Mystery of the Woman and the Beast of Rev. 17

Originally posted by googlefudge
Also, depending on what the 'religious' song in question is, it might well be uncomfortable to sit through for the minority who are not of that faith (or any faith).

And it doesn't take much difference to start bullying campaigns that are hugely damaging to kids.

I'm sure that most high school talent shows will produce plenty of performances that will be most uncomfortable to sit through. 😛

Part of living in a secular society that grants everyone freedom of speech and religion is that everyone has to tolerate those whose beliefs or habits are different from your own. This means that everyone has to find a way to be at peace with those people whose beliefs make them feel "uncomfortable". (On the other hand, I agree that this also means that everyone has to learn how to refrain from bullying those with whom they disagree.)

But why would it be uncomfortable for you to merely sit through someone's performance of a religious song?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not see why muslim men and women need to cover their face if they have nothing
to hide.

And non-Christians do not see why a school girl needs to wear a rosary on the outside of her clothes. Both are traditions that are tied quite strongly to the religion, but neither is considered a religious requirement by most members of the religion. However, girls covering their hair is taken much more seriously by Muslims than Catholics wearing visible rosaries is by Christians.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And non-Christians do not see why a school girl needs to wear a rosary on the outside of her clothes. Both are traditions that are tied quite strongly to the religion, but neither is considered a religious requirement by most members of the religion. However, girls covering their hair is taken much more seriously by Muslims than Catholics wearing visible rosaries is by Christians.

I have no problem with girls covering their hair if they wish. It is the masking
or the face by both Muslim men and women that I am against.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have no problem with girls covering their hair if they wish. It is the masking
or the face by both Muslim men and women that I am against.

But your reasons are not particularly valid. Certainly no more valid than the reasons for not allowing overt displays of religious symbols at school especially when the dress code is fairly strict.
The real question is why you feel justified in objecting, whilst simultaneously accusing others of trying to stop you from practicing your faith by asking you not to wear your rosary on display at school.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But your reasons are not particularly valid. Certainly no more valid than the reasons for not allowing overt displays of religious symbols at school especially when the dress code is fairly strict.
The real question is why you feel justified in objecting, whilst simultaneously accusing others of trying to stop you from practicing your faith by asking you not to wear your rosary on display at school.

The wearing of rosary beads or crosses does not hide the identity of the
individual like masking the face does.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The wearing of rosary beads or crosses does not hide the identity of the
individual like masking the face does.

I have to agree with RJHinds (and you know how that makes me feel) that there is a difference
in practical terms between someone wearing religious iconography and wearing clothing that
completely shrouds your identity.

They may both in certain circumstances be objectionable, but it is possible to draw a distinction
between them.

I personally object to the underlying psychology of women being forced or pressured into wearing
clothing that covers the face in public (not counting for practical reasons due to the cold for example).

It isn't healthy to promote the idea that women have to shroud themselves from head to foot
lest they arouse the passions of any men who happen to be around.
The men should bloody well learn to control themselves and learn how to interact with women
on an equal basis.

The idea that women be forced to walk around in their own mobile tents is inherently and implicitly
sexist and bigoted.
And I have no problem with the idea of stamping it out, religious freedoms be damned.

Then again this country has a state religion and doesn't have a constitution guaranteeing freedom
of religion to legally complicate matters. (we have other things that legally complicate matters but
that is a different story)

Originally posted by googlefudge
I have to agree with RJHinds (and you know how that makes me feel) that there is a difference
in practical terms between someone wearing religious iconography and wearing clothing that
completely shrouds your identity.

Except you have totally different reasons for your objection.
RJHinds associates covering your face with being a robber or terrorist and as such he feels insecure around people hiding their identity. You on the other hand want to protect the wearer from what you see as a tradition or custom that is forced on them (and you want to forcibly take it away from them - interesting).

So what would people say if a student insisted on wearing a nose ring, or getting a facial tatoo or orange hair, and announced that as a Satanist it was part of their religious tradition and an expression of their religion?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except you have totally different reasons for your objection.
RJHinds associates covering your face with being a robber or terrorist and as such he feels insecure around people hiding their identity. You on the other hand want to protect the wearer from what you see as a tradition or custom that is forced on them (and you want to forcibly take it away fr ...[text shortened]... that as a Satanist it was part of their religious tradition and an expression of their religion?

I was mainly agreeing that the two were not equivalent but I take your point.

My position is slightly more complex than you (or my post) made out.

I would be delighted if traditions such as the requirement for headdresses for women as a sign of 'modesty' ceased
to be along with the attitudes that go with them. (note all these... http://www.talesoftheveils.info/dictionary/dictionary_l.jpg
I would include in this)

However I also appreciate it much as I would like it I can't wave a magic wand and make them and the attitudes go away.

Forcibly attacking such 'traditions' is likely to make matters worse not better.

That said there are certain situations where it is in my opinion perfectly reasonable and justified in banning some if not all of
those headdresses.

For example in school, or airports although for different reasons.


As for more generally, There is plenty of evidence that school uniforms are hugely beneficial to helping learning in schools and
reducing bullying. I have no problem with items of jewellery, or non-standard clothing being banned for pragmatic as well as
ethical reasons.
The question of things like tattoo's or dying ones hair is slightly more complicated.
As people die their hair anyway, for all kinds of reasons, and you certainly can't have a dress code that forces people to only
have a certain hair colour then I don't see why people can't die their hair whatever colour they want for whatever reason.
Although you could possibly argue for banning non-natural colours, although quite where you draw the line...

However it's different if they are boarding and the school has assumed parental responsibility during term time, then they
can say no until they go back home for the holidays when their parents can decide.

Tattoo's are more complicated, and questions of age, and type of tattoo and location of tattoo come into play.
I don't think kids below a certain age should be allowed to get tattoo's anyway, they are not yet old/mature enough to make
a decision that will affect them (effectively) permanently.


However in any/all those judgements my guiding policy would not include considering whether it was a religious tradition.
I don't care if it's a religious (or non-native cultural) tradition, that's not a concern I would take into account or think should be
taken into account.


I would happily destroy all religions and their prejudices and irrationalities, I just don't think it's possible or moral to do it by force.
Education and improved living and social conditions would likely do a lot of the work, and has the benefit that it involves convincing
those effected to change themselves rather than try to impose change on them.
It also has a track record of actually working. Unfortunately it's also glacially slow.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Interestingly historically Muslims treated Christians and Jews in their lands much better than Christians
treated Jews or Muslims in theirs.

Not only is this a commonly believed myth, but it is patently untrue.

Cite your sources.

And then speak about how the Muslims treated the returning Muslims who they recalled from the new land of Israel in the late 40's.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not only is this a commonly believed myth, but it is patently untrue.

Cite your sources.

And then speak about how the Muslims treated the returning Muslims who they recalled from the new land of Israel in the late 40's.

Spain is a good example. Muslim Cordoba was a place of tolerance and thriving civilization. Spanish Iberia was a place of the Inquisition and expulsion of Sephardic Jews (who fled to Muslim Turkey where they were treated well).

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not only is this a commonly believed myth, but it is patently untrue.

Cite your sources.

And then speak about how the Muslims treated the returning Muslims who they recalled from the new land of Israel in the late 40's.

For those of us who live in countries that actually have history, we can consider events
before the last couple of centuries. ;-p

I was referring to the time of the crusades, where the Islamic world was ahead in matters
of science and medicine.

A good way to understand the Harlot is to know that she is the antithesis of the woman the New Jerusalem which is said to be the Bride and the Wife of Christ.

So immediately you see that here is another woman that Christ does not acknowledge as His Wife or Bride. He does not acknowledge her legitimacy as His Spouse. But she seems to have the facade of that relationship. Apparently, there is a relationship between the Harlot and Christ. But it is not one which God acknowedges as legitimate.


I would draw your attention to 17:4 - "And the woman was clothed in purple and scarlot, and gilded with gold and precious stone and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the unclean things of her fornication."

Gold, precious stone, and pearls are also elements spoken of in connection with the New Jerusalem (21:18-19,21), the Bride and Wife of Christ. So this Woman, this Harlot has something which the Wife of Christ also has.

The gold signifies the divine nature of God. But this Harlot is not built in a solid way with gold. She is "gilded" with gold as an ornamment for outward display. The outward display of gold is for deception.

There is a display of men and woman who have actually partaken of the divine nature of God. So we cannot say that the saints of God have nothing to do with the Harlot. But she is only lightly gilded on the surface with gold for a facade and a deceptive display.

" ... and gilded with gold and precious stone and pearls ..."

Likewise, precious stones are also mentioned in connection with the New Jerusalem. They adorn the walls and are a solid constituent of the city's construction. But in the Harlot they are only lightly gilded. The principle is the same. What the New Jerusalem has in a solid and substantial way the Harlot also has but only in a superfiscial way of a outward facade.

Gold represents the divine nature of the Father.
Precious stones represent the transforming work of the Holy Spirit.
And pearl represents the redemptive work of the Son.

Gold, precious stone, and pearls then speak of the work of the Triune God to produce a corporate expression of redeemed, regenerated, and transformed human beings built up to be the counterpart and wife of Jesus Christ - New Jerusalem.

These elements which are so solidly a part of the Wife of Christ as also displayed lightly, in a gilded way on the Harlot. She can boast that she does have something of the Father's divinity. She can boast that she does afterall have some spiritual Christians associated with her. And she can boast that she is not completely without the redemptive work of Christ.

This is the Harlot as approaching what the New Jerusalem is. But God does not acknowledge her as the true Wife. Rather she is the Harlot so closely and illicitly involved with the worldly rulers.

The entire New Jerusalem is mountain of transparent gold.
Her gates are twelve pearls.
And her walls are adorned with twelve kinds of precious stones.

The Harlot is "gilded" with these elements as an outward deception, an enticement and a false appearance. We cannot say that saints of God are not within her. We have to say that they are GILDED upon her for an advertizement to entice people into the counterfeit spouse of Christ.

The Wife of the Redeemer Christ, the Lamb, is a golden mountain city. This means the climax of Christ's salvation is a "city" (that is people not buildings) which is saturated with the divine nature of the Father, the gold.

The golden cup of the Harlot, by contrast, is a cup filled with "abominations and the unclean things of her fornication".

In figure, gold signifies the divine nature of God. The golden cup of the Harlot indicates that in outward appearance the apostate church does have something of God. But within, her "golden cup" is full of things which are an abomination to God, things which are "unclean" being of her idolatry, pagan practices, dark satanic things, and heretical relationships. The apostate church, the illegitimate harlot, posing to be the wife of Christ, has certain holy things. She does have some things of God. But they are in an evil mixture.

This is what one should understand in Revelation 17:4 - " ... the woman ..having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the unclean things of her fornication."

This means MIXTURE of something genuinely of God with many pagan and spiritually unclean things. This mixed drink intoxicates the people of the nations into a drunken stupor -

"For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the fury of her fornication ..." (18:3a)

" ... Fallen, fallen is Babylon the Great, who has made all the nations drink of the fury of her fornication!" (14:8)

" ... and those who dwell on the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication." (17:2)

The mixture of the things of God with the pagan, heretical, demonic, satanic, and deeply political things have made the partakers of her drink, drunken. This is a drunkeness to spiritual reality through the dilution and mixture of the truth of God with lies. This mixture is delivered to the world's people in a "golden cup" which is nevertheless related somewhat to God's divine nature. But the contents are a stupifying beverage and not the pure river of water of life of the Holy Spirit.

"And the woman was clothed with purple and scarlet ..." (17:4)

Purple signifies dignity with authority (John 19:2-3) The color purple is a blending of blue color and red. The blend may signify the blending of heavenly things (blue) with earthly things (red). The apostate churches appearance is a royal purple resulting from man attempting to mix heavenly things with earthly things of the fallen man.

"And the woman was clothed with purple and scarlet ..."

Scarlet, dark red, is characteristic of the apostate church. Scarlet color is found in many places in the Vatican. The most striking use of it is in the garb of the cardinals.

Originally posted by jaywill
The Wife of the Redeemer Christ, the Lamb, is a golden mountain city. This means the climax of Christ's salvation is a "city" (that is people not buildings) which is saturated with the divine nature of the Father, the gold.

The golden cup of the Harlot, by contrast, is a cup filled with [b]"abominations and the unclean things of her fornication".

e Vatican. The most striking use of it is in the garb of the cardinals.[/b]

Do you relate this woman on the beast as Vatican City and the Holy See?

http://wikitravel.org/en/Vatican

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you relate this woman on the beast as Vatican City and the Holy See?

http://wikitravel.org/en/Vatican

Yes. (But I did not yet visit the website. So I cannot express an opinion on that site one way or another now).

The Roman Catholic Church must be the woman in chapter 17. In chapter 18 it is more the city of Rome.

Having said that, it would be too superfiscial to not recognize that the characteristics of this woman are more than organizational. She represents something which is in our blood, so to speak.

In other words, you may leave Babylon the Great but Babylon will not leave you so easily. You may separate yourself from the Harlot, as all of her "daughers" have done. But those who come away from her, who come out from her, are not that easily free from carrying with them the same errors.

The Mother of Harlots has spawned off many other entities like herself. These would be all the divisions and denominations of Protestantism. Many of which have carried on in one way or another errors originated in the Mother - the Roman Catholic Church.

She is something in the flesh. She is something in the fallen religious nature of man. We may leave her but she will not leave us that easily. And transformation is the only sure escape from her errors.


"Come out of her My people" (Rev. 18:4) surely indicates that the multitudes of genuine children of God, regenerated, justified, and redeemed are CAUGHT in the system, in the degradation.

This should be thought similar to the Jews being carried away from the Good Land into captivity in Babylon.