Slashdot Mirror
RFID, Sign of the (End) Times?
andy753421 writes "Wired is running an article featuring Katherine Albrecht who, with her new book 'The Spychips Threat: Why Christians Should Resist RFID and Electronic Surveillance', is warning that RFID tags may in fact be the "mark of the beast". Among her arguments are that in a futuristic world anyone who wishes to buy and sell goods would be compelled "to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads," as is foretold in the book Revelation. Others are skeptical saying that many new technologies, such as the printing press, bar-codes, and several others, have also created fears about the beginning of the end."
It seems like every generation comes up with a sign for the mark. Here is my brief history of the mark of the beast. Feel free to add yours.
Social Security Numbers
Punchcards (They used to be included with your utility bills)
Drivers License Numbers
Credit Card Numbers
Bar Codes
IP Addressess
Bill Gates full name converted to ASCII and summed.
CPU IDs
and now.... RFID (Which is really just a modern bar code.)
I think the "mark of the beast" might be figurative language in the book of Revelation, but talking about apocalytic literature can be like running the Boston marathon is quicksand. It is amazing how a 10 page book of the Bible could be expanded into a 2000+ page box set and miniseries. Maybe 666 is just a number that represents imperfection three times over.... What? I pity the fool that says the mark of the beast isn't a literal number stamped on the forehead... Ow, don't hurt me Mr. T....
Hell, when England made the Domesday Book in 1086 Christians probably went ape-shit over it for the same reason.
I've learned something about Christians, when something like this comes, many don't say "this is the mark of the beast" instead they say something along the line of "the end is near"... So, they're learning.
I think that the stance against RFIDs needs all the help it can get... So, let the Christians rant and rave next to the EFF... Just as long as the reasonable people raise that point that tracking technologies COULD be used for bad reasons, and encourage people to weigh the good against the bad... Or does that involve thinking?
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
Religion is really about defining for us what the purpose and meaning of our lives is, or should be. In this respect, America and the west at large is definitely losing its religion. It isn't simply becoming a-religious though; religion is being replaced in our society even more than it has before by the indirect worship of materialism.
How do we define our lives? Work... for most people, whether they believe it or not. Kids ultimately, I suppose. Money, absolutely. The dreams the majority of us hold usually are tied to acquiring copious amounts of wealth, things, gadgets, cars, property, etc. This wasn't always so, it's actually pretty new.
It's important that people realize this, though. The hole that religion filled/fills in the minds/hearts of the public is now being filled by other things tied to capitalism/materialism at large. We don't see it, because just as a fish submerged in water, we do not know what it feels like not to be wet.
One thing is important: This current indirect worship (nobody goes to pray at the Sony store, but they sure spend a lot of time at the mall) of technology and materialism cannot fill any permanent voids in our lives. Our computers and cars won't sing our praises when we're gone, and if our kids are caught up in acquiring their own wealth and living for the present, neither will they. In the end we are (though I am atheist, I must use the term) spiritually bankrupting ourselves in the name of present gain. I just don't think it's worth it.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Many people fear the "end of times," "the mark of the beast," and all that.
Many catholics fear it as well, but what they do not realise is that the Catholic Church (by which i do not mean merely the RCC) pray for the return of Christ at every mass offered. This implies necessity of this "mark of the beast."
Regular people, many Christians, many Catholics hope to stave off the apocalypse by rejecting anything they construe as the mark of the beast. The first step in the sequence of all things apocalyptic. Yet the Catholic Church teaches that the the return of Christ (the apocalypse) FOLLOWS the mark of the beast. Additionally, the apocalypse is supposed to be a GOOD thing. Too many people are afraid of the wrong things.
You believe in the apocalypse? Fine. Welcome it. There is no reason to be afraid.
You don't believe in the apocalypse? Hey, your call.
Either way, there is no reason to live in fear.
It's certainly not a "pointless fairy tale" to millions of people. In fact, the Bible is the most literarily validated books in history--and that's no fairy tale.
I was baptised Orthodox, and I can assure you that that's not true. It's considered by the Orthodox Church as part of the Canon, but is not read as part of Divine Liturgy. A PBS documentary once mistakenly claimed the Orthodox Church doesn't consider it part of the canon, and this mistake has been widely repeated ever since. Walk into any Orthodox church this morning, and have a look. Most English-speaking Orthodox churches use the Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha, which includes the book of Revelation.
There's an Orthodox monastery above the place on the Isle of Patmos in Greece where St. John the Divine received his Revelation, and the spot where St. John is said to have written it is a site of frequent Orthodox pilgrimage.
The Orthodox Church teaches that Revelations is a divinely inspired book, but should not be taken as a literal account of future events.
In fact, the Book of Revelations was a controversial addition to the early Bible, and several Bishops argued against including it in the canon due to the difficulty of interpreting it, and hence, its potential for abuse--particularly the type of abuse so typical of fundamentalists, who keep claiming that the end times are upon us. Other portions of the Bible specifically warn against doing this, because only God knows the time when the world will end.
Neither did Martin Luther:
Luther didn't think that the Catholic Church was infallible in determining canonicity, and rejected Revelations, and the Epistles of James (he called it an "epistle of straw"), Jude and Hebrews. Yet the Protestantism that he was instrumental in founding still fiercely defends the Catholic/Orthodox Canon of the Bible, including the Book of Revelation. On the other hand, they reject the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches' teachings on it, and on much else besides.I haven't entirely worked my own beliefs yet, but this contradiction never made any sense to me.
Thank you, the poll of anti-religion slashdot readers is now complete. It was also fairly good practice for me. I have this overwhelming tendency to reply to each and every reply individually and I get bogged down in counltess threads with - how else can I put it - scientific bigots. This time, however, I managed to hold off.
Religion is one of those topics - like abortion or evolution or homosexuality - that causes slashdot readership breaks into a frenzy whenever we have an article that allows us to vent (again) our particular poition on this issue. The tiresome part of this is not only that almost everyone is just talking to hear themselves talkk, but also that most people are also quite content to argue with phantom straw men rather than respond to real-world positions.
In this case the straw-man for the anti-religion crowd is a very specific definition of religion; more particularly its theological definition of faith as "blind belief". This type of faith is nothing more than willful assertion of some rote dogma or other. As such it necessitates an anti-science position as it is anti-thought. Rational thought involves questioning and doubting. These activities threaten the very nature of (blind beleif) faith itself. In short - I can see why people who value science, knowledge, fairness, and information highly would find this form of religion utterly repugnant. I share that sentiment.
There are two problems, however. The first problem is that not all religion is anti-intellectual. Not all religion has this "blind belief" view of faith. Some, like the existentialist thinker Kierkegaard, have blind belief but situated within a compelling rational framework. Others, like C.S. Lewis, focus on the aspects of their faith systems that are logically and rationally appealing to thinking, questioning and questing individuals and marginalize the blind-belief aspects as inconsequential. To throw out all religion as the base "blind faith" variety is just to show one's utter and complete ignorance for the vast spectrum of religious thought that does exist. Most people who are so convinced that religion is anti-intellectual have never bothered to read the writings of a single religious intellectual (note: this means someone other than Falwell or Robertson). When you dismiss all of religious heritage with witty one-liners you may think you look cool. +5 mod points for "informative" or "funny" may give you the credibility you apparently desire. But the fact is that you are no more informed than some Bible fundamentalist who's never taken a real sciene class in his or her life would be in assuming that evolution was just some crocked up scheme by satanist communists to lead the world from the path of God. Not only are they wrong (everyone is wrong from time to time) but they are publicly demonstrating their own prejudice and arrogance. The saddest part is that they, like you, would never even comprehend their own humiliation.
The second problem is quite simple: it's impossible to get away from some definitions of faith. What if faith isn't believing in gnomes, faeries, Gods or Goddeses just because it's the dogma - what if faith is actually the rational extrapolation from insufficient evidence to guide necesary action? In other words - faith is what guides our actions when we don't have knowledge but need to make a choice. Well, if you realize that certainty about the real world is impossible you quickly realize that all of the things we know or do are - in a sense - dependent on faith. Even science is, in some sense, dependent on faith. Faith in the law of causality logically (if not temporally) preceeds all experimentation. It may be subsequently reinforced by experience but it can neither be directly proved by experimentation or any other known means and yet is the pre-requisite for rational experimentation.
In the end it's a simple case of hatred for one thing spilling irrationally over into hatred for related or similar things. You guys really hate dogmatic and anti-i
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.