Implantable chip =/= 666


#1

The implantable chip[size=2]

A tiny electronic device, consisting of an array of transistors - probably on a single die, capacitors, resistors, boolean gates, solid-state memory, an antenna, and a fuel cell to keep it going for a hundred years. All of which serve for basically one purpose: to transmit a code, probably either a 64-bit or a 128-bit binary number (the latter of which, alowing for 340,282,367,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 - that’s 340 undecillion - possiblities, would be a virtually limitless labelling method). This code is picked up by scanners so that you don’t need to manually checkout, flash ID cards, or purchase tickets.

[size=4]The mark of the beast[size=2]

Well, we don’t know exactly what it is, but it’s a mark that either appears on the forehead or on the right palm. It’s an image that can be worshipped, and 666 comes into play somehow.

Some people think - or worse, are completely convinced - that these are one and the same. :confused:

The same people thought the same about Social Security cards, driver’s licences, and just about all other forms of identification no doubt.

The implantable chip wouldn’t even go in the palm or forehead.

First, the palm is skin. If it went into the hand, it wouldn’t be the palm; it would be the hand. But having a grain-of-rice sized capsule in one’s right hand would limit the delicate mobility, impede dexterity, and most likely catch on bones and whatnot.

If it went into the forehead, it would telescope through the skin. You can feel your cranium through your forehead’s skin, and if there was a grain-of-rice sized chip in your forehead, you’d be able to feel that too. Unless it went behind the skull, in which case it would no longer be the forehead.

Discuss. :smiley:
[/size][/size][/size]


#2

I think once grocery stores get sick of sending me replacement “preferred” cards, they will require customers to have a laser imprint on their skin so they can merely scan the customer rather than those little plastic cards.

BTW, I found a new trick. Give the grocery store the hardware store card. As long as they have the same number of digits, the trick works. Us old dogs still be learnin’. (Okay, fine, no, I don’t really advocate trickery. Too bad, though.)


#3

Ive always figured that the mark of the beast was something to be taken metephorically, not literally. What is satanic about an ID chip anyways? I fail to see how the govenment making us wear tags or tatoos can risk our salvation unless they are doing it for some religious reason. Simply trying to keep order and security is not evil. Why do we need conspiracy theories about everything? People see the devil everywhere these days where bar codes or buttons are mentioned because they blow these verses out of context. Dont get me wrong, I believe in Satan. But unless this “mark” has something to do with our faith, how can it affect our salvation?

I always figured that what is meant by “in the hands or the forehead” meant something more simple. If I said “let thine hand not offend” would you take that as literally not letting your hands offend somebody? No! You would understand what I said as meaning “dont let what you do offend other people”.

Likewise, the forehead being a symbol of the house of our minds could be what is meant in the verse.

So, to sum it up it means that in the last says, people will belong to the evil one because thy wear his mark. But its not literaly a tatoo or a chip, but it is thier thoughts and thier deeds that display this mark to God.

Hand=Deeds
Forehead=Thoughts


#4

Well, nobody is putting a chip under this man’s skin. No way, that’s a violation of privacy and leads one to be treated as an object.


#5

I certainly wouldnt want a chip implanted in my body either, but it wouldnt be because I feared for my salvation, but because, like you, I prefer my privacy to be repected.


#6

How is this news? The topic has been discussed at least twice previously (use the search function and read them). Why bring it up again?


#7

[quote=geezerbob]How is this news? The topic has been discussed at least twice previously (use the search function and read them). Why bring it up again?
[/quote]

Because people (including Catholics) have bought into the false theology of the dispensationalists (i.e. the Left Behind series). This is nothing but garbage and must be treated as such.

PF


#8

There are actually a few points that have to be considered.

  1. The implant would be far smaller than a grain of rice, so it would not protrude.

  2. While the predominant scriptural meaning of this mark is symbolic, it can also be literal at the same time. The mark on the forehead or hand symbolically means a person who has surrendered their thoughts (forehead) and actions/works (hand) to the anti-Christ’s will. But scripture says one cannot buy or sell without it. If this implant becomes the only universally secure way to identify the holder of assets, it may indeed become “mandatory” for buying and selling.

  3. Such a device would have a legitimate security benefit. One can “track” the whereabouts of the individual. Mother, on her PC monitor, would always know where junior is. It would make kidnapping obsolete. Of course, Big Brother would also know where everyone is at any time also.

  4. It is not inconceivable that it would someday become law that such an implant would be mandatory; installed in the infant after birth, if the child is not to be deprived of the rights of citizenship. (or if the parents are not to be heavily fined or imprisoned - after all, if you do not want your child properly “tagged” what are you trying to get away with?)

The idea of the ID/security implant having something to do with “the mark of the beast” is not entirely farfetched if one considers how mankind can utterly abuse the device no matter how noble his initial intentions might be.

Thal59


#9

Controversial news stories require a link to a news article.

Thread closed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.