I hate tattoos. I think tattoos on men or women are ugly. So I would not want this - whether the tattoo said 666, Mom, or “Eat at Jooe’s.” Religion has nothing to do with it.
This.
And this…
But I was raised as a Baptist, and I’ll admit that “the mark of the Beast” thing would occur to me, and to say the least, accepting the mark doesn’t seem like a very good idea.
I am going to echo AHunter. My only concern would be from the religionists who decide that I must be of the debbil since I have the mark.
I have been feeling this concern in the context of facial coverings, with all these nutjobs protesting (they were protesting downtown today). I anticipate that very soon these people are going to be villifying anyone who wears facial coverings or practices physical distancing. First we will be portrayed as unpatriotic communistic freedom-haters. Then they will say we are in cahoots with the mysterious “they” that is trying to destroy the economy and thus the world.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
Heh. I’m an atheist. The 666 stuff is crazyassed bullshit. My phone number has has five 6’s, including a run of three consecutive 6’s. When I got a new number 15 years ago I was shown a list of available phone numbers. Two were highlighted as “do not take these” due to “666” sequences. I snapped one up and have used it ever since.
I also blaspheme, walk under ladders, and do not believe in the easter bunny.
At the risk of derailing my own thread, there’s nothing wrong, in Christianity, with 666 outside the context of Revelation. Whether it’s the address you live at, or your phone number, or assigned classroom in school, or whatever, in such contexts it’s merely the number that comes in between 665 and 667. I attended a Christian college, and happened to be assigned the vehicle registration sticker of 666 for my car for parking on campus; didn’t bother me.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that 666 is bad in any other context.
I recall in The Boondocks one of the characters notes that Ronald Wilson Reagan was the devil because each of his legal names is six letters long, I then noticed that is true of myself.
My parents, I think, are non-practicing theists, I thought that this was inherited and thought I was too by fiat. My parents did punish me for taking Jesus hopscotching Christ’s name in vain, for whatever that’s worth. So that they unintentionally made my name Satanic amuses me.
As for compulsory tattoos, I’m sure I’d get a 404.
Seconded there.
If I had to have a numeric tattoo, I’d go for 664 - the Neighbor Of The Beast.
The Bible does not state that it is just accepting the mark in itself that is problematic, but accepting the mark AND worshiping the beast which is the big no-no combo. It does not state what would happen if someone accepted the mark but did not worship the beast. However beast worship alone is problematic in itself due to other parts of the Bible, but arguably forgivable.
This sounds like a mighty dicey approach to take. It would be quite the gamble for someone to say “Well, I’ll take the mark, but not worship”…considering the magnitude of what’s at stake.
The number doesn’t bother me. Everything else about the scenario does.
This was what I was going to say. … The translation of 666 is Neron whereas the translation of 616 is Nero. (according to the Hebrew numerology of gematria)
From a sociological point of view, the idea of getting a permanent marking that 1) is meaningless (or positive) to the wearer and 2) offends a large percentage of the people likely to view the marking, can be interpreted as an aggressive act.
(When I first came across members of a biker club with Nazi tattoos, I wondered if they were genuinely racist or if they just wanted people to stay away. After some inquiries, well, it turned out that they really were racists. So, that’s good to know.)
I’m not sure that I would welcome the sort of engagement that would come with having 666 tattooed on my forehead. … but, that’s not because the number means anything to me… it’s because I try to promote positive engagement. For example, if you ever see a guy wearing a pirate hat in an airport, that’s me.
I understand your point, and yes I believe you can’t use a loophole with God. However the opposite is also true. It use a extreme if one got the mark but didn’t understand what it is, and only worship God you are not condemned by it.
I feel there was too much condemnation based on the letter of the Word, instead of the spirit of it.
This.
It says a mark, not a tattoo. Maybe it’s just a stamp like you get at a concert.
Yes, this.
And this, mostly. I don’t want anything permanently installed on or in my body. If I should decide to accept something such for medical reasons, that decision should be up to me. Anything else seems horribly invasive.
If there were accurate tests for immunity and non-contagiousness, I wouldn’t mind being expected to carry a card of some sort giving status for the duration of the emergency, any more than I object to being told I need to wear a face mask. But I don’t see how such a card could be expected to work without some form of photo id or other technique; otherwise, how could anyone tell it was actually my card? I’d rather a photo than a fingerprint or a retinal ID.
There is however the problem that any tests we have currently seem to have a high percentage of false positives and false negatives. I don’t want to have to carry a card and photo ID if the card’s effectively meaningless. (And the issue really isn’t whether the person’s now immune; that’s a matter of one’s own risk and should be up to competent adults. It’s whether one can transmit the disease to others. Some people may have had the disease but may still be silently infectious – we don’t know yet either how common this is or how long it might last.)
Considering I don’t have a single permanent marking on my body, and no intention of getting one, then, yeah, I don’t think I’d appreciate having a 666 mark on my friggin’ forehead. I’d be more concerned that there is a nutball tyrant out there requiring people to mark 666 on their head, than that they are actually fulfilling bible prophecy. I would view that fulfillment as completely self-fulfilling.
And I find conflating a 666 mark with a microchip extremely specious.
Another secular humanist chiming in, here. As usual, someone has already made my point, and better; in this case ME Buckner. The civil liberties aspect might be a bit of a concern, but the theological? Not in the least.
Never a good idea to go to a drunk tattooist.
Hmmm. No numbers on my hand; just a series of letters: “DCLXVI”.
Is that ok?
The concern is not with one’s own level of superstition, is the way other nutjobs might react. As a loose parallel to the 666 tattoo thing - I won’t put a Darwinfish on my car, because of the reaction it might provoke from some redneck in a pickup truck. Instead, since I’m in a state that doesn’t require front plates, I have a decorative front plate with this image on it:
#/media/File:Darwin_Tree_1837.png)
That’s Darwin’s first sketch of the concept of a tree of life from one of his notebooks. Something that an evolutionary biologist would recognize, but a religious nutjob would not.
I do a lot of work in educational publishing. Different publishers of textbooks and the like often have restrictions on what they will put into their books. For instance, “dice” are referred to as “number cubes,” references to junk food may be barred, can’t use “gun” as a phonics word, birthdays for a couple of publishers are out. I have worked on math programs where we’ve been told to be sure that 666 is not used in a problem, either as part of the question or as the answer. So for some people at least it’s the number in any context, not just those that involve the Beast.
This is not to say that you are wrong about what the Bible says, BTW, just that large enough number of people see it differently–enough so that at least one publisher out there doesn’t want the headaches from dealing with potential fallout from including the question “What is the product of 6 and 111?”