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

Another thing I want to say about the Jacqui Poole case is that you seem to be invested in the fact that the medium, Christine Holohan, was local.

But that doesn't mean anything in itself. You appear to suggest that she could have personally known JP's relatives and friends and acquired information from them - but this is just a possibility and there is no concrete evidence behind it. If any friends of relatives of hers had testified to knowing or meeting Christine, that would be one thing, but none have.

Therefore, the idea that she could have known them or met them is merely that, a could have - a possibility, an assumption, a supposition. Do you think that assumptions/suppositions are a strong form of criticism or attempted "debunking" (I don't personally like that word.)

Guy Playfair and Montague Keen, the Society for Psychical Research investigators who did look into Holohan's alleged mediumship, would surely have found some evidence that Holohan was linked to Jacqui Poole's social circle, if that was the case? Jacqui Poole's relatives and friends have no investment in whether or not Christine was able to get into genuine contact with spirits, so they would have no reason to hide any associaton with her.

A later statement by Montague Keen questions some of Mr Youens' assertions:

The idea that Holohan had received her information from someone not wishing to Iinform the police directly is another good idea blown away by the fact that shewould have had to receive the information from five separate sources who were eitherunknown to one another or mutually hostile, and included the murderer himself! the police would hardly have been ignored of such an elaborate web had it existed.

It also appears that Holohan was not quite as local as Youens thought; Montague Keen said that rather than living ten minutes' walk away from the murder scene, Christine lived over two miles away.

A little more on Jacqui Poole – Michael Prescott's Blog

Michael Prescott's second blog post on the case also quotes Tony Batters (one of the original policemen) as saying:

We were never to find the remotest connection between her and anyone who could have told her all that she seemed to know. In theory, and given enough time and resources, she could have collected much of her information through contact with the actual killer or someone in whom he confided, and with the victim's relatives and friends, and also with Murder Squad officers. I collated every statement and document throughout the 1983-4 investigation. However bizarre the conclusion, the only single source of all her knowledge had to be the victim …
The disclosures to Christine, if 'terrestrial', would have required rapid collusion between many people who were not friends.

Given the above statement, is the suggestion that Holohan acquired her information from all these people (including the murderer, and why would the murderer admit to his crime and tell anyone about it?) really that plausible?

Prescott comments himself at the end:

Holohan also writes:
"I went into the village on Monday morning and overheard two women talking about a young woman by the name of Jacqueline Poole, who had been murdered in the area."

This fact was mentioned in the SPR report, but is worth underlining, as it shows that Holohan made no secret of having heard local gossip about the case. Skeptics, as we have seen, will say that she developed most or all of the information she provided to the police from gossip, but the scope and specificity of what she had to say, as well as the fact that she mentioned details unknown to anyone outside of law enforcement make this explanation unsatisfactory. Moreover, gossip typically includes many untrue claims, but Holohan's testimony to the police was confirmed in 121 out of 130 specific points, with most of the remainder being impossible to prove or disprove, and only one claim, the day of the murder, being demonstrably wrong. It is doubtful that gossip and rumor would yield such a high success rate.

Holohan also conveyed various details unknown to anyone but the murderer: the fact, not known to police until later, that a St. Christopher's medal had been stolen; the fact that the attack began in the bathroom, when police believed the crime had begun in the living room; the fact that the murderer had recently committed insurance fraud; the fact that the murderer had visited Poole's address on an earlier occasion to perform a task; and the fact (presumably unknown to police at this early stage, and not verified until the trial almost twenty years later) that Poole wore three different outfits on the day of her death.

There is another one. Roman Goddesses or something.

I have just went through my posts and cut and pasted them into a word document.

You say " you seem to be invested in the fact that the medium, Christine Holohan, was local.......You appear to suggest that she could have personally known JP's relatives and friends and acquired information from them"

Editing for brevity here, not changing what you mean. Quotes from in bold italics.

No. I am not invested in that at all. I said the Medium was local. This is what I quoted from the debunk site : "Holohan only lived about three miles from the murder scene and and less than one and a half miles from The Windmill pub." (From debunk site)

And I said " If the medium is claiming she gave them what they needed, it was a bit too late, because they already had their suspect. Folk in the pub gave the Police a name 3 days before the medium even called the police. And the medium lived 1.3 miles from the pub."

I am not saying they all knew each other at all. What I am saying if there is a murder on a Friday. Body found on Sunday. Monday the suspect goes to the cop shop to make a statement. On the Tuesday we get :

"Tuesday 15th February 1983: A local Detective Sergeant who acts as "pub liaison officer" makes enquiries at some of the local pubs. Whilst at The Windmill it is suggested to him that the person he should speak to is "Pokie" Ruark. As luck would have it during this visit Ruark entered the pub. The detective then put Ruark into a police car and took him in for questioning. Ruark has scratches on his hands which he later claims was due to coming off his motorcycle." ( I quoted from de-bunk site).

The pub is 1.3 miles from the Medium. The cops pick up the suspect IN THE PUB. IN PUBLIC. PEOPLE SEE IT HAPPEN. THE SAME PEOPLE THAT HAVE JUST FINGERED HIM.

Thursday the Medium calls the cops and says she has info. The cops visit.

It was a local murder. The folk in the fairly local pub to the Medium had fingered the suspect. The cops publicly picked him up in the same pub.

WHY WOULD THE MEDIUM EVEN HAVE TO KNOW ANYONE ?

The suspect was already being talked about locally. And think back to the 80s. What gossip was like (and still is). When I started going to pubs in the late 80s, a couple of miles walk to a popular pub was nothing. I used to walk past loads of pubs to get to a specific one. Still do in fact. ( Or would do, no pubs here).

No friendship/family relations etc needed. It was local.

You quote this next:

"Michael Prescott's second blog post on the case also quotes Tony Batters (one of the original policemen) as saying:

We were never to find the remotest connection between her and anyone who could have told her all that she seemed to know. In theory, and given enough time and resources, she could have collected much of her information through contact with the actual killer or someone in whom he confided, and with the victim's relatives and friends, and also with Murder Squad officers. I collated every statement and document throughout the 1983-4 investigation. However bizarre the conclusion, the only single source of all her knowledge had to be the victim …
The disclosures to Christine, if 'terrestrial', would have required rapid collusion between many people who were not friends."

What knowlege is he talking about here. That should be front and center. But what is it ? What did the medium know that nobody could?

You say "Given the above statement, is the suggestion that Holohan acquired her information from all these people (including the murderer, and why would the murderer admit to his crime and tell anyone about it?) really that plausible?"

What are you talking about ? They could not do him for the murder at the time. He was free till 1999, when they got him from DNA.

And look here where you said this : "Holohan also writes:
"I went into the village on Monday morning and overheard two women talking about a young woman by the name of Jacqueline Poole, who had been murdered in the area.""

So she heard gossip on the Monday. She phoned Thursday. After the suspect had been picked up.

You say this "Moreover, gossip typically includes many untrue claims, but Holohan's testimony to the police was confirmed in 121 out of 130 specific points"

What 130 points ?

we have a St Christopher ( They were very popular in those days).

This bit "the fact that the attack began in the bathroom, when police believed the crime had begun in the living room;"

Show the police notes that say what they first thought. Or are we going by PC Batters ?

And we get stuff like this : "The idea that Holohan had received her information from someone not wishing to Iinform the police directly is another good idea blown away by ...... "

Who even suggested that. They had already picked the suspect up. HE HAD ALREADY BEEN FINGERED BY PEOPLE IN THE PUB.

The last bit is just the old sleight of hand. Introduce a doubt where there is no doubt to deflect from the logic. There is no actual evidence for what is claimed. So scatter sparkle dust all around the edges to distract.

And the suspect had been done/ was being done for insurance ? What, are you really saying that was not in the local gossip pack ?

Why do you dislike Christians so much? Why can't you do what is often said on MN, 'just ignore the post and move past it' or 'hide the thread' ?

I don’t dislike any Christians - I don’t personally know any. I dislike their beliefs and blind acceptance without evidence and proof.

I don't dislike Christians.

Not all of them anyway. Same as I don't dislike many people. I dislike Trump and Farage. That does mean I dislike all conservatives.

The same as you might feel about people who believe in conspiracies e.g. the mRNA Covid vaccine altering one's DNA?

Why can't it just be as if we were talking about politics ?

On the one side we have a political party that wants the earth to be destroyed by some supernatural entity, with all their political opponents thrown into a literal hell for eternity.

On the other side, we have the party of people who don't want that.

The fact that you believe in that, and that we don't, does not really come into it. Same as politics really.

@RedTagAlan

Exactly.

Seeing as you have been very clear that, IYO, that the Bible is a load of tosh, God/god doesn't exist and anyone who thinks differently is deluded, why don't you stop engaging and leave us believers to our 'fantasies'

Obviously it bothers you, otherwise you wouldn't go out of your way to run it down.

I asked you a couple of threads back what you wanted to gain from any involvement with these threads and you said that "you wanted the Christian perspective" or words to that effect.

I can't for the life of me understand why you would want that, when you think it's a load of crap anyway..

You make no sense.

I don't know what issue you have and I'm not going to speculate 🙄

I might agree but you've grossy misrepresented what Christians believe. We don't want the earth to be destroyed and we certainly don't want those who don't believe thrown into Hell. We'd dearly love you all to be saved and no-one at all go to Hell except Satan and his demons.

@RedTagAlan On the one side we have a political party that wants the earth to be destroyed by some supernatural entity, with all their political opponents thrown into a literal hell for eternity.

Where on earth did that crackpot idea come from ?

I don't like the Reform Party. Am I not allowed to pick apart their policies ? Or do I need to be a card carrying member of Reform to do that.

What are you talking about ?

What has the Reform party got to do with Christian beliefs ?

You can pillory any party you want it's called 'free speech'.

I think you are on the wrong thread - try politics.

Where on earth have I misrepresented what ALL Christians believe ?

And yes, I added the "ALL" to that, because there are plenty of Christians who DO pray for their Jesus to come back.

Just because you disagree with them based on how you interpret the same book does not mean they do not believe that.

It's a bit like "moderate" reform voters and full on Austrian Corporal fan boy Reform voters. They are all reform voters. They have the same manifesto in front of them. I am pointing out the problems with the manifesto.

Think of it as a parable.

Oh I pray for Jesus to return, absolutely. He will at the appointed time!

Problems with the manifesto... 🙄

I still can't understand your convoluted logic or how you are trying to juxtapose the two scenarios when you are comparing apples & pears.

The Reform Party is a tangible entity.

Christianity is a belief system.

Do you apply the same cynicism to all religions ?

What happens to the non believers when your Jesus comes back ?

Yes I do. It just so happens that Christianity is the one I know about.

I also debate flat earthers too. And conspiracists in general. See above posts on Mediums.

@RedTagAlan

WHY WOULD THE MEDIUM EVEN HAVE TO KNOW ANYONE ?

Because Tony Batters (one of the policemen) and Montague Keen (one of the SPR researchers who investigated, along with Guy Playfair, to look into whether Christine Holohan could be a case of genuine mediumship) both stated that in order for Holohan to be aware of all of the details that she mentioned, she would have had to be in direct contact with as many as five people. Those are direct statements.

Montague Keen - "she would have had to receive the information from five separate sources who were either unknown to one another or mutually hostile, and included the murderer himself!"

What are you talking about ? They could not do him for the murder at the time. He was free till 1999, when they got him from DNA.

I never said he was done for murder at the time. I'm aware that he wasn't. What I'm saying is that, according to Keen and Playfair's report for the SPR (which is the report Michael Prescott discusses in his initial blog post on the subject) some of the details that Christine gave were only known to the murderer (as well as perhaps the police themselves) at that time. So if we are to accept that Christine had never met the murderer, or accept that even if they had met, he is unlikely to have discussed his crime with her, how would she know those particular details? She could not have got those details from the police; they don't discuss things like that with civilians.

What did the medium know that nobody could?

Christine stated that Jacqui had been attacked in the bathroom. This was very likely to be true, as evidence at the crime scene suggested that the attack had begun in the bathroom. At the time, this would only have been known to the murderer himself, and the police. Again, if we accept that neither the murderer himself or the police disclosed this detail to her (why would they?) how did she know that?

Christine said that JP had changed her clothes twice that day, a fact which was only established later.

Christine said that there were two cups out in the kitchen, one washed, as well as one that had been used for coffee. This was correct, and had not been reported in the press.

What 130 points ?

A quotation from Michael Prescott's initial blog post, in which he discusses the information in Guy Playfair and Montague Keen's report:

"Batters' detailed notes of their conversation indicate that she provided a great deal of information — a total of 130 separate items."

Show the police notes that say what they first thought. Or are we going by PC Batters ?

The notes aren't publicly available.

They had already picked the suspect up. HE HAD ALREADY BEEN FINGERED BY PEOPLE IN THE PUB.

I know. There is no claim that the police spoke to the suspect as a result of Christine Holohan's advice; he had been spoken to as a suspect (though Montague Keen claims that he had been dismissed as a "serious suspect", apparently on the basis of what Batters told him.)

What I am saying is that - according to Michael Prescott's account of Guy Lyon Playfair and Montague Keen's article, in his first blog post - Holohan came out with a number of accurate statements. They are not all listed one by one, as this is only a summary of the article and the conclusions that Keen and Playfair came to. But the accurate statements included a description of the man who later did turn out to be the murderer, as well as that murderer's nickname. A description of the crime scene - "According to Playfair and Keen, her description of the murder was extremely graphic and (as best anyone can determine through scientific reconstruction of the crime) factually accurate down to the smallest detail."

Holohan also gave Andrew Smith, one of the other policemen, specific information about himself:

She said he [Smith] had recently received a letter about essential electrical work, as indeed he had, from a Building Society telling him that he would have to get the house he hoped to buy rewired if he wanted a mortgage. She said he was about to be transferred to another station, which he thought very unlikely – until he was informed of his pending transfer only days later. Firstly, however, she made a remark which must have been unnervingly accurate. Batters told us that "to my dying day I could not disclose what she said. It was quite extraordinary with detail."

How would Holohan have known that this policeman was about to be transferred to another station? This was something that the policeman in question did not know, she it's not something he could have inadvertently given away himself.

Since you appear to accept that Holohan did not personally know Jacqui Poole, the murderer, or any of JP's friends or relatives, you seem to be of the opinion that it is more likely that Holohan acquired all of the information she had from local gossip. Is that a correct assessment of what you think?

I am not convinced that all of the details could have come from either local gossip or guessing.

Yes!! There’s nothing cynical about it

Good.
That's an even handed approach then.🙂

So you would challenge any Sikh, Hindu, Moslem, Taoist, Confucist, Spiritist, Jewish person, Caodaist, Shinto, Bahai or Jain that had the temerity to put their head above the parapet on this board ?

Yes - any religion

Nothing - we just carry on as we always done so. Why change what works so well