Originally posted by whodeywhich hand do you use to swipe your atm/credit card?
We are given a rather cryptic warning in Revelation about the mark of the beast. It says that the mark will be taken either in the right hand or forehead. Assuming that we are ever forced to take a mark of any kind in either the right hand or forehead, would you take it?
Originally posted by menace71Very true, but this thread is about it being a physical mark of some kind. The scriptures clearly assign the mark to the right hand or front of the head. What spiritual meaning do you think this could hold?
Maybe the mark is spiritual and some already have it?
Manny
Originally posted by stokerIt is, and will always be, that which is taken to be a symbol and literal means of control by evil forces. Has it ever been otherwise?
its a micro chip .. placed either in the head or hand.. this will be used from 2030, as to mark for food shortages.
Originally posted by whodeyWell the beast is the devil right? The mark is like a brand or ownership of the devil or signifies that they belong to the devil I would think. Ezekiel 9 talks of a mark
Very true, but this thread is about it being a physical mark of some kind. The scriptures clearly assign the mark to the right hand or front of the head. What spiritual meaning do you think this could hold?
Manny
Originally posted by stokerThis is the interpretation I lean towards. I think it relatively safe to say that eventually we all go cashless. After all, government is all the time inventing ways to sieze more control over the populace. If we go cashless, then such control is obvous. No more cheating on taxes, no more spending money to create currency, and no more money under the table. The kicker will be if they can track you with the mark. Just think, no more missing persons and where will criminals run to?
its a micro chip .. placed either in the head or hand.. this will be used from 2030, as to mark for food shortages.
My guess is that for such a change to occur, something "bad" will have to happen. After all, change is painful and usually only comes after something bad happens. In short, people need to be convinced to change. If so, then that "bad" occurence will be used to justify such a change and those that oppose it will be seen as a danger to the system and for their very survival. Those that challenge it on religious grounds will probably be characterized as religious extremist nutcases and will be oppressed accordingly.
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou refer to the Constitution, but when did the Constitution come to the rescue of Japanese Americans being held prisnor during World War 2? When did the Constitution come to the rescue of the populace once Obama signed into law the NDAA or when "W" signed into law the Patriot Act?
Why not challenge it on grounds of invasion of privacy instead? 😛
The Contitution? Pfft.
Nice idea though.