Comparing Russia vs Ukraine to other countries

Page 10 of 11 [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 56,888
Location: Stendec

20 Jun 2022, 4:37 pm

QFT wrote:
. . . I am not sure why can’t they track microchips.  If they can track cell phones, why can’t they make the same thing as in a cell phone just much smaller?
Because (1) cell phones actively transmit a signal, and (2) microchip antennas are so small that their efficiency is low, requiring the scanner (operating at 0.1 Watt or less) to be placed within about 10 cm of the chip to energize it and read it.  The chip itself does not actually transmit a signal as much as it interferes with the scanner's transmission.  This is called the "Backscatter Effect".  It is the pattern of interference that the scanner actually decodes, and is only effective within a very short range.

Track a microchip across town?  Not gonna happen.  Raising the scanner's output becomes an effort of diminishing returns.  Setting the output of the scanner high enough to power the chip from 10 meters away results in the backscatter effect being too weak to decode.  Raising the sensitivity of the scanner's receiver enough to potentially read the chip would cause the transmitter to overload the receiver and block out the signal.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,313

20 Jun 2022, 4:55 pm

magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
But, interestingly enough, they are still inserting it into a hand, thus still fulfilling the prophecy, despite all that.
Maybe for the same reason you do all other things with your hands - it's most handy?


So instead of my reason (blood circulation) you mentioned a different reason (convenience). But fact remains: they are inserted in a hand, and Revelation predicted the mark of the beast in a hand 2000 years ago.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 56,888
Location: Stendec

20 Jun 2022, 5:28 pm

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
But, interestingly enough, they are still inserting it into a hand, thus still fulfilling the prophecy, despite all that.
Maybe for the same reason you do all other things with your hands - it's most handy?
So instead of my reason (blood circulation) you mentioned a different reason (convenience). But fact remains: they are inserted in a hand, and Revelation predicted the mark of the beast in a hand 2000 years ago.
WRONG AGAIN!

Revelation 13:16-17 (NIV)

16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

The Bible clearly uses the word "ON", not "IN".  Either you do not read your Bible, or you are making up your own "facts".



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,313

20 Jun 2022, 5:40 pm

Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
QFT wrote:
But, interestingly enough, they are still inserting it into a hand, thus still fulfilling the prophecy, despite all that.
Maybe for the same reason you do all other things with your hands - it's most handy?
So instead of my reason (blood circulation) you mentioned a different reason (convenience). But fact remains: they are inserted in a hand, and Revelation predicted the mark of the beast in a hand 2000 years ago.
WRONG AGAIN!

Revelation 13:16-17 (NIV)

16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

The Bible clearly uses the word "ON", not "IN".  Either you do not read your Bible, or you are making up your own "facts".


I read websites that were discussing in detail on vs in. Their discussion revolved around Greek and how the Greek word should be translated. I don't know Greek so I took their word for it. Their conclusion was that its "in". Which makes sense: if its "on" you can easily remove it; if its "in", then its not so easy.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 56,888
Location: Stendec

20 Jun 2022, 5:42 pm

QFT wrote:
I read websites that were discussing in detail on vs in. Their discussion revolved around Greek and how the Greek word should be translated. I don't know Greek so I took their word for it. Their conclusion was that its "in". Which makes sense: if its "on" you can easily remove it; if its "in", then its not so easy.
Sure . . . please cite the "websites" from which you allegedly read this.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,313

20 Jun 2022, 5:50 pm

Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
I read websites that were discussing in detail on vs in. Their discussion revolved around Greek and how the Greek word should be translated. I don't know Greek so I took their word for it. Their conclusion was that its "in". Which makes sense: if its "on" you can easily remove it; if its "in", then its not so easy.
Sure . . . please cite the "websites" from which you allegedly read this.


That was over a decade ago, so I can't find that particular website. But I just googled "mark of the beast" together with "on or in" and google gave me a bunch of references. Apparently KJV uses "in" while the rest use "on". Here is one link that argues in favor of KJV version: https://www.ridingthebeast.com/articles ... xi-stigma/



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 56,888
Location: Stendec

20 Jun 2022, 5:54 pm

QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
I read websites that were discussing in detail on vs in. Their discussion revolved around Greek and how the Greek word should be translated. I don't know Greek so I took their word for it. Their conclusion was that its "in". Which makes sense: if its "on" you can easily remove it; if its "in", then its not so easy.
Sure . . . please cite the "websites" from which you allegedly read this.
That was over a decade ago, so I can't find that particular website. But I just googled "mark of the beast" together with "on or in" and google gave me a bunch of references. Apparently KJV uses "in" while the rest use "on". Here is one link that argues in favor of KJV version: https://www.ridingthebeast.com/articles ... xi-stigma/
So, which Bible versions are the correct Bible versions: The ones that support your opinions, or the ones that do not?



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,313

20 Jun 2022, 5:56 pm

Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
I read websites that were discussing in detail on vs in. Their discussion revolved around Greek and how the Greek word should be translated. I don't know Greek so I took their word for it. Their conclusion was that its "in". Which makes sense: if its "on" you can easily remove it; if its "in", then its not so easy.
Sure . . . please cite the "websites" from which you allegedly read this.
That was over a decade ago, so I can't find that particular website. But I just googled "mark of the beast" together with "on or in" and google gave me a bunch of references. Apparently KJV uses "in" while the rest use "on". Here is one link that argues in favor of KJV version: https://www.ridingthebeast.com/articles ... xi-stigma/
So, which Bible versions are the correct Bible versions: The ones that support your opinions, or the ones that do not?


Some Christians have an opinion that KJV specifically is correct (not just in this context but in general). I am not saying I agree with them (I read other versions too and in fact like to compare them), but thats something to consider.

In any case, if it was "on", it would be easily removed, no? So "in" makes more sense.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 56,888
Location: Stendec

20 Jun 2022, 6:00 pm

QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
I read websites that were discussing in detail on vs in. Their discussion revolved around Greek and how the Greek word should be translated. I don't know Greek so I took their word for it. Their conclusion was that its "in". Which makes sense: if its "on" you can easily remove it; if its "in", then its not so easy.
Sure . . . please cite the "websites" from which you allegedly read this.
That was over a decade ago, so I can't find that particular website. But I just googled "mark of the beast" together with "on or in" and google gave me a bunch of references. Apparently KJV uses "in" while the rest use "on". Here is one link that argues in favor of KJV version: https://www.ridingthebeast.com/articles ... xi-stigma/
So, which Bible versions are the correct Bible versions: The ones that support your opinions, or the ones that do not?
Some Christians have an opinion that KJV specifically is correct (not just in this context but in general). I am not saying I agree with them (I read other versions too and in fact like to compare them), but thats something to consider. In any case, if it was "on", it would be easily removed, no? So "in" makes more sense.
"In" also applies to bar-code tattoos.  "On" also applies to microchipped rings.  To say that microchips inserted under the skin are "The" mark of The Beast is presumptuous (at best) or erroneous (at worst), since there are different translations and numerous possible conclusions.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,313

20 Jun 2022, 6:09 pm

Fnord wrote:
To say that microchips inserted under the skin are "The" mark of The Beast is presumptuous (at best) or erroneous (at worst), since there are different translations and numerous possible conclusions.


The microchip is the only proposal I have heard of that is being considered.

If they were to propose a tatoo, then sure, that could be the mark of the beast as well.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 56,888
Location: Stendec

20 Jun 2022, 6:14 pm

QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
To say that microchips inserted under the skin are "The" mark of The Beast is presumptuous (at best) or erroneous (at worst), since there are different translations and numerous possible conclusions.
The microchip is the only proposal I have heard of that is being considered. If they were to propose a tatoo, then sure, that could be the mark of the beast as well.
The "Mark" has also been proposed to be a written statement (hand) or a hypnotically-induced "brainwashing" (forehead).  Some even say a signet ring (hand) or diadem (forehead).

In essence, nobody knows what the real mark of the Beast will be.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,313

20 Jun 2022, 6:16 pm

Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
To say that microchips inserted under the skin are "The" mark of The Beast is presumptuous (at best) or erroneous (at worst), since there are different translations and numerous possible conclusions.
The microchip is the only proposal I have heard of that is being considered. If they were to propose a tatoo, then sure, that could be the mark of the beast as well.
The "Mark" has also been proposed to be a written statement (hand) or a hypnotically-induced "brainwashing" (forehead).  Some even say a signet ring (hand) or diadem (forehead).

In essence, nobody knows what the real mark of the Beast will be.


I agree that nobody knows, but that implies that we should avoid all possible candidates just to be on a safe side. One of the candidates to be avoided is a microchip. And yes, tatoo and other aforementioned things should be avoided too.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 56,888
Location: Stendec

20 Jun 2022, 6:36 pm

QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
To say that microchips inserted under the skin are "The" mark of The Beast is presumptuous (at best) or erroneous (at worst), since there are different translations and numerous possible conclusions.
The microchip is the only proposal I have heard of that is being considered. If they were to propose a tatoo, then sure, that could be the mark of the beast as well.
The "Mark" has also been proposed to be a written statement (hand) or a hypnotically-induced "brainwashing" (forehead).  Some even say a signet ring (hand) or diadem (forehead).  In essence, nobody knows what the real mark of the Beast will be.
I agree that nobody knows, but that implies that we should avoid all possible candidates just to be on a safe side. One of the candidates to be avoided is a microchip. And yes, tatoo and other aforementioned things should be avoided too.
That might include a "Bar Stamp" for re-entry, or one of those plastic bracelets the hospital puts on your wrist.

Truce.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,355
Location: Poland

21 Jun 2022, 2:51 am

I'm bothered by a completely different association...
Image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identific ... tion_camps

If there was a real life apocalypse, that was it.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,313

28 Jun 2022, 4:31 am

magz wrote:
I'm bothered by a completely different association...
Image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identific ... tion_camps

If there was a real life apocalypse, that was it.


I realize you were probably joking, but I think you actually put forward an interesting thought. So let me go ahead and develop it further.

First of all, it can't be antichrist himself because antichrist is supposed to do it to the whole world, not just one group of people in one part of the world. Plus, after antichrist is destroyed, the Jesus' millenial kingdom has to arrive, and it didn't. However, it might still be a precursor/ foreshaddowing of the antichrist.

There is that biblical idea of certain events foreshaddowing bigger prophecy. For example, it was already said that antiochus (that came few centuries before Christ) is a precursor to antichrist. Similarly the events in 70 AD (disraction of a temple) were thought to be precursors of antichrist too (in a sense that Matthew 24 talks about both 70 AD and the future antichrist. So maybe what happened in the holocaust is also a precursor of antichrist.

I see a lot of parallels between the Jewish holocaust in the past and word-wide holocaust in the future. For one thing, as you pointed out, both involve the mark. And in both cases the choice to put on a mark is a free will choice. The pressure to put on a mark under the future antichrist would be even higher. The trick is to keep saying no, no matter what. That would lead to torture and death, but death is worth it, just don't put a mark. Ultimately thats what we are commanded to do when antichrist comes. So if they couldn't say no to Hitler, they wouldn't say no to antichrist either.

But it gets beyond just that. They also both involve the fact that people chose comfort instead of running away, and that choice of comfort is what ultimately ruined them. Because you see, during the holocaust, Jews could have ran away, but chose not to. Why? Because they didn't want to give up comfort, so they were telling themselves "its not really true" until it was too late. Similrly, during the future antichrist, people wouldn't want to give up comfort either, and they would also say "its not true" in order to rationalize their choice not to run. As far as Jewish holocaust, they were supposed to run from Germany, and they didn't. As far as future antichrist, Jesus commanded to "run for the hills" (Matt 24:16) and they won't do that either. Both under Hitler and under future antichrist they would choose to stay where its comfortable and hide their head in the sand.

As far as hell goes, its a bit more complicated. Because, for the most part, Jews don't believe in Jesus. So that alone would be the reason to go to hell, regardless of how they handled situation with Hitler and his mark. But still, there are a select few Jews that do believe in Jesus (and as a matter of fact I read on Jews for Jesus site a stories of conversions of holocaust survivors). So what about those particular Jews? Would their choice to put a mark still send them to hell? It might: seeing that the mark of the future antichrist would. But might doesn't mean will: after all it wasn't a real antichrist, just its precursor. So I am actually not sure what happened to the holocaust victims that did believe in Jesus. I won't be surprised either way.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,355
Location: Poland

28 Jun 2022, 8:20 am

I believe your elaborate interpretations of prophecies are a way not to think about cruelty and terror of actual genocides, both historical and ongoing.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>