Lily Philips - can she be a 'true' Christian?

[mids2019]

https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/lily-phillips-has-been-baptised-i-pray-its-accompanied-by-change/20772.article

This article made me think about what it means to be Christian especially about the concepts of sin, judgment and redemption.

In my view Lily of course is a Christian being baptised but to not give up a lucrative adult film career possibly does cause angst amongst more traditional Christians.

We are taught not to judge 'Let those without sin cast the first stone' and to accept the universal unconditionally of forgiveness. (We pray every day about the forgiveness of sin) so it is difficult thologically to condemn others.

However does any fellow Christian need to remind Lily she makes money from a profession where many women with less choice are coerced and manipulated for thr gratification of men? Wr have moved away from a less judgmental Christianity but how do you view participation in Christian life with such a job?

And it's never the bloke being sexually immoral is it? Does God give a bit of a Lee way for James Bond like players? It seems to me that the BIble suggests the prostitute is a much bigger sinnet than the man visiting the prostitute. Again in 2026 is this a line we can take when it is well recognised prostitutes are often victims themselves?

@OtterlyAstounding but if this is God's word then why didn't he pick a competent writer to pen Revelations? It's just so painfully badly written.

As I understand it Revelation was written in about 90/95 AD and was originally written in Koine Greek a language common in that area at the time. So it will have had several translations into Latin, English and other languages.
So it's not surprising the language is a bit 'clunky'.

Take for example the word "angelus" which is Greek for "messenger". The purpose of these creatures is to carry a message from God to humans.
If you want to get into a discussion about whether they have wings or how many. that's a whole different discussion.

The Church does not have an official stance on who the author is.
The author of the book of Revelation calls himself John (Rev. 1:1; 1:4). The only other clue to the author’s identity is that he states he received his visions while on the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9).
What complicates the matter is that while most accept the tradition that John the Apostle lived until 95, another strand of early Church tradition held that John the Apostle was martyred around the age of 70.
So which tradition someone accepts, will determine if he thinks John the Apostle would have been alive to write Revelation at the end of the first century.

It's ok. You are covered for this.

Mat 5:11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, lie, and say all kinds of evil things about you because of me.

That is the Gods word Bible. It's a blessing if you are challenged .And the Good news Bible has you covered too.

Mat 5:10 "Happy are those who are persecuted because they do what God requires; the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them!

The modern King James is not so clear though.

Mat 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Nor is the Literal Standard version. That is the Bible version I prefer.

Mat 5:10 Blessed those persecuted for righteousness' sake--because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.

Same line, different meanings really. Because the first 2 favour Christians in these discussions/debates/ The latter 2 can be interpreted to favour the person debating for "what is right".

Strongs G1343 is the word causing confusion here.

1343 dikaiosýnē (from 1349 /díkē, "a judicial verdict") – properly, judicial approval (the verdict of approval); in the NT, the approval of God ("divine approval").
1343 /dikaiosýnē ("divine approval") is the regular NT term used for righteousness ("God's judicial approval"). 1343 /dikaiosýnē ("the approval of God") refers to what is deemed right by the Lord (after His examination), i.e. what is approved in His eyes.

Strong's Greek: 1343. δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosuné) -- Righteousness, justice (biblehub.com)

So "Divine approval", or "God's judicial approval".

Would that be the God of the OT, or the new God of the NT ?

@Justmerach ... Acts 5 pops in here after that last line. OT God or NT God. Because acts 5 is a very clear display that it is the OT God in play here. He is doing His good old smiting.

See here. Just the same.

Jos 7:22-26 And Joshua sends messengers, and they run to the tent, and behold, it is hidden in his tent, and the silver [is] under it; and they take them out of the midst of the tent, and bring them to Joshua, and to all the sons of Israel, and pour them out before YHWH. And Joshua takes Achan son of Zerah, and the silver, and the robe, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his ox, and his donkey, and his flock, and his tent, and all that he has, and all Israel with him, and they brought them up [to] the Valley of Achor. And Joshua says, "Why have you troubled us? YHWH troubles you this day!" And all Israel cast stone at him, and they burn them with fire, and they stone them with stones, and they raise up a great heap of stones over him to this day, and YHWH turns back from the heat of His anger, therefore [one] has called the name of that place "Valley of Achor" until this day.

Stone him and burn him because YHWH is angry. Where is the forgiving ? Is this the Divine Approval Jesus means here ?

" It seems to me that the BIble suggests the prostitute is a much bigger sinnet than the man visiting the prostitute."

Well, you have the advantage on me because I haven't seen that suggestion. Where is it ?

I suppose if we have a Jezobel where is the make equivalent in the bible? Where are the heinous male adulterers?I think it is reasonable point to make that women get a worse deal as it comes to sexual sin than men in biblical texts.

When someone was brought to Jesus to get an opinion on stoning to death for adultery it wasn't a bloke was it? Jesus did not give any conditions for women to divorce but if course a man can get rid of his amoral adulterous wife of course. From eating apples to Jezobel I think we can safely say there is a certain amount of sexism in the bible.

Interesting! Thank you for the background. Still, it's just so terribly written, I can't forgive it. Other works from far earlier on (Catullus, for instance, The Art of War, The Odyssey, Lysistrata ) are so, so much better.

Anyway, you'd think God would've done something clever, like inscribing the words himself in some magical language that could be understood by everyone who read it, or something, and making it change to be relevant and engaging to people at every stage of civilised development. He missed a trick, there

Now you have diagnosed me over the internet on a public forum as having "neurodivergent traits", because , Quote :

"You can find it difficult with reading between the lines at times and you tend to take things literally which may be symbolic and you didn't take the Acts 5 in context."

So if someone says 1 + 1 =3, and I disagree, them I am in the wrong. But you have some sort of Gnostic power given to you by an entity in the sky that allows your good self, with the help of lots of pastors and Google, to see how 1 + 1 = 3, in this specific instance (and among many others).

Is that your case ? That the Bible is true no matter what, that whatever is written in it has to be read in a certain way, and that people who disagree " have something wrong with them ".

Tbf, as an ex-Christian I firmly believe that watering Christianity down to 'fit' people's moral sensibilities is worse than not believing at all. People blatantly twist and corrupt a supposedly holy book, and God's word, to better suit people's changing morality, and desires that would've been considered outright sinful. But I'm pretty sure God's morality wouldn't change! I have to think that he meant what he said.

It starts in Genesis. What later became original sin started with Eve. All her fault.

The Bible is clear on that. Although the original sin part never really started til the NT, or thereabouts.

@OtterlyAstounding Still, it's just so terribly written, I can't forgive it.

The Odyssesy and otherbooks of Greek Literature were penned by scholars. that's why they are deemed to be 'Classics'.

John the Apostle, who is possibly credited with writing Revelation was a simple working class guy. A fisherman in fact. It's a wonder he could read and write at all.

None of Our Lord's disciples were really well educated. Matthew was a tax gatherer for the Romans so I suppose he had a reasonable grasp of Maths.

Andrew, Peter, James and John, Thomas, Nathaniel and Phillip, were fishermen. They also employed others. So possibly they understood how to run a small business.

Simon was known as a 'zealot', he spent his time plotting to overthrow the Romans. I guess you could call him a 'professional agitator'.

We are not told what Judas' occupation was.

The Bible provides no information on the professions of Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Thaddaeus or James, the son of Alphaeus

It does provide information about Paul, who became an apostle after the death and resurrection of Jesus. He was a Pharisee and may have taught religion or worked in political office. During his missionary journeys, Paul supported himself as a tent maker according to Acts 18:1-3.

@mids2019 Where are the heinous male adulterers?I think it is reasonable point to make that women get a worse deal as it comes to sexual sin than men in biblical texts.

How about King David ?

https://www.stepswithjesus.com/faith-questions-blog/david-forgiven-murder-adultery

Well, yes, but if I was God, and hoping to have my message read, listened to, and spread far and wide, at the very least I would've converted a passable writer. Some of the Bible is fine, but a good deal of it is just dreadful, and Revelations is particularly egregious. I'm not sure how anyone can take it seriously, either as a non-fictional or fictional text.

Or you can go back to Abraham. The father of the religion.

@OtterlyAstounding Well, yes, but if I was God,

Well you're not, so you're not privy to His reasoning !

Revelations is particularly egregious. I'm not sure how anyone can take it seriously, either as a non-fictional or fictional text.

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to have.

If Christians want to live their lives according to the moral rules of the bible, that’s up to them but they shouldn’t expect the rest of us to.
Sex before marriage and being in a same sex relationship, isn’t a sin.

But you still have the problem that sexual immorality is a hugely vague term and covers heinous crimes like CSA to masturbation or gazing at a woman's breasts longingly. Surely we need to have debate and interpretation on this issue? It would evidently be sensible to have a scale of sexual sin for example as not all sins in this area of equal.

The issues is complicated by the fact that the bible was written in a deeply patriarchal society which in a modern perspective would be ridden with misogyny.

How do we go about unpicking what is truly God's message in this area? For example underage sex is a heinous crime you would agree (between an adult and a minor) but in biblical society a man could marry a child an d consummate the marriage. The concept of sexual sin in my opinion has to reflect what would be considered sin or crime in society. In short there has to human input into the definition of sin.

No.
The father of Judaism.
Jesus was the founder of Christianity.
Don't forget that Islam came from Abraham as well.

Point taken. David and Abraham are held in greater esteem than Jezobel I expect. Hence the need for modern Christians to accept misogyny within the bible and debate how we interpret holy text in modern society.

What on earth could be the reasoning behind getting a terrible writer to pen something so important? It's just plain foolish. But then, frankly, a lot of God's actions and decisions make it excruciatingly clear he was written by not-very-intelligent men from ancient times.

I think if you take the Bible as God's word, then he meant what he (apparently) said through the people who wrote down his word, and you can't really go interpreting it differently based on shifting social mores. A lot of specific sexual behaviours were mentioned to be allowed or sinful in the Bible, and Christians should probably stick to that (although frankly, I'm glad they're not endorsing raping slaves or prisoners of war anymore).

But I think it's all a load of twaddle anyway.

Yes. Because Jesus quoted the OT. He was Hebrew after all. What else was he out preaching if not Judaism?

And yes, I am aware Islam comes from Abraham.

What was it he done ? Pimped his 90 year old wife Sarah out 2 or 3 times to get money. Then impregnated his slave Hagar, and dumped her in the desert when Sarah got pregnant ?

And the religion really got started when he heard a voice telling him to kill his son, and just as he was about to do so, he saw a sheep. So he killed that instead.

The evidence from the NT is that not only did Jesus know this, but that he believed it too.

Well, it is a sin according to Christianity. Which of course, is only an issue if you're Christian.

Not necessarily.

This “misogynistic” Pauline teaching was not repeated by others, and it would fall out of favour as Jesus’ broad message of equality prevailed.

It is true that Paul’s instructions concerning women in churches were later revised, but what some fail to recognize in this is a distinction between doctrine and discipline. Some of Paul’s instructions were merely disciplinary in nature, intended only for a limited time and place, and they would, indeed, change later in Church history.
Doctrines can and do develop over time, but they do not change in the sense that the Church flip-flops on issues. The doctrine that “women cannot be priests in the Catholic Church" is not changeable.

In contrast to the doctrine of male ordination is the often-misunderstood practice of celibacy in the priesthood. It is widely known that, in general, only men who are willing to commit to lifelong celibacy are selected for ordination to the priesthood throughout most of the Catholic Church.
Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine of the Church. To the contrary: It is more accurately described as a discipline. And, as such, it could theoretically change—the Church could choose to ordain married men.

@Parker231 If Christians want to live their lives according to the moral rules of the bible, that’s up to them but they shouldn’t expect the rest of us to.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that at all.

Sex before marriage and being in a same sex relationship, isn’t a sin.

Others may think differently and that is their prerogative.

That’s their problem to worry about - just live your life and don’t hurt anyone else.
Navigating all these religious rules and restrictions must make for a depressing time - marking time until you get to their heaven or hell.