- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116970
And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark — the name of the beast or the number of its name.
Revelation 13: 16-17
China’s dystopian “social credit” system
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/china-social-credit-a-model-citizen-in-a-digital-dictatorship/10200278
CCTV observation everywhere all the time
Facial recognition monitoring
Smartphones tracked
Shopping patterns tracked and scored
Partner choice scoring
Poor Social Credit scores resulting in penalities and restrictions
Social media monitored and shut down
Do read the article, it’s quite frightening no matter what your religious or non-religious perspective.
Originally posted by @divegeesterWas John the Baptist Jesus?
And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark — the name of the beast or the number of its name.
Revelation 13: 16-17
China’s dystopian “social credit” system
http://www.abc.net.au/ ...[text shortened]... the article, it’s quite frightening no matter what your religious or non-religious perspective.
No, it's not the mark itself, but it is a harbinger. The mark is, well, a mark, on their right hand or forehead, as the text states. One doesn't mistake a sign saying "Pittsburgh - 40 miles" for a sign saying "Pittsburgh City Limits".
What we're seeing is governments around the world making the mark possible.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116970
19 Sep 18
Originally posted by @suzianneThe “mark” is literal then in your opinion. What about the “beast” and the “second beast”, are they literal beasts also as the text states?
Was John the Baptist Jesus?
No, it's not the mark itself, but it is a harbinger. The mark is, well, a mark, on their right hand or forehead, as the text states. One doesn't mistake a sign saying "Pittsburgh - 40 miles" for a sign saying "Pittsburgh City Limits".
What we're seeing is governments around the world making the mark possible.
Originally posted by @divegeesterYes, I believe the mark is literal. It will be visible, perhaps scannable, so that scripture might be fulfilled about not being able to buy or sell without it.
The “mark” is literal then in your opinion. What about the “beast” and the “second beast”, are they literal beasts also as the text states?
The beast, as well as the false prophet (which, I assume, is what you mean by the second beast), are humans. There have been people called the Beast, mostly in sports, but were they literal beasts? No.
"This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666." - Revelation 13:18, NIV
"the number of the beast... is the number of a man." It sure seems this is plainly stating that the beast is a man.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116970
Originally posted by @suzianneBarcodes on the hand. Don’t you feel this type of interpretation is a bit 1980s pulpit speak? What about smartphones (in the hand like Apple Pay) and retinal scanning for example?
Yes, I believe the mark is literal. It will be visible, perhaps scannable, so that scripture might be fulfilled about not being able to buy or sell without it.
Furthermore the personification of the beast makes it difficult to apply globally and perhaps the “man” is actually a woman, or does that not resonate well with the feminist choir these days?
19 Sep 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterCome on, all this is simple naysaying.
Barcodes on the hand. Don’t you feel this type of interpretation is a bit 1980s pulpit speak? What about smartphones (in the hand like Apple Pay) and retinal scanning for example?
Furthermore the personification of the beast makes it difficult to apply globally and perhaps the “man” is actually a woman, or does that not resonate well with the feminist choir these days?
19 Sep 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterThe first chapter of a book might be considered introductory. The Torah, especially, was written for jews of c. 3500 years ago, and so it is written taking their understanding into account. Indeed, it was written by one of them. Revelation was written some 1600 years later and is an account of what one man was shown, sans explanation. Since these things are still in the future, we are better equipped now to provide explanation than anyone previous.
Well Genesis states that man was formed from the dust of the earth and woman was taken out of man, but you completely reject those scriptures.
19 Sep 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterI told you what I believe. You say you disagree.
I’m questioning why you believe what you do as part of the discussion.
That’s not “naysaying”.
So you are naysaying what I said. Seems obvious.
19 Sep 18
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelUnfortunately, you are, now hush.
"Seems obvious" . Things aren't always what they seem. lol.