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?

That's interesting.
Unfortunately, none of the aforementioned want to discuss anything here.

So. Quote :

"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?"

And was she first attacked in the bedroom ?

Because to tie that up, it would need notes from 1983, and the 2001 trial. Sorry, I said '99 before.

I just had a quick look if there are transcripts for her trial. No joy my web. But it turns out Poole was a barmaid at a "whispers" nightclub.

And there is this.

"Anthony Ruark, now aged 40, became a prime suspect following the death of his lover, 25-year-old Jacqueline Poole, in February 1983."

"She was discovered, half-naked, in the living room of her flat in Ruislip, north west London. She had been sexually assaulted, beaten and strangled with a bathroom light cord."

"Despite being deeply suspicious of Ruark's alibis police were unable to pin the crime on him because of a lack of evidence."

"The court heard that that she had worn lots of jewellery, including several rings on each finger. Mr Boyce said much of her jewellery had been taken.

"The defendant knew she had jewellery. He was her lover for a period."

Source :

Ruislip Online | Murder In Ruislip of Jackie Pool

There is this too.

DNA traps murder suspect 18 years on (telegraph.co.uk)

I just got a free look at that site, now it has lock up, Telegraph end.

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

Where is that documented ? In any case, she was a barmaid. Hardly rocket science to work out someone changes to work in a nightclub ( I thought it was 3 changes of clothes earlier)

Quote " The notes aren't publicly available.". Handy that.

Quote "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."

Handy that. So where is the list of 130 items ? In the book the Medium wrote ?

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

Nothing to do with the case at all.

The teacup stuff is really "so what" Go into any kitchen and count the cups.

Quote "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?"

Well now I have another bit of info I did not have before. Poole was a barmaid. I don't know where Whispers Nightclub is, but there is a good chance she was locally known.

And the killer was her boyfriend. That was not in your case files.

@SorcererGaheris

Sorry. I had missed the nightclub waitress bit from an earlier link I have posted.

"According to Tony Batter's comments two people were due to take Jacqui to her new temporary bar job at Whispers Night Club and called for her at 7:45pm. Also according to the same notes the father of her boyfriend didn't leave until 8:05pm and thus may have known about the earlier callers. Either because he was there or because she told him afterwards. Again, did he mention this to anyone else"

This is what I believe and was taught - other Christians may differ!

Jesus and his angelic army return to fight several battles, culminating at Armageddon where the armies of the Antichrist are massed, poised to destroy Israel once and for all. The remnant of Israel will be beseiged by those forces. Those in the army of the Antichrist will have taken the mark of the beast and as such are irredeemable, because they have pledge allegiance to Satan. This army will be slaughtered along with the Antichrist. A worldwide blackout and massive earthquake will mark the end of the battles and the great Tribulation.

The Antichrist and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire. For the next 1,000 years, (the Millennial Kingdom period) they are the only two occupants of the lake of fire. Satan meanwhile is cast into the Abyss (another area of Hell) to be bound there for 1,000 years, along with his fallen angels (demons).

Those who survive the Tribulation period will be gathered for judgment and this judgment will be based on whether they are pro or anti semitic (did they aid the Jews during the Tribulation when they were persecuted?) This is the Sheep and Goats judgment. After that the dead OT saints are resurrected as well as all the Church saints, and they will live in the Millennial Kingdom for 1,000 years. The topic of the Millennial Kingdom is huge so not going into any of that.

The Great White Throne judgement takes place at the end of the 1,000 years after Satan has been loosed from the Abyss and will come out to deceive the nations - there will still be unbelievers at this time. Again another army forms but is defeated and Satan is sent permanently to the lake of fire. This leaves only death as the last enemy of mankind (up till this point death is still possible amongst the unresurrected). At the confinement of Satan death is finally abolished. The Great White Throne judgement takes place, all whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of life are saved. The rest are judged based on their works and these works determine punishment meted out. In order for this judgement to happen the second resurrection (that of dead unbelievers) must take place. This is where the lake of fire comes in, but I don't know where the levels of punishment fit in to that nor what they are.

So you see this is a very short version of a long and quite complex series of events. As I'm heading off to Church now this will be my final post of the day.

Mat 16:28 Truly I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who will not taste of death until they may see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (LSV)

Looks like it has already happened. Unless there are 2200 year-old apostles still knocking about.

Thanks for that summary.

So no Rapture in your version then. And in your version it is really between team God and team Satan.

A couple of things though. Why ?

And if the outcome is already known, why would this Satan fella bother ?

Your version is also very similar to the ISIS version.

Definitely sounds like an episode of Star Trek - love that programme so as a spectator it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

@SorcererGaheris

@MrsHubbardhasnoshoe

The latter I have tagged because likely you have not been reading this sub-thread between Sorcerer and myself. This is an example of my general fact finding outlook. ( I will try not to say debunk from now.)

Christine Holohan, the medium. I just looked up her book on Amazon. I won't link because Amazon links don't work well here. This is the blurb :

"Christine Holohan saw angels around her bedside when she was a child. It was only when she grew up that she realised not everyone saw them.

One night, when she was aged just 22, she began to have disturbing dreams of a young woman called Jacqui Poole. Jacqui had been murdered in the most shocking and brutal of ways. Christine approached the police and related what she could about the murder she had 'witnessed'.

The amazing accuracy of Christine's description of the murder convinced the police, leading them to state for the first time that they fully believed in such a gift. But it took 20 years for science to catch up with Christine's testimony, at last giving the DNA evidence needed to convict the killer.

A Whisper from an Angel is the remarkable true story of how Christine's extraordinary psychic gift finally brought peace to a young woman whose life was taken before her time."

The bolded part is the claim. The bolded and underlined part. Is there any evidence for this ?

"The amazing accuracy of Christine's description of the murder convinced the police, leading them to state for the first time that they fully believed in such a gift."

Is there a Police statement or announcement that backs this up at all ?

No ?

Because this is how it works. It's a layer cake of small lies, distractions, deflections, big lies, omitting facts, inserting things that play no part... and it all adds up to a very poor case as evidence. And when believers serve up this layer cake, they mash it up to try to hide what is fact and what is not. And the untrue bits ( no evidence for), they get a good coating of icing on top. The folk with a sweet tooth go for those bits first, and ignore the rest.

Is there a Police statement or announcement that backs up the above claim ?

@RedTagAlan

And was she first attacked in the bedroom ?

Do you mean the bathroom? Prescott wrote in his blog post (regarding the location) - "This was probably correct. Though the body was found in another room, a damaged bathroom towel rack and disarranged bathroom rug suggested that the attack commenced there."

Prescott's info is from Playfair and Keen's article, who definitely had access to the two policemen, as well as perhaps (but I can't say for certain) Batters' orignal notes. At the time the blog post was written, Playfair and Keen's article was here:

The article "A Possibly Unique Case of Psychic Detection," by Guy Lyon Playfair and Montague Keen is found in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Volume 68, Number 874, January 2004, pages 1–17. This article, like all SPR Journal articles prior to 2007, can be found online in an archive open to SPR members.

Where is that documented ?

I presume in Playfair and Keen's article, which the blog post is discussing.

So where is the list of 130 items ?

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

Presumably in Tony Batters' notes, and they may be listed in Playfair and Keen's article.

Nothing to do with the case at all.

Not to do with Jacqui Poole, but the contention that Christine Holohan provided accuratre information about Andrew Smith's personal life does further suggest that she may have genuine psychic ability.

And the killer was her boyfriend. That was not in your case files.

It may not be accurate that the killer was her boyfriend. In his blog post, Michael Prescott explicitly mentions the BBC article in which it is contended that Ruark was a lover of JP's - " according to the other accounts I've read, he was merely a friend of Poole's ex-husband and someone she did not like or trust."

In Michael Prescott's send blog post on the subject, he quotes Tony Batters as saying:

Ruark claimed at the trial that he had been a secret lover – in an attempt to justify the presence of his DNA.

Holohan says the same thing earlier in the book: "He completely changed his story and claimed that he had been having an affair with Jacqui, which would explain any traces of his DNA found on her clothing."
The prosecution, however, was able to prove that the DNA transfer indicated a violent, not an intimate, relationship. For instance, Poole had clawed at Ruark, getting some of his skin under her fingernails.

So there is some dispute as to Ruark being Jacqui Poole's boyfriend. Ruark may have been lying about that, and so the article that names him as her lover may be incorrect on that point.

Another more accurate version :-

There is no divine judgement, heaven, hell, or a predetermined end of the world.
When you die, consciousness ends because it depends on the functioning brain. There is no afterlife or final judgment. There is
therefore no special fate for “non-believers” — believers and atheists ultimately face the same process of death. Ideas such as the Second Coming, resurrection of the dead and eternal punishment are only religious beliefs rather than actual facts.

@RedTagAlan

Some of the academic references can be a bit hard for me to follow, but this passage is mainly highlighting the statistical significance of the results.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/p-value.html

The p-value in statistics measures how strongly the data contradicts the null hypothesis.
A smaller p-value means the results are less consistent with the null and may support the alternative hypothesis. Common cutoffs for statistical significance are 0.05 and 0.01.

A p-value measures how likely your observed results (or more extreme ones) would be if the null hypothesis were true. It is a tool for assessing evidence against the null.

Here is an explanation of P-values as related to parapsychology experiments (Google AI overview, incidentally!)

p-values measure the probability that experimental deviations from random chance occurred purely by random variation (the null hypothesis). Traditionally, a threshold of p ≤ 0.05 is used to claim statistical significance, though parapsychological debates often center on whether small p-values reliably indicate anomalous phenomena or hidden methodological artifacts. src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/YMj79TfYUps?start=2" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen> 1, 2, 3, 4]

Yup. And you know what. I just squashed a roach that was climbing the wall beside my desk. When I was a Christian I would feel bad, one of Gods creatures etc. Now as an atheist, I still feel bad. Because I have deprived a living entity of it's existence. That roach is no more.

But now, I do not fear that a God will judge me for that.

One day I will be that roach, In fact, I am that roach. I could be swatted at any time, and that is it for me. One just no longer exists.

I have no fear of that now for myself. Nonexistence. But that does not mean I do not love my family and want to have a fun life. Quite the opposite. It's that old thing of why spend the life you have now praying the next one is better.

It's really no wonder the Kings and Popes loved it. The promise of the next life absolves them of making the current lives better.

This is all well known stuff. But yet people do mental gymnastics to keep the better next life thing going.

So I need a degree in probability to understand it ?

Quote "A smaller p-value means the results are less consistent with the null and may support the alternative hypothesis. Common cutoffs for statistical significance are 0.05 and 0.01."

How to convert that to " 8 out of ten cat owners who expressed a preference said their cats preferred it" ?

I am an Engineer by trade. I can do the basics. Such as " I done this test 10 times, and it worked 7 out of ten". I can do mean cycles to failure, extrapolate data etc, but this... I have no idea. Can you translate the results for me ? I can't get YouTube. Can't you reference a maths site ? Why is it always Youtube ?

One thing for sure, if the result was a simple " IT WORKS", everyone would know about it. It would be in near every tabloid on earth. And if they had one test with the " IT WORKS" yell. would they not be sending the test out all over to be repeated, 10, 50, 1000 times ?

Lets look it up -

null hypothesis

"A null hypothesis is a statistical concept suggesting no significant difference or relationship between measured variables. It’s the default assumption unless empirical evidence proves otherwise.
The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (i.e., one variable does not affect the other).
The null hypothesis is the statement that a researcher or an investigator wants to disprove."

Source -

https://www.simplypsychology.org/null-hypothesis-examples-how-to-state-when-to-reject.html

Ah right. So instead of saying it works 8 out of ten times, it is saying

"The p-value in statistics measures how strongly the data contradicts the null hypothesis."

What was the p value ? And how was it calculated ?

In other words, they can't say it works 7 out of ten times.or even it works 1 out of ten.

Edit to add. From above site I linked.

"A lack of evidence only means that you haven’t proven that something exists. It does not prove that something doesn’t exist. "

That seems familiar to this thread. That's the null hypothesis.

@RedTagAlan

Can you translate the results for me ?

A concise translation is probably beyond my ability. I understand enough to see that the reported results from this study had what would generally be considered a statistically significant level against chance.

This is not unquestionable proof of mediumship, but I personally view it as evidence in its favour. The investigators, towards the end, say that "Because the experimental conditions of this study eliminated the normal, sensory sources for the information mediums report, a non-local source (however controversial)remains the most likely explanation for the accuracy and specificity of their statements." They do not present it as proof beyond any doubt, but give their view that a non-local explanation (i.e. some kind of 'psi' or 'psychic' explanation is the most likely conclusion.)

Anyway, the purpose of me posting such links is because you asked for examples/links of evidence. I don't expect you to share my views as to the quality of the evidence, or find it convincing, or, in the case of this particular article, agree with the conclusion of the academics who did the experiment. I'm just trying to provide what you ask for. It's evidence - even if your assessment it's quality/credibility is different to mine.

@Parker231

I know this is referring specifically to Christians, but regarding "blind acceptance without evidence" (I agree there is no absolute proof.)

When it comes to belief in deities, spirits and an afterlife - those of us who believe in those thinks - so not just Christians, but theists of all stripes, as well as secular people, as well as atheists who believe in a spirit world and life after death - we are not blindly accepting without evidence.

Because there is anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is still a form of evidence. We are not blindly accepting such ideas with no evidence at all.

I understand that your assessment of anecdotal evidence is that is in unreliable, weak and of low quality. I have no desire or intention to change your mind about that.

But high quality is not required in order for something to qualify as evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence*, no matter level of it's quality, reliability. Weaker evidence still counts as evidence.

My background is science and math. I don’t work with anecdotal evidence or data in work or life. I definitely don’t accept it as any form of evidence of an afterlife.
As an example, we’re staying in France for the month and I went to a new place to have my nails done. They were brilliant. I messaged a friend and told her they were the best place to have your nails done. This is anecdotal evidence - I’ve no proof, just my opinion. It’s worthless as I’ve not compared this one nail salon against a wider number of nail salons and their clients.

Quote : "A concise translation is probably beyond my ability. I understand enough to see that the reported results from this study had what would generally be considered a statistically significant level against chance."

If you don't understand it, why use it?

It is a statistical concept. From the site I linked above.

"Why Do We Never Accept The Null Hypothesis?
The reason we do not say “accept the null” is because we are always assuming the null hypothesis is true and then conducting a study to see if there is evidence against it. And, even if we don’t find evidence against it, a null hypothesis is not accepted.
A lack of evidence only means that you haven’t proven that something exists. It does not prove that something doesn’t exist.
It is risky to conclude that the null hypothesis is true merely because we did not find evidence to reject it. It is always possible that researchers elsewhere have disproved the null hypothesis, so we cannot accept it as true, but instead, we state that we failed to reject the null.
One can either reject the null hypothesis, or fail to reject it, but can never accept it."

I can follow that. I once had an Engineering director who would sit in test result meetings and declare " That data point is a flyer so throw it out, so is this one... lets graph it... ahh this data pont is a flyer too. We sat mouths open. Powerless, The project failed.

See attached graph I grabbed from the site.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/null-hypothesis-examples-how-to-state-when-to-reject.html

Quote " Anecdotal evidence is still a form of evidence. We are not blindly accepting such ideas with no evidence at all."

Actually you are.

Because if you do an experiment and the results are right on the edge, you repeat the experiment. Same result, change parameters and repeat.

You just admitted you do not understand the maths used to get one experiment just to the boundary of pass,

@Parker231

I accept that you don't find any value in the anecdotal evidence, but it is still defined as evidence, just as you defined your own message to your friend as anecdotal evidence. It's not proof, no - but it's a form of evidence.

So it is incorrect to say that believers are basing their beliefs on no evidence. We are basing (at least some of them) on anecdotal evidence.

@RedTagAlan

You asked for links, so I thought it would be useful to find a link to an actual research paper. Quite a few academic papers are inaccessible unless people pay subscriptions, but this one was freely available.

It was convenient, and I know of it. I feel that I understand enough of what the paper is saying to get the basics of it.

@RedTagAlan

Experiments are not the only form of evidence.

Personal testimonies and personal experiences are also forms of evidence.

In addition to data from parapsychological research, my views are based on the anecdotal evidence (personal testimonies) of other people, as well the own personal evidence of my experiences.

Just because others do not agree that those things are of good quality, does not disqualify them from being defined as evidence.

You just admitted you do not understand the maths used to get one experiment just to the boundary of pass,

I feel I understand enough of what the paper says in general, to get a basic understanding. And that's just a single study in well over 100 hundred years of parapsychological research.

If you want to rely on anecdotal evidence that’s up to you. Not something I do.

You asked about the second coming, not the Rapture, but yes I do believe in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture (not all Christians do). In my view the Rapture happens before the start of the Tribulation so at least 7 years prior to the second coming, possibly more. The Rapture results in the removal of believers.

A couple of things though. Why ?

God must defeat the Antichrist (who by that time is ruling the earth, which will be a truly horrific place), judge the nations, end human rebellion and establish His Kingdom.

Sometimes we discuss the 'why would Satan bother if we already know the outcome' in my Church. Well, maybe he fancies his chances and thinks he can change the outcome, or doesn't believe it. Or perhaps he simply wants to do everything he can and go out in a blaze of glory.

I'm not familiar with the ISIS version!

Perhaps you should add a disclaimer that this is your own belief and should not be interpreted as being factual?

Why can't God just make Satan vanish ?

He made the universe and all in it, including Satan. Just be easy for Him just to vanish Satan