Interpretive Licence Regarding the 'Mark' of the Beast

Do you believe God would cast a person into the lake of fire for merely accepting an implant? in order to be able to buy food for his family? Would that in itself be any worse morally than having one's ears pierced? or having a titanium splint implanted? And yet the Bible says that all who had been marked by the beast were seen to be cast into the lake of fire.

The Bible explains that it was only those who had worshiped the beast and his image who were 'marked' by the beast. Participating in barcoding, credit cards or chips however, are not indicative that a participant has worshiped someone or his image (statue, idol).

Also, the way the text of the Bible is worded doesn't necessarily have to be taken to mean that anyone made a choice to receive or refuse the mark - the text can be taken to mean that it was the beast who chose who to mark and whom not to mark based on the criteria of whether or not the person was known to be a worshiper of the beast or seen to be a worshiper of his idol. Textually, that meaning is a possibility.

This reinforces that the issue surrounding the 'mark' was worship - literally worshiping a person or his idol. I don't see worship as the criteria today upon which any politician is deciding to issue or not issue microchips. So far, at least.

Also, the way the text of the Bible is worded does not necessarily mean that the mark was functional. It was merely a mark. The mark was of the beast's name or number. The text does not say that the mark distinguished each individual. It does not say that the mark was something functional in and of itself as a chip would be. The only thing the mark distinguished between was between those who had worshiped the beast and those who had not. Beyond that there was no distinguishing capability between individuals. Worshipers were allowed to buy and sell - non-worshipers were discriminated against.

The Book of Revelation also talks about God's mark in people's foreheads. Where's this mark on your forehead? Since God's 'mark' is understood to be figurative, why do we insist that the beast's 'mark' must be literal? The 'beast' himself is after all not literally a beast but it speaks figuratively of a man.

All of this shows that a large degree of interpretive licence is required by those who insist that the modern microchip must be the mark of the beast. It isn't written in the Bible in black and white like many have been led to think that it is.

I'm not saying that degree of interpretive licence shouldn't be taken - I'm only wanting those who take such licence to acknowledge that that is what they are doing - and to concede that an alternative interpretive model might therefore be just as credible as theirs.