would you implant a chip in your child?

[TC]

Would you place a chip in your child?

I have a friend that they were worried about kidnappings and the like so they gave them jewlery that can also track them where ever they are. Then after talking with the grand parents they actually implanted chips in both kids as well so that if someone took thier jewlery it would not stop them. He said he hated to do it but it was just like giving them a shot

At first I thought it was too much but when you see a child taken from a mall or store or you see a child that is lost and everyone is searching for them. I began to think if it was my child I would love to be able to find them in mins instead of hours or days much less never.

[RamboPreacher]

I assume you are talking about a GPS tracking device implant, which is completly different than the RFID biometric security chip. Personally, no. My children are in their 20's and able to make choices in where they are and shouldbe withougt me even wanting to track them.

[Shellie]

It's so much easier to just track my kids on Myspace.

[RamboPreacher]

It's so much easier to just track my kids on Myspace.

yup - it shows all their friends and where they can get drugs too!

[Joey]

I remember reading somewhere that the govt once said that the SS# would never be used for identification purposes - which of course it is now (the govt lied!:shock:) Many in that day used to think the SS# was the mark of the beast and refused it.
I view the personal implant as the same thing. It may start honestly, me being able to trace my kid, but it would likely develop into something else as it became popular and the use of it was fully discovered.
As a financial tool, it could ward off that black marker on the dollar bill thing, use of stolen credit cards, prevention of all kinds of theft, ID checks, etc.....
The real question is, are we ready to accept what it might become if we do in fact accept the chip as a nation? Because whatever it starts out as will not be what it becomes. IMHO

[RamboPreacher]

...The real question is, are we ready to accept what it might become if we do in fact accept the chip? ...

which is? what do you think it is or will become?

Does anyone think that they can do anything that will negate the gift of Grace and Mercy and salvation that we can accept (or are chosen to have, depending on theology)? Isn't salvation about God's grace, and that not of ourselves?

[Joey]

...The real question is, are we ready to accept what it might become if we do in fact accept the chip? ...

which is? what do you think it is or will become?

Does anyone think that they can do anything that will negate the gift of Grace and Mercy and salvation that we can accept (or are chosen to have, depending on theology)? Isn't salvation about God's grace, and that not of ourselves?

I updated my comment for your question...but on that last part, I actually voted in the poll that I'd take the chip for my kid if I could trace him alone, but (as related to your point) I do not believe that satan can take what is not his to take. Yes, Grace is bigger than my deciding to place a chip in me or my kid for ID purposes. The real issue would come when they change it to say "you must accept this chip to buy/sell" - then I would see the parallel too closely to the mark of the beast based on their forcing me to do it. IMHO of course. Why would I want to dabble with scripture when I am only a created thing trying to interpret what my creator meant by that. I guess I am a chicken when it comes to understanding and doing certain things that I may not fully understand yet.

[RamboPreacher]

... The real issue would come when they change it to say "you must accept this chip to buy/sell" ...

why? that's the question I have been asking in these kinds of threads. what is the problem with (not that I would like it, necessarily) the prerequisite of said device prior to buying or selling (biometric security, identification, etc)? would it mak one "lose" thier salvation (or prevent one from recieving that gift from God?)? Is there Scripture to prove/teach that? I don't necessarily understand it all either as I have mentioned previously, but what I do know is salvation, and what it takes (or does not take, as the case may be) to be saved and Christian.

[Joey]

I didnt say anyone would lose their salvation, but my concern stems from this verse:
"A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: 'If ANYONE worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name. This calls for patient endurance on the part of THE SAINTS who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus' " (Rev. 14:9-12).

[Paully_44]

Undecided. Didn't see that as an option.

[RamboPreacher]

I didnt say anyone would lose their salvation, ....

sorry, my bad. I appologize. I had confused this thread with another of the same topic, but without the poll:
http://www.jude2.com/viewtopic.php?t=10892

where I said (sorry, for the repeat post):

I think that most "Christians" that have an issue with this isn't a physical one, or whether or not something like this should be done to their body/temple. After all, (Christian) people dye their hair, have "other implants", tat's, piercings etc...

The next objection that many Christians have has to do with preconcieved ideas of eschotological events, especially when viewed in light of various "hollywoodizations" of those events. But even if not viewd from hollywoodizations - there are many that have been taught certain events from the book of Revelation (no "S"!!!), that in my opinion is simply not correct theology.

I don't happen to believe in many of those events and activities, especially based on certain groups interpretations of what "the Bible says" or does not say about these events, and activities.

the so called "one world governemnt" and one-world-religion. and to a more detailed level - the theory that depending on pre/mid/post leanings, if one was to recieve this "mark" - they couldn't buy, or sell.

"The mark of the beast."

The "mark of the beast" as an implant? I can't see that scripturally speaking, especially when viewed in conjunction with the mark of the holy spirit. I respect the stand and belief, I just don't happen to hold the same view, I don't see a scriptural reference for that viewpoint ("I will never get one of those things. Even if they kill me").

I am not saying that some of you are wrong and that I am right. I am saying that I have an opinion and it is based on what I have studied of the Bible (as opposed to what has been presented in movies and fictional books), but am by no means expert on eschotology (or technologicaly enhanced biometrics for that matter).

As for my personal feelings, I think that as long as there is guarantee that it is impervious to change (without consent/knowledge), and absolutely unique, sounds like it could be a great convenience. Man, I have to type in dozens of passwords every day, most of which happen at least hourly. biometric security is long overdue.

a post I made on another site on this subject:

Let me just get right to the point I have been trying to make. I have asked for scriptures, hoping that someone would point to these obvious texts, but the challenge seems to be deeper than I thought, or perhaps, I was too intimidating. I don’t know, but here is where to find the “Mark of the beast”

Revelation 13:16-17 is its origination:
16 And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead,
17 and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.
(vs. 18 is the famous 666/616 verse)

Then mentioned twice as “the mark of the beast” in:
Revelation 16:2 and 19:20 –
2 So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth; and it became a loathsome and malignant sore on the people who had the mark of the beast and who worshiped his image.
20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.

Goose, I agree with your stand on pretrib., and dare I say pre-mil. return of Christ. I also agree that I think that most westerners (Americans) don’t have a clue what tribulation is. The Hunger for “power” and greed also signs of His return.

But as to this thread and this topic of the morality of implants (what some may call the “mark of the beast”) – there’s where I wonder about what people understand because of the hollywoodizations. I won’t get into what I think the mark is or is not, for in fact, I haven’t drawn a conclusion. An implant may be what John the revelator saw when he wrote the apocalypse.

My challenge is what people believe is the ramifications of this mark. I see it mentioned, and I see scripture about requirement for buying and selling. I further see in the couple subsequent references that it is mentioned about some folks with loathsome and malignant sore, and others/same that were deceived.

What I don’t see is that this mark will condemn someone to be hellbound, necessarily. What I do see is when mention of the mark is made, that it is also correlated with and in conjunction with worshiping his image. What I see is that verse 16 says “all”, small and great – without exception – that had a mark.

Where I draw the delineation is that as has been said, a mark of the beast is not going to send someone to hell. Salvation is a gift of Grace. As an Armenian (mostly), I believe that this choice of receiving that gift has no prerequisites of "only if you didn’t receive that mark". For God so loved the world… (about grace and that gift, not our works)

The mark should also have spiritual/soulful meaning as well. Is it a physical mark? Probably, but that’s not my point here. At some level and in other references about being "marked by/for God", it is talking about a status of the heart, and relationship.

theologically, the issue isn't the (physical) mark (if it is physical); at least in my opinion, it is more about where the heart is and who is being "worshiped", there are alot of and's (kai) in those verses. never is the mark and used with buying and selling by itself mentioned in context of the ramifications of Gods wrath. It is always assumed by people (and movies, books etc...).

[dolfan]

What Joey said makes the most sense. I logged onto the internet this morning to see another amber alert, this one in Tennessee. I saw a story on Fox News this morning about two guys who stopped a convicted molester in a Wal-Mart as he was abducting an 8 year old girl this weekend. That doesn't count all the missing kids and abused kids that we never hear about, which are legion.

If I wasn't concerned about the long-term impact of the decision to implant a chip in my daughter, and the more I think about it the less I'm concerned about the mark, etc. (it just doesn't make sense in so many ways to me), I am concerned about turning over privacy for security. There may come a day when I am willing to make that choice. All I can say is that today isn't that day.