Mark of the Beast

[mojobadshah]

Of course, even to me it is logical. I mean, a chip in the hand for example is so much more convenient to scan than a chip in the shoulder, you don't need a wallet, it will act as your ID, no worries about credit card fraud, forgeting your wallet, or worry about being robbed, and so much illegal activity will decrease, because a LOT of illegal activity is dependant on cash changing hands.

Unless robber gangs start going around and chopping off people's body parts so they can cash in.

Jesus taught that we can only serve one of two masters, he didn't say God and the devil as most would think would be the logical masters we would have a choice in serving. No, he said very plainly, that the choice is between GOD or MONEY.

Yes, the God of Christianity is oftentimes interpreted as an all good God. I equate Jesus with the concept of Asha in Zoroastrianism which interprets to everything that is good including truth. Jesus is called "the truth, the light, and the way." The way I see it when Christians go around telling people to accept Jesus as their lord and savior, I don't even think they know what they're saying, because all that really should equate to is the truth, and all that good stuff. The truth brings light, and light shows us the way to make our choices. It's not meant to turn Christians against Buddhists for example because they don't believe in a God called Jesus. It's supposed to instill the importance of recognizing the truth in men.

There's nothing wrong with money unless it's dirty money. Money that is being made, for example, through extorting cultures, exploiting cultures, defrauding and defaming cultures. It's one of the basic principles of unfair competition.

There is also a viewpoint that prophecies are essentially timeless, and have multiple fulfillments in different ways at different times; so that the "Antichrist" could be Nero AND the Umayyad caliph AND a nasty king of Persia AND Napoleon AND Hitler AND somebody who will be emerging shortly, without any of those people being "reincarnations" of each other, just instances of a single archetype.

Why's the king of Persia the only nasty one out of the lot?

 

[arthra]

I'm afraid the reference to the Persian king was a rather obscure one made in a citation I gave a few weeks ago...

Memorandum: Implantation of Computer Chip and Mark of the Beast

See the bottom of the letter. For Baha'is the beast is more a commonly accepted as the Umayyads and the first Caliph of that line was Muawiyyih:

Mu‘áwíyih Ibn Abí Sufyán was born in Mecca in 602 A.D. and died in Damascus in 680. He assumed the Caliphate in 661 following the assassination of ‘Alí, the Fourth Caliph, thereby establishing the Umayyad dynasty, which ruled for 92 years. His reign was marked by prolonged and virulent opposition to the clan of Baní Háshim, to which ‘Alí’s household belonged. To date, the Research Department has not been able to determine the nature of the activities in which Mu‘áwíyih engaged during the year 666.

 

[bob x]

Why's the king of Persia the only nasty one out of the lot?

I just couldn't remember the name of the king, so I wanted to specify that I was talking about whichever king of Persia was the awful one, not implying that every king of Persia was an Antichrist. (Similarly, I hadn't remembered the spelling of Muawiya -- have I got that right? -- so I called him the "Umayyad" caliph, since I did remember how to spell the dynasty he started.)

To date, the Research Department has not been able to determine the nature of the activities in which Mu‘áwíyih engaged during the year 666.

Well, the "Anno Domini" numbering scheme wasn't well-established back then, and is based on a probably inaccurate choice of year "1" anyhow, so I doubt that the events of that particular year have any especial significance.

 

[Servetus]

Unless robber gangs start going around and chopping off people's body parts so they can cash in.

As I see it, and, granted, it is the standard stuff of dystopian novels of the future, in an emergent Total Information Awareness society, wherein it is conceivable that everyone who is permitted to be born is micro-chipped at birth, nano technologized, remotely controlled, drugged, kept under constant surveillance, and when what Aldous Huxley called the “scientific dictatorship” has been finally realized, robber gangs –and, in fact, outlaws of any sort- will be as rare as an original thought.

 

[Ben Masada]

IMHO, the mark of the beast is not anything material but the concept of antisemitism. Therefore, every anti-Semite carries the mark of the beast.
Ben

 

[donnann]

IMHO, the mark of the beast is not anything material but the concept of antisemitism. Therefore, every anti-Semite carries the mark of the beast.
Ben

Simply refers to fallen humanity however ever see the disney cartoon beauty and the beast....I think it applies

 

[Dream]

IMHO, the mark of the beast is not anything material but the concept of antisemitism. Therefore, every anti-Semite carries the mark of the beast.

I guess it could be that, but could be more far reaching. I would put anti-semitism as included with it, but the activity of the beast is directed against the church of Jesus. Most modern Jews would themselves object to being called that. I realize of course that you are excluding anything attributable to Paul from having any bearing on it and are looking at it in a different way than most people. Would you pretty much say that only Jews are his church?

 

[donnann]

I guess it could be that, but could be more far reaching. I would put anti-semitism as included with it, but the activity of the beast is directed against the church of Jesus. Most modern Jews would themselves object to being called that. I realize of course that you are excluding anything attributable to Paul from having any bearing on it and are looking at it in a different way than most people. Would you pretty much say that only Jews are his church?

I prefer to look at it more like the disney cartoon beauty and the beast

 

[Dream]

I prefer to look at it more like the disney cartoon beauty and the beast

The beast and the church have an interaction though not necessarily a conversation. Does what I am saying make sense to you? Do I understand you? Partly, but even if we could communicate well it might still not accomplish what we want. Talk has its limitations, but we are at least not attacking each other.

But the beast is relentless. The purpose for calling the beast, 'Beast' was partly to point out that there could be no exchange with it. It is an enemy only, no matter what you do, so one of the defining parameters of the beast is that there can be no quarter with it. It doesn't learn to make friends, doesn't adapt. It is an enemy which cannot be tamed.

About the wicked Psalm 82:5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Conversely, Christians are told not to be like the beast. They are too put love before knowledge, action before speech, not being judgmental.

 

[Dream]

Ultimately, this is life that is going around about evil. God is revealing evil for what it is and it is life that God uses to create change when causing an area of Infinity to be available for sight and complete knowledge.

If possible can you dumb it down a little? I got lost at the 'causing an area of Infinity to be available'. I understand what you mean about revealing evil for what it is. That is one of the things that might be called the holy grail, to prove what is evil.

The spirit of evil when God is through with it in an area is picked up and laid whole and it is the essence that is what God uses to place a conduction of God's interest to the United Circumstance (Infinity which is also the Kingdom on Earth, an area of realm) continuously.

Still a little lost on the infinity.

The word "Mark" means place. To ask about the place of the Beast is to be interested in where evil (the life in the area of separation, which is salt or hydrogen when it's clothes are removed and it exists as spirit only) exists when it is not laid whole.
The forehead relates to this existences areas preoccupation with what is the brain as a causing agent and to life believing its knowledge comes from each others.

I got this part. So the 'Mark' of the beast would then be figuring out what kind of thinking is associated with evil.

The right pertains to the misunderstanding about God's causation of interest. There is no such thing as right, there is only life that is misunderstanding what God provides to everyone and everything using this word toward what God is doing to separate areas that are over pressurized integrating with the environment.

That is interesting. There are several passages about the right hand, right eye and other 'Right' things that I ponder sometimes. One of these days I will research them.

When you see God, God's Right is your Left. When God sends you east or right, you are going over to tell someone something about what God is causing to be interesting and known now. With God, there is no south, there is no end.

It is interesting. Is this a personal observation, and did you read it somewhere? Thanks.

 

[donnann]

The beast and the church have an interaction though not necessarily a conversation. Does what I am saying make sense to you? Do I understand you? Partly, but even if we could communicate well it might still not accomplish what we want. Talk has its limitations, but we are at least not attacking each other.

But the beast is relentless. The purpose for calling the beast, 'Beast' was partly to point out that there could be no exchange with it. It is an enemy only, no matter what you do, so one of the defining parameters of the beast is that there can be no quarter with it. It doesn't learn to make friends, doesn't adapt. It is an enemy which cannot be tamed.

Conversely, Christians are told not to be like the beast. They are too put love before knowledge, action before speech, not being judgmental.

And in the cartoon the beast who was a selfish prince is transformed in the end by a selfless act of love.

 

[Dream]

And in the cartoon the beast who was a selfish prince is transformed in the end by a selfless act of love.

The selfish prince was transformed and the beast disappeared. Its like when the tin man got his heart, Ms. Piggy learned to be nicer and Mr. Darcy swallowed his pride.

 

[donnann]

The selfish prince was transformed and the beast disappeared. Its like when the tin man got his heart, Ms. Piggy learned to be nicer and Mr. Darcy swallowed his pride.

Exactly my point

 

[Dream]

Exactly my point

No, you were talking about some guy named Mark. If it wasn't you I distinctly remember someone said Mark -- Mark of the Beast. Anyway get your own points.

 

[donnann]

No, you were talking about some guy named Mark. If it wasn't you I distinctly remember someone said Mark -- Mark of the Beast. Anyway get your own points.

I am referring to a selfish prince who was transformed into a beast just like in the cartoon whos really like the beast in the cartoon.

 

[donnann]

No, you were talking about some guy named Mark. If it wasn't you I distinctly remember someone said Mark -- Mark of the Beast. Anyway get your own points.

Anyway it is the holy bible and I do know what it all really means I just dont like to mess with the language.

 

[Dream]

Anyway it is the holy bible and I do know what it all really means I just dont like to mess with the language.

We are a lot alike in that respect, except that I don't think that I understand the Bible. I go through phases of thinking I do but what I actually have is a strongly colored view. It is partly a black-box view of the Bible. In fact most people have a black box view of the Bible I think. A black-box does certain things and screws into a certain place but how it works doesn't matter to the user. It was not meant to be like a black box, but people like black-boxes. From that we get large numbers of people for whom the Beast is this or that and fits into a certain place in their system, but they are happy not to look at other aspects of the Beast or of the passages concerning it. I would say that Harold Camping is an example of someone who had a black box usage for the Bible.

 

[IowaGuy]

In fact most people have a black box view of the Bible I think. A black-box does certain things and screws into a certain place but how it works doesn't matter to the user. It was not meant to be like a black box, but people like black-boxes.

This is an interesting analogy, the bible and a black box. Do you think the bible contains "absolute truths" or "subjective truths"? Do you think there is one "true" interpretation of the bible?

 

[radarmark]

This is an interesting analogy, the bible and a black box. Do you think the bible contains "absolute truths" or "subjective truths"? Do you think there is one "true" interpretation of the bible?

I was so hoping someone would catch on to what Dream wrote. "If all you have is a hammer, you treat everything as a nail"--same idea, IMO. What happens is that we (the majority of us here in the USA) are bombarded with "things from the Bible". I remember being invited to Southern Baptist Churches when I was in grammar school (about the time of Brown v Topeka) and hearing "biblical" defenses of racism. Or hearing that men had one less rib (and, oh, women should not speak).

Children soak this stuff up. Until my generation dies off you can never be rid of such nonsense. Oh, but now we are allowing "home schooling" (the overwhelming percentage anti-science and anti-American (I consider racism, sexism and homophobia something that really do not belong here).

The Bible is true, filled with great symbolic and mystical ideas. But it is not inerrant (Pi = 3 or bats = birds). In fact, it is filled with scribal (accidental) and idelogical (purposefully re-written) and factual (scientifically wrong) errors.

It is even debatable that we have the Bible "as written" (the case has been made this is even true with the Hebrew scriptures) any more than we have Finnegan's Wake as written (obscure reference to "Work in Progress" by Joyce versus his notebooks).

Live with it. Use your reason and your senses and your common sense to interpret it. Realize you can always (ALWAYS) be wrong.

As my bride says "do not people realize that even if G!d directly gave the Words of the Gospels to the Disciples, they wrote them so there must be some error." I can argue the other side (the texual problems) all day long.

That is my answer, IG.

Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)

 

[donnann]

This is an interesting analogy, the bible and a black box. Do you think the bible contains "absolute truths" or "subjective truths"? Do you think there is one "true" interpretation of the bible?

Sounds like pandoras box to me. The true interpretation is the inside of the ark.