zechariah was inspired by God. But if God had given Zech a vision of the "flesh rotting on the bones while still standing" he would describe it in words and concepts he was familiar with. As did John in Revelation. All of scripture is inspired of God.

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:11 am

Oh Zechariah was inspired by God. But if God had given Zech a vision of the "flesh rotting on the bones while still standing" he would describe it in words and concepts he was familiar with. As did John in Revelation. All of scripture is inspired of God.

which brings us back to the fact that Zecahraiah would have understood about fire, heat and burning, and also about decomposition and the length of time that takes. It just doesn;t wash as a prediction. i think we have proved that.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:37 am

heavycola wrote:
Oh Zechariah was inspired by God. But if God had given Zech a vision of the "flesh rotting on the bones while still standing" he would describe it in words and concepts he was familiar with. As did John in Revelation. All of scripture is inspired of God.
which brings us back to the fact that Zecahraiah would have understood about fire, heat and burning, and also about decomposition and the length of time that takes. It just doesn;t wash as a prediction. i think we have proved that.

BCE man would be quite impressed upon seeing a nuclear explosion and people being disintegrated in an instant. Nothing in his rational mind would be able to explain it accurately.

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:07 am

OK i have to stop this argument now. I have made the same point over and over again - that describing a huamn body vapourising in a heat blast is absolutely nothing like the process of decomposition - and you keep parrotting the same line about a rational mind.

The verse doesn;t even HAVE to be about nuclear weapons. More shoehorning on your part. You are as bad as Truman.

Have a good one.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:36 pm

heavycola wrote:OK i have to stop this argument now. I have made the same point over and over again - that describing a huamn body vapourising in a heat blast is absolutely nothing like the process of decomposition

To you, but to a man living in a time where NOTHING like a nuclear blast exists is a different story!

- and you keep parrotting the same line about a rational mind.

I mentioned "rational mind" once. You have a hard time with facts. You kinda make stuff up as you go. This is not surprising as many like you do the same.

The verse doesn;t even HAVE to be about nuclear weapons. More shoehorning on your part. You are as bad as Truman.

Have a good one.

You may be right here, it doesn't have to be about nuclear weapons. However, I am unaware of anything else that could rip the flesh off of bone while that person is still on his feet.

In closeing, you either believe the Bible to be the Word of God or you don't. The evidence is too overwelming for the predictions within it to have been fulfilled by "mere chance". Yet...many refuse to believe. The reason for this is simple, many people want to be their "own god", worship and love themself. They do not want to be told what is "right" and what is "wrong". They want to make their own rules. THIS is our fleshly nature, rejecting God to live for our own selfish desires.

God Bless, and good day.

[/b]

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:09 pm

However, I am unaware of anything else that could rip the flesh off of bone while that person is still on his feet.

Actually the verse says a "plague" will makw people like walking corpses - "...their flesh rotting away. Their eyes will shrivel in their sockets, and their tongues will decay in their mouths"

Nothing anywhere about flesh being "ripped" from anything. Who's making stuff up now? Instead we get two count 'em TWO references to decomposition...

But i'm glad you can still generalise about everyone who disagrees with you. (a group that includes every christian I know socially). yes, good day. Tralalala.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:20 pm

heavycola wrote: Actually the verse says a "plague" will makw people like walking corpses - "...their flesh rotting away. Their eyes will shrivel in their sockets, and their tongues will decay in their mouths"

Ok, now compare the above (heavycola's quote) to the actual verse that was quoted:

Zechariah 14:12

"This is the plague with which the Lord will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their toungues will rot in their mouths"

Does anybody see anything about "walking corpses"?

hmmmm and what happens to the flesh after exposure to radiation for long periods of time? What might appear to be "rotting flesh"?

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:16 pm

Here's the verse I found with a quick google:
"12 And the LORD will send a plague on all the nations that fought against Jerusalem. Their people will become like walking corpses, their flesh rotting away. Their eyes will shrivel in their sockets, and their tongues will decay in their mouths."

Tongue decay is of course one of nuclear attack's nastiest side effects. And why is god nuking people?

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:55 pm

jay_a2j wrote:Zechariah 14:12

"This is the plague with which the Lord will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their toungues will rot in their mouths"

Whoa whoa whoa..

Just a minute here, it's not enough this Kim Jong Ill goof has nukes.

Now God's got 'em and he's going to use them.

I can't take this anymore.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:00 pm

Ah, so what is described in Zechariah is an outbreak of a bunch of Zombies wandering across the land.

Zombism, the main result from a nuclear explosion.

No... wait...

Caleb the Cruel · Post by **Caleb the Cruel** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:51 pm

there's been a lot of stuff about religion in here recently, just more proof to my old statement that religion is everything

Kegler · Post by **Kegler** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:38 pm

Oh I thought this was about lil kim letting one rip.

look at me

The last thing we should be doing is calling his nuclear and missle tests 'duds', this isnt a Coke and Mentos explosion. One official says 'it seems there was more fizz than pop.' Another says 'as first test go, this is smaller and less ssuccessful than those of the other nuclear powers.'
It might also go to the psychos big head.
Hes not top notch at nuclear scientist, but a show boat he is.
I hear he has all the James Bond and Rambo flicks.
I read an article that said he was 'once a playboy.' My guess is when he was rico sauve, he wasnt fiddling with his missles.

I would say the world would be safer with lil kim focusing on stockpiling viagra rather than nukes.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:25 am

Kegler wrote:Oh I thought this was about lil kim letting one rip.

look at me

The last thing we should be doing is calling his nuclear and missle tests 'duds', this isnt a Coke and Mentos explosion. One official says 'it seems there was more fizz than pop.' Another says 'as first test go, this is smaller and less ssuccessful than those of the other nuclear powers.'
It might also go to the psychos big head.
Hes not top notch at nuclear scientist, but a show boat he is.
I hear he has all the James Bond and Rambo flicks.
I read an article that said he was 'once a playboy.' My guess is when he was rico sauve, he wasnt fiddling with his missles.

I would say the world would be safer with lil kim focusing on stockpiling viagra rather than nukes.

Well, according to some scientists in France the nuke test is a hoax (given that there has been no detectable rise in radiation concurrent with a nuclear test) or that the test was a minor success. You have to remember that we aren't dealing with another Trinity test here, we're dealing with a preliminary "Let's throw it down the well and see if it squirts" test. Let's all calm down and trust in the principle that kept the world from going insane during the Cold War.

EDIT: Ok, so the US appears to have detected some radiation. This directly contradicts other scientists, so we'll have to wait for more concrete evidence before any definite conclusion can be reached.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:19 am

vtmarik wrote:
EDIT: Ok, so the US appears to have detected some radiation.

Well of course, Bush has to have a reason to invade. Much like the wmd's in Iraq.

cowshrptrn · Post by **cowshrptrn** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:00 am

heavycola wrote:Here's the verse I found with a quick google:
"12 And the LORD will send a plague on all the nations that fought against Jerusalem. Their people will become like walking corpses, their flesh rotting away. Their eyes will shrivel in their sockets, and their tongues will decay in their mouths."

Tongue decay is of course one of nuclear attack's nastiest side effects. And why is god nuking people?

and tooth decay is one of candy's nastiest side effects. numerous things can cause "rotting" of body parts

also: is anyone here NOT a bible leteralist??? theres something called METAPHOR. the bible woudl be kind of boring if Saddam and Gmorrah were destroyed by economic collapse and invasion and instead of people being physically teleported to heaven before the world collapsed into ruin they just said that we shodul be good and kind ot each other or we won't die peacefully!

jay_a2j wrote:THIS is our fleshly nature, rejecting God to live for our own selfish desires.

which is worse, someone saying that they are capable of thinking for themselves and have enough common sense to realise what is horrendously wrong and what isn't which has the potential, at worst, to make them live an empoverished life or be unhappy, or a bible thumping politician using scare tactics so he can rally people against environmentalists and let big oil companies dissolve our atmosphere while blaming it on a book that was written thousands of years ago which KILLS MILLIONS due to draughts and floodings caused by global warming?

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:12 am

Do not be deceived, Bush's "christianity" is really in question (at least in my view). Just beause one calls themself a Christian does not mean they are. Hitler comes to mind. (and no, I am not comparing Bush to Hitler...just that Hitler claimed to be a Christian also)

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:45 am

The problem with taking things in the bible literally vs. metaphorically is that the only people who seem to have any authority on what should and shouldn't be taken literally in the Bible are the wannabe prophets and the hangers-on to the fears of the end times.

Personally, to me, the whole thing is a collection of different books of fables, hence the reason there are these discrepancies between books. (I'm not gonna call them contradictions, they are more accurately described as discrepancies). The unifying thread to all of these fables is this character/man named Jesus who seems to wander from place to place, doing faith healings and just generally being a good guy. The problem arises from the varied authors not being able to agree on what happened at a given time and place, and thus retreating to their own books to write about "what really happened."

The biggest issue with the Bible that some have is that the proponents of this book tend to gloss over the negative parts (calling them metaphor) while exaggerating the good parts (considering them literal). I mean, Criss Angel can appear to walk on water but we all know it's an illusion. How is it different for Jesus? Back then, that would've been considered a miracle. Thus we fall prey to the Liberty Valance Effect: "When the legend becomes the truth, print the legend." The Bible has been considered to be the Word of God, with no exception, for about 2000 years. No matter what proof or new information that may ever arise to the contrary (such as new gospels, testaments, etc.), they will always be rejected in favor of the original texts that most Churches use today.