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?

By loving God and one another we will automatically not break various commandments (such as not to kill, or commit adultery, or steal etc) because if you love someone then you wouldn't do any of those things to them or their property. Jesus didn't pivot away from sin, He showed that repentance from sin and love go together. Love doesn't mean ignoring sin. True love means fulfilling God's moral law.

I think you've put this very well.

In fact, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, that has been quoted a few times in this thread demonstrates the same principle. Throughout that message Jesus paraphrases Old Testament commands and says that the root problem lies deeper than a person's action. The problem of a sin is a heart issue.

Jesus is saying 'The law says don't murder, but I'm saying don't nurture anger against your brother. The law says don't commit adultery, I am saying don't lust after women'. It's about what is in our hearts. We need love for God and others to fill our hearts.

The salvation Jesus offers is a transformation of the heart. So our hearts will long for righteousness instead of sin. Out of love for God and love for our neighbour we will eagerly seek to obey God's moral law.

Have you read a history book? There have been many, many events from all sorts of religions , including Christianity , where people have behaved terribly in the name of god/s.
The Holy Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, The Reformation…
All those people thought they were doing Gods work. In comparison, having sex isn’t the worst thing you can do and call yourself Christian.

The thing about the bible is that it isn't that specific. I mean, it would be lovely if it was blatantly clear that (for example), you only baptise adults.
But the bible has accounts of 'so and so and his entire household' being baptised, which could, conceivably include children. And what age does someone become an adult anyway?
We've centuries of wrestling, thinking, interpreting these things and doing things in different ways, for all sorts of reasons - some in genuine good conscience, no doubt, others about more 'human' things like power and control. But at base, the fundamental, core beliefs of all the mainstream denominations are the same. Whether or not we baptise children, or the bread and wine literally becomes the body and blood of Christ is, in my opinion, not worth quibbling over. The Church has got more important things it should be focussing on, imo.

Yes but they aren't doing it now are they?

Are you saying that the Crusades were unjust?
To answer that question, first we must understand that the Church has never taught that all violence is evil or sinful. Divine Revelation affords the use of violence in certain cases and for just reasons.
The Old Testament is replete with examples of legitimate warfare sanctioned by God undertaken by the Jewish people. These examples clearly illustrate that God commanded and allowed the use of violence for a holy purpose.
Our Lord Himself overturned the tables of the money-changers in the Temple in Jerusalem.

The Crusades were born from the violent aggression of Islam, which had conquered ancient Christian territory in the Holy Land and North Africa and established a large foothold in Europe within a century of Muhammad’s death in the early seventh century.

The Crusades were also a response to the severe persecution of indigenous Christians living in the occupied territories, whose lives were severely restricted and who suffered constant pressure to convert to Islam. As an example, in the early eleventh century, Christians living in the Fatimid caliphate were subject to persecution during the reign of al-Hakim, who ordered them to wear identifying black turbans and a large cross in public. He also ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, originally built by the Roman Emperor Constantine and St. Helena in the fourth century.

Christian pilgrims were also subjected to harassment and violence, which demanded a defensive response from Christendom. The Seljuks, who were known for their brutality, threatened pilgrims to the Holy Sites in Palestine. As an example, a group of 12,000 German pilgrims led by Bishop Günther of Bamberg in 1065 was massacred by the Seljuks on Good Friday, only two days’ march from Jerusalem.
Heroic men and women of faith, rooted in love of Christ and neighbour, undertook the Crusades as acts of self-defense and recovery of stolen property.

This is the proper understanding of these important events in Church history

@TwinklySquid Now, the ' Spanish Inquisition '
If you have never seen the BBC documentary The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition, I highly recommend it. At a little over forty-five minutes, it summarizes the most recent scholarship about the “Black Legend,” how it began, and why it persists.

@TwinklySquid Now, let's discuss the Protestant Reformation. This didn’t just cause schism from the Catholic Church; it also corrupted the way people thought about divine revelation and authority. Personal opinion became the ultimate authority of truth, and 500 years later we see the devastating effects of that error.
Of course, Martin Luther and John Calvin didn’t set out to destroy Christendom. They assumed the Christian culture they enjoyed would always be there as a foundation for society, but in striking off on their own they undermined the very foundation on which it was built.
It took 500 years, but we are living in the logical result of Protestantism’s self-defining ethos: a narcissistic, hedonistic society that is destroying itself at an ever-accelerating pace.

So you are saying because it was okay years ago, we can do it now?
Do you seriously think murder is equal to sex work in badness?

Want a recent example- sex scandal with priests and children.

So you don’t think someone living in a gay relationship can be accepted as a Christian ?

No, I think someone could have a faith in Christ but come to a different conclusion than I have as to what counts as sexual immorality and so live accordingly.

I would think that person is mistaken. They would believe I am mistaken. We are both only saved by grace through faith in Christ.

Why do you think that person is mistaken - they can’t change who they are.

I said the below earlier in this thread:

"For my part, I believe repenting of sexual immorality means not engaging in any sexual behaviour outside of a heterosexual marriage. I believe that is what Scriptures teaches as a whole and I trust Scripture is God's word and I trust that God is good and His will is best for my life."

A christian who thinks having sex outside of heterosexual marriage is fine differs from my understanding because either
a) they have a different interpretation of what scripture teaches. Or . . .
b) they don't think scripture is the Word of God. Or . .

c) they don't trust God is good or that his will is best for their life.

So you are saying because it was okay years ago, we can do it now?

I didn't say that

Do you seriously think murder is equal to sex work in badness?

I didn't say that either. Please stop misquoting me.

Want a recent example- sex scandal with priests and children.

What point are you trying to make there? ^
I am having problems trying to follow your muddled thinking.

One thing I think has happened is that the modern church has had to reflect the society of is embedded in rather than perhaps the reverse. This is true with regard to sex and sexuality. There have been huge changes in views of sex and marriage within the last 100 years which an ancient church has struggled with.

Homosexuality is an obvious one. Male homosexuality became legal maybe 70 years ago and there has been an ongoing movement to reduce homophobia and make all organisations inclusive and non discriminatory which includes the C of E at least. Hence we have a much more Christian acceptance of homosexuality but at the cost of huge division which we see with potential schism in the C of E.

Also the Church is subject to law as are all citizens and secular law is potentially at odds with fundamental religious teaching. In Biblical times it was perfectly legal to marry a 12 or 13 year old but obviously now that is illegal and quite a heinous crime. You can see with something like the age of consent you have created new sexual sin (in the broad sweep of history) which wasnt present in the bible. It would not have been sexual sin to marry and consummate a marriage with a 13 year old but obviously that is completely illegal now and the Church would now consider sin.

I suppose the concept of sin has to reflect the current society the Church exists in i.e. to some extent and especially with sexual sin the boundaries are moveable. Another sample is that 80% of young Christians in committed relationships have pre marital sex which shows you how have may be an impossible standard when it comes to a definition of sexual immorality as any sexual activity outside marriage.

So when it comes to Lily you can see why it could be difficult to be definite about a reason for excluding her from being a practising Christian if the modern church is wrestling with the concept of sin itself.

My personal internal wrestle with this situation is that if we gain eternal life through faith alone and redemption can be gained at any point even at near death (the criminals on the cross with Jesus) it means Lily can accrue a sizable fortune in this life practising acts many would view as a moral without any worldly or heavenly censure. It would leave many thinking what is the point of undergoing a moral life of it makes no difference in entering heaven?

Is it not a paradox though ?

I used to do a thought experiment in my Christian days. And that is that if true forgiveness is what Jesus taught, then he was teaching the hardest thing to honestly do. Because if you here lined up at the hypothetical gate, and the short corporal tapped you on the shoulder from behind. He says " I am sorry for what I have done, please forgive me", then a true Christian, someone who is doing what he taught, would give their place to the short corporal.

Therefore, the paradox is that a true Christian would not get through the gate, because they would keep giving their place to others.

The Amish demonstrated this in a way if you recall.

Amish join killer's funeral – Deseret News

It takes a lot to do that. And to do it deep down sincerely. And someone who can do that, would give their place in that line.

What a little, limited view of Grace. There is no queue.

Forgiving someone doesn't involve giving up one's place in a mythical 'queue'!

And @GentleSheep

I said it was a thought experiment.

And anyway, who says either of you are correct and I am wrong ? Where in the bible is your version explained ? Here is what Jesus said.

Joh 3:13 And no one has gone up to Heaven, except He who came down out of Heaven--the Son of Man who is in Heaven. (LSV)

Apart maybe from Enoch that is. But that seems to be disputed by some. And I think one other prophet, but I can't remember who. Jesus never mentioned him.

Gen 5:24 And Enoch habitually walks with God, and he is not, for God has taken him.(LSV)

So when you say there is no line, how do you know ?

What a narrow and limited view of life - no sex outside marriage. Can’t be anyone now believing that is normal?

Don't know about normal, but it's how I live and I find it wonderful and very romantic.

"Normal" is what each couple decides for them, and it's no-one else business.

Normal for 2026?

And if the couple aren’t sexually compatible?

What does "sexually compatible" mean ?

Same needs, desires and habits