The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Very interesting story I saw on BBC last night, I'll post their story from the website here.
Compulsory ID card scheme on course for Parliament
The controversial plan is set for the next session of Parliament, introducing the possibility of mandatory identity cards containing biometric information and tied to a central database
Compulsory biometric ID cards and a central database of all UK citizens could be created by 2010 under controversial legislation unveiled by the government in the Queen's speech on Wednesday.
As predicted, Home Secretary David Blunkett fought off opposition from some cabinet ministers opposed to the ID card scheme to get the draft "Identity Cards Bill" tabled for the next session of Parliament.
Underpinning the ID cards will be a central database storing information on all UK citizens, which can be used by public agencies including the police and NHS to check someone's identity.
The ID card will contain a piece of biometric information, most likely an iris or fingerprint scan, and will be combined with passports and driving licences, which will have a biometric element by 2008, according to the draft Bill.
The compulsory nature of the card, which will cost £35, will be decided in two phases. The government will have the power to mandate that an ID card is produced to use certain public services -- an element retained from Blunkett's original "entitlement" card plans.
More worrying for privacy campaigners is that the government will have the power after five years to make the carrying or production of ID cards compulsory.
As outlined previously by the Home Office it is estimated the basic system will cost £180m to set-up, finally rising to some £3bn.
David Blunkett said in a statement that ID cards will help "tackle the challenges of the 21st century" including terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration.
"The draft Identity Cards Bill is about taking the difficult decisions now needed to prepare Britain for the future. It will set out our plans for an incremental approach to the introduction of a compulsory national identity cards scheme," he said.
Security company Ubizen, which worked on Belgium's electronic ID card scheme, said a biometric card will not tackle terrorism and crime. Bart Vansevenant, director of security strategy at Ubizen, argued the card could not stop international terrorists, who would probably enter the UK on a foreign passport anyway.
"You will not solve terrorism or immigration by introducing biometrics to a card. Why put biometrics on an ID card? It costs you a hell of a lot of money and there are equipment, support and administration problems," he said.
Vansevenant also questioned the need for a central database, as police and border control officers would be able to verify the biometric on the card to the person carrying it using an eye or fingerprint scanner. He said a central database will be a tempting target for hackers and that there should at best only be the need for a "blacklist" database of criminals and suspects to check biometric scans against.
Source: [URL]http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118140,00.htm[/URL]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Opinions? Mine is, that this is paving the way for the Mark of the Beast, the fact that the Goverment want to make it compulsory by the end of the decade, is just the same logic as everyone being forced to take the Mark.
This ISN'T the Mark of the Beast, but this is tagging people, which will be similar to the Mark of the Beast.
Your thoughts?
Compulsory ID card scheme on course for Parliament
The controversial plan is set for the next session of Parliament, introducing the possibility of mandatory identity cards containing biometric information and tied to a central database
Compulsory biometric ID cards and a central database of all UK citizens could be created by 2010 under controversial legislation unveiled by the government in the Queen's speech on Wednesday.
As predicted, Home Secretary David Blunkett fought off opposition from some cabinet ministers opposed to the ID card scheme to get the draft "Identity Cards Bill" tabled for the next session of Parliament.
Underpinning the ID cards will be a central database storing information on all UK citizens, which can be used by public agencies including the police and NHS to check someone's identity.
The ID card will contain a piece of biometric information, most likely an iris or fingerprint scan, and will be combined with passports and driving licences, which will have a biometric element by 2008, according to the draft Bill.
The compulsory nature of the card, which will cost £35, will be decided in two phases. The government will have the power to mandate that an ID card is produced to use certain public services -- an element retained from Blunkett's original "entitlement" card plans.
More worrying for privacy campaigners is that the government will have the power after five years to make the carrying or production of ID cards compulsory.
As outlined previously by the Home Office it is estimated the basic system will cost £180m to set-up, finally rising to some £3bn.
David Blunkett said in a statement that ID cards will help "tackle the challenges of the 21st century" including terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration.
"The draft Identity Cards Bill is about taking the difficult decisions now needed to prepare Britain for the future. It will set out our plans for an incremental approach to the introduction of a compulsory national identity cards scheme," he said.
Security company Ubizen, which worked on Belgium's electronic ID card scheme, said a biometric card will not tackle terrorism and crime. Bart Vansevenant, director of security strategy at Ubizen, argued the card could not stop international terrorists, who would probably enter the UK on a foreign passport anyway.
"You will not solve terrorism or immigration by introducing biometrics to a card. Why put biometrics on an ID card? It costs you a hell of a lot of money and there are equipment, support and administration problems," he said.
Vansevenant also questioned the need for a central database, as police and border control officers would be able to verify the biometric on the card to the person carrying it using an eye or fingerprint scanner. He said a central database will be a tempting target for hackers and that there should at best only be the need for a "blacklist" database of criminals and suspects to check biometric scans against.
Source: [URL]http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118140,00.htm[/URL]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Opinions? Mine is, that this is paving the way for the Mark of the Beast, the fact that the Goverment want to make it compulsory by the end of the decade, is just the same logic as everyone being forced to take the Mark.
This ISN'T the Mark of the Beast, but this is tagging people, which will be similar to the Mark of the Beast.
Your thoughts?
Page:
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> Any sources you or anyone else link to saying why this isn't the
> Mark
> of the Beast are equally bias. I am trying to prove there is this
> real danger in the world while others are trying to deny its very
> existence.
>
> Utter shoite-wash. You can't attempt to disprove something until
> there is sufficient evidence to prove it. You and all those claiming
> chips are 'The Mark of the Beast' are merely speculating. Chipping
> may not be the next stage after ID cards. By then, there may be even
> newer technology such as a single database that can tell who you are
> simply by scanning a thumb print or iris.
So, what you are telling me is you can't disprove the Mark of the Beast?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The idea of these chips being used more and more often. Firstly the
> chips will replace signatures later this year, what to stop these
> chips one day replacing credit cards?
>
> ID cards were around during World War II. Are you saying that they
> were leading towards it too?
>
> Yes. They certainly didn't have them back in the Middle Ages.
>
> They had family emblems. Stamps they used as identification. Sure, it
> was only the rich who could afford the luxury, but there were forms
> of ID around then.
This shows a progression in identification. It would be quite feasible for everyone in Britain to gradually be tagged today but back in the Middle Ages it would have been impossible.
>
> Credit Cards are just like chips now - they are a bunch of numbers
> stores on a magnetic strip, much like a data tape. A Microchip would
> have the same effect. It would store the numbers and possibly a
> little more security information in the future. I don't know, I am
> merely speculating the future. But for the present, the chips do
> nothing but carry data like the magnetic strip.
Ah... but someone could take your credit card and go into Lakeside and they're away. The technology today is out dated - it is so easy to steal a credit card and then just go and spend money from it. The Mark will be imbedded under the skin and will be impossible to remove.
>
>
>
> We are told of the Mark of the Beast. And we are told they will
> recieve the Mark of the Beast. Which sounds a bit like having
> a chip injected. Anyway the evidence for the Mark of the Beast being
> is not particularly provable or important - it simply looks like a
> chip will be the preferred form of the Mark of the Beast.
>
>
> Well it wont just suddenly appear - Newton's law suggests that an
> object stays constant unless a force is acted upon it. Therefore,
> unless something happens to give you this mark, it wont happen. In
> which case, yes, if the prophecy comes true, you will recieve
> a mark.
I'm totally not denying it won't suddenly take place. But with the threat of terror, immigration, fraud and other crimes - the idea of injecting people with chips will be a very popular idea.
>
> I wouldn't call a microchip a mark though - it will be under the skin
> and barely visible.
It'll be visible to the naked human eye.
>
>
>
>
> The chips will be completely permanent. There is no operation that
> will be able to take out the chip. Which is why - once you have
> taken
> the Mark of the Beast - there is no way back, hence it will become
> only the second unforgivable sin.
>
> Utter shoite-wash. Are you saying that you wouldn't be able to have a
> chip removed from your dog? The only way that could become possible
> would be if the chips fused with your nervous system - removing them
> could damage your nerves.
Removing the chip will not be possible - because it will be under your skin.
>
> But to do that and to cause high risk, they would need to be
> implanted on your spine.
>
> If someone chips your forehead, it wont be impossible to get it
> removed, the same as if you were chipped in your hand.
The chip will be permanently imbedded in either the right hand or forehead - it will be a permanent operation. Just like many other operations available today in the medical world - which results are permanent.
>
>
>
> Another problem: Strong electro magnetic waves render all computer
> circuitry useless. Have an X-ray - BOOM! Chip unusable. Technology
> hasn't advanced enough to prevent this yet.
The chip will be able to be disabled during special procedures like in the evantuality you mentioned.
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> Any sources you or anyone else link to saying why this isn't the
> Mark
> of the Beast are equally bias. I am trying to prove there is this
> real danger in the world while others are trying to deny its very
> existence.
>
> Utter shoite-wash. You can't attempt to disprove something until
> there is sufficient evidence to prove it. You and all those claiming
> chips are 'The Mark of the Beast' are merely speculating. Chipping
> may not be the next stage after ID cards. By then, there may be even
> newer technology such as a single database that can tell who you are
> simply by scanning a thumb print or iris.
So, what you are telling me is you can't disprove the Mark of the Beast?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The idea of these chips being used more and more often. Firstly the
> chips will replace signatures later this year, what to stop these
> chips one day replacing credit cards?
>
> ID cards were around during World War II. Are you saying that they
> were leading towards it too?
>
> Yes. They certainly didn't have them back in the Middle Ages.
>
> They had family emblems. Stamps they used as identification. Sure, it
> was only the rich who could afford the luxury, but there were forms
> of ID around then.
This shows a progression in identification. It would be quite feasible for everyone in Britain to gradually be tagged today but back in the Middle Ages it would have been impossible.
>
> Credit Cards are just like chips now - they are a bunch of numbers
> stores on a magnetic strip, much like a data tape. A Microchip would
> have the same effect. It would store the numbers and possibly a
> little more security information in the future. I don't know, I am
> merely speculating the future. But for the present, the chips do
> nothing but carry data like the magnetic strip.
Ah... but someone could take your credit card and go into Lakeside and they're away. The technology today is out dated - it is so easy to steal a credit card and then just go and spend money from it. The Mark will be imbedded under the skin and will be impossible to remove.
>
>
>
> We are told of the Mark of the Beast. And we are told they will
> recieve the Mark of the Beast. Which sounds a bit like having
> a chip injected. Anyway the evidence for the Mark of the Beast being
> is not particularly provable or important - it simply looks like a
> chip will be the preferred form of the Mark of the Beast.
>
>
> Well it wont just suddenly appear - Newton's law suggests that an
> object stays constant unless a force is acted upon it. Therefore,
> unless something happens to give you this mark, it wont happen. In
> which case, yes, if the prophecy comes true, you will recieve
> a mark.
I'm totally not denying it won't suddenly take place. But with the threat of terror, immigration, fraud and other crimes - the idea of injecting people with chips will be a very popular idea.
>
> I wouldn't call a microchip a mark though - it will be under the skin
> and barely visible.
It'll be visible to the naked human eye.
>
>
>
>
> The chips will be completely permanent. There is no operation that
> will be able to take out the chip. Which is why - once you have
> taken
> the Mark of the Beast - there is no way back, hence it will become
> only the second unforgivable sin.
>
> Utter shoite-wash. Are you saying that you wouldn't be able to have a
> chip removed from your dog? The only way that could become possible
> would be if the chips fused with your nervous system - removing them
> could damage your nerves.
Removing the chip will not be possible - because it will be under your skin.
>
> But to do that and to cause high risk, they would need to be
> implanted on your spine.
>
> If someone chips your forehead, it wont be impossible to get it
> removed, the same as if you were chipped in your hand.
The chip will be permanently imbedded in either the right hand or forehead - it will be a permanent operation. Just like many other operations available today in the medical world - which results are permanent.
>
>
>
> Another problem: Strong electro magnetic waves render all computer
> circuitry useless. Have an X-ray - BOOM! Chip unusable. Technology
> hasn't advanced enough to prevent this yet.
The chip will be able to be disabled during special procedures like in the evantuality you mentioned.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Any sources you or anyone else link to saying why this isn't the Mark
> of the Beast are equally bias. I am trying to prove there is this
> real danger in the world while others are trying to deny its very
> existence.
Utter shoite-wash. You can't attempt to disprove something until there is sufficient evidence to prove it. You and all those claiming chips are 'The Mark of the Beast' are merely speculating. Chipping may not be the next stage after ID cards. By then, there may be even newer technology such as a single database that can tell who you are simply by scanning a thumb print or iris.
>
>
>
> The idea of these chips being used more and more often. Firstly the
> chips will replace signatures later this year, what to stop these
> chips one day replacing credit cards?
>
> ID cards were around during World War II. Are you saying that they
> were leading towards it too?
>
> Yes. They certainly didn't have them back in the Middle Ages.
They had family emblems. Stamps they used as identification. Sure, it was only the rich who could afford the luxury, but there were forms of ID around then.
Credit Cards are just like chips now - they are a bunch of numbers stores on a magnetic strip, much like a data tape. A Microchip would have the same effect. It would store the numbers and possibly a little more security information in the future. I don't know, I am merely speculating the future. But for the present, the chips do nothing but carry data like the magnetic strip.
> We are told of the Mark of the Beast. And we are told they will
> recieve the Mark of the Beast. Which sounds a bit like having
> a chip injected. Anyway the evidence for the Mark of the Beast being
> is not particularly provable or important - it simply looks like a
> chip will be the preferred form of the Mark of the Beast.
>
Well it wont just suddenly appear - Newton's law suggests that an object stays constant unless a force is acted upon it. Therefore, unless something happens to give you this mark, it wont happen. In which case, yes, if the prophecy comes true, you will recieve a mark.
I wouldn't call a microchip a mark though - it will be under the skin and barely visible.
>
> The chips will be completely permanent. There is no operation that
> will be able to take out the chip. Which is why - once you have taken
> the Mark of the Beast - there is no way back, hence it will become
> only the second unforgivable sin.
Utter shoite-wash. Are you saying that you wouldn't be able to have a chip removed from your dog? The only way that could become possible would be if the chips fused with your nervous system - removing them could damage your nerves.
But to do that and to cause high risk, they would need to be implanted on your spine.
If someone chips your forehead, it wont be impossible to get it removed, the same as if you were chipped in your hand.
Another problem: Strong electro magnetic waves render all computer circuitry useless. Have an X-ray - BOOM! Chip unusable. Technology hasn't advanced enough to prevent this yet.
> Any sources you or anyone else link to saying why this isn't the Mark
> of the Beast are equally bias. I am trying to prove there is this
> real danger in the world while others are trying to deny its very
> existence.
Utter shoite-wash. You can't attempt to disprove something until there is sufficient evidence to prove it. You and all those claiming chips are 'The Mark of the Beast' are merely speculating. Chipping may not be the next stage after ID cards. By then, there may be even newer technology such as a single database that can tell who you are simply by scanning a thumb print or iris.
>
>
>
> The idea of these chips being used more and more often. Firstly the
> chips will replace signatures later this year, what to stop these
> chips one day replacing credit cards?
>
> ID cards were around during World War II. Are you saying that they
> were leading towards it too?
>
> Yes. They certainly didn't have them back in the Middle Ages.
They had family emblems. Stamps they used as identification. Sure, it was only the rich who could afford the luxury, but there were forms of ID around then.
Credit Cards are just like chips now - they are a bunch of numbers stores on a magnetic strip, much like a data tape. A Microchip would have the same effect. It would store the numbers and possibly a little more security information in the future. I don't know, I am merely speculating the future. But for the present, the chips do nothing but carry data like the magnetic strip.
> We are told of the Mark of the Beast. And we are told they will
> recieve the Mark of the Beast. Which sounds a bit like having
> a chip injected. Anyway the evidence for the Mark of the Beast being
> is not particularly provable or important - it simply looks like a
> chip will be the preferred form of the Mark of the Beast.
>
Well it wont just suddenly appear - Newton's law suggests that an object stays constant unless a force is acted upon it. Therefore, unless something happens to give you this mark, it wont happen. In which case, yes, if the prophecy comes true, you will recieve a mark.
I wouldn't call a microchip a mark though - it will be under the skin and barely visible.
>
> The chips will be completely permanent. There is no operation that
> will be able to take out the chip. Which is why - once you have taken
> the Mark of the Beast - there is no way back, hence it will become
> only the second unforgivable sin.
Utter shoite-wash. Are you saying that you wouldn't be able to have a chip removed from your dog? The only way that could become possible would be if the chips fused with your nervous system - removing them could damage your nerves.
But to do that and to cause high risk, they would need to be implanted on your spine.
If someone chips your forehead, it wont be impossible to get it removed, the same as if you were chipped in your hand.
Another problem: Strong electro magnetic waves render all computer circuitry useless. Have an X-ray - BOOM! Chip unusable. Technology hasn't advanced enough to prevent this yet.
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> What do you think of this verse?
>
> "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free
> and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their
> foreheads:" (KJV) Revelation 13:16
>
>
> I see that you have assumed from reading bias sources on the net,
> none of them scientific (which you have to agree chipping is a part
> of science), that chips will be placed in the right hands or
> foreheads. And this is why you claimed they would need to be visible,
> when they clearly wouldn't for retail purposes (as I pointed out).
> Until I hear that the forehead is to be a chosen spot for any form of
> compulsary tagging, I shall tell you that I think that that verse and
> chipping have no correlation with each other based on current
> evidence.
Any sources you or anyone else link to saying why this isn't the Mark of the Beast are equally bias. I am trying to prove there is this real danger in the world while others are trying to deny its very existence.
>
>
> 2. On the understanding it is to do with a form of labelling people,
> you are already labelled with a number if you are legally able to
> work in the UK: National Insurance Number.
>
> All these ideas to do with labelling people aren't the Mark of the
> Beast - but they are getting closer to it. The ID Cards or those
> chip
> and pin boxes that are coming later in the year to replace
> signatures
> - are all leading to the Mark of the Beast.
>
> Chip and Pin is just a replacement to the signiature box. The pin
> numbers would exists anyway, for ATM purposes, so please explain what
> you mean by this.
The idea of these chips being used more and more often. Firstly the chips will replace signatures later this year, what to stop these chips one day replacing credit cards?
>
> ID cards were around during World War II. Are you saying that they
> were leading towards it too?
Yes. They certainly didn't have them back in the Middle Ages.
>
>
>
> 3. Chipping may never happen.
>
> I believe that is how the Mark of the Beast will be used.
> >
>
> On what evidence? I don't believe microchips would have been talked
> bout in the Bible - that would just be plain rediculous.
We are told of the Mark of the Beast. And we are told they will recieve the Mark of the Beast. Which sounds a bit like having a chip injected. Anyway the evidence for the Mark of the Beast being is not particularly provable or important - it simply looks like a chip will be the preferred form of the Mark of the Beast.
>
>
>
> 4. Even if it does, it may not happen for decades yet - as ID cards
> haven't even become compulsary yet.
>
> I agree - it may not happen for decades, but I wouldn't be suprised
> if it was sooner - but I accept we don't know how long it will be
> until the Mark of the Beast is in use.
>
> Surely the word 'mark' indicates a permanent feature - such as a
> tattoo or a scar. Chips wouldn't cause that effect. Chips would be
> virtually non-detectable.
The chips will be completely permanent. There is no operation that will be able to take out the chip. Which is why - once you have taken the Mark of the Beast - there is no way back, hence it will become only the second unforgivable sin.
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> What do you think of this verse?
>
> "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free
> and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their
> foreheads:" (KJV) Revelation 13:16
>
>
> I see that you have assumed from reading bias sources on the net,
> none of them scientific (which you have to agree chipping is a part
> of science), that chips will be placed in the right hands or
> foreheads. And this is why you claimed they would need to be visible,
> when they clearly wouldn't for retail purposes (as I pointed out).
> Until I hear that the forehead is to be a chosen spot for any form of
> compulsary tagging, I shall tell you that I think that that verse and
> chipping have no correlation with each other based on current
> evidence.
Any sources you or anyone else link to saying why this isn't the Mark of the Beast are equally bias. I am trying to prove there is this real danger in the world while others are trying to deny its very existence.
>
>
> 2. On the understanding it is to do with a form of labelling people,
> you are already labelled with a number if you are legally able to
> work in the UK: National Insurance Number.
>
> All these ideas to do with labelling people aren't the Mark of the
> Beast - but they are getting closer to it. The ID Cards or those
> chip
> and pin boxes that are coming later in the year to replace
> signatures
> - are all leading to the Mark of the Beast.
>
> Chip and Pin is just a replacement to the signiature box. The pin
> numbers would exists anyway, for ATM purposes, so please explain what
> you mean by this.
The idea of these chips being used more and more often. Firstly the chips will replace signatures later this year, what to stop these chips one day replacing credit cards?
>
> ID cards were around during World War II. Are you saying that they
> were leading towards it too?
Yes. They certainly didn't have them back in the Middle Ages.
>
>
>
> 3. Chipping may never happen.
>
> I believe that is how the Mark of the Beast will be used.
> >
>
> On what evidence? I don't believe microchips would have been talked
> bout in the Bible - that would just be plain rediculous.
We are told of the Mark of the Beast. And we are told they will recieve the Mark of the Beast. Which sounds a bit like having a chip injected. Anyway the evidence for the Mark of the Beast being is not particularly provable or important - it simply looks like a chip will be the preferred form of the Mark of the Beast.
>
>
>
> 4. Even if it does, it may not happen for decades yet - as ID cards
> haven't even become compulsary yet.
>
> I agree - it may not happen for decades, but I wouldn't be suprised
> if it was sooner - but I accept we don't know how long it will be
> until the Mark of the Beast is in use.
>
> Surely the word 'mark' indicates a permanent feature - such as a
> tattoo or a scar. Chips wouldn't cause that effect. Chips would be
> virtually non-detectable.
The chips will be completely permanent. There is no operation that will be able to take out the chip. Which is why - once you have taken the Mark of the Beast - there is no way back, hence it will become only the second unforgivable sin.
Forest Fan wrote:
> What do you think of this verse?
>
> "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free
> and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their
> foreheads:" (KJV) Revelation 13:16
>
I see that you have assumed from reading bias sources on the net, none of them scientific (which you have to agree chipping is a part of science), that chips will be placed in the right hands or foreheads. And this is why you claimed they would need to be visible, when they clearly wouldn't for retail purposes (as I pointed out). Until I hear that the forehead is to be a chosen spot for any form of compulsary tagging, I shall tell you that I think that that verse and chipping have no correlation with each other based on current evidence.
> 2. On the understanding it is to do with a form of labelling people,
> you are already labelled with a number if you are legally able to
> work in the UK: National Insurance Number.
>
> All these ideas to do with labelling people aren't the Mark of the
> Beast - but they are getting closer to it. The ID Cards or those chip
> and pin boxes that are coming later in the year to replace signatures
> - are all leading to the Mark of the Beast.
Chip and Pin is just a replacement to the signiature box. The pin numbers would exists anyway, for ATM purposes, so please explain what you mean by this.
ID cards were around during World War II. Are you saying that they were leading towards it too?
>
> 3. Chipping may never happen.
>
> I believe that is how the Mark of the Beast will be used.
>
On what evidence? I don't believe microchips would have been talked bout in the Bible - that would just be plain rediculous.
> 4. Even if it does, it may not happen for decades yet - as ID cards
> haven't even become compulsary yet.
>
> I agree - it may not happen for decades, but I wouldn't be suprised
> if it was sooner - but I accept we don't know how long it will be
> until the Mark of the Beast is in use.
Surely the word 'mark' indicates a permanent feature - such as a tattoo or a scar. Chips wouldn't cause that effect. Chips would be virtually non-detectable.
> What do you think of this verse?
>
> "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free
> and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their
> foreheads:" (KJV) Revelation 13:16
>
I see that you have assumed from reading bias sources on the net, none of them scientific (which you have to agree chipping is a part of science), that chips will be placed in the right hands or foreheads. And this is why you claimed they would need to be visible, when they clearly wouldn't for retail purposes (as I pointed out). Until I hear that the forehead is to be a chosen spot for any form of compulsary tagging, I shall tell you that I think that that verse and chipping have no correlation with each other based on current evidence.
> 2. On the understanding it is to do with a form of labelling people,
> you are already labelled with a number if you are legally able to
> work in the UK: National Insurance Number.
>
> All these ideas to do with labelling people aren't the Mark of the
> Beast - but they are getting closer to it. The ID Cards or those chip
> and pin boxes that are coming later in the year to replace signatures
> - are all leading to the Mark of the Beast.
Chip and Pin is just a replacement to the signiature box. The pin numbers would exists anyway, for ATM purposes, so please explain what you mean by this.
ID cards were around during World War II. Are you saying that they were leading towards it too?
>
> 3. Chipping may never happen.
>
> I believe that is how the Mark of the Beast will be used.
>
On what evidence? I don't believe microchips would have been talked bout in the Bible - that would just be plain rediculous.
> 4. Even if it does, it may not happen for decades yet - as ID cards
> haven't even become compulsary yet.
>
> I agree - it may not happen for decades, but I wouldn't be suprised
> if it was sooner - but I accept we don't know how long it will be
> until the Mark of the Beast is in use.
Surely the word 'mark' indicates a permanent feature - such as a tattoo or a scar. Chips wouldn't cause that effect. Chips would be virtually non-detectable.
Edgy wrote:
> 1. I haven't read a single message regarding the Mark of the Beast to
> even deny.
What do you think of this verse?
"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:" (KJV) Revelation 13:16
>
> 2. On the understanding it is to do with a form of labelling people,
> you are already labelled with a number if you are legally able to
> work in the UK: National Insurance Number.
All these ideas to do with labelling people aren't the Mark of the Beast - but they are getting closer to it. The ID Cards or those chip and pin boxes that are coming later in the year to replace signatures - are all leading to the Mark of the Beast.
>
> 3. Chipping may never happen.
I believe that is how the Mark of the Beast will be used.
>
> 4. Even if it does, it may not happen for decades yet - as ID cards
> haven't even become compulsary yet.
I agree - it may not happen for decades, but I wouldn't be suprised if it was sooner - but I accept we don't know how long it will be until the Mark of the Beast is in use.
> 1. I haven't read a single message regarding the Mark of the Beast to
> even deny.
What do you think of this verse?
"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:" (KJV) Revelation 13:16
>
> 2. On the understanding it is to do with a form of labelling people,
> you are already labelled with a number if you are legally able to
> work in the UK: National Insurance Number.
All these ideas to do with labelling people aren't the Mark of the Beast - but they are getting closer to it. The ID Cards or those chip and pin boxes that are coming later in the year to replace signatures - are all leading to the Mark of the Beast.
>
> 3. Chipping may never happen.
I believe that is how the Mark of the Beast will be used.
>
> 4. Even if it does, it may not happen for decades yet - as ID cards
> haven't even become compulsary yet.
I agree - it may not happen for decades, but I wouldn't be suprised if it was sooner - but I accept we don't know how long it will be until the Mark of the Beast is in use.
omg! 666 lol!!11!
1. I haven't read a single message regarding the Mark of the Beast to even deny.
2. On the understanding it is to do with a form of labelling people, you are already labelled with a number if you are legally able to work in the UK: National Insurance Number.
3. Chipping may never happen.
4. Even if it does, it may not happen for decades yet - as ID cards haven't even become compulsary yet.
2. On the understanding it is to do with a form of labelling people, you are already labelled with a number if you are legally able to work in the UK: National Insurance Number.
3. Chipping may never happen.
4. Even if it does, it may not happen for decades yet - as ID cards haven't even become compulsary yet.
Are you back to denying the Mark of the Beast?
Forest Fan, I would hardly call that extremely amateur page a source.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Haven't got another quote?
I wasn’t going to bother, because this has been debunked time and time and time and time again, particularly in religious circles as he has been shown to be a liar. but since you insist:-
[URL] http://www.eaec.org/expose/carls1.htm[/URL]
Apologies for the long post, but I’ve just cut out some of the key point out for ease. I'll not be replying to any post you make after this. The fact a church is outing a liar, fraud and charlatan speaks volumes about the ligitimacy of the material.
[edit] In their words "A Reprobate mind"
"And even at they did not like to retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:28"
“We are a Bible centered group of believers desiring to grow in the full knowledge of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, without compromise to His Word.”
“We believe, teach and practice all things that Jesus taught and that were practiced by the church in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. “
“Our ministry is geared to strengthen people who are walking with Christ and equip them to reach the young generations coming behind us, so that God will have some mighty men and women for Himself. There are a number of people in our ministry who are on fire, willing to learn and to live their lives for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Do you want to join them?”
We are not financially able to make large numbers of copies available to hundreds of people. May the body of Christ pray for this fallen Christian leader and his wife, and may we all learn a lesson from it, that all of us MUST WORSHIP GOD IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH.
“When I asked him about his statement that his name is on a number of microcomputer chips, he confessed that this was another lie he had told.”
“According to Carl the truth is that he had his name signed on a blue print many years ago, when he was part of a work team that was trying to further develop the microchip. When I asked him about his statement that he was heading up a 100 man research team that was working on the development of the micro chip, he told me that this was not true either.”
“Carl Sanders is a very brilliant man, but void of moral understanding. That he has been living a lie for the last 30 years did not bother him at all. When he received Christ a few years ago, the lying was never dealt with. Thus he lived a double life as a born again Christian and as a shrewd business man/technician.”
“Being very smart Carl was able to read up on the subject and took information from other sources. For example, the microchips that he displayed in his meetings, including the scanner and the implant gun, he had purchased from Terry Cook for $2000.00, which he never paid. Just prior to this meeting with me, he had returned the material to Terry Cook in Los Angeles.”
“In our ministry we have destroyed all the material concerning Carl Sanders and I ask all the people who purchased tapes from us to forgive me for selling them to you. I should have investigated him before promoting his ministry and I have asked God for forgiveness. I hope that you will also be able to forgive me.”
[URL]http://www.eaec.org/expose/carls2.htm[/URL]
> Haven't got another quote?
I wasn’t going to bother, because this has been debunked time and time and time and time again, particularly in religious circles as he has been shown to be a liar. but since you insist:-
[URL] http://www.eaec.org/expose/carls1.htm[/URL]
Apologies for the long post, but I’ve just cut out some of the key point out for ease. I'll not be replying to any post you make after this. The fact a church is outing a liar, fraud and charlatan speaks volumes about the ligitimacy of the material.
[edit] In their words "A Reprobate mind"
"And even at they did not like to retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:28"
“We are a Bible centered group of believers desiring to grow in the full knowledge of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, without compromise to His Word.”
“We believe, teach and practice all things that Jesus taught and that were practiced by the church in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. “
“Our ministry is geared to strengthen people who are walking with Christ and equip them to reach the young generations coming behind us, so that God will have some mighty men and women for Himself. There are a number of people in our ministry who are on fire, willing to learn and to live their lives for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Do you want to join them?”
We are not financially able to make large numbers of copies available to hundreds of people. May the body of Christ pray for this fallen Christian leader and his wife, and may we all learn a lesson from it, that all of us MUST WORSHIP GOD IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH.
“When I asked him about his statement that his name is on a number of microcomputer chips, he confessed that this was another lie he had told.”
“According to Carl the truth is that he had his name signed on a blue print many years ago, when he was part of a work team that was trying to further develop the microchip. When I asked him about his statement that he was heading up a 100 man research team that was working on the development of the micro chip, he told me that this was not true either.”
“Carl Sanders is a very brilliant man, but void of moral understanding. That he has been living a lie for the last 30 years did not bother him at all. When he received Christ a few years ago, the lying was never dealt with. Thus he lived a double life as a born again Christian and as a shrewd business man/technician.”
“Being very smart Carl was able to read up on the subject and took information from other sources. For example, the microchips that he displayed in his meetings, including the scanner and the implant gun, he had purchased from Terry Cook for $2000.00, which he never paid. Just prior to this meeting with me, he had returned the material to Terry Cook in Los Angeles.”
“In our ministry we have destroyed all the material concerning Carl Sanders and I ask all the people who purchased tapes from us to forgive me for selling them to you. I should have investigated him before promoting his ministry and I have asked God for forgiveness. I hope that you will also be able to forgive me.”
[URL]http://www.eaec.org/expose/carls2.htm[/URL]
Page: