Mark of the Beast
#71
(12-04-2009, 02:20 AM)John C Wrote: So much for starting over Rosarium. Ur desire for victim status is embarrassing. I called u a liar because u lied - u blatantly thought i was calling u Satan but then denied that u had such thoughts. U sound like a banker complaining about having to sort through accusations of being usurious. U don't merit for nailing urself to a cross Rosarium - someone else has to do it. Nor can u pretend someone else is doing it.
I really was starting over, going back over the posts. I'm trying to keep INPEFESS's thoughts in mind, so I'm not sure how to respond to this.

I asked if you were calling me Satan. That is all. There is nothing complex about this and that issue is past. You use very strong language and some interesting metaphors for a simple issue.

Quote:Only to u Rosarium, any reasonable person who has read the posts will find it very easy to understand. When u claim not to understand, I sincerely doubt ur sincerity. I said i'm not going to explain it again and i meant it - if someone doesn't understand that 2 plus 2 = 4 pretty quickly then there's obviously something wrong with their understanding.
I thought we were starting again? Perhaps you could explain your thoughts in more detail, so I better understand it, instead of insulting me. When I claim not to understand, it is because I don't understand. Why would I pretend to be ignorant? That is hardly a state I desire.

Many times I've been misunderstood on the forum, and when given the chance, I've always explained myself better, or at least tried.

Quote:For the benefit of those who may be misled by ur odd reasoning. Saying the barcode is universally used, in this context, simply means it is used the world over, it is very predominant but it is not used necessarily absolutely everywhere. For example - If i say that barcodes are ubiquitous i don't mean literally - the decor in my home is not made of barcodes and the roads around this part of the country don't have barcodes printed on them. i don't even mean they are printed on every last single item in the shop. It's an expression. Even when the true mark appears, I'm sure not absolutely everything will be bought and sold using it - undoubtedly there will be a certain amount of black market trading for example.
No, I mean that barcodes are not universally used in any circumstances. There are many products which do not have them. This is because a barcode is just a way of encoding a number and there are other methods of doing it. There are other optical systems which use different conventions and there are RFID tags in use. Also, many things do not have them at all. They are not used all over the world, or even in a single setting. Their use is totally optional.

Quote:It is obvious to anyone who is looking for the truth. Very few people knew about John the baptist and yet he prepared the way. Billions of people don't know that Jesus is God, does that mean that it is impossible for today to be judgment day?
You seem very much invested in this theory. I am not sure why, but I can tell you it isn't as clear as you seem to think it is. Better explanations would be very helpful to us.

Quote:U remind of Charlton Heston, Rosarium. I can just hear u now...    'u can have my straw man... when u pry him from my cold; dead; hands'.
Thank you. I admire him. I was addressing your statement directly with my concerns, and if I had no interpreted it correctly, you can help me understand by restating your position.

I am trying to start a new course of discussion on this and I do not want to do the exact same thing as before. I respect INPEFESS and will not repeat it, but if you repeat it, I'll just stop the conversation.

Quote:If this is the extent of ur arguments, then they are still ridiculous.
Why are they ridiculous? I have freely stated my thoughts, and you have not. Please post more on the issue, rather than personal commentary on my person.
Reply
#72
(12-04-2009, 09:04 AM)John C Wrote: Thank u Arun,

I don't intend wasting much more time here, i'm quite happy with my objectivity, my arguments are straightforward, clear and very easy to understand despite the best efforts of others to cloud the issue with 'misunderstandings'. Rosarium and the Cowboy have been entertaining if nothing else. I'm happy that their arguments and objections have been soundly beaten. It's not necessary for u to agree with me - the evidence is in the posts.

I'm happy that the average, honest person will readily percieve that reasonableness of what i've said, not get overly excited either way, and simply register the warning with all the other warnings, and get on with their salvation.

I'm sorry to hear about ur persecution complex Arun, u should probably talk to Rosarium 'the righteous victim' about it. Perhaps u could help him. Thankfully it's not something i suffer from myself.

Pax    :)

QFT.
Reply
#73
Getting back on track one last time, I was thinking about the precursor idea of barcodes and found it could apply if one took the RFID use to the highest extreme.

They are tiny, easily used and could be used to mark near everything and be used without people's knowledge. However, they would lack any connection to "666", despite being more properly fulfilling of the "buying and sell" clause as that is specific to the barcodes.
Reply
#74
(12-04-2009, 01:23 PM)Rosarium Wrote: Getting back on track one last time, I was thinking about the precursor idea of barcodes and found it could apply if one took the RFID use to the highest extreme.

They are tiny, easily used and could be used to mark near everything and be used without people's knowledge. However, they would lack any connection to "666", despite being more properly fulfilling of the "buying and sell" clause as that is specific to the barcodes.

I agree with the potential RFID analogy, in so far as it would be much more easily implementable than a barcode on people's bodies.  RFID implantation is, however, undetectable to the naked eye, so it may not be viable as a "mark," but only, perhaps, as a precursor, as you mentioned.  Still, though, imagine trying to put a barcode onto a person.  It would have to be some sort of permanent tattoo.  As those with tattoos will confirm, they bleed over time, sometimes obscuring the finer details after just a few years.  Then there's the problem of varying skin tones.  For example, the darkest of African skin tones would not even show a tattoo at all, unless it was done with some sort of white or flourescent ink, which doesn't exist in the tattoo industry, as far as I know.  That's why you don't see many of the very dark black men with tattoos.  It would be pointless.  So, even in the realm of the hypothetical, it would be hard to give people a functional barcode.  But a chip of some sort, especially if accompanied by a tattoo or brand or something, that would be potentially feasible, and more along the vein of the Book of Apocalypse, at least by common interpretation.
Reply
#75
(12-04-2009, 02:08 PM)IrishCowboy Wrote: I agree with the potential RFID analogy, in so far as it would be much more easily implementable than a barcode on people's bodies.  RFID implantation is, however, undetectable to the naked eye, so it may not be viable as a "mark," but only, perhaps, as a precursor, as you mentioned.  Still, though, imagine trying to put a barcode onto a person.  It would have to be some sort of permanent tattoo.  As those with tattoos will confirm, they bleed over time, sometimes obscuring the finer details after just a few years.  Then there's the problem of varying skin tones.  For example, the darkest of African skin tones would not even show a tattoo at all, unless it was done with some sort of white or flourescent ink, which doesn't exist in the tattoo industry, as far as I know. 
IR ink would be best used for that. It really wouldn't show up on anyone, except for the scar (which is normally hidden by the colours).

RFID tags were approved for use in humans (hospitals, mainly), but I do think they are best used for objects.
Reply
#76
IrishCowboy, just thought i'd let you know that white ink and flourescent ink both exist in the professional tattoo industry. however, white ink fades ridiculously fast and doesn't hold well. It only really would be suited to tattoos that are covered constantly. I have some tattoos with smll amounts of white that disappeared within a year. Also, dark skin wouldn't show white ink well. Not sure why, just know it doesn't work. Fluoresecent ink is dodgy stuff. Many artists won't use it, as the toxicity is unconfirmed.
Maybe a branding instead? lol.
Reply
#77
(12-04-2009, 12:58 PM)Rosarium Wrote: No, I mean that barcodes are not universally used in any circumstances. There are many products which do not have them. This is because a barcode is just a way of encoding a number and there are other methods of doing it. There are other optical systems which use different conventions and there are RFID tags in use. Also, many things do not have them at all. They are not used all over the world, or even in a single setting. Their use is totally optional.

I never said they were mandatory and nor do they need to be considering no-one is arguing that barcodes are the mark of the beast. Only a sophist would argue that barcodes aren't used universally for buying and selling. It would be a relief to have u around when the real mark is in use, u can simply assure everyone that the mark isn't used for buying and selling, it's just a way of encoding a number, the buying and selling part is completely seperate.

Or when 666 is being planted on people's foreheads mandatorily while they are told they can't buy or sell without it, we can simply get u to ask the antichrist if the 666 has anything to do with biblical prophecy. If he says 'no, it's just a coincidence, besides, it says '6''6''6', not 600 and 60 6',  we can all breathe a sigh of relief and continue as normal.

Similarly, in those hypothetical circumstances, if there is a general fear that this could 'the mark', u'll no doubt be there to inform us that there is a shop measuring 20ft by 20ft in the wilderness of Timbuktu that doesn't use the mark, therefore it can't be the mark because it isn't used universally. The paradox of the completely unreasonable Mr Logic.

U can also assure everyone that the '666' isn't really  the mark because the 6s are not in a row. Say they are aligned vertically for example, then we'll know that it isn't 600 and 60 6, but just plain old 666, which of course has nothing to do with the mark. With ur eagle eye to watch over us we evidently have nothing to fear.

Quote:It is obvious to anyone who is looking for the truth. Very few people knew about John the baptist and yet he prepared the way. Billions of people don't know that Jesus is God, does that mean that it is impossible for today to be judgment day?

You seem very much invested in this theory. I am not sure why, but I can tell you it isn't as clear as you seem to think it is. Better explanations would be very helpful to us.
u side step with skill Rosarium (sarcasm), u aren't a professional dancer by any chance? When ur point is soundly met, just ignore or pretend u don't understand...

Ur shameless and insulting use of the stawman argument yet again says it all Rosarium. Ur repeated attempts to gain victim status are equally nauseating. Try to have some dignity

Reply
#78
(12-05-2009, 12:41 AM)John C Wrote: I never said they were mandatory and nor do they need to be considering no-one is arguing that barcodes are the mark of the beast. Only a sophist would argue that barcodes aren't used universally for buying and selling. It would be a relief to have u around when the real mark is in use, u can simply assure everyone that the mark isn't used for buying and selling, it's just a way of encoding a number, the buying and selling part is completely seperate.
Ok, I tried very hard to remove any hint of insult or derogatory comment from my posts after starting anew, but you are pushing my commitment.

You are saying only a sophist would argue, when I gave real evidence. You are just mocking me, instead of actually addressing my statements.

My statement that they are not universally used and they are only used to encode numbers which are represented in other ways besides barcodes if at all is not sophistry. It is a real fact and should be addressed.

Quote:Or when 666 is being planted on people's foreheads mandatorily while they are told they can't buy or sell without it, we can simply get u to ask the antichrist if the 666 has anything to do with biblical prophecy. If he says 'no, it's just a coincidence, besides, it says '6''6''6', not 600 and 60 6',  we can all breathe a sigh of relief and continue as normal.
This is a big leap. As pointed out earlier, the meaning of "666" has more simple explanations. It could be a number meant to illustrate the evil of the beast, so by itself, the value has no actual meaning.  This is very plausible. Matthew 18:22 shows this. Do you think Jesus is really instructing us to only forgive 490 times and only that? Apocalypse 14:1, does it really mean there are exactly 144000 with writing on their foreheads? The use of such words is meaningful when taken in context. The precise numbers, the writing on foreheads, etc. It all means something, sometimes more deep than strictly literal. Remember, this beast in Apocalypse 13:11 is coming from the earth and its description is not biological possible. This is the beast whose number is 666. There is a lot more to St. John's writing than that one number in isolation and this beast is more than just a guy who happened to develop a barcode.

I hope a reflection on the whole chapter will help you realise it is not that simple of a concept. http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=73&ch=13&l=18&f=s#x

Even if barcodes had "six hundred and sixty six" on them in a way no one could deny, I'd still not associate them with the Bible any more than I'd associate any other instance of that integer with it.

Quote:Similarly, in those hypothetical circumstances, if there is a general fear that this could 'the mark', u'll no doubt be there to inform us that there is a shop measuring 20ft by 20ft in the wilderness of Timbuktu that doesn't use the mark, therefore it can't be the mark because it isn't used universally. The paradox of the completely unreasonable Mr Logic.
You are doing what you accuse me of doing. I'm saying that it isn't universally used anywhere in the world. The fact that a single store may not use it consistently or at all, that a single manufacturer may not use it. Even Wall-Mart, which required its suppliers to use RFID tags only did this for its top 100 suppliers, not them all.

Please don't mock me or refer to my person, just the arguments. If there is a flaw in my arguments, please point them out. If you find a flaw, address the flaw, not myself. You can't say there is a flaw then attack me instead. That doesn't work.

Quote:U can also assure everyone that the '666' isn't really  the mark because the 6s are not in a row. Say they are aligned vertically for example, then we'll know that it isn't 600 and 60 6, but just plain old 666, which of course has nothing to do with the mark. With ur eagle eye to watch over us we evidently have nothing to fear.
The sixes don't need to be in a row, they need to represent "six hundred and sixty six" in some fashion. For example, this is not what I believe, but imagine a dictator with six hundred and sixty six highly trained enforcers to do his dirty work. My pointing out of the syntax was purely to show how our number systems work.

Quote:u side step with skill Rosarium (sarcasm), u aren't a professional dancer by any chance? When ur point is soundly met, just ignore or pretend u don't understand...
You are not addressing my points. You claim it is sound, but only you. Of course you know what you think! You need to communicate it, just as I try to communicate what I think. This takes time and thought to effectively do, but it is worth it I think. Well, I think it is worth it if the person with whom I'm communicating takes the same effort.

Quote:Ur shameless and insulting use of the stawman argument yet again says it all Rosarium. Ur repeated attempts to gain victim status are equally nauseating. Try to have some dignity
This is totally out of line. I am only focusing on the subject!
Reply
#79
(12-05-2009, 01:16 AM)Rosarium Wrote: Ok, I tried very hard to remove any hint of insult or derogatory comment from my posts after starting anew, but you are pushing my commitment.

You are saying only a sophist would argue, when I gave real evidence. You are just mocking me, instead of actually addressing my statements.

My statement that they are not universally used and they are only used to encode numbers which are represented in other ways besides barcodes if at all is not sophistry. It is a real fact and should be addressed.

This is totally out of line. I am only focusing on the subject!

Yes, I agree. I thought your post was very appropriate.

John C, this is excessive. I suggested that Rosarium stop returning the insults because it seemed to be egging you on. He has since stopped and you continue. It isn't fair that he should have to sift through your mockery to respond to your posts without returning the sentiment. Prove us both wrong about your good intentions and point out Rosarium's inconsistencies or flawed logic with humility and patience. You're not going to convince anyone that you mean well will statements such as these.

I really think you mean well, and I want to believe that you do, but you are not helping anyone to see that. Perhaps we've caught you at a bad time...
Reply
#80
I'll take leave of u all at this time. Thank u for ur participation. It's been an interesting test (but by that i don't mean i'm a troll). I don't 'do' these things very often (they take too long for one thing). I have much to learn which will unfortunately take much time. Just a bit of (serious) fun. I'll be watching from a distance even if i don't post.

Sorry if anyone feels i'm ducking out early - i don't really think i have much more to offer anyway

i'll let u continue with ur RFID conversation.

Pax  :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)