Is the RFID Chip the Mark of the Beast?

[candle glow]

When did our God get so judgmental?

Whatever your personal feelings may be about God's right to judge, he's still going to do it. This comment is so very similar to the one where people say, "A loving God would not judge us for feeding our family, even if we must take the mark to do it".

The fact that millions of Christians are ALREADY deceived by the strong delusion, have taken the mark of religion, accepted the false Christ, and denied the true Christ.

Except, the prophecy does not say that the Mark is religion. It says the Mark will be used for buying and selling. Why do people keep ignoring that when it comes to discussing the Mark?

Jesus said that we cannot serve God and mammon (money and the things money can buy) at the same time without cheating on one or the other. Forcing people to pay us for our help is opposite to the values of Heaven, where we work for each other out of love, just because we want to.

The Mark represents a way of turning people away from the values of Heaven, while allowing them to continue believing that it's just another step in the progression of banking technology (i.e nothing spiritually concerning).

In other words, people learn to ignore the warning about buying and selling because they've been convinced that money makes the world go round and we'd all die and the world would collapse and crumble if we don't work for money money money money.

 

[Luke1433]

How about this one, Loller (the post from Awakened One at the end of the previous page)? Is this where you are coming from too? In case it's not clear where I'm going with such questions, what I am hoping you will do is to take note of how, despite all the contradictions between themselves, one by one people turn up here with one theory after another to say that it doesn't make any difference at all whether we take the Mark of the Beast (i.e. a mark in the right hand or the forehead to be used for buying and selling), as long as we are "spiritual". And the moment you shine the light of Truth on what all of this supposedly spiritual talk is about, the goal posts start moving.

Take this quote from A.O.: "Do you know how you deny the Son? By hearing His Words and not acting on them. In other words, you deny Christ by not obeying Him..."

So let's talk about obeying Jesus. He said, "Anyone who does not forsake everything that he owns, cannot be my disciple." His disciples literally left their jobs, homes, and families to follow him. But you can be pretty sure that these guys will say that if you are "spiritual" enough, you don't have to ACTUALLY obey Jesus... just talk about it like you have some secret information on what it really means to obey Jesus, and like anyone who wants to just read the Bible for what it actually says is not spiritual enough to make their grade.

Strong delusion! Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[ancientsoul]

only laying this out so it will be contained in this thread ... haven't read any posts or such ...

the mark ... on your hand and on your forehead ... it is who you worship and who you serve ... they can tattoo you from head to toe with marks and it wwon't make ne difference ... they can not stop you from worshipping God (head) or even serving Him (hand) as one can see when the witnesses witness ... we can silently worship and silently serve ...it serves our Lord that we don't give our heart over ... that we remain a chaste virgin ... serving Him in silence can be simply not caving in our belief ...

it always befuddles me why someone would question the mark of the beast and not the seal of God ... it's no different ... it is in the mind where the battle field is ... God's seal is knowledge that will sustain ... by His sustaining power ...

 

[Lollerskates]

How about this one, Loller (the post from Awakened One at the end of the previous page)? Is this where you are coming from too? In case it's not clear where I'm going with such questions, what I am hoping you will do is to take note of how, despite all the contradictions between themselves, one by one people turn up here with one theory after another to say that it doesn't make any difference at all whether we take the Mark of the Beast (i.e. a mark in the right hand or the forehead to be used for buying and selling), as long as we are "spiritual". And the moment you shine the light of Truth on what all of this supposedly spiritual talk is about, the goal posts start moving.

Take this quote from A.O.: "Do you know how you deny the Son? By hearing His Words and not acting on them. In other words, you deny Christ by not obeying Him..."

So let's talk about obeying Jesus. He said, "Anyone who does not forsake everything that he owns, cannot be my disciple." His disciples literally left their jobs, homes, and families to follow him. But you can be pretty sure that these guys will say that if you are "spiritual" enough, you don't have to ACTUALLY obey Jesus... just talk about it like you have some secret information on what it really means to obey Jesus, and like anyone who wants to just read the Bible for what it actually says is not spiritual enough to make their grade.

Strong delusion! Nothing more. Nothing less.

With respect to the mark, I do believe the issue is spiritual and physical. As I said before, since we are in the age of duality both physical and spiritual mark will be part of the entire beast package. But, the spiritual mark (allegiance/obedience) will categorically determine if you take a physical mark. And, the spiritual allegiance to God occurs before the physical mark. A sort of metaphor would be the duality of the sun (spiritual) and moon (physical.) The moon shines at night, but that is because the sun shines on the moon, and therefore there would be no moonlight if it wasn't for the sun in the first place. With that said, I don't think a physical mark is acceptable to take.

In terms of being spiritually sufficient, and obedience, neither I believe are possible in our present state. The spirit is at war with the flesh, and at the basal level is exhausted from the fight, so it will never be at maximum. And, for the same reason obedience will never be at maximum. But grace compensates for all of the errors.

 

[Luke1433]

Skates wrote: "In terms of being spiritually sufficient, and obedience, neither I believe are possible in our present state. The spirit is at war with the flesh, and at the basal level is exhausted from the fight, so it will never be at maximum. And, for the same reason obedience will never be at maximum."

It is this kind of stuff which, from time to time, makes me just walk away from so-called Christian forums altogether. I'm smart enough never to use the words "perfectly" or (in this case) to the maximum, and yet every time the word obedience is used in reference to Jesus, the same knee-jerk reactions result.

People come here quoting Bible verses and arguing various points of logic, etc. but the moment you quote Jesus or talk about obeying him, all the accusations about being "carnal" come out, as though all the head-tripping double-talking palaver that goes on in what THEY write is somehow coming directly from God and is beyond dispute.

No, the bottom line, whether we're talking about the Mark of the beast or the teachings of Jesus is that there is a united wall against taking the Bible seriously in either case.

And THAT is the great deception!

 

[Lollerskates]

Skates wrote: "In terms of being spiritually sufficient, and obedience, neither I believe are possible in our present state. The spirit is at war with the flesh, and at the basal level is exhausted from the fight, so it will never be at maximum. And, for the same reason obedience will never be at maximum."

It is this kind of stuff which, from time to time, makes me just walk away from so-called Christian forums altogether. I'm smart enough never to use the words "perfectly" or (in this case) to the maximum, and yet every time the word obedience is used in reference to Jesus, the same knee-jerk reactions result.

People come here quoting Bible verses and arguing various points of logic, etc. but the moment you quote Jesus or talk about obeying him, all the accusations about being "carnal" come out, as though all the head-tripping double-talking palaver that goes on in what THEY write is somehow coming directly from God and is beyond dispute.

No, the bottom line, whether we're talking about the Mark of the beast or the teachings of Jesus is that there is a united wall against taking the Bible seriously in either case.

And THAT is the great deception!

Heh...

Well, I am being sincere in what I said about spiritual obedience and sufficiency. Again, it is a paradox. God demands it, and even Christ demands it. Yet, neither Christ nor God are ignorant in that they are ignoring the human state of being. I get reamed for this all the time on this forums for being legalistic, but I think that all laws that God has given are to be followed - not just the ten commandments, and "two" commandments of Christ. In fact, I would argue that Christ never "did away" with any law - and in terms of pure legalism He made it harder to be "perfect."

The only ones that He really changed in terms of practice (and really, it is just more of consequence,) are the sin sacrifices, and justice laws. One could say they are still in effect, but the most perfect of lambs cannot do what Christ's sacrifice did for us. Moreover, we will judge people, each other, angels, etc when we become perfected. And, Christ never "stopped" that one either. But, by consequence if the King of all kings is executing mercy and forgiveness before judgment, then we as His subjects/slaves/etc. are in no position to judge what our King has not judged yet. When He starts picking up stones and throwing them, then maybe we can talk. All of this is symbolic of life anyway. We are living in a time of mercy and grace; once we die we will be judged. Now, I want to get back to Christ's "two" commandments (there's that duality again.)

The first commandment of Christ is "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." This commandment covers every single law that God has spoken, but it is also specific to relationships with God (including love, offerings, prayer, etc.) If we are talking about just the ten commandments, this first commandment of Christ represents the first four commandments. This commandment is the greatest commandment because it deals with the spiritual substance of your relationship, love and obedience to God. Spirit always trumps flesh.

"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." This commandment is a testament to how you are applying your obedience to the first commandment, and applying it to everyday life around you. It represents all laws that deal with other persons, such as entertaining people, sexual relationships, matriarchy/patriarchy, tribal responsibilities, mercy, forgiveness, love, peace, etc. This commandment is the physical analogue of the first commandment. If we were only dealing with the 10 commandments, this law would encompass the other six commandments.


"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

To sum, as I said before, I am sincere when I say that we are expected to follow ALL [applicable*] laws. However, God/The Word of God knows that we will have tremendous trouble being perfectly perfect. Now, I believe a person can be perfected, but I don't believe anyone but the Word of God is born perfect. So, at the marginal level all humans that are sanctified are still by Universal Law of God guilty of breaking universal law - to which the punishment is death. If Christ didn't do what He did, you could have a billion Enochs, and they would all be in danger of death just by having the title of son of man, and especially if they sinned even once. (I am treading lightly with that last statement, but it is useful for comparison.)

So, when I say "no one is spiritually sufficient, or obedient" enough because of our current state of being, I am making a commentary on one's own spiritual and physical works saving the person. Do I believe Christians and Hebrews shouldn't wear mixed fabrics of clothing? Absolutely, especially since I am personally and scientifically aware of the problems it can cause (such as BO, rashes, etc.) And, I [try to] do the same thing because I believe we should. Do I think Christians and Hebrews should eat only clean meat? Absolutely, and again I am not being a legalistic hypocrite saying this, I actually [try to] practice what I preach. There are only two laws of God that I think are in stasis (the ones I mentioned above - justice and sacrifices for sin.) Do I believe anyone on this planet besides Christ has, or ever will follow all 600+ of God's laws? No, not perfectly. But it is our jobs to try anyway, constantly praying, fasting, meditating and repenting. That way, when we are perfected in the future, it won't be such a shock and chore to maintain it. We would have been tested in fire. I know of many Christians that have "laid down everything, and followed Christ" and that includes money, home, etc. They literally backpack and go wherever the wind takes them. I know of Christians that are career missionaries - working in dangerous and especially hostile environments for Christs - all for free (money raised by the Church. No salary; meager living/food/chothing.) They are still not perfect, and wouldn't get past Abraham's bosom had it not been for Christ. But, there are Christian out there that actually do [try to] practice what God and the Word of God preach just because we want to.

Unfortunately I wrote a wall of text, because I don't know if your frustration is [in]directly toward me, the previous poster, other people on the forums, or a combination of both. Perhaps if you could explain where your point came from above, and provide more clarity on what you meant (or even just a reply to this post,) it may help me to, in the future, respond to you laconically.

 

[Luke1433]

Hi Skates. Much of what you say is tantalizingly close to what i believe and have experienced as well. However, I think that there is a disturbing tendency for believers to get legalistic about the "law" and extremely spiritual about the teachings of Jesus, when there seems to be a mountain of N.T. writing to suggest the opposite.

I accept that the verse about those who teach obedience to the law being great in the kingdom of heaven, and those who do not teach obedience to the law being least in the kingdom of heaven is one that baffles me. However, it's not the most vital teaching of Jesus in my opinion, because being right or wrong on that one does not EXCLUDE one from the kingdom of heaven.

However, if the teachings of Jesus (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, where that passage appears) are the fulfillment of the law, as Jesus said, then if we were to teach (and try to obey) the teachings of Jesus, like the "wise man" described at the end of that Sermon, then we would be fulfilling the requirement of the law anyway. And, according to Jesus, we would be building on something that cannot be destroyed... while the one who hears what Jesus said in that Sermon and does NOT try to obey it definitely IS going to be destroyed.

If love for God and others sums up all that is in the law, then we have the dilemma of trying to work out what to do with the other commands of Jesus as well as the other commands in the Old Testament. Surprisingly, I see people who think that not mixing fabrics that they wear is more relevant to fulfilling the two Great Commandments than is forsaking all that we own. Elsewhere in the N.T. it says, "If any of you has this world's wealth and sees his brother in need, how can he say that God's love dwells in him if he shuts up his emotions against helping the needy brother?" The link is overwhelmingly obvious, whereas an O.T. law that does not link up so easily is the one telling you that, if your house has mould growing on it, you must dismantle it brick by brick and carry those bricks outside the city limits to be disposed of there. (Would that be one of the 600 that you try to obey?)

Surely some of these laws are more obviously linked with love for God and others than are some of the others.

 

[Lollerskates]

If love for God and others sums up all that is in the law, then we have the dilemma of trying to work out what to do with the other commands of Jesus as well as the other commands in the Old Testament. Surprisingly, I see people who think that not mixing fabrics that they wear is more relevant to fulfilling the two Great Commandments than is forsaking all that we own.

I hate doing the "chop up each sentence in an argument, then respond to each one rather than a whole" concept on CF. So, I apologize in advanced, but I feel that would be the best way to get my point across, and yous alike.

There is no dilemma of trying to work out the other commandments in the New or Old testament, because Christ makes it clear. Every single role, job, law, prophecy, act of obedience, act of faith, and act of the fruits of the spirit is summed up by Christ's two commandments. Christ said on those two commandments hangs all of the law and prophets. That includes the Old testament laws given by GOD, prophecies, and proverbs.

So, if you are obedient, forgiving, merciful, patient, caring, honest, and [try] to be perfect in any way liking, you are following Greatest commandments. Picking and choosing what to follow is not obedience. All or nothing. But, at the same time we all know [following] the law does not justify anyone, but it is an important gesture in love.To love God so much that you would try to perfectly obey His laws, even though He has sent a savior to be the payment for the judgment of your sins if you repent is a sign of a loving, trusting relationship. In the same way, if your parent(s) said that you would never get cut off, or kicked out of their house/fortune for doing anything wrong - as long as you learn from your mistakes, and they tell you to look at your big brother as an example of a good son, it would be foolish to say that the somewhat prodigal son can ignore all of the rules previously set up by his parents. Just because God has given Grace does not mean we are "free from the law." We are "free from the bondage of the law." There is a huge difference.

[qupte]Elsewhere in the N.T. it says, "If any of you has this world's wealth and sees his brother in need, how can he say that God's love dwells in him if he shuts up his emotions against helping the needy brother?" The link is overwhelmingly obvious, whereas an O.T. law that does not link up so easily is the one telling you that, if your house has mould growing on it, you must dismantle it brick by brick and carry those bricks outside the city limits to be disposed of there. (Would that be one of the 600 that you try to obey?)[/quote]

The "Rich Man" analogy was used several times in the NT by Christ. It is commentary of freely giving things that belong to God to people who want and need those things. Giving [good things] freely without expecting anything back is love. The underline subject of the metaphor is not to hide the knowledge of God from the gentiles, or unbelievers like the Pharisees (and soon to be gnostics) did. It also applies physically: if you are well off, rich, or wealthy, then you should give what you have to the poor. The wealth never belonged to you anyway - God allowed/gave the wealth. It is the 2nd greatest commandment.

As far as the bricks growing mold on my home goes... If I built my own home, and I owned it, I most certainly would follow that law, and any law that begins with, "And the LORD GOD said..." Again, as I scientist I understand why God commanded this. If a man tells me to do it I won't necessarily feel I must do it. Moreover, if I don't own the property, I have no right to destroy it: give unto Caesar/follow the laws of the land until it directly and categorically disagrees with God.

God still wants us to be perfect. Christ wants us to be perfect. He fulfilled the law by following every single law of God perfectly, and fulfilling every prophecy supporting Him. As people who are supposed to be "like Christ," we are to do the same. Would you call a cop a murderer just because s/he happens to do similar things as the criminal (like shooting someone to death, for example?) No, because they dont share any common "fruits" of their trade (selflessness vs selfishness, patience vs impulsiveness.)

 

[Luke1433]

Thank you, Skates, for showing such patience and restraint in responding to my incessant criticisms. I want you to know that I have a lot of respect for you as a communicator, even when I strongly disagree with your conclusions.

I personally prefer the chopping up approach, although it can become quite lengthy. I appreciate you replying in that way, as sometimes I get a bit lost with regard to what some of your comments are referring to.

You wrote: "There is no dilemma of trying to work out the other commandments." Ah, spoken like a true fundamentalist! But, of course, in the real world there are many dilemmas. The Old Testament has some very clear rules about how to offer sacrifices, yet I doubt that even YOU still follow them. Obviously, you have compared scripture with scripture, and concluded that at least that part of the Old Testament is outdated now.

Surely as a scientist you know that we have suitable treatments for mildew these days, and so it is no longer necessary to tear the house down and carry it outside the city (although your legalist approach seems to be holding you back from saying anything so heretical).

And what about the sabbath rules? Jesus shocked (and angered) the Pharisees by saying things like, "My Father works on the sabbath, and so do I," and "The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath." In other words, he was challenging them to look more deeply at WHY the law was made, rather than blindly obeying it just because it's there in the Old Testament.

But my real point, sadly, was further supported by the evasive comments you made about Jesus' clear instructions to forsake all that we own if we want to be one of his disciples (another term for Christians), by calling it a "rich man analogy" in a way that seems to indicate that you don't see yourself as a rich man. Never mind that Jesus tells us to let go of such things as food, clothes, and property, and hardly says a word about luxuries.

I have to say that I never quite understand how Caesar always gets a mention whenever I talk about obeying Jesus. But such is the way with great deception.

 

[Luke1433]

Thank you, Skates, for showing such patience and restraint in responding to my incessant criticisms. I want you to know that I have a lot of respect for you as a communicator, even when I strongly disagree with your conclusions.

I personally prefer the chopping up approach, although it can become quite lengthy. I appreciate you replying in that way, as sometimes I get a bit lost with regard to what some of your comments are referring to.

You wrote: "There is no dilemma of trying to work out the other commandments." Ah, spoken like a true fundamentalist! But, of course, in the real world there are many dilemmas. The Old Testament has some very clear rules about how to offer sacrifices, yet I doubt that even YOU still follow them. Obviously, you have compared scripture with scripture, and concluded that at least that part of the Old Testament is outdated now.

Surely as a scientist you know that we have suitable treatments for mildew these days, and so it is no longer necessary to tear the house down and carry it outside the city (although your legalist approach seems to be holding you back from saying anything so heretical).

And what about the sabbath rules? Jesus shocked (and angered) the Pharisees by saying things like, "My Father works on the sabbath, and so do I," and "The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath." In other words, he was challenging them to look more deeply at WHY the law was made, rather than blindly obeying it just because it's there in the Old Testament.

But my real point, sadly, was further supported by the evasive comments you made about Jesus' clear instructions to forsake all that we own if we want to be one of his disciples (another term for Christians), by calling it a "rich man analogy" in a way that seems to indicate that you don't see yourself as a rich man. Never mind that Jesus tells us to let go of such things as food, clothes, and property, and hardly says a word about luxuries.

I have to say that I never quite understand how Caesar always gets a mention whenever I talk about obeying Jesus. But such is the way with great deception.

 

[SilverBlade]

I honestly believe that the "Mark" is an RFID chip, or similar (like NFC), implanted in the right hand, as that it ties in with buying and selling.

What I don't buy is the argument that the "Mark" is enforced Sunday worship (as claimed by SDA), as there are so many things which get in the way and make it impossible to enforce:doctors, nurse hours, hospital stays, isolation wards, being sick, etc..

I don't think iris scanners would work because of identical twins - they might have too similar iris patterns.

Maybe in his vision, John saw two different possible futures: one where the Mark is on the forehead, one where the Mark was in the hand, and decided to cover both options.

 

[Luke1433]

There will always be a certain amount of conjecture with these things until they become reality (which is coming very quickly); but it makes pretty good sense to me that the banks are going to have to come up with something for people whose right hand has been amputated. It's probably not as convenient to put your head in front of a scanner, but at least it becomes the one part of your body that is almost certainly not to be missing!

So I think most of us will be offered the mark on our right hand eventually; while a few may get it on their forehead because of certain extenuating circumstances.

 

[Breezee]

Interesting discussion, Luke and Lollerskates. This particular part from Loller Skates stood out to me.

The "Rich Man" analogy was used several times in the NT by Christ. It is commentary of freely giving things that belong to God to people who want and need those things. Giving [good things] freely without expecting anything back is love. The underline subject of the metaphor is not to hide the knowledge of God from the gentiles, or unbelievers like the Pharisees (and soon to be gnostics) did. It also applies physically: if you are well off, rich, or wealthy, then you should give what you have to the poor. The wealth never belonged to you anyway - God allowed/gave the wealth. It is the 2nd greatest commandment.

I was left wondering why the "spiritual" part ("giving freely" to people in need) was applied to everybody while the the "physical" part (giving what you have to the poor) was only applied to the "well off, rich, or wealthy". Isn't that discriminating against rich people?
I thought that Jesus commanded EVERYONE who wanted to be his disciple to do that (Luke 12:33) ?
Also, I think that sometimes doing something physical can be very spiritual. Just because it is physical does not mean it can't be spiritual. And just because something is theological or theoretical does not make it spiritual either.

 

[Breezee]

There will always be a certain amount of conjecture with these things until they become reality (which is coming very quickly); but it makes pretty good sense to me that the banks are going to have to come up with something for people whose right hand has been amputated. It's probably not as convenient to put your head in front of a scanner, but at least it becomes the one part of your body that is almost certainly not to be missing!

So I think most of us will be offered the mark on our right hand eventually; while a few may get it on their forehead because of certain extenuating circumstances.

I also believe that the Mark of the Beast will come soon. As every aspect of our lives gets more and more connected through the internet and all that information gets shared and harvested by Governments and big business, it just seems inevitable that people will soon be invited to physically become part of that network. They can track your credit card, your phone and your computer, but you can still be separated from those things. Electronically tagging people is an obvious next step, as far as reliable tracking goes.
But as you say, Luke, it is all conjecture at the moment. There are too many variables to predict how it's going to turn out, but I do think it's coming.
I have also often wondered about "the image of the beast" perhaps being a robot. Back in Bible times, I think that an "image" meant something like a statue or an idol (graven image), which is why it made sense to me that it could be a robot (i.e. a statue that can move and talk) that goes around doing the bidding of the Anti-Christ. These machines would, of course, be internet connected and online all the time, checking faces and microchips against the security database, and arresting or executing suspects. I mean they are already doing exactly that using drones. So, God knows what they will dream up next!

 

[Luke1433]

The "image" is something where there is a LOT of room for conjecture. I guess the reason why this thread is dealing primarily with the Mark is because there is not much need for conjecture anymore with regard to what form it is most likely to take. We have the technology, there have been some experiments with using the microchip for buying and selling, and all of the advances being made in banking, etc. seem to be moving inexorably in that direction.

The "image", on the other hand, could be almost anything.

 

[Pteriax]

Not sure if anyone said this already so here goes:

In Exodus, the celebration of the passover was to be a mark "in the hand and the forehead". Forehead literally here is "between the eyes". Referring to the passover, it clearly means the thoughts and actions of the Hebrew people. I think that it is no coincidence that the same phase is used in Revelation. Also those condemned were "whoever had the mark of the beast or worshiped its image". I think it is clear from these texts that the mark of the beast is the religion of the antichrist, not a RFID chip. That said, I really don't want an RFID chip for many other reasons.

 

[Luke1433]

It gets almost monotonous pointing this out to each person who comes here with a new theory, but the Mark of the Beast is used for buying and selling. You can't buy or sell anything without it. It really takes a lot of contriving to make all of these "false religion" type theories fit into that description of the Mark of the Beast, especially given that there is in the world today, technology that can be placed in the right hand or the forehead and be used for buying and selling, and given that the economic system is already experimenting with it.

It's also interesting that all of this is tied up with references to a Prostitute called Babylon, named after the world empire that is most famous for having invented money. There is just so much overwhelming consistency with the fairly obvious description of the mark, that it seems odd that people go to such lengths to come up with some other explanation.

 

[SilverBlade]

No retailer gives a rip on what the customer worships, all they care about is selling you something.

I believe the "Worshiping his Image" is tied in with the Mark because it would be so feasible to disable someone's account if they refuse to worship in a certain way, or on a certain day, or something.

I can easily see the situation being that everyone who has an implant in their hand will also have it scanned when entering a church, to 'take attendance'. Miss one attendance and the account is deactivated for a week. (Although this seems unlikely due to reasons like: being a nurse and working that day, being in the hospital recovering from surgery, being in an isolating ward after a bone marrow transplant, simply being too suck to go to church)

 

[Luke1433]

Thanks for your comments, Silver Blade. It does not change the fact that the mark is used for buying and selling, for starters. But the point you raise about it also relating to what we worship is a good one.

The Bible says that whomever we give ourselves as servants to obey, his servant we are.

Jesus wanted to illustrate the two options we have with regard to worship or service, and he did so by saying that no servant can work for (i.e. serve or worship) two masters at the same time. Now you would just naturally assume that he would say that the choice is between worshipping/serving God or worshipping/serving Satan. But he did not express it that way. He said that we will either love money and hate God or else love God and despise money; we cannot worship or serve both God and money (or "mammon", which includes all the things that money can buy.

So we're not really stretching things at all by saying that the Bible predicts it will ultimately come down to a choice between God or money... God or the mark.

So it's not likely to be about worshipping in some special way or on some special day. It's going to be about WHO you worship (God or money). One or the other is going to take control of your life, consuming all or most of your waking hours. And there is going to be something about taking the "mark" which demonstrates to God and the world that you have chosen to worship money rather than God.

I think it is precisely because of this that you hear people coming up with some of the most obscure theories about the mark... i.e. they want to believe ANYTHING except what it is really all about, that God wants you to let go of money and step out in faith. Scary, I know. But I think that's what Jesus was saying from go to whoa with his disciples. He was teaching them how to live by faith in a different King, building a different kingdom, and trusting their heavenly Father to take care of them in the process.

 

[Stravinsk]

I'm sure you've heard about these chips, they go in your dominant hand or your forehead (as said in the bible).

What are your thoughts? I've talked to a few pastors who say it undoubtedly is, due to its tracking power and other vile things that it is capable of.

My personal thoughts would probably be considered blasphemous on this issue and raise a lot of eyebrows, but I feel like I know what the mark of the beast is, and it's not something I believe is in the future, necessarily.

So no, I don't think it's a microchip. I believe the mark of the beast has been around since the beginning, and is not relegated to only a certain group of people in the future - as if God had special plans to test only this certain group at this certain time in history.