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?

@RedTagAlan

When did I ever say that this was "earth shattering evidence?"

I never once said that. All I said was that it is a form of evidence, which it is.

I made no objective statements regarding the strength or the quality of the evidence. I personally find it convincing, but others can make their own assessment, and if they are unconvinced, so be it.

He did approve of slavery and rape. You can't tell me that the all-powerful creator, who literally flooded the earth when people annoyed him, couldn't tell his followers not to take slaves or rape women.

In Exodus, and in Deuteronomy, and Leviticus, it says that non-Israelites could be permanently enslaved, slaves are explicitly said to be their master's property, to be able to be raped, and a master who hurts his slave badly enough that the slave dies will only be punished if the slave dies instantly, not if he or she takes several days to die.

A man may sell his daughter into slavery, non-Israelite women whose husbands have been killed in war could be taken as slaves and raped by the man who murdered her husband, while a man who raped a non-betrothed virgin would then be 'forced' to buy her to rape in perpetuity.

God approved of all this when he didn't have to. He could've told them 'women are equal to men in my eyes, and should never be raped. If a woman is raped, she shouldn't be forced to marry her rapist. People should never be forced into enslavement, or kept in servitude against their will, as all people are equal. I will punish anyone who doesn't follow these rules.' Etc, etc.

But he didn't. God - the all-powerful, all-knowing creator who knows everything we're going to do before we do it - is, unfortunately, less moral than the average westerner in 2026. That's pretty pathetic, really.

Whereas ol' Satan...well, he never actually did anything cruel or immoral as far as I know, aside from his dealings with Job - which God dared/challenged him to do. Not nice, but still nicer than God saying, 'hey, just ruin this guy's life so I can get an ego boost out of how faithful he is'. Ew.

Fair enough. So you are taking it as evidence.

@RedTagAlan

Well, it is evidence. Credibility and/or good quality are not requirements for something to be defined as 'evidence'. Evidence can be weak, flawed, or faulty.

My contention is that forms of evidence (both anecdotal and experimental) exist for the afterlife. My subjective take on it is that certain forms of evidence are quite strong and compelling. But that is my personal view, I am not saying that this is an objective fact with which everyone must agree. I will debate/question criticisms of the evidence which I have reason to think are not entirely fair or justified, but I have never said that the evidence equates to proof beyond doubt, nor do I think I have generally made dogmatic statements about the nature/quality of the evidence as a whole. I think I've tried to be clear that I am speaking from a subjective, personal assessment.

Basically, the main crux of my point is that evidence does exist. I haven't said that it is all objectively and unquestionably of high quality; I am simply saying that it exists and whether someone views it as strong, credible, of good quality, or convincing depends entirely on the individual and the standards of evidence that they accept.

@Moros

I don't think the onus is on the people making the notes to show that cold reading didn't happen. That's requiring that they prove a negative, which many sceptics say is not possible (I'm not sure if it always is completely impossible to prove a negative in every situation, but the general point stands) - sceptics often say "you can't prove a negative.")

If someone is making a claim that cold reading took place (or may have taken place) - then that is a positive claim of its own, and the responsibility surely lies with the person claiming it to provide sufficient evidence that it took place.

I will take some time to think over this over the next few days. I wanted to add though some people in servitude where they not criminals? I believe in a just criminal system. If someone has committed a crime what is the difference to being in a prison on a sentence to being taken as a servant by your victim ? I know they had Lex Talions but some of these servants had committed crimes to.

@OtterlyAstounding You still haven't answered the fact that God approves of slavery and rape.

Let's take slavery first.

St. Paul exhorts Philemon to grant freedom to his slave Onesimus. In a key passage of the letter, Paul says:
"Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me
(letter to Philemon)

It’s true that Paul doesn’t use the phrase, “Christians don’t own people,” but he doesn’t have to say that to teach that slavery is no longer acceptable. It is plain from his teaching here, as well as in his other letters, that Christ has ushered in a law of love and that Christians ought to live by that love in how the treat others.

“Slavery” in the Old Testament context does not mean what most people today, (especially in America with the evils of slavery in its not-too-distant past) have in mind. There are at least three different ways to use the term.

1. There is the “chattel slavery” that most people call to mind, which involves forcing people into service indefinitely, unwavering cruelty, and the reduction of people to mere property. Although this was common in the African-American slave trade (and gravely wrong),* it’s not what the Old Testament describes. *
2. Old Testament slavery commonly refers to a process of indentured servitude that the poor and destitute (or those with enormous debts) would make use of temporarily. They could “sell themselves” as servants (“slaves”) to pay off a debt or obtain sustenance for themselves and their families in a time and place with no government benefits available. Although this type of “slavery” is a hard thing to experience, it is not intrinsically wrong.
3. Sometimes “slavery” refers to penal servitude in which where wrongdoers are punished with forced labour. This is also not wrong in itself (even today, some criminal punishments include “community service”), although depending on circumstances it may not always be prudent.

Have you considered that the word slave or servant can be understood in several ways?” In the Old Testament it usually refers to indentured servitude.

Jesus said to forgive.

Unless you try to de-convert a Christian. Then it is drowning for you.

How can you believe in prison when Jesus said to forgive ?

I do think that there's a difference between criminals being enslaved and ordinary people, yes. But I'm still not sure that makes criminals being enslaved to their victims appropriate. Given that, at the time, survival was much more difficult to achieve and supporting criminals within a prison the way we do now might have been impossible, it would be better to have them imprisoned by the local government, and working for their keep and for the good of society. So slavery, sort of, but done without malice, and without the kind of intense emotional involvement the victim would have.

For me, rape and the treatment of women is a far bigger stumbling block, however. Even if the Christian God were 100%, undeniably real, I would not be willing to worship or follow a being who is less moral than I am - and I just haven't seen or read anything that implies he's morally superior. In fact (and it might sound silly) I think I could teach him a thing or two about being a better parent, a better creator, and a more all around decent person.

@RedTagAlan

I would say that the fact that the medium was local is not evidence in itself that she acquired the information by other means. Just because someone is local doesn't mean that they are aware of anyone/everyone in their area, and it's not evidence that they are exposed to any gossip that may be going around.

Some of the information that Holohan provided would have required her to be in personal contact with people known to Jacqui Poole - and the police found no evidence that this was the case.

The idea that Holohan could have acquired this information from local gossip (which Michael Prescott does, later in the blog post, point out that the sceptics suggested - so while he does not explicitly make the point about Holohan's locality himself, when read as a whole, his blog post does acknowlege that Holohan was local to the area) - or from family/friends/associates of Jacqui Poole - these ideas are possibilities, suggestions, assumptions and speculations. They are not objectively factual, verified statements in themselves.

That is not to say that they are impossible, but do speculations and suggestions qualify as a strong argument against the mediumsghip hypothesis? (In this case, speculations and suggestions for which the police themselves found no evidence.)

If they qualify as a strong argument for you, then fair enough. But I do not personally view them as a strong enough argument.

Quote " Some of the information that Holohan provided would have required to be in personal contact with people known to Jacqui Poole - and the police found no evidence that this was the case."

The Police were not investigating the medium. The medium made a claim, and a local copper said he had talked to her and she seemed to know some stuff.

So then you say " and the police found no evidence that this was the case."... no. Just no. Not unless you have documented evidence that the police were investigating every claim the medium made.

It's like the pet elephant I keep in my kitchen. The Police have no evidence that I have a pet elephant in my kitchen. Because they are not investigating it.

“If a man has sexual relations with a woman who is a slave, designated for another man but not ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held. They shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed, 21 but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord, at the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram as guilt offering." Leviticus 19:20-22

“When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave declares, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,’ 6 then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him for life." Exodus 21:2-11

"Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior." Titus 2:9-10

“When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property." Exodus 21:20-21

"The Lord has greatly blessed my master, and he has become wealthy; he has given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, male and female slaves, camels and donkeys." Genesis 24:35

"And the nations will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess the nationsa] as male and female slaves in the Lord’s land; they will take captive those who were their captors and rule over those who oppressed them." Isaiah 14:2

"When you go forth to battle against your enemies... and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire her, and would take her to you as wife... after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife." Deuteronomy 21:10-14

I mean, it's pretty clear. That's immoral behaviour. Hugely immoral behaviour. And God endorsed it.

I thought Christians didn’t approve of sex before marriage?

Ah, well, it seems it's okay as long as the woman doesn't belong to another man, it's rape, and the man either owns the woman as property (via capturing her or purchase), or buys her to take as permanent rape property afterwards (marriage).

Very ethical behaviour! I can definitely see why we should worship the fellow in favour of this 🙄

A Jewish Rabbi of a local synagogue recommend the Chabad website to me to understand more about Jewish law. To understand Jewish law it is best to understand the Talmud to as well. This link shows that there was no compulsion to marry a rapist. I know you can almost become obliged to do what others are doing. I doubt it is well practised today by modern day Jews. The society was markedly different than what we know today.
www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1940448/jewish/Does-the-Torah-Punish-a-Rape-Victim.htm

Quote "I mean, it's pretty clear. That's immoral behaviour. Hugely immoral behaviour. And God endorsed it."

Nope. God did not endorse it. He ORDERED it.

This is Mosaic law. These are the laws God gave to Moses. The same God that Christians worship.

But it doesn't actually say there was no compulsion to marry her rapist. Besides such a law is sickening anyway - any woman being forced to choose to marry the man who raped her as that's the 'less bad' option is not the law of a moral god.

A good law would be (off the top of my head), "A woman who has been raped is not defiled or ruined in any way - the shame and dishonour lie solely with the man who forced himself on her, who will have to give her all his worldly possessions, and be exiled into the desert to beg forgiveness from the Lord" or something like that.

Also, considering a father could literally sell his daughter into slavery, do you really think she would have much of a choice in the matter? She's been raped, now no one else will want to marry her, her father doesn't want to have to support her forever... so of course she'd be forced into it.

It's disgusting.

Thank you for the correction! And that's even worse! I just don't understand how people can consider the Christian God worthy of worship, given all the information they have about him.

The New Testament is clear criminal justice should be dealt with the governments A sentence should be humane and . Christianity doesn't mean that a criminal has to go free in the law. The UN is a good framework to use.
What is personal is different to what is public like justice for a criminal.

Why on earth would anyone forgive? You hurt me or my family I’d never forgive. If someone had injured or killed my DC’s I would never forgive and hunt them down.

Here's your answer here - https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html

Yup. This is a continuation of the 10 commandments. The first 10 that he wrote in stone before the Golden calf thing. You know, where he killed 3000 Hebrews.

Except Aaron of course, His brother who organized the golden calf.

In fact. Aaron is interesting. Because at the start of Exodus, Moses has a speech problem. So Aaron is to do the talking. But he only does it once. After that the speech issue is forgotten about. Then Aaron does the calf. If not killed, but promoted to top priest. So he is put in charge of the tabernacle and all the gold etc. And he gets to eat all the BBQ left over from the burnt offerings.

And it is an inherited job. Aaron and all his MALE descendants are sorted.

Nice work if one can get it.

ETA, Forgot to mention all the captured virgins they get to keep as slaves/wifes to produce male offspring from. The daughters can be sold if not needed.

What a life eh. And all ordered by their God who they carry around in a wooden box after they scooped him from a volcano.

Yes, that is Mosaic Law. OT rules along with "an eye for an eye"

But Jesus gave us another law "to love one another". That supersedes the OT stuff.

John 13:34-36

Worldwide English (New Testament)

34 I give you a new law. That law is, "Love each other." As I have loved you, so you also love each other.
35 This is how all people will know that you are my disciples.'
36 Simon Peter said to him, Lord, where are you going?' Jesus answered him, You cannot go with me where I am going now. Later on you will go with me.'

The same God that Christians worship.

Err no, the God that the Jews worship/ped

@OtterlyAstounding I just don't understand how people can consider the Christian God worthy of worship, given all the information they have about him.

But you aren't talking about the Christian God are you?

You're talking about the bloody and vengeful God of the OT who teaching was superseded by Christ's instruction to "love one another".

@RedTagAlan And all ordered by their God who they carry around in a wooden box after they scooped him from a volcano.

What sort of arrant nonsense is that?
Are you OK ?