In Australia Vic Government trying to pass laws that criminalise preaching

[Dave L]

I will not be hiding any scriptures away they can jail me if they want as they want.

Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. God changes hearts, not you. Plus you need to condemn all the adultery in the churches to be consistent.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. God changes hearts, not you. Plus you need to condemn all the adultery in the churches to be consistent.

No. I will not hide God's word for a man.

 

[Dave L]

No. I will not hide God's word for a man.

They can not repent unless they are saved. If God saves them they will repent of all sin, not just that particular one. You are trying to make clean the outside of the cup in a legalistic manner, like OT law that cannot save..

 

[FutureAndAHope]

They can not repent unless they are saved. If God saves them they will repent of all sin, not just that particular one. You are trying to make clean the outside of the cup in a legalistic manner, like OT law that cannot save..

No, I am not, they are shutting their ears to the word of the LORD. I will not be silenced. I have never had a desire to condemn gays, it has nothing to do with that, it has to do with this nation trying to silence the bible.

 

[Dave L]

No, I am not, they are shutting their ears to the word of the LORD. I will not be silenced. I have never had a desire to condemn gays, it has nothing to do with that, it has to do with this nation trying to silence the bible.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV 1900)

 

[1an]

No, I am not, they are shutting their ears to the word of the LORD. I will not be silenced. I have never had a desire to condemn gays, it has nothing to do with that, it has to do with this nation trying to silence the bible.

The unbeliever shuts their ears to the Word of God anyway. I have given up trying to help people, they always revert back to their natural instincts. The leopard never changes its spots, says an old man of 76 years.
.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I have never gotten over this;
You read the bible - thats easy.
You must interpret it though - this has room for human misunderstanding.
You must form an opinion - this also has room for error.

Knowing that you must assess the bible and that error or misunderstanding is possible in this assessment - how are people so sure what they think is correct??

So sure that they can say, their opinion of the bible is actually aligned to God's Word?

I had always assumed I'd do my best to understand the bible, but, likely I've made errors and I'd have to hope God wouldn't be too hard on me for that.

Does anyone else get this??

 

[Dave L]

I have never gotten over this;
You read the bible - thats easy.
You must interpret it though - this has room for human misunderstanding.
You must form an opinion - this also has room for error.

Knowing that you must assess the bible and that error or misunderstanding is possible in this assessment - how are people so sure what they think is correct??

So sure that they can say, their opinion of the bible is actually aligned to God's Word?

I had always assumed I'd do my best to understand the bible, but, likely I've made errors and I'd have to hope God wouldn't be too hard on me for that.

Does anyone else get this??

You need to break it down into one of the three claims about how salvation happens. And then stick with the group that is right and learn from them.

It is pretty simple. There are only three possibilities.

1. people save themselves by choosing to believe and keeping up good works.

2. People choose to believe and God helps them as long as they try.

3. People cannot believe in any true sense. So God in his mercy gives some a new heart that believes and loves escaping from sin.

1. they call salvation by works.

2. they call salvation by works and Grace. And

3. they call salvation by Grace alone. Grace means unmerited favor.

Most calling themselves "Christian" hold to the second position. That is God will save you if you do thus and thus.

But Scripture teaches that salvation is solely by God's Grace. That is the third position. Grace means that God saves us even though we hate and reject him, and cannot believe. By Jesus dying for our sins on the cross and giving us a New Nature that believes in him. For all who can believe in Jesus, they can rest assured God saved them, or else they could not believe.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

You need to break it down into one... ... ...or else they could not believe.

Thank you for taking the time to answer, and thank you for your input.

With respect to the thread, I saw ...
1) An interpretation of the bible
2) The interpretation being labelled "God's Word"
3) Justification for an act

My thinking is, how do people know their interpretation is correct?
Surely it's more accurate to say
"I think God thinks homosexuality is a sin and therefore, conversion therapy is permissible"
or
"I think the bible is God's literal Word, written by Paul, and Paul wrote homosexuality is a sin. It's not that Paul thought it must be a sin - Paul wrote what God spoke. Therefore, conversion therapy is permissible."
???
At least that's how I tend to read the bible.

 

[hedrick]

I don't think it's a fair characterisation to say that this law limits people's access to religious counselling. What it does (or attempts) is to ensure that that "counselling" is not in fact an attempt to coerce a change in sexuality or gender identity.

I support the intent of the law. Both my church and I individually consider it perfectly OK to be gay, and I understand the damage you describe. But there are issues with the wording that could allow overzealous people to apply it to general teaching of traditional sexual ethics. I'm reasonably sure that there are at least some overzealous people in Victoria, who might well try to do this.

Personally I think that teaching traditional sexual ethics involving LGBT practice is in itself harmful. But I don't believe that the concept of a free society on which both the US and Australia is based supports criminalizing it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

In Victoria (Australia), the Andrews Government is trying to pass laws that will make it a criminal offence to try to convert a gay to a heterosexual lifestyle. The law specifically mentions prayer and religious practices. The way the law is worded allows for the prosecution and re-educating of people who try with or without the consent of the individual to help a gay become straight. The following video explains the law and its potential effects on the church.

To see the law:

https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-12/591143bab1.pdf

The law bans practices that try to convert gays, and gives fines, heavy fines to people found to have caused harm to an individual during such a practice. Up to $500,000 or 10 years jail (serious harm). More commonly $100,000 or 5 years jail (general harm). However, the definition of harm, is broad, encompassing parents continual disapproval of onces choice, and mental health issues.

It would not be hard for a gay activist to claim harm, which can be short term harm, to mental health.

Advertising material is referenced in the bill, so basically it could be a criminal offense to have a website that encouraged the heterosexual lifestyle for a gay person. This is all under the banner of protecting the rights of gays to feel included, but it targets the church for condenation.

Isn’t this replacing freedom of speech with intolerance of speech?

 

[Roy Taylor]

That's probably because "the Church" is the only entity that thinks its their business to mandate what otherwise free people choose to do with their private parts.

Yep, Satan would say the same thing as this person.

 

[Dave L]

Thank you for taking the time to answer, and thank you for your input.

With respect to the thread, I saw ...
1) An interpretation of the bible
2) The interpretation being labelled "God's Word"
3) Justification for an act

My thinking is, how do people know their interpretation is correct?
Surely it's more accurate to say
"I think God thinks homosexuality is a sin and therefore, conversion therapy is permissible"
or
"I think the bible is God's literal Word, written by Paul, and Paul wrote homosexuality is a sin. It's not that Paul thought it must be a sin - Paul wrote what God spoke. Therefore, conversion therapy is permissible."
???
At least that's how I tend to read the bible.

People see what they want to see in the bible. It's like a Rorschach test for any crackpot interpretation. You need to stay with the historic protestant churches with creeds to come out alright.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

People see what they want to see in the bible. It's like a Roarasach test for and crackpot interpretation. You need to stay with the historic protestant churches with creeds to come out alright.

Thank you again.

So I'm not alone haha

I only think God thinks [x]
I might have made a mistake.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's probably because "the Church" is the only entity that thinks its their business to mandate what otherwise free people choose to do with their private parts.

The church relays God’s expectations in hope that people can be spared from burning in the lake of fire for all eternity. The church does not set the expectations.

 

[BNR32FAN]

People are free to obey God period. It is not the church's role to enforce what people do in the bedroom, but it is our job to gently correct those who disobey God in the church and to direct sinners to Christ.

The above laws seeks to prevent any kind of conversion practice.

I wonder if reading the scriptures that deal with homosexuality would be forbidden as well?

 

[DamianWarS]

In Victoria (Australia), the Andrews Government is trying to pass laws that will make it a criminal offence to try to convert a gay to a heterosexual lifestyle. The law specifically mentions prayer and religious practices. The way the law is worded allows for the prosecution and re-educating of people who try with or without the consent of the individual to help a gay become straight. The following video explains the law and its potential effects on the church.

To see the law:

https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-12/591143bab1.pdf

The law bans practices that try to convert gays, and gives fines, heavy fines to people found to have caused harm to an individual during such a practice. Up to $500,000 or 10 years jail (serious harm). More commonly $100,000 or 5 years jail (general harm). However, the definition of harm, is broad, encompassing parents continual disapproval of onces choice, and mental health issues.

It would not be hard for a gay activist to claim harm, which can be short term harm, to mental health.

Advertising material is referenced in the bill, so basically it could be a criminal offense to have a website that encouraged the heterosexual lifestyle for a gay person. This is all under the banner of protecting the rights of gays to feel included, but it targets the church for condenation.

I live in a country where conversion from any religion to any religion is banned so I gave up the practice of converting people a long time ago. that part has always been God's job anyway. I no longer try and convert people but I share with them my experiences with God, read the bible and pray with non-believers all the time. there is a difference between forcing an apple down someone's throat and offering it to them freely. not all take it, but the apple is that much sweeter when they do. Christ tells us to love our neighbour not as we think they should be loved but as we love ourselves. I don't know about you, but I don't like unsolicited relgious conversion one bit and neither do the people I engage with.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Got it.
So I wonder how you define "gently" and if these conversion therapy practices would fall under that "gentle" umbrella in your view:

"Techniques used in conversion therapy in the United States and Western Europe have included ice-pick lobotomies; chemical castration with hormonal treatment; aversive treatments, such as "the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals"; "nausea-inducing drugs ... administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli"; and masturbatory reconditioning."

Really, I’ve never heard of these techniques. I’m curious how widely used these methods are? I’m inclined to think that these were most likely a very low number of isolated cases. I noticed you didn’t include any of the traditional methods that are predominately used by the majority of professionals in dealing with homosexuality conversion.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I live in a country where conversion from any religion to any religion is banned so I gave up the practice of converting people a long time ago. that part has always been God's job anyway. I no longer try and convert people but I share with them my experiences with God, read the bible and pray with non-believers all the time. there is a difference between forcing an apple down someone's throat and offering it to them freely. not all take it, but the apple is that much sweeter when they do. Christ tells us to love our neighbour not as we think they should be loved but as we love ourselves. I don't know about you, but I don't like unsolicited relgious conversion one bit and neither do the people I engage with.

I agree, the gospel should be offered not enforced. Attempting to force a person to convert typically results in the person taking up a contrary or defensive position further solidifying their efforts against it.

 

[tall73]

No. Not only do we not convert people, but we cannot. That is the work of the Spirit.

We do immense harm when we try to do what only God can do.

So you never counsel with your parishioners on how to keep in step with the Spirit regarding any issue, apart from conversion therapy?