4 ms·

yeah, I'm confused what belief is held such that you can't be fingerprinted. My initial searching for what that might be is mostly "Mark of the Beast". Which

• slapfrog 5y ago
  The whole of Revelations is certainly odd, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of people from finding some interpretation of it they can believe in. That some people might interpret it to be a warning against biometrics doesn't strike me as particularly odd, relative to the oddness of other beliefs derived from [or justified using] this book.
• sigzero 5y ago
  Fingerprinting could not in any way be interpreted as the "mark of the beast" because there is no mark put on the person during fingerprinting. So that wouldn't stand any scrutiny. Religious or otherwise.
  • amateurICEguy 5y ago
    You have to be careful when you interpret a religious passage. For starters you don't (do you?) speak the original language, so you're at the mercy of the translator for the term "mark" But, going more meta, most religious traditions don't have a strict textual interpretation of their texts. Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Of course then the "fingerprint" mark would have to be compatible with the rest of Revelations.
    • Dylan16807 5y ago
      > Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. Citation needed. > It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Adding an identifier, perhaps. But to interpret that passage to refer to taking pictures or imprints? That is unreasonable.