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?

My personal reading of the Bible is that homosexuality is not a sin but that homosexual acts are. Like heterosexuality is not a sin but many expressions of it are. The uneven bit is that unless we think gay marriage is permitted (which I think is arguable, but a stretch) then there is no permitted physical expression of homosexuality.

Anyway, on the actual question we were discussing: is it OK for a Christian to find bits of Christian morality “unfortunate”? Thinking through a few things;

Clearly we are expected to exercise critical thinking and moral judgment (they are faculties given by God)

Clearly it’s completely fine to reject the church’s teaching where we believe it’s not Godly

It’s also OK to be angry at God or to question his existence or actions.

If one does believe X is God’s morality, is it OK to find that “unfortunate”?

My personal view is that it must depend on the heart/spirit.

A rebellious spirit that says “I know better so I’ll set myself up as a higher moral arbiter than God” seems not OK.

A spirit that accepts his morality is supreme but finds some of the outworkings of that to be painful or difficult for humans, and regrets that pain or difficulty, I think must be fine. Perhaps more fine if motivated by other things that are good, like compassion.

@mids2019 'the C of E now considers homosexuality as not a sin'

Well I'm afraid I didn't get that memo as I am no longer a Member of the C of E.

AFAIK the Anglican Communion is split on this.

https://theconversation.com/the-anglican-communion-has-deep-differences-over-homosexuality-but-a-process-of-dialogue-known-as-via-media-has-helped-hold-contradictory-beliefs-together-224834

Is it homosexuality you think is a sin, or homosexual acts?

If the latter, is it becuase they are homosexual acts directly, or becuase they are outside biblical marriage (or both independently)?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10&version=ESV

Clarity about homosexuality in the bible. yet the C of E has blessing for same sex realtionships. It seems like our view of sexual sin has moved on (in a very divisive way) so that there is room for ambiguity and interpretation.

!

Where are you getting the bit about imperialist soldiers?

One of the most distinctive things to me about the Bible is how uninterested it is in modes of political organisation, and there are plenty of times that Jesus talks to/about Roman soldiers, some of whom are Christian, and never suggests those two things are incompatible.

Isn't there a bit of a fudge with the C of E when it comes to homosexuality to keep the church together and reduce division . It is weird allowing blessings for same sex relationships and expecting the committed blessed couple to not to engage in any sexual act together in a bed they share. Sorry I think this a political fudge but one that I can see had to be done to prevent more division in maybe a beleaguered church.

I have always found the issue of homosexuality in Christianity a difficult one. Mainly because I can’t see anything wrong with loving gay relationships.

However, as society has moved from seeing gay relationships as harmless to seeing them as identical to heterosexual relationships in every way, we are now seeing harm. Because once gay marriage is ‘identical’ so everything in marriage is opened to same sex couples, such as adoption and surrogacy. Children need parents of both sexes to raise them. Whether you believe in creation or evolution it is clear that children as they grow older they start to gravitate more and more to the parent of the same sex as them ( this starts from about age 7) as they learn to base their understanding of their own impending womanhood or manhood on their parent of the same sex. Girls will unconsciously model their own expectations of a partner on their Father and their parents’s relationship, and ditto boys but on their Mothers. Children benefit most from parents of both sexes.

Yes there are bad heterosexual relationships, just as there are bad same sex ones, but in a comparison of an ideal heterosexual relationship and an ideal homosexual one, the same sex relationship can never be as good for children as a heterosexual relationship. This is nothing to do with the quality or value of the same sex relationship, nor is it about the quality of their behaviour as parents, it’s simply that the sex of both parents means that aren’t able to meet the innate needs of children,

I do not agree with surrogacy for any couples, or individuals, regardless of sexuality. Deliberately creating a child not to know one or both parents is harmful and wrong, using women’s bodies is wrong. Gay spouses have the added harm of a child been denied either a mother of Father. I think it is especially harmful where a same sex couple raise a child of the opposite sex to them. That poor child is denied that intimate role model and connection with a same sex parent.

So I used to be very in favour of same sex marriage. But as I’ve lived more, had children and bothered to learn about children’s developmental needs and seen that evidenced in my old children, I have realised that the Christians who raised objections to gay marriage and foretold where it would lead were right and I was wrong. I apologise to them. And the Bible was right about the central importance of marriage being between a man and a woman.

( ps. Yes you get single parent through bereavement or abandonment doing a fantastic job in difficult circumstances. But again that is not an ideal situation and not one we as a society should seek to artificially create).

@mids2019 'Sorry I think this a political fudge but one that I can see had to be done to prevent more division in maybe a beleaguered church.'

You make an astute observation here ^.

IMO the C of E has 'lost it's way' and is trying to be all things to all people. That's one reason why I left and 'swam the Tiber'.

Take the issue of women priests in 1992 for example. We were told at the time that they would be the salvation of the C of E, would increase bums on seats, make churches more welcoming and 'family friendly' and be an all-round positive force for change,

This has not panned out and congregations are still falling.

https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/significant-decline-in-children-attending-church-of-england-services-over-the-last-20-years

According to Catholic teaching, being homosexual is not a sin but engaging in same-sex behavior are sins and always have been. Jesus doesn’t approve of them and neither does Scripture or the Magisterium of the Church. This has never changed. Certainly, over the centuries individual Catholics have practiced and approved of this, but that does not change the fact that the Church as an institution has been a clear and consistent voice on these issues.

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.

This is inccorect.

We are not taught to 'not judge' but to judge in the manner we are to be judged.

Individually, we are/will be judged by Jesus Christ. However, it is our duty to judge, in righteousness, other Christians errant in their ways to guide away from sin. We are also taught to judge and actively avoid the ways of the world so that we are not lured into the sin of the world which is inherently sinful.

The non-judgement statement is one of the most misquoted and misinterpreted parts of the Gospel and means we are remiss in our duties and misunderstand our instructions to our own, and others, peril.

If you have a priest, or a pastor, suggest you speak to them for confirmation and guidance. God bless.

I assume this is in reply to my post about the story of the adulteress being added later.

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

Sure thing. But this is the Bible we are talking about. The supposedly inspired by God rulebook on how all of humanity are supposed to be living their lives. And we are talking about this being added a minimum 200 years after the event supposedly happened. For scale, that is nearly as long as the US has existed as a country.

We do not even know who added it. Or when for sure. In fact, we do not even know who wrote the Bible.

I was an evangelical for 20 years. I never knew it was added until I de-converted. And it's not the only part that has been added. The end of Mark is another bit that was added.

At a minimum, should Churches not at least point out that it was added. And maybe they can explain their own mental gymnastics that they use to make it ok that was added. So people can decide for themselves.

It is actually one of the many aspects encountered when one de-converts. How to deal with the natural anger at being lied to for so many years. And it is a lie to say with authority that Jesus said that.

Yes. I am aware of that. I knew that without having to ask AI. It was me that posted on page 1 about there being over 50k Christian denominations.

I think the charitable take is that Christians and the church constantly have to interpret principles for situations that aren’t directly addressed in the Bible, and that commitment and love are biblical virtues, so blessing a relationship while not condoning sexual activity is in fact the most biblical position.

As for it being unrealistic to condone relationships and expect abstinence… I think that’s probably true as a matter of fact, but the Bible teaches many “unrealistic” things of humans, which is part of its power.

That’s my understanding of the position too.

If gay marriage were biblical, do you think homosexual activity in marriage would still be sinful?

(as in, if you read the fact that all descriptions of marriage are opposite sex as descriptive rather than proscriptive, you might find a biblical basis for gay marriage. Someone who believes that might still think that homosexual acts remain sinful or they might extend the within-marriage principle to homosexual marriage).

Quote " 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."

Old testament ?

As I posted above, the God of the OT is totally ok with genocide, incest, slavery, stoning people to death for almost anything ....

It's the usual old fuzzy arguments. You say " if you believe in Jesus you believe and strive to follow his teaching". But you do this without being able to say for sure what his teachings are on near anything.

Yes, some things he was clear on. A good example is Mat 6:5. Do not be like the hypocrites. Yet any Christian who goes to Church and says a led prayer is breaking this rule, a direct order from Jesus.

Not all Christians actually do think of the bible as a "supposedly inspired by God rulebook on how all of humanity are supposed to be living their lives" - and other more judgemental Christians may judge but fortunately they aren't the arbiters of who is and isn't Christian. I can combine my understanding of the Bible with my understanding of science and my knowledge of history to find a balanced view without having any illusion of biblical inerrancy.

Have you read any books by Brian McLaren eg "Do I Stay Christian?: A Guide for the Doubters, the Disappointed, and the Disillusioned" or similar post-evangelical authors? You certainly aren't alone in the path you are on. I similarly had a major disillusion from a previous time of evangelical fervour, but I have managed to keep a little spark of faith alive which I can keep going so long as I remember that even the most charismatic and confident preacher is still fallible and it's not up to them to decide what God thinks.

The church I occasionally attend is led by a minister who is very honest about the biblical scholarship we have been discussing on this thread, highlighting which bits of a story are in the oldest versions and which were added later, and discussing what was going on amonst early Christians which might have prompted the misding bits to be added.

@RedTagAlan At a minimum, should Churches not at least point out that it was added.

Most Bibles have notes that say exactly that. My ESV version points out any 'added later' parts. Ahead of the final verses of Mark it has, in all caps:

[SOME OF THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 16:9 - 20]

Hard to miss it!

I always find accusations like this, by people with a christian heritage, to be deeply anti-semitic. This is the Hebrew Bible you are talking about. The Jewish people who follow the Hebrew Bible would have a very different take on the messages to take from their Holy book.

If you don't see the bible as authoritative that's fine, don't believe. But I fail to see why you apparently want to deconvert others here. This is not a thread about ' Is Christianity true?' its a thread about the limits people can go to and still be called Christians. If you want to talk about what you are talking about, feel free to start your own thread instead of cuckooing someone else's.

A good example is Mat 6:5. Do not be like the hypocrites. Yet any Christian who goes to Church and says a led prayer is breaking this rule, a direct order from Jesus.

No it's nothing like the Pharisees praying on street corners so everyone notices and says 'wow how holy these men are!' In a Church you are all believers together. Otherwise why would Jesus have given us the Lord's prayer to be prayed when we are together?

we do not even know who wrote the Bible.

We do in the main know who wrote each book. There's no one overall human author.

I was an evangelical for 20 years

I think you learned remarkably little during that time about the Christian faith and theology. This is evident from how you 'interpret' Scripture. I do partly blame whichever church you belonged to for not educating you properly in the faith and discipling you.

Quote : "Not all Christians actually do think of the bible as a "supposedly inspired by....."

Of course. But enough of them do. And they want they want to control what other people do.

Quote "Have you read any books by Brian McLaren ".

Nope sorry. I have not even heard of him. I did look him up there though and no thanks. I am atheist, and ex evangelical one. Not an "ex casual Christian" So I have done all my searching, been through my 5 stages of grief over it. And you know what, I have never once seen any good argument that any of it is true. I have not seen any evidence at all that any of it is true. Not an iota. And that is not for want of me looking. There is not a shred of evidence for any of it.

With that in mind, and having looked at the reviews for that book on Amazon, do you really think this Brian guy has hit the magic words to bring the doubters back ?

Nah. Because once you have seen atheism, or at least the lie that is Christianity, it can't be unseen.

As an example. Acts 5. The story of Ananias and Sapphira. That's what started my journey to total deconversion. Have a look at online explanations about that. Why were they killed. And I guarantee you will not find a logical explanation of any sort.

I checked my Bibles for that John passage. Well, 2 or 3 anyway. None of them did.

Mark, not John!

What on earth ? Anti semitic ? And what does being of "Christian Heritage" have to do with anything ?

I am pointing out that the OT is full of incest, genocide, slavery etc.

Are you claiming the Bible has none of that in it ?

What an interesting discussion! Food for thought. Thank you all.

Yeah. Check back @GentleSheep , and you will see I was talking about the John verse. I added the bit about Mark as an "addition to".

What do your Bibles say about the John verse ?