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?

What a load of utter nonsense

@RedTagAlan you asked about Acts 5, I forgot. I tend to think myself it may be a symbolic story as it is out of keeping with forgiveness and they did not fit the true meaning of the word of blasphemy to the Holy Ghost. I don't know if you prayed about this yourself at that time. About walking with the faith in spirit it is asked of Christians to do in the Bible.
I think that one needs at times to read the Bible in context to get a true meaning to a question..

Quote " Critically the Christians on this post seem to agree with some important areas and I agree with them over that."

I did ask this :"As a matter of interest Justmerach. Quite a few Christians have posted on this thread. Do you agree with all of them, and all of them with you ?"

You gave a different answer than the question asked. But fair enough. I am not about to go through it all :-)

Homosexuality. TBH, I have not been reading those posts in depth. . Not for any particular reason. It's just a fast moving thread , and I have enough debate going on. The bible is anti gay, but Jesus did not mention it.

Pleased to hear you cover your head in Church. It is in there. Although I found Paul a bit confusing on that. But it shows you are following something most don't. But if you are following the Bible this closely, I have to ask you to check my username. That matters because of 1 Tim 2:12 . And I don't want you to feel you have committed a mortal sin.

You can just change 1 Tim 2:12 a bit (as Christians do), that it only apples to Christian men. Because I do enjoy these theological discussions. .... and I want to know what happened with Acts 5. What did your Pastor say ?

I was writing about that as you posted this, as you will see.

Quote:"I think that one needs at times to read the Bible in context to get a true meaning to a question."

So, you are going gnostic on acts 5 ?

Mat 7:13-14 Go in through the narrow gate, because wide [is] the gate and broad the way that is leading to the destruction, and many are those going in through it; how narrow [is] the gate and compressed the way that is leading to life, and few are those finding it! (LSV)

When it comes to acts 5, it appears you are taking the widest gate possible.

I am not trying to convert anyone, In fact, I would say it is impossible to convert anyone to atheism. That's an that old Christian apologetics fallacy that atheism is a religion. It's not.

So far as the conversation goes, I am going with the flow. My interest is what is actually written in the Bible, and the way it is interpreted from a Christian point of view. And as an ex-Christian who is now a regular on the "Philosophy/religion" board, I think am entitled to have my say.

I do have a personal ethical code that says I do not interrupt purely Christian threads with titles such as "pray with me for...". because I do respect religion.

But this thread on this subject? Nah. This interests me. The whole thing of "what is a real Christian?" In fact, as an atheist, ex Christian, I would say my opinion on that subject is less extreme than the opinions that many Christians hold.

I could have given you several views-I did before. I was not answering like this though. I was answering you personally from myself. If it was not a personal answer I would said it could be taken literally to, which I have written before.
It just reads like a symbolic story to me and Christ is the sacrificial atonement to forgive sins.
I have written before if it was literal it is a limited test case which does not happen today.

So your opinion is "It just reads like a symbolic story to me and Christ is the sacrificial atonement to forgive sins."

Thanks.

So the holy spirit killed them, not a single apostle batted an eyelid. And this after the apostles heard Jesus himself say what he apparently said about forgiving and turning the other cheek. These apostles are the witnesses to Jesus, and they did not bat an eyelid. They carried the dead bodies out and burried them in the garden. Worse than that, they saw the man killed, they did not even warn the wife.

Now tell me. If you were an apostle sat there in that room, would you have batted an eyelid ?

I have no idea how you get to " Christ is the sacrificial atonement to forgive sins" here. Can you explain please ?

Help me to understand why the couple were killed.

Acts 5:10-11 NIVUK
[10] At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. [11] Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

The Bible doesn't say the apostles didn't bat an eyelid. It says 'great fear seized the whole church'

This was a sobering incident. This was God saying lying about money in this new church was a serious sin that God would judge.

I think we can easily see why such a lesson was important then and today. But it was absolutely essential in the early days of the church when this new way was being shared for the first time

Also it's important to note that the sin here wasn't not giving enough, it was about lying about what they gave. God is letting believers know that he expects complete honesty and integrity from his church in how they handle money.

In the Old Testament believers would often make sacrifices to God in the form of animals. This came to an end with Jesus Christ. His blood would now forgive sins. This is known as a sacrificial atonement the substitute sacrifice that Jesus gave us.

You think that the Acts 5 is literal. It can be seen as either way. If this was literal it was to show how the church is supposed to be honoured. It seemed like a once off limited thing if it was literal.

There are some points that may make it appear also as may be symbolic.

In Hebrews 12 it is written that God disciplines his children today out of love. God does not punish enemies or unbelievers for their wrong doing today and today this happens at Judgement day.. I watched a Catholic church service sermon where I was baptised on this topic a few weeks ago.

In order to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost you need to attribute their work to evil several times I have read and refuse their work. They didn’t reach this height.

Christ to forgives and I have heard horror stories by Christians of worse tales than what Acts 5 documents as for the offence. They were victims and the perpetrator was still out there and could turn to the faith if they wanted to.

Perhaps you could make a post about Acts 5 to see people different views on this if you wanted to.

https://talkafricana.com/10-pornstars-who-gave-their-life-to-christ-after-years-of-living-in-sin/

It seems that there is a tradition of open stars moving away from open and toward Christianity with some becoming pastors even. I guess Lily is different in the has stated she has no intention of not producing adult content but appears to not be planning any 'stone'

I suppose the very nature of Christianity means that sinners are accepted but we still have blurred definitions of sin. I am also wondering if there is some backlash as sexual sin being more focused on women than men?

My understanding is that a true Christian is one who has a personal relationship with God, @mids2019 - that is a very personal thing that I don’t think can be judged by any outsider.

We should also note that earthly death is not the same as receiving eternal judgement.

We don't know how Ananias and Sapphira will be eternally judged on Judgement Day. We know that because of their actions God brought their earthly lives to an immediate end.

Why some people get long lives and others don't, is something we don't have an answer for. But we do have the whole book of Job that spends a long time on mysteries such as suffering, God's righteousness and justice in the world. I believe that book leads the believer to a position of humble faith and hope.

We don't have the answers. We don't understand many things. But God has revealed that He is good, He loves us, He is in control and in the end He will make all things right - and he is the only one who can do so.

For some, that conclusion isn't good enough. But for the believer it is a source of strength and comfort in the hardest times.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fT67DhKASe0
An interesting sermon from a US pastor (not entirely sure about their church denominations etc). .The juxtaposition of searching for her name and sermon is jarring (don't necessarily do it) but is this something we have to face as Christians accepting there are Christians who maybe in the darker parts of hearts we wish they werent?.

Quote "The Bible doesn't say the apostles didn't bat an eyelid. It says 'great fear seized the whole church'"

That is the last line. And the whole story is so short that it is easy to post in it's entirety .

"Act 5:1-11 And a certain man, Ananias by name, with his wife Sapphira, sold a possession, and kept back of the price his wife also knowing and having brought a certain part, he laid [it] at the feet of the apostles. And Peter said, "Ananias, why did Satan fill your heart, for you to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back of the price of the place? While it remained, did it not remain yours? And having been sold, was it not in your authority? Why [is] it that you put this thing in your heart? You did not lie to men, but to God"; and Ananias hearing these words, having fallen down, expired, and great fear came on all who heard these things, and having risen, the younger men wound him up, and having carried forth, they buried [him].And it came to pass, about three hours after, that his wife, not knowing what has happened, came in, and Peter answered her, "Tell me if for so much you sold the place"; and she said, "Yes, for so much. And Peter said to her, "How was it agreed by you to tempt the Spirit of the LORD? Behold, the feet of those who buried your husband [are] at the door, and they will carry you forth" ;and immediately she fell down at his feet, and expired, and the young men having come in, found her dead, and having carried forth, they buried [her] by her husband; and great fear came on all the Assembly, and on all who heard these things." (LSV)

No redemption. No forgiveness. No Mercy.

These are the people who knew Jesus. Who talked to him. Jesus gave his message to these very people first hand, in person. And here we have then without an ounce of forgiveness. No turning of the cheek. These Apostles want money. And they have young men as followers to dispose of the bodies.

Now read the book of Mark. The first book. The other books came after the first half of acts. Although this part of acts was written by the author of Luke. Going by the style.

Mar 6:10-11 And He said to them, "Whenever you may enter into a house, remain there until you may depart from there, and as many as may not receive you nor hear you, going out from there, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony to them; truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom or Gomorrah in [the] day of judgment than for that city."

In other words, if they do not give you board and lodging, curse them and leave. And in acts 5, we have the same. Give us your money or die.

This is a theme through all of Mark by the way. But one needs to read Mark and put the other Gospels out of your mind.

Feel free to challenge me on this. I hope you do. But note, you need to read the bible in the order it was written. When acts 5 was written, there was no gospel of Matt, Luke or John. There was just Mark. If that. To defend Acts 5, you are only allowed to use Mark. The other books were decades later.

@Justmerach . This to you too :-)

Edit, score through format error correction.

Mark 6:10-13 ESV
[10] And he said to them, “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. [11] And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” [12] So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent. [13] And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them.

My understanding of this passage in Mark is more that people would be judged based off whether they were willing to listen and receive the message to repent from sin and seek God’s mercy. That is still pretty much the Gospel message today.

But if you believe that this actually a plot of Jesus and the disciples to spiritually abuse people in order to bully them to give them money then that is your right to do so.

However, we must see that it wasn't a successful plot. The New Testament and church tradition document Jesus and the apostles all (except for John) die for their faith.

Also I would argue that Acts 5 goes against this theory. Because Peter says to Ananias:

Acts 5:3-4 ESV
[3] But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? [4] While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”

Peter is saying you didn't have to sell your land at all, you could have rightfully kept it. But to lie about what you are giving is a grave sin.

Also worth noting this passage in Acts 4:

Acts 4:34-35 ESV
[34] There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold [35] and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

Maybe A and S were trying to gain standing in the community by appearing to give the same as others?

If the Apostles wanted to scam people out of money with this horror story than surely Peter should be saying 'you were wrong to hold some back?' Rather than, 'you were wrong to lie about it?'

You're not alone in being shocked at God’s decision to kill them instantly. But there is a principle in scripture that 'too who much had been given, much will be demanded'. Meaning those who have more knowledge of the Lord, and especially those who are meant to represent Him are held to a higher standard than others. Integrity matters greatly to God, and believers should take that very seriously.

Quote : "My understanding of this passage in Mark is more that people would be judged based off whether they were willing to listen and receive the message to repent from sin and seek God’s mercy. That is still pretty much the Gospel message today."

Ok. Now imagine you have never heard of Christianity. Empty your mind of it completely. Be like my DD in a way, because we live in a non Christian place, and you would be lucky to find anyone who knows the Bible. And someone gives you a book of Mark and you read it.

It's about a man. A preacher, and he does some miracles or magic. He collects a group of men, he shows them how to do his magic, and they travel the area by boat attracting crowds of locals.

Here is the really important part. You need to read it on a story so far basis, Every line is a new part of the story. You do not know how it ends.

So, a travelling preacher. Group of men. And he is telling his men no need to fast, no need to stick to the religion. He is hanging about the canteens with sinners and bad folk, and other people come ask him to heal them. He even brought a kid back to life.

Mar 6:7-9 And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts— but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. (ESV)

He is sending them out in pairs to the villages. And they are to take nothing with them. They have no food and no money.

Mar 6:10-11 And he said to them, “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” (ESV)

Stay there until you decide to leave. The word "stay" is Strongs Greek G3306.

Strong's Greek: 3306. μένω (menó) -- To remain, to abide, to stay, to continue, to dwell, to endure (biblehub.com)

And now the story is a bit different. Pairs of guys turning up at a house, expecting free board and lodging, food (and wine perhaps), and if the household do not accept you (and listen to your stories ) and feed and water you, curse them.

With that thought, with a different emphasis on the same words, now read the rest of Mark. Follow to Acts. And now Acts 5 makes total sense. Those apostles who saw (had ?) the couple killed for holding back money, they were the exact same people who Jesus sent out to stay (tarry) with people and be fed and watered.

What a scam. No wonder they had to re write Mark and change its emphasis to be more religious.

This is the sort of thing that once seen, can't be unseen. With a slight change to the theme, the exact same words now say something else, And what did not make sense in the old theme, now do.

And that is how Acts 5 led to my de-conversion.

And also, all that stuff about how Mark is similar to Homers Odyssey, now that makes sense too. Hire professional scribes to write it down to get the story consistent. Maximize income. . And that is where Paul comes in. And a religion is born

I would say (as per the Nicene creed) that it's belief that God is who he claims to be, Jesus is God's son, who came to earth as a man and was crucifed and rose again, and through the Holy Spirit we are then empowered to live lives according to how God told us to live.
Baptism can be an outward expression of that - a public way of saying 'I believe this and want to follow it and live it', but in and of itself it doesn't make you a Christian, I don't think. If the belief's not there, then why are you doing it?

I think that all comes down to the creeds and 'base' beliefs of Christianity. the majority of denominations (RC, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist etc) believe the same thing - a trinitarian God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - creator, redeemer, sanctifier.
Churches disagreed on other matters, such as 'does the bread and wine literally become the body and blood during communion', or whether infant baptism was ok or not, or how various aspects of the bible were interpeted.... or whether divorce was ok or not (which was the basis for the Anglican church - Henry VIII wanted a divorce). None of them are 'wrong' per se....just different.

Quote :" None of them are 'wrong' per se....just different."

They can't all be right. Really, by definition each of the denominations think the others are wrong, or "not right", because otherwise there would not be so many different denominations.

What does it matter to you how many denominations there are, or what they believe?

You have said yourself that you are an atheist, so why does it concern you ?

Hindus worship a god with an elephant's head (Ganesh) are you going to to have a pop at them?

Muslims believe their prophet Mohammed had a flying horse called Buraq which he used to travel from one town to another. Are you going to pick holes in that story ?

I don't really see what you are getting out of engaging with this thread except to show everyone that humungous chip on your shoulder.

Is my post wrong about the logic I was referring to ?

Why not tackle that?

This is what was posted, and what I was referring to in my post :" None of them are 'wrong' per se....just different."

I reckon that would be worth exploring in terms of different Christian denominations. For example, the poster referred divorce and Henry the 8th,

Here is what Jesus said about divorce -

Mat 5:31-32 And it was said that, Whoever may put away his wife, let him give to her a writing of divorce; but I say to you that whoever may put away his wife, except for the matter of whoredom, makes her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who has been put away commits adultery. (LSV)

From that we can say that Jesus was against divorce except for one reason, and we can also deduce that there was divorce where he was and in his time. And that can lead into lots of interesting stuff about the sin he is referring to is. And that he is talking about it being HER that would be sinning (and her new husband).

So logically, if a denomination says divorce is OK without it being about the "matter of whoredom", then that denomination is in the wrong. Likewise for a denomination that does not allow divorce even in "the matter of whoredom" then that denomination is also wrong.

But that all depends on what is being used as the benchmark for right and wrong of course. And as this is about Christianity, I would assume the Bible is the benchmark.

So me, with my chipless shoulders, I would say the statement " None of them are 'wrong' per se....just different.", is wrong.

And that quote from the Bible I mentioned, attributed directly to Jesus, looks to be relevant to this thread.

We aren't talking about logic, or discussing whether or not Christianity is false/fake/illogical.

We are supposed to be discussing Lily Phillips.

"I reckon that would be worth exploring in terms of different Christian denominations."

Maybe, but not on this thread which you have hijacked, in order, for your own reasons, to indulge riding a particular"hobby-horse".

Maybe, as others have suggested, you should start you own thread in the "Philosophy & Religion" section, where you can indulge yourself and your desire to beat a particular drum ?

The thread title is "Lily Philips - can she be a 'true' Christian? "

Does that not involve defining what a 'true' Christian" is ?

I would say so.

No.
That's a question for the OP to answer.

Well that's an easy question not and I think it is a really complex debate to define a 'Reid's Christian is such a thing exists.