Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

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

1000 replies

mids2019 · 01/08/2026 09:56

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?

LP Baptism

Lily Phillips has been baptised. I pray it's accompanied by change

The baptism of a pornographic actress has caused controversy, but the real question isn't whether Lily Phillips' sins are too great for God's grace - it's whether she truly understands what repentance means, says Lois McLatchie-Miller

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
27
OtterlyAstounding · 11/08/2026 10:52

Parker231 · 11/08/2026 10:48

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.

I'm not disagreeing! Just pointing out that I think liberal Christians who twist and corrupt interpretations of the Bible to fit their changing desires and social norms, aren't really 'real' Christians imo. They're kind of doing everything that God is pretty strongly against.

MrsHubbardhasnoshoe · 11/08/2026 10:55

@Parker231 Navigating all these religious rules and restrictions must make for a depressing time - marking time until you get to their heaven or hell.

Well, that's your cynical view, which you're entitled to have.

mids2019 · 11/08/2026 10:57

MrsHubbardhasnoshoe · 11/08/2026 10:37

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.

Isn't it the case that theological arguments have to be carefully put forward to address which I still maintain is sexism within original biblical text. The p
Position you put forward is more academic but is the direction of travel a more equal inclusive church?

Misogynist may be a strong term non gender equal may be better but the point is can we square the circle of 21st century views of gender equality and homosexuality with biblical text?

I don't think this is at all a trivial question by the way and I accept that maybe this debate is reflected through wider division within the church especially between Catholicism and C of E. I think maybe we reach a point where Catholic and C of E teachings may be too much to successfully keep together in a common structure

My thoughts on sexual sin are that crimes such as rape, CSA, sexual assault, sexual slavery are profoundly greater sins than those sexual sins that do not being harm to others e.g. sex outside marriage, honmosexuality, serial monogamy and even participating in group sex (of course this is perfectly reflected by UK law).

I think both society and God would agree on the above and we have an opportunity to state this within the church and not be tempted to conflate all sexual sin with an ambiguous label of 'sexual immorality'

OP posts:
RedTagAlan · 11/08/2026 11:02

MrsHubbardhasnoshoe · 11/08/2026 10:37

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.

There has been plenty of married Popes, and the Church got a bit fed up with it all. Because the Popes were leaving the wealth of the Church to their kids. And the Papacy was handed down too in many cases.

The Roman Catholics do have married priests today. Previous pasters who have converted. So they come into it being married.

As of 2020, :

"There are around 125 married Roman Catholic priests like Whitfield, an Episcopal convert, across the U.S., experts say, and perhaps a couple hundred total around the world."

Source

Father Josh: A married Catholic priest in a celibate world | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org)

OtterlyAstounding · 11/08/2026 11:02

mids2019 · 11/08/2026 10:57

Isn't it the case that theological arguments have to be carefully put forward to address which I still maintain is sexism within original biblical text. The p
Position you put forward is more academic but is the direction of travel a more equal inclusive church?

Misogynist may be a strong term non gender equal may be better but the point is can we square the circle of 21st century views of gender equality and homosexuality with biblical text?

I don't think this is at all a trivial question by the way and I accept that maybe this debate is reflected through wider division within the church especially between Catholicism and C of E. I think maybe we reach a point where Catholic and C of E teachings may be too much to successfully keep together in a common structure

My thoughts on sexual sin are that crimes such as rape, CSA, sexual assault, sexual slavery are profoundly greater sins than those sexual sins that do not being harm to others e.g. sex outside marriage, honmosexuality, serial monogamy and even participating in group sex (of course this is perfectly reflected by UK law).

I think both society and God would agree on the above and we have an opportunity to state this within the church and not be tempted to conflate all sexual sin with an ambiguous label of 'sexual immorality'

I'm pretty sure that God and society don't both agree that CSA, adultery, sexual slavery, and rape are differing degrees of sinful, as the Bible seems fairly accepting of rape and sexual slavery. And incest. And of course, the Bible is not okay with homosexuality (at least between men, I can't remember if it specifically calls out lesbians).

mids2019 · 11/08/2026 11:08

OtterlyAstounding · 11/08/2026 11:02

I'm pretty sure that God and society don't both agree that CSA, adultery, sexual slavery, and rape are differing degrees of sinful, as the Bible seems fairly accepting of rape and sexual slavery. And incest. And of course, the Bible is not okay with homosexuality (at least between men, I can't remember if it specifically calls out lesbians).

This lies at the crux of a problem with modern religion. It is quite obvious what is legal and not legal in the UK in 2026 with regard to sex and there will no one coming forward to challenge it. It this an opportunity for Christians to look while sale at sexual sins and make some common sense declarations even if they can't be grounded in biblical text to ensure new generations of Christians find it senaible?

OP posts:
MrsHubbardhasnoshoe · 11/08/2026 11:09

@mids2019 I think maybe we reach a point where Catholic and C of E teachings may be too much to successfully keep together in a common structure.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "common structure".

The Catholics have always "paddled their own canoe"

The Anglican Communion have already suffered a schism - baptistnews.com/article/a-house-divided-the-anglican-communions-great-reset/

OtterlyAstounding · 11/08/2026 11:12

mids2019 · 11/08/2026 11:08

This lies at the crux of a problem with modern religion. It is quite obvious what is legal and not legal in the UK in 2026 with regard to sex and there will no one coming forward to challenge it. It this an opportunity for Christians to look while sale at sexual sins and make some common sense declarations even if they can't be grounded in biblical text to ensure new generations of Christians find it senaible?

But then it wouldn't be Christianity anymore - they might as well throw the whole lot out, and give it up as a bad job! Humans can't just change God's laws to suit themselves.

(Obviously, the above is working on the presumption that God exists, which I don't personally believe.)

LinnetsWing · 11/08/2026 11:13

MrsHubbardhasnoshoe · 11/08/2026 10:13

@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.

Edited

The Odyssey wasn’t ‘penned’ by anyone, though, certainly not ‘scholars’. It emerged from an oral tradition, by possibly illiterate reciter poets, who combined inherited material with their own inventions, and it probably wasn’t written down until many years later. And the apostles were almost certainly illiterate, as only a tiny percentage of the population of first-century Palestine would have had any functional literacy, far less in Koine Greek.

mids2019 · 11/08/2026 11:13

MrsHubbardhasnoshoe · 11/08/2026 11:09

@mids2019 I think maybe we reach a point where Catholic and C of E teachings may be too much to successfully keep together in a common structure.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "common structure".

The Catholics have always "paddled their own canoe"

The Anglican Communion have already suffered a schism - baptistnews.com/article/a-house-divided-the-anglican-communions-great-reset/

Coming structure - Maybe I should have said a common region Christianity.

For instance when the Pope met the Archbishop of Canterbury did he regard her a true Christian or would the fact that a woman had been appointed head of the Anglican church cause him to think of her as 'lesser' as he profoundly believes women should not be appointed to leadership roles within his version of the Christian faith?

OP posts:
mids2019 · 11/08/2026 11:17

Parker231 · 11/08/2026 10:48

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.

However......my daughter has to study religion and world views and given the number of religious people on this planet it is still relevant to bring up topics of religion as they impact the lives of people. I wouldn't visit the middle East and start talking about made up religious ruling peronally.

OP posts:
Justmerach · 11/08/2026 11:17

RedTagAlan · 11/08/2026 09:55

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 ".

I have not diagnosed you with anything. I said your writing style has some traits of neurodivergent about it at times, but I wrote you cannot diagnose somebody online. Traits is not a diagnosis.
It might not be right, but based on what you asked, I said how it can come across to me.
Even if you are neurotypical-some people can still stumble taking something literal that was not.

RedTagAlan · 11/08/2026 11:19

mids2019 · 11/08/2026 11:08

This lies at the crux of a problem with modern religion. It is quite obvious what is legal and not legal in the UK in 2026 with regard to sex and there will no one coming forward to challenge it. It this an opportunity for Christians to look while sale at sexual sins and make some common sense declarations even if they can't be grounded in biblical text to ensure new generations of Christians find it senaible?

Is there not something in Parliament now about cousin marriage ?

Some want it to be illegal, others don't. And I recall it is the religious folk who are against it being illegal ? Muslims and Christians. And wealthy too folk too.

In my view it should be illegal. Risk of genetic issues etc.

And I think this is a classic case where some scientists that have influence find their opinion clouded by their religion.

RedTagAlan · 11/08/2026 11:21

Justmerach · 11/08/2026 11:17

I have not diagnosed you with anything. I said your writing style has some traits of neurodivergent about it at times, but I wrote you cannot diagnose somebody online. Traits is not a diagnosis.
It might not be right, but based on what you asked, I said how it can come across to me.
Even if you are neurotypical-some people can still stumble taking something literal that was not.

So none of the bible is to be taken as literal then ?

It is all symbolic ? And what is written does not actually matter ?

Justmerach · 11/08/2026 11:33

RedTagAlan · 11/08/2026 11:21

So none of the bible is to be taken as literal then ?

It is all symbolic ? And what is written does not actually matter ?

There is much scripture in the Bible which isn’t symbolic or poetry..For example there is a thread in the Christian section right now and a forum member wrote that they don’t take the Garden of Eden literally. There is Christians that do and some who don’t.

I was trying to figure this out-I don’t know how they see it.

One could write that the serpent was just evil thoughts that Eve had and take it symbolically and one could say that the serpent was sent by the devil physically. I don’t debate much over it and people can their own views..

The most crucial thing is the core things about the faith. I enjoy much of what is literal about the Bible.

mids2019 · 11/08/2026 11:36

Justmerach · 11/08/2026 11:33

There is much scripture in the Bible which isn’t symbolic or poetry..For example there is a thread in the Christian section right now and a forum member wrote that they don’t take the Garden of Eden literally. There is Christians that do and some who don’t.

I was trying to figure this out-I don’t know how they see it.

One could write that the serpent was just evil thoughts that Eve had and take it symbolically and one could say that the serpent was sent by the devil physically. I don’t debate much over it and people can their own views..

The most crucial thing is the core things about the faith. I enjoy much of what is literal about the Bible.

Edited

Love God. Love one another.

Believe in Christ for eternal life.

To me this is the core of faith which leads the rest to interpretation and debate.

OP posts:
MrsHubbardhasnoshoe · 11/08/2026 11:40

RedTagAlan · 11/08/2026 11:19

Is there not something in Parliament now about cousin marriage ?

Some want it to be illegal, others don't. And I recall it is the religious folk who are against it being illegal ? Muslims and Christians. And wealthy too folk too.

In my view it should be illegal. Risk of genetic issues etc.

And I think this is a classic case where some scientists that have influence find their opinion clouded by their religion.

Is there not something in Parliament now about cousin marriage ?

I don't know, is there?

Some want it to be illegal, others don't.
And I recall it is the religious folk who are against it being illegal ?
Some are.

Muslims Yes and Christians. No

Have a look at the "Table of Kindred and Affinities" in the back of the Book of Common Prayer. It's all set out there.

And wealthy too folk too. Arrant nonsense

Muslims are against it because they 'like to keep the money in the family'.

In my view it should be illegal. Risk of genetic issues etc. I think most people would agree on that.

And I think this is a classic case where some scientists that have influence find their opinion clouded by their religion.
I think you are mistaken

OtterlyAstounding · 11/08/2026 11:43

mids2019 · 11/08/2026 11:36

Love God. Love one another.

Believe in Christ for eternal life.

To me this is the core of faith which leads the rest to interpretation and debate.

But in order to love God, and believe in Christ, first you have to figure out what/who they are, whether they exist, what their values are, and what they expect of you. How can you love something if you don't know what it is?

Also, you have to figure out what's expected of you to get that eternal life (I'm not sure just believing in Jesus is enough).

mids2019 · 11/08/2026 11:47

OtterlyAstounding · 11/08/2026 11:43

But in order to love God, and believe in Christ, first you have to figure out what/who they are, whether they exist, what their values are, and what they expect of you. How can you love something if you don't know what it is?

Also, you have to figure out what's expected of you to get that eternal life (I'm not sure just believing in Jesus is enough).

Doesn't answering your questions lead to contradiction as this thread has shown there are differences between Christian denominations and their interpretations of biblical text. Personally I think it takes theological gymnastics to square the vengeful God of the OF with the all loving God of the NT. Love God and love one another seems a simpler proposition than arguing about the nature of the holy trinity and whether God can be considered thus (are you a Unitarian or a Trinitarian )

OP posts:
Parker231 · 11/08/2026 11:48

MrsHubbardhasnoshoe · 11/08/2026 10:55

@Parker231 Navigating all these religious rules and restrictions must make for a depressing time - marking time until you get to their heaven or hell.

Well, that's your cynical view, which you're entitled to have.

Nothing cynical about it -,we all lead our lives but some of us don’t have to follow religious rules. One less thing to worry about.

RedTagAlan · 11/08/2026 11:50

Justmerach · 11/08/2026 11:33

There is much scripture in the Bible which isn’t symbolic or poetry..For example there is a thread in the Christian section right now and a forum member wrote that they don’t take the Garden of Eden literally. There is Christians that do and some who don’t.

I was trying to figure this out-I don’t know how they see it.

One could write that the serpent was just evil thoughts that Eve had and take it symbolically and one could say that the serpent was sent by the devil physically. I don’t debate much over it and people can their own views..

The most crucial thing is the core things about the faith. I enjoy much of what is literal about the Bible.

Edited

Quote " I enjoy much of what is literal about the Bible."

How about this bit. Literal or symbolic -

Mat 5:22 but I say to you that everyone who is angry at his brother without cause will be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Stupid, will be in danger of the Sanhedrin, and whoever may say, Moron, will be in danger of the Gehenna of fire. (LSV)

Remember, you just posted that you think I am not normal. That something is not right with me.

1Ti 2:12 and I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,( LSV)

Is this literal or symbolic ?

The latter verse has "husband" in it. Switch to KJ and that changes to -

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (NKJ)

Potentially you have broken both of these on this page. So symbolic ?

OtterlyAstounding · 11/08/2026 11:54

mids2019 · 11/08/2026 11:47

Doesn't answering your questions lead to contradiction as this thread has shown there are differences between Christian denominations and their interpretations of biblical text. Personally I think it takes theological gymnastics to square the vengeful God of the OF with the all loving God of the NT. Love God and love one another seems a simpler proposition than arguing about the nature of the holy trinity and whether God can be considered thus (are you a Unitarian or a Trinitarian )

I don't disagree that the God of the OT seems quite different to the God of the NT for the most part, although he gets all vengeful and sadistic again in Revelations. Really though, the biggest differences I recall are that the OT was focused on temple sacrifices and earthly punishments, while the NT was focused on not needing temple sacrifices, and punishing people when they died.

But again, how can you 'love God' if you don't know who he is, and what he believes?

Justmerach · 11/08/2026 12:03

RedTagAlan · 11/08/2026 11:50

Quote " I enjoy much of what is literal about the Bible."

How about this bit. Literal or symbolic -

Mat 5:22 but I say to you that everyone who is angry at his brother without cause will be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Stupid, will be in danger of the Sanhedrin, and whoever may say, Moron, will be in danger of the Gehenna of fire. (LSV)

Remember, you just posted that you think I am not normal. That something is not right with me.

1Ti 2:12 and I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,( LSV)

Is this literal or symbolic ?

The latter verse has "husband" in it. Switch to KJ and that changes to -

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (NKJ)

Potentially you have broken both of these on this page. So symbolic ?

I have written I have not judged you.

About the 2nd scripture, Anna was a holy woman was there and a had a role at Jesus' consecration. There were women who God used for his ministry work and the church has developed from the very early church.
Btw, I don't see myself as an evangelist or a minister.

Well I am a female so it has to be a moral truth in scripture 1 for me and the 2nd scripture I learnt probably at university that was about women who didn't have a ministry role and it was about conflict resolution so the church would run smoothly and people not talk unnecessarily during it. Today I see notices that everyone should stay silent during a service aimed at everyone in some church's who are not ministering.

mids2019 · 11/08/2026 12:12

OtterlyAstounding · 11/08/2026 11:54

I don't disagree that the God of the OT seems quite different to the God of the NT for the most part, although he gets all vengeful and sadistic again in Revelations. Really though, the biggest differences I recall are that the OT was focused on temple sacrifices and earthly punishments, while the NT was focused on not needing temple sacrifices, and punishing people when they died.

But again, how can you 'love God' if you don't know who he is, and what he believes?

Ask a Muslim and a Christian who God's some is and you get different answers with no logical means to say who is right and who is wrong. They both believe in the same God. Jews who believe I. The same God have a different answer again.

is God male or is the concept of gender and sex removed in the celestial sphere? If your life on Earth is important and the way you live it how did Jesus invite condemned crucified thieves to his side in heaven?

Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?

so many questions open up when you start exploring the bible and so may answers effectively given by human interpretation I think there is an argument for a form of Christianity stripped back to the basics.

OP posts:
Parker231 · 11/08/2026 12:12

OtterlyAstounding · 11/08/2026 11:43

But in order to love God, and believe in Christ, first you have to figure out what/who they are, whether they exist, what their values are, and what they expect of you. How can you love something if you don't know what it is?

Also, you have to figure out what's expected of you to get that eternal life (I'm not sure just believing in Jesus is enough).

And which god? Which one is top dog?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.