Ship of Fools: The microchip is the mark of the beast

Thread: The microchip is the mark of the beast Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027368

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Over on Evensong's Best introduction to Christianity thread, the conversation has got round to the mark of the beast. Beeswax Altar (presumably tongue firmly in cheek) affirmed:

quote:
The microchip is the mark of the beast. Receiving the microchip is to sacrifice your very soul.

and Evensong responded

quote:
How do people dream up this shit?

I'm surely not the only person to have heard this kind of thing from the platform more than once over the years.

It would seem I'm not the only one to have gone on to comfortably dismiss it as scaremongering paranoia and simplistic interpretation.

But perhaps I'm not the only one left with a niggling worry about it, too?

Since the dim distant past of my childhood when I first heard of this sort of thing, the technology to make this sort of thing happen has been developed and apparently used (albeit for location purposes not banking purposes).

Not only that, current generations seem to be a lot less chary about technology that tracks them in general. A combination of the internet of things, wearable technology and contactless payment seem to be making the prospect of implantable banking more culturally and technologically acceptable than it ever has been before.

Despite having of course "put away childish things", I find this convergence between technocratic control that can extend means of payment to something that's physically implanted into me worryingly similar to the picture painted in Revelation and the opposition between God and Mammon.

Beeswax Altar, Evensong, are you secure enough in your dismissal of these fundie paranoid scenarios to offer up which ever bit of you is convenient to receive a transaction-enabled chip, or would you have some reservations all the same? Would anyone else?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It never went away. Offering incense to the God-Emperor to go in to the agora has always been with us.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Beeswax Altar, Evensong, are you secure enough in your dismissal of these fundie paranoid scenarios to offer up which ever bit of you is convenient to receive a transaction-enabled chip, or would you have some reservations all the same? Would anyone else?

I would rather these be opposed on purely civic grounds rather than via some kind of end-times scare. Because it's worrying on a purely civic level - and the religious applications could always be gained via other means anyway (see Martin above).

Plus it's all rather otherworldly - if we got a definitive prophecy to say that technology X wouldn't be used by The Beast it still wouldn't mean that that technology wouldn't have problematic effects. (I'm being tongue in cheek here - especially as a lot of the dispensationalists I've seen espousing such theories are normally hang-em/flog-em types on a bunch of social issues).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I remember being taught this in my fundy days. As corroborative evidence it was pointed out that 666 is encoded into the type of barcodes that are most often used by retailers. There are two groups of six numbers and six lines that are longer than all the others.

I have to admit that if such technology did become mandatory, that would be the point where I say "Argh! The fundies are right after all." But I don't think it would ever become mandatory, simply because, fundamentalists aside, the idea is just icky.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

For me, personally, there is something a little bathetic about thinking the Christian theory of salvation(at least for those on Earth post-rapture) boils down to whether or not you make the correct choice about getting a tatto/implant/whatever, especially given that people in those days will supposedly be facing starvation without the Mark.

The whole concept just seems like a bad game-show.

GOD: Ooohhh, I'm sorry, Contestant, but feeding your family does NOT justify receiving the Mark Of The Beast on your forehead. That incorrect answer sends you down to Hell for all eternity. Sorry, no consolation prizes tonight.

But, to answer your question...

If everything else were unfolding according to the pre-millenial script(ie. rapture, rise of antichrist-type leader, etc), then I would conclude that Hal LIndsey etc were correct. In that case, I MIGHT refuse the Mark, if I thought taking it meant eternal damnation. But I'd also likely conclude that God was a deranged sadist, and that going along with his wishes was the equivalent of going along with someone who puts a gun up to your head. Something I'd be doing simply to save my own hide.

Apart from The Late Great Planet Earth coming to pass as reality, no, I don't think I'd have any relgiious fears about taking a micrchip in my hand. Though as a confirmed neo-luddite who doesn't even have a credit card, I'd proabbly resist as long as possible.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Isn't the mark of the beast more to do with things like having to use the emperor's coin? In order to function, you have to become complicit...

In that sense, microchips are irrelevant. All of us who carry a driving license or a bank card have succumbed...

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
But perhaps I'm not the only one left with a niggling worry about it, too?

Your are not the only one.

quote:
originally posted by Eutcychus:
Beeswax Altar, Evensong, are you secure enough in your dismissal of these fundie paranoid scenarios to offer up which ever bit of you is convenient to receive a transaction-enabled chip, or would you have some reservations all the same?

I would have some reservations. [Big Grin]

The interesting thing about Evensong's student is that she apparently got it backwards. Her sect taught that she was supposed to receive the microchip. So, come the tribulation, she and hers would receive the mark of the beast thinking it was what God wanted them to do. Sort of a Left Behind meets the Twilight Zone scenario. If God's going to rapture anybody, it will be those poor people.

[ 18. May 2014, 18:23: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

We won't need a chip. We will all do it voluntarily, just like we all do today. I carry a tracker and so do most of you. It is called, among other things, a cell phone, smart phone, mobile, or handy. I suspect we will voluntarily carry other ubiquitous devices to enhance our comsumerist, brandname lives with out being voluntold to do so.

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

I confess to being very wary about the Cashless Society that is supposed to be just around the corner and is heralded as the ultimate desirable by some. I guess that has something to do with having worked for a while at the Royal Mint (making coins) - a cashless society would have meant that I was redundant.

But, essentially, I am wary of anything that can, potentially, give government that much control over the individual. In a cashless society, your purchasing power resides only on a computer or computers. Presumably such computers would, at very least, be subject to government scrutiny. How long would it be before government awarded itself the power to deprive certain 'undesirables' of their power to buy and sell? Easily achieved if all of your 'cash' only exists on computer. One press of a button, and you have no money - in perpetuity.

I wonder who the 'undesirables' would be?

Not that I am paranoid, you understand! [Paranoid]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My beast has been implanted with a microchip [Smile]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think it would ever become mandatory, simply because, fundamentalists aside, the idea is just icky.

I would have thought so too, but as no prophet points out, we already embrace tracking voluntarily, and this is just a question of degree/culture.

I remember reading that if attempts are made to impose tracking, they are shouted down as totalitarian, but if you sell them to people as a feature (like London's Oyster travelcard or Google Glass) people will embrace them wholeheartedly. My son, who is 23, is of the opinion that it's too late to worry about being monitored in this way so we might as well not resist - and I think he's one of the more recalcitrant of his generation.

To pick up on Garasu and Martin's points, the big thing about the whole Mark of the Beast idea is that it indicates a clear watershed, unlike Jesus' instruction to us to be "in but not of" the world: it seems to be the point at which the faithful should say "this is where I get off".

And I agree with Stetson that it does seem rather oddly material and arbitrary.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

IME, fundies now are much more concerned with fluoride...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

i think it'll be made clear when/where we need to get off. but as for general principles, I detest being trackable and not on religious grounds, but because I don't trust anybody to have that kind of power over me. I mean, what if some day they decide to get rid of all the English majors? blackberry pie fanciers? American Indians?

Why make things easier for the next empowered asshole to come along?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

All of this, prophesied by Jesus, was fulfilled from Nero through Domitian during the Apostles' lifetimes. Whatever else John was doing, he was speaking in apocalyptic code of what was going on around him.

As Rob Bell asks, who are our Domitians, the Sons of God explicit up to Genghis Khan since the pharaohs? Who demands that we pledge and swear allegiance, oaths, non-disclosure agreements, official secrets acts?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Ah but you see Martin I have a lot of sympathy for "both-and" eschatology, which I think I have derived from Roger Forster: I'm sure John was writing in code for his own time, but also think there have been successive fulfilments of the same sort of thing at work. Rather like contractions during childbirth à la Romans 8, it would not surprise me if these contractions ended up producing the Real Thing™ eventually.

It struck me some years ago now that while the global nature of the language in Revelation was originally figurative ("one quarter of the world was this/that/etc.") today it can make actual factual sense to talk in such terms.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My beast has been implanted with a microchip

I was about to post the same thing!
[Big Grin]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Ah but you see Martin I have a lot of sympathy for "both-and" eschatology, ...I'm sure John was writing in code for his own time, but also think there have been successive fulfilments of the same sort of thing at work. Rather like contractions during childbirth à la Romans 8, it would not surprise me if these contractions ended up producing the Real Thing™ eventually.

I have no idea if there is a specific ultimate beast, but there sure have been a lot of beasts along the way.

When I discovered the Book of Revelation I was all excited and exclaimed to Mom "there's going to be this beast and all these things happening" and she said "sit down let me tell you something." And then she talked about Hitler, unstoppable, tyrant, gobbling up countries, endless war. "We knew he was the beast, it was the end, our children would never grow up."

(TEC all her life, if that matters.)

She was right, wasn't she. Hitler was the beast. Pot Pol was the beast. Stalin, and so many more. 25 deadly dictators And many smaller scale beasts, like thousands of slave capturers/traders/abusers and sex slavers who were/are beasts to the extent their limited territory allowed/allows.

But if there is a 666 tattooed on the forehead or implanted in the arm, my ignorant reading says it's always a knowing intentional endorsement of a clear value system that anyone who even pretends to believe in a loving God says is wrong, deadly wrong, soul-destroyingly wrong, kill your neighbor's baby to feed to the pigs wrong.

It won't be a puzzling issue of "feeding my family is good so I guess I have to do it even though I'm a little disturbed about what it all means." That's just daily life on many jobs in the corporate world.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I've obviously led a pleasantly sheltered orthodox existence.

What the hell are we talking about? Where are you lot getting these crazy ideas from? Which particular bit of Revelation implies these things?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

No, Belle Ringer, no, Hitler and Stalin weren't Beasts. They were false Antichrists. The Beast and the Antichrist are two different things. The Beast is a Belgian supercomputer hence the microchip. The Antichrist is a person probably some charismatic European politician yet to be revealed. The false prophet is also a person probably Pope Francis or Joel Osteen.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've obviously led a pleasantly sheltered orthodox existence.

What the hell are we talking about? Where are you lot getting these crazy ideas from? Which particular bit of Revelation implies these things?

Ahem.

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Beast is a Belgian supercomputer hence the microchip. The Antichrist is a person probably some charismatic European politician yet to be revealed. The false prophet is also a person probably Pope Francis or Joel Osteen.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've obviously led a pleasantly sheltered orthodox existence.

What the hell are we talking about? Where are you lot getting these crazy ideas from? Which particular bit of Revelation implies these things?

Revelation 13:11-18 (link is to NRSV)

The fact that you can't buy or sell without receiving the "mark of the beast" on your right hand or forehead is what has led to so many of these speculations. Also, the number (usually rendered as 666, but 616 in some Greek manuscripts) is what has made people nervous about new numbers issued by government or global entities, such as UPC codes and Social Security numbers.

You have to be some kind of literalist, though, to start making those connections.

Personally, I find it troubling when people start taking a whole book out of Scripture to be some kind of fortune-telling code book.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

Personally, I find it troubling when people start taking a whole book out of Scripture to be some kind of fortune-telling code book.

Especially when one considers what the bible says about fortune telling.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Personally, I find it troubling when people start taking a whole book out of Scripture to be some kind of fortune-telling code book.

Exactly.

Thank-you Churchgeek.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, Belle Ringer, no, Hitler and Stalin weren't Beasts. They were false Antichrists. The Beast and the Antichrist are two different things. The Beast is a Belgian supercomputer hence the microchip. The Antichrist is a person probably some charismatic European politician yet to be revealed. The false prophet is also a person probably Pope Francis or Joel Osteen.

Thank you for the enlightenment!

If Joel Osteen is the false prophet, the world is (relatively) safe - Texans never (voluntarily) leave Texas. [Smile]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
You have to be some kind of literalist, though, to start making those connections.

Personally, I find it troubling when people start taking a whole book out of Scripture to be some kind of fortune-telling code book.

It's definitely the case that Revelation is a rich source of what might be termed literary pareidolia, with every generation finding something to read into it.

However, I'm not sure the underlying interpretation can be dismissed so easily. The themes of the global reach of materialism and dis/mis-information/propaganda seem pretty obvious to me in Revelation even if the two little lines at the beginning of barcodes do not mean "6".

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've obviously led a pleasantly sheltered orthodox existence.

What the hell are we talking about? Where are you lot getting these crazy ideas from? Which particular bit of Revelation implies these things?

This is the basic gist of it.

(Trigger warning: It's a Chick tract.)

More or less the same thing, with considerably better art.

(See previous warning)

There are also a lot of books, movies etc portraying the same thing, going back at least to Hal Lindsey in the 70s, and continuing to the Left Behind books of today.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Oh, and from a somewhat less luntaic source...

Dispensationalism

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Dispensationalism (and with it, Chick tracts) assumes a pre-tribulation rapture. As far as I can tell this notion was introduced to the world by a seventeenth-century Jesuit. The idea that the Pope and/or the EU is the Antichrist (portrayed in these tracts) is popular with dispensationalists but not exclusive to that theology.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the historicist view (i.e. you think Revelation applies to its own time and nothing else).

Between those two poles lie a whole range of eschatological views in which the mark of the beast, Bablyon and such like require some explanation, not necessarily as lurid as Chick has it.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Eutychus wrote:

quote:
The idea that the Pope and/or the EU is the Antichrist (portrayed in these tracts) is popular with dispensationalists but not exclusive to that theology.

I'm not an expert on these things, but I suspect that if you really did a thorough genealogical search, you would find a common ancestor shared by that variety of Dispensationalism, and general anti-EU sentiment as we know it today, albeit with the former being a sort-of warped, inbred cousin of the latter, more popular in the USA than the UK.

Catholics of hardcore Marian tendencies often hold to a similar interpretation of Revelation, though I believe without the anti-Europe paranoia. See the hoopla around the Secrets Of Fatima and other messages(which the church seems happy to quietly encourage, since it keeps a portion of the faithful in awe.)

quote:
Between those two poles lie a whole range of eschatological views in which the mark of the beast, Bablyon and such like require some explanation, not necessarily as lurid as Chick has it.

Granted, but Evensong seemed curious about the more off-the-wall renditions, of which the Chick tracts serve as a representative example.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QB] Dispensationalism (and with it, Chick tracts) assumes a pre-tribulation rapture. As far as I can tell this notion was introduced to the world by a seventeenth-century Jesuit. [QB]

I thought Jesuits were supposed to be smart.

[code]

[ 19. May 2014, 18:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Eutychus;

quote:
Dispensationalism (and with it, Chick tracts) assumes a pre-tribulation rapture. As far as I can tell this notion was introduced to the world by a seventeenth-century Jesuit.

I thought that the Jesuit in question mainly produced an elaborate pre-millennial scheme. This came to the attention of Edward Irving, a Scottish Presbyterian who had become enthusiastic about the idea of an imminent Second Coming, also pre-millennial in opposition to the prevalent post- millennialism of the Church of Scotland at the time.

Irving's preaching led to the formation of many prophetic study groups. As I understand it, after a time they came up with an anomaly. They keenly believed in an 'any-minute-now' Second Coming, and were not willing to abandon or modify that idea; but their studies had shown quite a raft of unfulfilled prophecy - basically the Tribulation/Antichrist thing - which wouldn't fit in the Millennium after the Advent, but also wouldn't have time to happen before the Millennium if the Second Coming was going to be 'any-minute-now'.

What happened next isn't absolutely clear; but someone came up with a resolution to this dilemma whereby the Advent was not THE END but a coming 'for the Church' who would be removed to safety while non-believers would be 'left behind' (where have I heard that phrase recently?) to face the Tribulation etc. Also during this time the Jews would return to Israel, experience a mass conversion and rebuild the Jerusalem Temple (or possibly Temple first leading to the conversion) and only at the end of this seven year period would Jesus return WITH the Church to institute the earthly Millennium....

Brethren leader John Nelson Darby played a major role in developing this teaching before the split which led eventually to the Exclusive Brethren (Darby's party) and the Open Brethren. That's why in Britain at least the Brethren have been the major proponents of the theory. In the USA it became widely popular through its adoption by the annotated 'Scofield' Bible. Even the usually rational Francis Schaeffer adopted the view.

Those who started the ball rolling were expecting the Advent almost immediately - they would have been surprised that it hasn't happened yet nearly two centuries later!! Also by the logic of the original version those holding this view should have woken up in 1948 and thought "OH - Israel have now returned to the land; we must have been 'left behind'!!"

A useful source for the history is "The Puritan Hope" by Iain Murray, published by Banner of Truth in, I think, the 1970s.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I remember reading that if attempts are made to impose tracking, they are shouted down as totalitarian, but if you sell them to people as a feature (like London's Oyster travelcard or Google Glass) people will embrace them wholeheartedly.

With reference to the above, allow me to quote (not so extensively as to bother the hosts, hopefully), from Neil Postman's book 'Amusing Ourselves to Death" - a very prescient book, written before the internet...

We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves...we had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares. But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another...Aldous Huxley's Brave New World...Orwell warns that we will overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity, and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think...Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance...

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I remember being taught this in my fundy days. As corroborative evidence it was pointed out that 666 is encoded into the type of barcodes that are most often used by retailers. There are two groups of six numbers and six lines that are longer than all the others.

At least some of the Athos monks see the Greek EEC enabling law (or is some legislation of the EEC itself?) as satanic; it involves 666 in its numbering.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

Even the usually rational Francis Schaeffer adopted the view.

He was a post-mil rather than a dispensationalist.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I'm going by material in Schaeffer's book "25 Basic Bible Studies" which made me groan when I found it; I haven't got the book handy to re-check - and/or he may have changed in later life. I must check....

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm going by material in Schaeffer's book "25 Basic Bible Studies" which made me groan when I found it; I haven't got the book handy to re-check - and/or he may have changed in later life. I must check....

I think in earlier life he was a historic premillenialist, which is still different to being a dispensationalist.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Like I said, I will check; but my library's a bit disorganised after a refurb of my flat. I don't think Schaeffer's views make much difference to the basic thread topic.

Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :

I used to volunteer in a Christian video library. We had a number of videos of the late Barry Smith, a preacher from New Zealand, who used to preach about the mark of the beast and the end times. He also said that both the Great Seal on the US dollar bills and the layout of the streets in Washington DC contained Freemasonry symbols. You can find some of his talks on YouTube, should you wish to look.

We also had a video series of films called 'A Thief in the Night', which I think were designed to terrify teenagers into the Kingdom. The acting was poor and the Seventies fashions were worse, but they were pretty scary - I recently found them mentioned on a fansite for horror films! I think these films were a precursor of the 'Left Behind' books.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

Hal Lindsey has a lot to answer for!!

My dad had all of his books, and I read "The Late Great Planet Earth" voraciously in 6th grade. It was so over the top in it's depictions of the end times that what pre-teen boy wouldn't love it? Of course, then I saw Star Wars...

Anyhow--I remember in the early 70s, The Common Market was going to be the Beast (once it added it's 12th country), and bar codes were to be his mark.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That's brought memories back. I had some clients in the early 80s, who were, well, a little strange, and they used to shove pamphlets in my hand, denouncing the Common Market as the beast with ten heads. I don't remember anything about microchips, but probably Rome figured somewhere.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

The not-so-funny thing about this religious paranoia is that it can cause real world harm. It could be (and has been) argued that recent data breeches could have been prevented if Americans weren't afraid Satan was lurking in the internet.

quote:
“Bible prophecy” mythology is also why thieves were able to steal consumer data from 40 million Target customers this fall. That theft was easily preventable with the smart-card encryption used in most other countries, but we can’t use that technology here in America because the phrase “embeddable microchips” sends tens of millions of Americans off the deep end. It’s the Mark of the Beast!

Italics in original.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

If Jesus can live in your heart, I am sure the furnishings and plumbing are comfortable enough for any Devils who we would open the door to.

Somewhere is an angel weeping, holding out a bloody sword. No matter how hard we look we cannot see it's pointing towards. (paraphase of Bruce Cockburn)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The obsession with signs and portents and defining them is unnecessary.
If the Devil exists as you fear, the moment your comfort becomes more important than the suffering of others, you've inked the contract in your heart.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's brought memories back. I had some clients in the early 80s, who were, well, a little strange, and they used to shove pamphlets in my hand, denouncing the Common Market as the beast with ten heads. I don't remember anything about microchips, but probably Rome figured somewhere.

No, the microchip thing came later. The urban legend about the Belgian supercomputer known as the beast was already prevalent in the 80's. A microchip becoming the mark of the beast was inevitable.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

And the end and middle delimiters in bar codes are NOT 6 6 6.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The urban legend about the Belgian supercomputer known as the beast was already prevalent in the 80's.

Shucks, I've been admiring your wit because I thought YOU made up that computer! (I'll just have to admire you for different reasons.) Hate to see I missed an important interpretation of the endtimes stuff!

I re-read Late Great Planet Earth last year, really interesting to read it remembering how entranced I was with it back then, and seeing how it has turned out so far. How does he avoid being dismissed by his followers as nonsense spouter? Do they like the drama more than they care if it's true? I mean, fool me once, sure, but...fool me again and again?

My biggest objection these days to end of the world timetables is - so what? I don't hear in the lectures any indication of how this stuff applies to our lives today, right now. Isn't Christianity about living right now in God-reflecting ways? Not just about some future "we" supposedly won't experience anyway because of the suppose rapture?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Hal Lindsey just keeps on predicting the end of the world. The last time I remember seeing him was in 1999. Y2K thing was going to cause an accidental nuclear war. It didn't.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Eutychus wrote:

quote:
And I agree with Stetson that it does seem rather oddly material and arbitrary.

From reading I've been doing, it seems that the Tribulation Saints(ie. people who accept Christ AFTER the Rapture and refuse the mark) are allowed to ask God to inflict revenge upon their persecuters, even though that is forbidden to regular Christians.

I guess converting after the Rapture is the equivalent of taking your underaged girlfriend to a motel across the state line.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Didn't know that.

I'll keep it in mind just in case I miss the rapture and get left behind.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Hal Lindsey just keeps on predicting the end of the world. The last time I remember seeing him was in 1999. Y2K thing was going to cause an accidental nuclear war. It didn't.

On a related note, despite the fact that it's no longer in print (for some reason) you can still get copies of Lindsey's The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon really cheap.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

This good-natured and nostalgic ramble through the more arcane backwoods of pre-tribulationism is all very well, but as I pointed out earlier on, it seems to me that there's a lot of eschatalogical room between that and a purely historicist view.

If nobody here adopts either extreme, mere ridicule is not enough to address the issue of how passages like that relating the mark of the beast are to be understood.

If they bear absolutely no relation to technological progress and how it is being used or envisaged, that case needs to be made.

[ 19. May 2014, 18:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon really cheap.

The Grand-daddy of all these books 'The Dispensational Truth' is available in complete online:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/Larkin/dt/index.cfm

Including such charts as this:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/assets/images/study/larkin/dispensationalTruth/c01.jpg

I love how the categories are 'How Jews See it' "How Post Mills see it" "How God sees it".

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

If nobody here adopts either extreme, mere ridicule is not enough to address the issue of how passages like that relating the mark of the beast are to be understood.

If they bear absolutely no relation to technological progress and how it is being used or envisaged, that case needs to be made.

I'm not entirely sure how to understand the two paragraphs above - as nobody here appears to adopt either view I'm not sure why we have to deal with that particular reading of those passages. As a side note; I presume by full historic you mean 'full preterism' - which tbh I have only ever encountered on the internet.

On the level of those particular verses, I feel that a largely symbolic reading of them is indicated by the text - including the language used, and the parallels drawn with other parts of scripture.

Now taking the view - for a moment - that these symbolic readings are merely a shadow of the real thing when such a regime will be put in place literally. I'd have to say that I hope that all Christians would oppose such a thing purely on the basis of being good citizens (before we even got to the religious implication), secondly if that reading assumes such a thing is indeed 'inevitable' then worrying about overly seems misplaced.

I personally take a rather dim view of these kind of readings, because it seems to me that their purpose is largely religious titillation - whereas on privacy issues those same groups who purport to fear such developments are completely silent.

I mean, when was the last time you heard any church leader in the US talk about the NSA revelations that have been in the news, and actually deal with them seriously, rather than as a device to scare the faithful (which I expect is rather rare anyway, because these were 'our' spies).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I mean, when was the last time you heard any church leader in the US talk about the NSA revelations that have been in the news, and actually deal with them seriously, rather than as a device to scare the faithful (which I expect is rather rare anyway, because these were 'our' spies).

That's sort of the question I was trying to ask, really.

If it is not just (sorry) preterism, then I think there is material in Revelation which could form a legitimate basis for churches addressing the kind of issue you raise, from a non-titillatory point of view. But I'm having trouble seeing how such an approach would avoid arguing in favour of a complete withdrawal from society.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

My own position on this is 'A-millennial' (or more accurately, that I believe the millennium not to be a literal 1000 years but a symbolic representation of the age of the gospel.

That goes with interpreting Revelation in a 'parallelist' manner. For a full version see the book "More than Conquerors" by William Hendriksen - I have a late 1960s IVP edition, but it's probably still in print. Basically each section of Revelation is taken to refer to pretty much the whole gospel age from different angles. It would be a bit like one of those films that follows a group of disparate individuals in parallel through their day till everything is resolved when they come together in a train crash or some such at the end. Note that the sections are 'marked off' by a repetitive 'chorus' about every three chapters.

One real life point which impressed me quite a bit was to come across a late 19thC edict from the Russian Orthodox Church dealing with heretics - aimed mainly I understand at 'Old Believers', Russian Orthodox followers who had refused to accept a kind of modernisation of liturgy etc (a bit like the later RC bishop Lefebvre). The edict declares that it will be made impossible for these people to live in Russia - they will not be able to buy and sell, to own land, and so forth, and their children will be taken from them. All sounding very like the edict put out by the Beast against those who do not bear 'The Mark'. I don't know whether there may be a more developed thing of that kind nearer the 'last days' but I think edicts like that and similar in his own time would be what John had in mind.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

If it is not just (sorry) preterism, then I think there is material in Revelation which could form a legitimate basis for churches addressing the kind of issue you raise, from a non-titillatory point of view. But I'm having trouble seeing how such an approach would avoid arguing in favour of a complete withdrawal from society.

I'm not sure where you picked up that I was arguing from complete withdrawal from society? Or maybe I misread you.

I'm just saying that there are sensible reasons for opposing these things as good citizens - even before we get to the religious aspects of this.

Furthermore, as we do so in the public square we have to do so on the basis of some kind of natural law because an argument based on Revelation is going to be fairly incoherent to those who don't share those beliefs.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This good-natured and nostalgic ramble through the more arcane backwoods of pre-tribulationism is all very well, but as I pointed out earlier on, it seems to me that there's a lot of eschatalogical room between that and a purely historicist view.

If nobody here adopts either extreme, mere ridicule is not enough to address the issue of how passages like that relating the mark of the beast are to be understood.

If they bear absolutely no relation to technological progress and how it is being used or envisaged, that case needs to be made.

Much of Revelation is clearly symbolism recognizable to the first century church. Figuring out what it meant to the original readers is key. What did they think it predicted? From there, we can attempt to discern how Revelation is relevant today. Like I said, the microchip thing would give me pause.

Coincidentally, I'm plan on doing a bible study over the Book of Revelation this Fall.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Eutychus. You have my sympathy. I've lost my side bet on any eschatology whatsoever. I'm post-historicist. Post-futurist. Therefore preterist. All I can know is what was going on at the time of writing. Like God the Father can only be known in Jesus, not in much older Jewish myths.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Steve Langton, I think I have more commentaries on Revelation than any other book in the Bible! I have More Than Conquerors, Michael Wilcock's I Saw Heaven Opened, a dispensational tome in French by one John Alexander, plus a cassette series by Roger Forster.

Forster (pre-millenial) has in my view the most uplifting approach (Revelation is first and foremost about worship) and Wilcock (amillenial) makes the most sense (at least to me). I have at various points in my life been most things except dispensational pre-millenialist. These days I'm more of what a pastor I knew referred to as a "pan-millenialist": hoping it will all pan out in the end.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I'm not sure where you picked up that I was arguing from complete withdrawal from society? Or maybe I misread you.

You misread me. What I was trying to say is that the mark of the beast episode, if it is not purely symbolic and/or preterist, seems to indicate a cut-off point at which the faithful have to withdraw from society if only to keep on being able to have food.

Steve Langton has referred to one such later historical incident and inferred that you don't have to be a dispensationalist pre-tribulation rapturist to see it as echoing Revelation. And even allowing for some literary pareidolia, I find it hard not to see a parallel.

What I do find odd though is that this seems to indicate there is a point at which christians are supposed to stop engaging with society (as Jesus enjoined) and pull back, for their own (eternal) safety.

Is that any clearer?!

[ 20. May 2014, 05:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

Just to say that the parallel with the Old Believers is imperfect - that was a system imposed on them, not one they chose themselves.

Anyway ..

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

What I do find odd though is that this seems to indicate there is a point at which christians are supposed to stop engaging with society (as Jesus enjoined) and pull back, for their own (eternal) safety.

Is that any clearer?!

Well, the point surely was that the original audience would have understood it as having primarily spiritual (rather than economic) parallels - specifically on the placement of the various marks.

So in that sense, if you can discern a spiritual import behind some of these technologies, the you should in conscience refuse them.

OTOH these technologies (or at least their specific implementation) are worth opposing in the public square because as Christians we have a duty to be good citizens, and in a democratic context that requires putting power under scrutiny.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Why do you say surely? Eutychus is likely right that means withdrawing more and more from society. Given our own current understanding of Christianity, we might find that hard to accept. However, if that is what John the Revelator (I like the song) meant, then Revelation could be interpreted as giving signs to the church in any generation about when to withdraw. The questions would then always be is now such a time and how do we withdraw.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I have a friend who envisions the "neither buy nor sell without taking the mark of the beast" as the formation of a separate society, Christians living in the midst of secular society but not part of it. We thrive without needing to buy or sell because we support each other. One grows crops and gives it to whatever other Christians need food; another is a carpenter and helps repair houses of Christians.

This is somewhat like the ethnic groups in some cities who mostly use each other's businesses. In some USA communities new immigrants from south of the order never need to learn English, they can do all they need within the Spanish-speaking community. Think of those Jewish families who ignore Christmas in spite of the culture around them being inundated with it. That mainstream cultural activity is irrelevant to their own lives.

I am far from convinced, because I'm uncomfortable with the idea that at some point we are no longer to see "not one of us" as our neighbor. Give food to Christians only, ignore the starving Samaritan?

But it's an intriguing idea, "they don't bother us and we don't bother them" while living next door to them.

(My own interpretation is no longer that literal.)

But as to when should churches separate from the local culture - long ago. Too many churches pick up and reflect some secular cultural values that are inconsistent with Christianity (as I understand it). I'll mention one incident.

Decades ago I gave my one time bonus check to a specific evangelistic association whose work and materials I appreciated (with a note it was a one-time gift). They sent me a receipt - and special invitation to attend their conferences and be seated in special seating for major donors. Boy did that raise my eyebrows! But a lot of churches give some special honor - quiet or public - to the rich members, if only because they think they have to cater to the rich for their own financial survival.

(Local Methodist district meetings here, the pastors of churches that paid the full yearly apportionment get seated in a special place. Might sound like proper recognition of pastors who are doing their job right, 'til you look behind the scenes and see the distorted behavior caused by focusing on money for honor.)

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why do you say surely? Eutychus is likely right that means withdrawing more and more from society.

Because the emphasis seems to be on the marks which are a direct repudiation of the 'true marks' of the believer, with the economic consequences as second order effects.

So I'm not disagreeing with Eutychus necessarily, however adopting some of these technologies do not - in and of themselves - constitute a rejection of being a believer - or at least it has to be shown that they do.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by chris stiles;

quote:
Just to say that the parallel with the Old Believers is imperfect - that was a system imposed on them, not one they chose themselves.

Not really suggesting the parallel is perfect; it's an example of a state religion making life difficult for dissenters in a way that at least echoes the situation in Revelation, and similar examples have been seen elsewhere, including when the Roman state attempted to impose emperor worship in the days of the early church.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
An example of a state religion making life difficult for dissenters in a way that at least echoes the situation in Revelation, and similar examples have been seen elsewhere, including when the Roman state attempted to impose emperor worship in the days of the early church.

North Korea today? Bow to the statue of "Dear Leader" or go to prison. Whatever happened back then, still happens, only the location and name of the leader change.

[code]

[ 21. May 2014, 21:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Revelation got into the Canon by the skin of its teeth and by virtue of a bit of horse trading between East and West.

Never mind microchips.

Just read Wm Barclay and all is revealed.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Nevertheless, it got in. Either you accept the Canon, or you accept that any text could count...

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Much of Revelation is clearly symbolism recognizable to the first century church. Figuring out what it meant to the original readers is key. What did they think it predicted? From there, we can attempt to discern how Revelation is relevant today. Like I said, the microchip thing would give me pause.

Coincidentally, I'm plan on doing a bible study over the Book of Revelation this Fall.

ISTM that Revelation, in its general idea of an end and tribulation etc, it's the general theme and thrust of far too much science science fiction and zombie movies.

Regarding your bible study, I'd be highly interested in knowing anything you'd care to share about it. Never seen a bible study on this book.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Never seen a bible study on this book.

A start?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

no prophet wrote:

quote:
ISTM that Revelation, in its general idea of an end and tribulation etc, it's the general theme and thrust of far too much science science fiction and zombie movies.

Plus, even in the original, never mind the Grade Z cinematic knock-offs, its over-run with chest-thumping triumphalism. Say what you will about Hal Lindsey and Jack Chick, they actually have a pretty good handle on the emotional themes permeating the book.

One of the kitschy tracts I've checked out in the past few days announced thusly...

"On the cross, God's love was for his enemies. Now, it's for his friends!!!"

Like the housewife crowing to the jilted mistress: "Oh yeah? You think he really loves you? Ha! He's coming back to ME now, you shameless tramp!"

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

How does this that I posted upstream annoyingly hijack this thread?

"And the end and middle delimiters in bar codes are NOT 6 6 6."

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Why is that a hijack? I know barcodes don't have 666 in them and was never worried about them. But start wanting to implant some RFID chip in me and I will be worried - for more reasons than one, as chris stiles has pointed out.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I don't know but that's what Beeswax Altar says elsewhere.

Happy to RFID everyone and all wear Google Glass.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I can't see where he says that. But there you are.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

In 'another house', sorry, not anadromously.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Including such charts as this:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/assets/images/study/larkin/dispensationalTruth/c01.jpg

I love how the categories are 'How Jews See it' "How Post Mills see it" "How God sees it".

Seriously! How fun is that! And I love how, even tho this is apparently produced by some group that doesn't want to be identified with dispensationalists (inferred from the fact that the premillennial chart is not the "how God sees it" one) yet the entire presupposition is rooted in a dispensationalist worldview: that everyone-- Jew, pre-trib, post-trib-- everyone-- including sees history unfolding in distinct "ages" (dispensations). And that the only "right" way of seeing things can, of course, be described as God's way. Utterly delightful! [Killing me]

[code]

[ 22. May 2014, 04:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Forster (pre-millenial) has in my view the most uplifting approach (Revelation is first and foremost about worship)

Eugene Peterson takes a similar position in his excellent commentary on Rev., Reversed Thunder.:

quote:
“It is difficult to worship God instead of his messengers. And so people get interested in everything in this book except God, losing themselves in symbolhunting, intrigue with numbers, speculating with frenzied imaginations on times and seasons, despite Jesus' severe stricture against it (Acts 1:7)… nothing is more explicit in this book than that it is about God. It is the revelation of Jesus Christ, not the end of the world, not the identity of the antichrist, not the timetable of history... Nothing has meaning apart from his lordship.”

On the note re: withdrawl from society I rather like this quote from Peterson's book:

quote:
"People who are preoccupied with the future never seem to be interested in preparing for the future, which is something that people do by feeding the poor, working for justice, loving their neighbors, developing a virtuous and compassionate life in he name of Jesus.”

[ 21. May 2014, 21:59: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

(Local Methodist district meetings here, the pastors of churches that paid the full yearly apportionment get seated in a special place. Might sound like proper recognition of pastors who are doing their job right, 'til you look behind the scenes and see the distorted behavior caused by focusing on money for honor.)

Round here reward would be a dispensation (permission) to be somewhere other than the district synod!
[Biased]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

That sounds great, cliffdweller; my experience ties in with the second quote, too.

I still get worried about the latest techno/retail/cashless/implant solutions though. There is Bablyon in Revelation as well as Jerusalem, after all.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Seriously! How fun is that! And I love how, even tho this is apparently produced by some group that doesn't want to be identified with dispensationalists (inferred from the fact that the premillennial chart is not the "how God sees it" one)

I think you misunderstand. It's the historic-premillennial view that is being described there ("How God Sees it" is the dispensational view - and Larkin's book was kind of the grand daddy of all the books that followed).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That sounds great, cliffdweller; my experience ties in with the second quote, too.

I still get worried about the latest techno/retail/cashless/implant solutions though. There is Bablyon in Revelation as well as Jerusalem, after all.

Personally I think it won't be long before most people are 'implanted' with some kind of technology - be that something medical which gains additional functions, or something else entirely. I don't find this necessarily problematic - though as I noted above there are worrying trends.

I think that if Revelation is clear about anything it's that the acceptance of this technology was in some way tied to a subverting of worship. Of course, a wider application of this point could be made (see Postman and others).

My worry is that by focusing solely on the overtly religious dangers - or painting things in that light, we readily ignore the more subtle dangers and/or don't actually enter into intelligent discussion about these topics. In that sense the Christian critique ends up being reactionary in both senses of the word (Lindsay rather than Ellul?)

[I could draw parallels here - but the parallel I came up with was contentious enough that I didn't want to risk a tangent]

[ 22. May 2014, 08:54: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That sounds great, cliffdweller; my experience ties in with the second quote, too.

I still get worried about the latest techno/retail/cashless/implant solutions though. There is Bablyon in Revelation as well as Jerusalem, after all.

My take-away from Peterson's quote it to continually ask myself, when Jesus returns, where will he look for me? Among the poor. So, in any given week, what are the odds that he'll find me there, among the poor, rather than in some other individualistic/ consumerist/ ambitious pursuit? Sadly, not that great.

Perhaps the "mark of the beast" is the marks of the dominant culture-- which in this case might be selfishness, consumerism, individualism or (from Walter Wink) adoption of the "myth of redemptive violence".

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Seriously! How fun is that! And I love how, even tho this is apparently produced by some group that doesn't want to be identified with dispensationalists (inferred from the fact that the premillennial chart is not the "how God sees it" one)
I think you misunderstand. It's the historic-premillennial view that is being described there ("How God Sees it" is the dispensational view - and Larkin's book was kind of the grand daddy of all the books that followed).

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't read the charts closely enough nor have I bothered to learn each group's paradigm enough to have caught that. Still, I think the point remains that the dispensationalist author of the chart not only presumes "God thinks like me", but also believes that everyone "thinks like me"-- i.e. that history is divided into various distinct dispensations. I just find that amusing.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

I still get worried about the latest techno/retail/cashless/implant solutions though. There is Bablyon in Revelation as well as Jerusalem, after all.

I had a thought today, while reading on a different topic - it's a little inchoate at the moment, but I'll post it for consideration.

What if the religious part of the danger with these particular technologies lie less in ability to corrupt 'worship' and more in the temptation to attempt to acquire a power via the surveillance society - omniscience - that properly belongs only to God?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

I still get worried about the latest techno/retail/cashless/implant solutions though. There is Bablyon in Revelation as well as Jerusalem, after all.
I had a thought today, while reading on a different topic - it's a little inchoate at the moment, but I'll post it for consideration.

What if the religious part of the danger with these particular technologies lie less in ability to corrupt 'worship' and more in the temptation to attempt to acquire a power via the surveillance society - omniscience - that properly belongs only to God?

But, by that logic, you could say that any effort at acquiring deeper knowledge of the world around us(or, for that matter, about peoples' personal behaviours) is an attempt to acquire omniscience. X-rays, space probes, tax audits, etc, all give us more knowledge about things.

There are arguments against state incursion into peoples' private lives, but I don't think they are to be found in the Book Of Revelation. The writer practically ejaculates when envisioning the violent destruction of the unfaithful. It's not exactly a treatise in defense of individual rights and freedoms.

My own view is that the passage about 666 is referring to a specific political leader, either one who had already been in power at the time of writing, or whom "John" thought would be coming to power at some point in the future, and whom he seeks to warn the reader against. The Beast is no more a stand-in for Evil In General than is a mugshot on a Wanted poster.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
What if the religious part of the danger with these particular technologies lie less in ability to corrupt 'worship' and more in the temptation to attempt to acquire a power via the surveillance society - omniscience - that properly belongs only to God?

I think the whole premise of Babylon, from Genesis to Revelation, is that it is trying to be like God, drawing on its own strength.

I find CS Lewis' so-called sci-fi trilogy makes a lot of sense, and it certainly works along similar lines.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

Ohhh - remember Texe MArrs's stuff?

His Wiki page

I had Mystery Mark of the New Age, Crossway Books, 1988, and thinking back - it was all a bit batshit insane..

But you're right - it was on the back of Hal Lindsey.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
But you're right - it was on the back of Hal Lindsey.

End-time Christian writers often walk a fine line between philo-semtitism and anti-semitism, and it sounds as if Marss was on the opposite side from Lindsey there.

I don't think Lindsey, who is(present tense; he is still active) a hardcore Christian Zionist would sell the Protocols or preach that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Khazars, as Marss apparently does.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps the "mark of the beast" is the marks of the dominant culture-- which in this case might be selfishness, consumerism, individualism or (from Walter Wink) adoption of the "myth of redemptive violence".

Yes, the forehead and hand are what you intentionally think and do. It's got to be talking about that, not some vaguely symbolic act that people can be fooled into thinking just the modern version of ID cards or cash, or that could be done to you in your sleep.

On a different topic [Smile]

I distrust the idea of implanted chips simply because technology is unreliable. If they can distort your computer or phone with viruses, why not your chip? Every so often a credit card doesn't scan and they have to key in all the numbers, how do they key in the chip info if it fails?

Not counting the problem that an under-skin thing is going to cause allergic response or infections in some people. These days of superbugs and dying antibiotics, I'm not letting anyone do anything invasive that I can live without.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

There are arguments against state incursion into peoples' private lives, but I don't think they are to be found in the Book Of Revelation. The

I'm not trying to draw direct lessons from Revelation. I'm just trying to think about what a Christian critique of the technologies Eutychus mentioned would actually be.

Because I don't think in this particular case that the parallels to Revelation necessarily applies.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps the "mark of the beast" is the marks of the dominant culture-- which in this case might be selfishness, consumerism, individualism or (from Walter Wink) adoption of the "myth of redemptive violence".
Yes, the forehead and hand are what you intentionally think and do. It's got to be talking about that, not some vaguely symbolic act that people can be fooled into thinking just the modern version of ID cards or cash, or that could be done to you in your sleep.

Uh, so not really a "yes" then, since what you're suggesting is something entirely different than what I was saying...

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps the "mark of the beast" is the marks of the dominant culture-- which in this case might be selfishness, consumerism, individualism or (from Walter Wink) adoption of the "myth of redemptive violence".
Yes, the forehead and hand are what you intentionally think and do. It's got to be talking about that, not some vaguely symbolic act that people can be fooled into thinking just the modern version of ID cards or cash, or that could be done to you in your sleep.

Uh, so not really a "yes" then, since what you're suggesting is something entirely different than what I was saying...

OK, then I'm not understanding your comment. Selfishness, consumerism, individualism aren't shown in what we thing and do? People who reject these values think and behave differently than the selfish consumerist individualistic culture encourages. That's where I was coming from.

Love to hear more about your concept.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Oh, OK, I follow you now...

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Apparently, Left Behind has been made into a film, starring Nicholas Cage.

I had to do a double-check to see if this was really the LaHaye/Jenkins book, and it is.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Nick Cage. Sigh. I remember when he made decent films. This'll gross him more than all the rest put together I'm sure. Public taste being what it is. American at that.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Bumping this thread because I ran across this, and given the current American evangelical freakout over contraception (see this thread), it seemed like the perfect storm of religious and sexual anxieties.

quote:
New implantable, remote-controlled contraceptive lasts 16 years
A new candidate for the perfect contraceptive has surfaced - a wireless, remote-controlled implant that can be turned on and off at the push of a button.

Developed by US tech start-up MicroCHIPS, the device will begin pre-clinical testing in 2015. If the testing is a success, the device will be on the market by 2018.

According to Gwen Kinkead at MIT Technology Review, the device is just 20 x 20 x 7 mm, which is small enough to be implanted under the skin of the buttocks, upper arm, or abdomen. It uses a synthetic hormone called levonorgestrel, which is already featured in many current contraceptives, and it dispenses 30 mg of it per day via a special heat-activated seal.

"MicroCHIPS invented a hermetic [air-tight] titanium and platinum seal on the reservoirs containing the levonorgestrel. Passing an electric current through the seal from an internal battery melts it temporarily, allowing a small dose of the hormone to diffuse out each day,” says Kinkead.

Microchips AND contraception AND increased female autonomy?!? If this thing works it sounds like conservative Christians' worst nightmare!

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But if there is a 666 tattooed on the forehead or implanted in the arm, my ignorant reading says it's always a knowing intentional endorsement of a clear value system that anyone who even pretends to believe in a loving God says is wrong, deadly wrong, soul-destroyingly wrong, kill your neighbor's baby to feed to the pigs wrong.

It won't be a puzzling issue of "feeding my family is good so I guess I have to do it even though I'm a little disturbed about what it all means." That's just daily life on many jobs in the corporate world.

I agree. I do wonder if it might even be (gasp! In Revelation? No, really?) symbolic: Having the number of the Beast on one's head or hand might mean something more to do with serving the Devil in one's thoughts or actions than a conveniently avoidable tattoo or microchip. And certainly "buying and selling" in our (and perhaps any) economic system allows for a lot of callous mistreatment of, say, the poor for one's own gain, so it could even be about something predatory and self-serving--or just callous and uncaring or willfully ignorant--in our daily business.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Oh. I hadn't read the rest of the thread before posting. [Hot and Hormonal]

So I'm not the only one to think of this--and thus far I hadn't heard of other people saying it, so I was wondering if people would roll their eyes at me, but maybe not. [Smile]

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Bumping this thread because I ran across this, and given the current American evangelical freakout over contraception (see this thread), it seemed like the perfect storm of religious and sexual anxieties.

quote:
New implantable, remote-controlled contraceptive lasts 16 years
...

...small enough to be implanted under the skin of the buttocks...
Microchips AND contraception AND increased female autonomy?!? If this thing works it sounds like conservative Christians' worst nightmare!

Yeah, they aren't real big fans of putting it in the butt either.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

Microchips AND contraception AND increased female autonomy?!? If this thing works it sounds like conservative Christians' worst nightmare!

Well, this thing dispenses levonorgestrel, which is the synthetic hormone in Plan B, so presumably Hobby Lobby doesn't like it (although it wasn't clear to me that they object to all contraceptives containing levonorgestrel, so their stupidity might not even have the semblance of surface consistency).

This is basically Norplant with a switch.

Personally, if it was me, I'd want to know a lot more about the security of the remote and about unalterable audit trails in the device itself before I relied on it. Specifically, I'd want to be sure that I could access a dispensary log and a settings log, so that I could verify that the device was operating in the way that I intended.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My beast has been implanted with a microchip

So have mine! A former racing greyhound and a former stray lurcher. You can just fill the chip under the skin of their necks.

Realistically, hasn't the 'mark of the Beast' always been the innate selfishness in humankind to do whatever the hell it wants to do despite the cost to those less powerful? We either wear the mark of Christ (or his Truth) or we don't. Surely nothing marks us out more distinctly as belonging 'not to Christ' as our behaviour when we put ourselves at the centre of everything we want?

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Ah but you see Martin I have a lot of sympathy for "both-and" eschatology, which I think I have derived from Roger Forster: I'm sure John was writing in code for his own time, but also think there have been successive fulfilments of the same sort of thing at work.

I think it is "both-and" in the sense that the text was originally about what was happening at the time, but it also resonates with things going on in our own day. But the "end times" texts do not give detailed information about future events.

As to the OP, I agree with some of the other commenters that just because it isn't the mark of the Beast doesn't make it a good idea. Receiving a microchip to enable financial transactions just sounds too invasive to me.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Receiving a microchip to enable financial transactions just sounds too invasive to me.

Yes - and they can easily move around.

Every time I visit the vet I check that my dog's is still in place. Some dogs are chipped but the scanner doesn't find it because it's shifted position. It would be very inconvenient if you arrived at the bank and your chip has moved to a different part of your body!

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Receiving a microchip to enable financial transactions just sounds too invasive to me.
Yes - and they can easily move around.

Every time I visit the vet I check that my dog's is still in place. Some dogs are chipped but the scanner doesn't find it because it's shifted position. It would be very inconvenient if you arrived at the bank and your chip has moved to a different part of your body!

Like your heart. [Eek!]

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Receiving a microchip to enable financial transactions just sounds too invasive to me.
Yes - and they can easily move around.

Every time I visit the vet I check that my dog's is still in place. Some dogs are chipped but the scanner doesn't find it because it's shifted position. It would be very inconvenient if you arrived at the bank and your chip has moved to a different part of your body!

That happened to my Goldie, Pyrite. Chipped as a pup, on one visit it the vet we couldn't find the chip. Implanted chip #2. Subsequent checkup found chip 2 where it should be and chip 1 in his butt, the opposite spot from the original site.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Receiving a microchip to enable financial transactions just sounds too invasive to me.
Yes - and they can easily move around.

Every time I visit the vet I check that my dog's is still in place. Some dogs are chipped but the scanner doesn't find it because it's shifted position. It would be very inconvenient if you arrived at the bank and your chip has moved to a different part of your body!
Like your heart.

Or further down. I'd rather not have to take off my pants to buy a burrito.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Bravo, Eutychus!

No, I don't think Hal Lindsey et al. got it right. But I believe that William Stringfellow got it right. And in his own (IMHO) very perspicacious and sophisticated way, he was big on the book of Revelation and suggested that no Christian should dismiss it. He wrote a whole book inspired by it.

The latest heard on NPR today: candidates for office are spending mucho campaign $$ to buy technology such that various people who bring up their websites on the screen will instantly be well enough known as to be presented with different material depending on their identity. It is nothing new that politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth, but this brings the art to a whole new level.

"Come, sweet death."

[ 15. July 2014, 22:04: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I have to admit that if such technology did become mandatory, that would be the point where I say "Argh! The fundies are right after all." But I don't think it would ever become mandatory, simply because, fundamentalists aside, the idea is just icky.

Oh, it won't become mandatory - it'll just become ubiquitous. Remember when suddenly it was weird to not have a mobile phone? Then smartphones happened, and now what's weird is not having one of them - the notion that somebody might not have a mobile phone at all isn't so much 'weird' as 'unthinkable'.

I'm not really making a Big Moral Point here, by the way, just a slightly wry observation. I adore my smartphone. She and I are practically inseparable.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0