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?

Of course she can be a Christian. Forgiveness is absolutely at the heart of the whole faith. Yes - she should go and sin no more. Her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. But the past is the past. It is done and finished.

Or, that He has given us free will and doesn't interfere with our actions!

If the Bible wasn't a mish-mash of vaguely related texts from unknown authors over hundreds/thousands of years then it would be coherent enough that everyone reading it would come to the same conclusion.

As it is just such a mish-mash results in the wildly different interpretations of it that we see today. Not least because the Bible does not make it clear which bits we're supposed to take as literal truth, which bits we're supposed to interpret as allegorical, what those allegories are supposed to mean, or which bits should really have a "Best Before 1AD" sticker. So every Christian ends up deciding his/her own views and then finding an interpretation of the Bible that supports those views. Which is why we see Christians getting divorces, Christians letting women teach, and Christians not selling all their possessions then giving the proceeds to the poor.

I know I won't convince the evangelicals on this thread, and that's not my job, I know that no one ever changes their mind as a result of having an argument with a random stranger on the internet so I won't be directly entering into any such spats. But for the benefit of any lurkers who read this thread and are curious about the liberal Christian point of view:

The Old Testament bible was written in ancient Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Gospels were written in Greek. Every translation introduces errors and it's clear from the fact that there are so many different translations that there is no such thing as a perfect translations. Concepts also don't translate well across cultures that are 2000-6000 years apart, so sometimes we are better off going with the spirit of the message rather than getting hung up on specific words. The Hebrew words in Leviticus that have been translated as a condemnation of homosexuality have very little equivalence to our modern understanding of homosexuality - if the ancient Hebrew people had a word for an adult consenting relationship between two people of the same sex, it's not a word that has survived for us. The words used would be better translated as condemning paedophilia, sexual abuse of slaves and captives, and temple prostitution.

Meanwhile we now know scientifically that homosexuality is an entirely natural phenomenon that has been observed in many different animal species and homo sapiens is no different. St Paul said that while it's best for everyone to be celibate (at the time he was writing, they thought the world would be ending within the next decade or so, so there was no need for procreation) he acknowledged that not everyone has a calling to celibacy and if so then it's better to marry - it therefore rationally follows that the same teaching should apply to homosexual people - perhaps celibacy would be a purer life, but not everyone has that calling so in that case marriage is better.

Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to love God with your whole self and to love your neighbour as yourself. He also said not to judge others. I see great harm in the porn industry and I don't think that it's possible to participate in it in a way that is consistent with loving God and your neighbour but it is not my place to convince anyone else of that. If someone who dwells in that world feels a yearning towards God and a calling to baptism then that step is a blessing to celebrate, and I would just pray that God's voice comes to them in time to lead them towards a less harmful life.

Do you believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or does your faith have to be reflected in your works as well?

I think that faith and grace is needed for salvation.

Meanwhile we now know scientifically that homosexuality is an entirely natural phenomenon that has been observed in many different animal species and homo sapiens is no different.

Because animals do it, it's OK for humans, is that the logic? Remember according to Christianity, when humanity 'fell' in Eden, they took the whole created world with them, that includes animals. Even animals no longer act according to God's original plan. So their 'homosexuality' isn't any more 'normal' than ours is.

The thief on the Cross. He believed. He was saved. Of course he didn't have much time for works, but still. Faith alone saves. However that faith means you will naturally have the urge to do God's works which He prepared for us from the beginning of the world. We may not succeed in doing those but it doesn't mean we aren't saved as a result.

Honestly Bishop Cei Dewar has said it all most eloquently just today (he's a Bishop in the Confessing Anglican Church):

Depressing. Going after a working woman when Christ’s first disciple was a working woman. Christ would have more issue with imperialist soliders calling themselves Christians than working women. I suppose that is why he ended up nailed to a cross, a bit too much of a peace loving, long haired, woman hugging softie.

Perhaps not - but it exists, is innate in those who are made that way, and cannot be "cured" or conditioned away from. Great harm has been done by attempts to do so. Perhaps - and I don't claim to know either way - perhaps it is not part of the perfect version of creation - perhap the same could be said of other "incurable" differences like Autism. But nevertheless people born this way are no less loved by God, no less deserving of compassion, and certainly no more capable of living a celibate life, than any heterosexual person is.

Yes it exists. For some homosexuals they have been able to overcome those desires with the help of God, but yes, it seems innate in them. I don't deny trying to 'cure' gay people is harmful. The Fall led to many genetic changes and mutations and so illness and all manner of imperfections began to appear in humanity.

Of course gay people are loved by God just the same as everyone else, and deserve compassion, just as all other people do. Celibacy is difficult, but some are called to it, and may endure it thanks to God. Jesus did tell us to pick up our cross and follow him, after all.

@GentleSheep yes some are called to celibacy. And some are not. And for those who are not, a faithful marriage is the best option as specifically advised by St Paul. Which for a homosexual person would clearly need to be a same-sex marriage.

Well, here we will have to agree to differ.

I have read the Bible. Pretty difficult not to conclude that if one reads the Bible.

It's right there where he says it himself in Exodus. The ten commandments:

Exo 20:5 You do not bow yourself to them, nor serve them: for I, your God YHWH, [am] a zealous God, charging iniquity of fathers on sons, on a third and on a fourth [generation] of those hating Me, and doing kindness to thousands, of those loving Me and keeping My commands. (LSV)

This is before he gives out the 630 or so Mosaic laws.

It is also worth noting that after he gives his 10 commandments to Moses, his next instructions are about alters, then in Exodus 21, he is straight into laws about slavery. Not laws about Not keeping slaves, but laws about ownership of them. Hebrew slaves that is. The laws for non Hebrew slaves come later. And that is basically kill the men but keep the female virgins.

This is all after Noah in Genesis of course, where he killed everything on earth, apart from aquatic animals, one family of people, and a boatload of land animals.

Quote "That's what Protestants & Anglicans believe ^"

I mentioned in a post above that there are over 50k Christian denominations. Surely what matters is what Jesus was recorded as saying on the Bible ?

Indeed, the two verses you quoted from the Bible confirm what I said in my post. That his only rule for entry was believing in him, Jesus.

I think this is an excellent reply to the OPs post. It pretty much directly answers what the OP asked. Particularly this bit, quote " “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.””
‭‭John‬ ‭8‬:‭6‬-‭11‬ ‭"

There is one problem of course, as there so often is with Bible stuff.

And that is that the whole story of the adulteress woman was added later. It is not mentioned in Matthew, Mark or Luke, and nor is it in the earliest surviving codices of John.

Correction sorry, when I say the story was not in Luke, it was. In some earlier manuscripts, but today it is not. The story did not appear in John until hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. Anything from 200 years to 400 years. The problem with nailing down the date is that none of the originals survive.

But the story does not appear in the earliest copies that do survive.

So it was added later.

Sample article here from a Christian website discussing it, and how to get around the issue ( mental gymnastics)

The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) is not in the Codex Sinaiticus. How does this relate to biblical infallability? – Evidence for Christianity

Bible Hub entry about it :

Why does John 8:1 not appear in some early manuscripts of the Gospel of John? (biblehub.com)

For over 2k years. And there has been loads of wars over it.

There are still wars over it.

Not everything that was added later is necessarily less likely to have happened.

At the time of Jesus's death and resurrection and for many years afterwards, no one thought there was any need fir a written account. They didn't think they were starting a new religion, and they thought the end of the world was imminent. The stories and sayings of Jesus were shared orally, originally from first-hand testimony not just from the Apostles but also from hundreds of other disciples and witnesses. The earliest gospel to be written, Mark, was set down in about AD65ish and is a relatively brief account which obviously couldn't have been a full description of everything thar happened during Jesus' time on earth. As copies of it were circulated among the believers, it wasn't the first time they had heard the story, they'd been hearing many stories from a gathered body of oral testimony for many years. The next two gospels Mathew Luke were each subsequent attempts to integrate what had already been written with other bits of knowledge that the authors had had passed on to them from the community of believers and which they considered important. Some of the eye witnesses would have been still alive, albeit very elderly, but mostly it would have been people who remembers being told what happened by others who were the original witnesses. Obviously therefore with each retelling there would have been opportunities for someone to say "but this misses out something important that I remember being told". John's Gospel was written in a different context and purpose - not just looking at these previous accounts and trying to make them more accurate, but trying to capture more of the theological meaning and impact of what happened rarther than just trying to record the events. In exactly the same way, later editions may be more rather than less accurate, because the community of believers had the opportunity to say "that doesn't cover it quite - what about this bit?"

The intrinsic imperfection of this kind of storytelling is a strength not a weakness. Jesus was a storyteller, his parables were memorable metaphors that had the power to reach people's hearts and be remembered for decades and be passed on from witnesses to mamy people who heard and believed and passed the good news on. What eventually got written down and refined through a community editing process is what the community of early believers agreed was reliable enough to keep. The fragmentary nature is important because the written word is not supposed to be elevated so high - the written word is good and helpful for doctrine and instruction but only insofar as it acts as a signpost to the Living Word - Jesus is alive and is still speaking for those with ears to hear.

But if you believe in Jesus you believe and strive to follow his teaching. If you don’t do that, how can you be said to believe in Jesus?

That’s akin to me saying, ‘I’d like to play violin’. But never taking any lessons. Yes, in an ideal world I’d like to play violin, but it’s the lowest of low priorities so I’ve never bothered learning, choosing instead to prioritize other things.

It’s very clear in the Bible that God and Jesus in the Old and New Testament are calling people to a much higher level of commitment than this.

If you have ever attended a book club, you will quickly learn than there is no such thing as a book so coherent that everyone reads it the same way!

I would be curious to know what Denomination performed this Baptism as that would determine what instruction she was given before the baptism took place.

Here is some general info-

https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/are-there-any-prerequisites-it

@mids2019 'Maybe Lily is taking advantage of current ambiguity of what constitutes sexual sin?'

There is no ambiguity from a Christian perspective.

The Bible defines sexual sin by God’s created design, not by personal preference, cultural opinion or changing social standards. This is why Scripture does not begin with a list of forbidden acts. It begins with creation, marriage and the one-flesh union God established between husband and wife. The biblical framework is rooted in what God intended human relationships to be from the beginning, providing the foundation upon which later commands and warnings are built.

That foundation matters because the Bible treats sexuality as meaningful before it ever gives boundaries. Sexual intimacy is not presented as casual, detached or merely physical. It is connected to covenant faithfulness, bodily holiness and the way human relationships reflect obedience to God. Throughout Scripture, sexual conduct is consistently linked to broader themes of commitment, trust and faithfulness.

Because sexuality is viewed as a gift created by God, the boundaries surrounding it are presented as protective rather than arbitrary. The purpose of those boundaries is not to diminish the value of sexuality but to preserve its intended meaning within the covenant relationship God established.

Catholic View: Catholics hold that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition together form the deposit of faith. The Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) interprets both infallibly.
Protestant View: Most Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), believing the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.
Why it matters: This foundational difference affects nearly every theological question, from moral teachings to liturgy. On the one hand, a central authority such as the Magisterium of the Church can help to prevent individualistic interpretations of scripture.

I take the point but the C of E now considers homosexuality as not a sin yet the Bible is quite clear it is. If you reject the Bible's definition of one sexual sin can't you then interpret the rest of you like depending on prefernce?