http://www.pluggedin.com/familyroom/articles/2008/choosingtheirreligion.aspx

Today’s teens can program their iPods to play only the songs they like, bypassing record-company executives and radio programmers. With TiVo they are in control of what they watch and when, no longer at the mercy of TV executives and advertisers. Meanwhile, they’re getting their news from Internet blogs that tell them basically what they want to hear, no longer relying on traditional news channels layered with editors.

It’s hardly a surprise, then, that many teens are forming their religious worldviews with the same mentality—by picking and choosing among things they like and leaving the “hard” stuff behind, largely without the benefit of traditional gatekeepers such as teachers and pastors.

That is one of the disturbing results uncovered by sociologist Christian Smith of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who headed 2004’s National Study of Youth and Religion, which surveyed more than 3,300 13- to 17-year-olds throughout the country.

 I Consume, Therefore I Am
Smith, who also co-authored Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, said that a primary driver of teens’ pick-and-choose religious beliefs is a society that sees people as little more than consumers. It’s a culture in which personal choice is supreme and what’s right for you is right, period. While it’s one thing to buy corn flakes that way, such thinking has dire implications when framing theology.

“Religion becomes one product among many others existing to satisfy people’s subjectively defined needs, tastes, and wants,” Smith wrote. “Religious adherents thus become spiritual consumers uniquely authorized as autonomous individuals to pick and choose in the religious market whatever products they may find satisfying or fulfilling at the moment.”

Do Non-Linear Media Encourage Non-Linear Theology?
Today’s teens, perhaps more than any previous generation, have been profoundly affected by the rise of digital communications. This is more than a technological issue, although that’s certainly an element of it. It’s also a matter of how teens gain knowledge and who controls the flow of information.

The pre-digital world tended toward centralized control. A few TV networks determined what our common culture would be. Telephones were not mobile, and one monolithic phone company monopolized the industry. And, of course, there was no such thing as a personal computer, never mind the Internet, e-mail, instant messaging, text messaging and all the other things that come with today’s digital climate. Choices were limited.

That “linear” age is gone, and the way teens interact with today’s decentralized digital media affects the way they look at the world. Modern communications are non-linear, disjointed, image-based and entertainment-centered. The information they pass along is unregulated and unevaluated. If, as Marshall McLuhan stated more than 40 years ago, “the medium is the message,” then the message is this: anything goes.

This mind-set has subtly affected the way teens look at religious claims, creating, according to Smith, an “open market with a congestion of ideas and information that have not been reviewed, judged and sorted by evaluating authorities. … Discernment is left up to the individual.” The problem isn’t independent thought, but the wholesale rejection of conventional wisdom and the input of elders.

“I don’t really follow anything too much. Not like I’m following everything to a T, but like, I do have basic principles and morals and stuff.” —a 16-year-old Wisconsin girl This “religion” is many things, but one thing it is not is Christianity. Smith has dubbed it “moralistic therapeutic deism.”

Embracing “Benign Whateverism”

“A lot of these teens are formally members of specific denominations and traditions, but there’s something else going on in their actual lived experience of beliefs,” he said. Indeed, they don’t understand classic Christian doctrines such as sin, grace and justification. Often, Smith found, they can talk adequately about God but can barely address Jesus. “When teenagers talked in their interviews about grace, they were usually talking about the television show Will & Grace, not about God’s grace.”

On the White Horse Inn radio show Smith explained, “It’s not really Christianity. It’s the belief that God’s out there, but he’s not too involved in our lives. God wants us to be nice [the moralistic part]. Our goal in life is to be happy [the therapeutic part]. I can call on God to solve my problems and troubles, but otherwise He doesn’t need to be too involved in my life [the deistic part].” In fact, among the more than 3,300 teens who participated in Smith’s nationwide survey, the specific phrase “feel happy” appeared more than 2,000 times.

People living the theology of moralistic therapeutic deism seek first to fulfill their own needs. For that reason, Smith’s survey finds that teens are loath to judge anyone or anything else—a religious philosophy he calls “benign whateverism.”

“They see religion as generally good for people,” Smith told salon.com. “It doesn’t hurt you—at the very least, if you enjoy it, it can produce positive results and help you be moral. Good people go to heaven.” Ultimately, though, religion is not that important to them.

What Message Are We Sending?
Smith believes that teens absorb this “what works for me” view of religion from the adults around them, often in their own homes.

“Parents can sometimes play into this,” he said. “They want Billy to go to church because it’ll keep him away from doing drugs. That’s an empirical fact, but whether that’s the reason Billy should be going to church is another matter. Theological tradition appears to be disintegrating. People’s ability to speak the basic language of their own faith is pretty weak. There’s an immense challenge for churches and religious organizations to teach, ’Here’s what we believe, here’s how to talk about it, here’s why it matters.’”

Nearly half the teens surveyed said they had worn jewelry or clothing with a religious message, and nearly half listened to religious music. But the idea of religion making moral claims on people’s lives is largely a foreign concept.

He warned, “It is not so much that U.S. Christianity is being secularized. Rather more subtly, Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith.”

An Openness to Truth
Smith found, however, that there is very little outright hostility to religion among today’s teens. They are quite open to religious truth claims if presented clearly and honestly. In other words, they’re not explicitly rebelling against or rejecting religion. For the most part, they just don’t know better and have absorbed the surrounding culture’s dubious religious worldviews.

He also found a solid core of teens—about 8 percent—who are rock-solid in their faith. They know what they believe and why they believe it. It affects the way they live.

The solution is to help our teens sort through the many competing worldviews and measure this claim against that. But to be able to do so, they must also understand the exclusivity and authenticity of their own faith. One thing that surprised Smith was how inarticulate teens are when it comes to discussing faith issues. Many could quite clearly explain things ranging from popular culture to moral issues such as drug use or premarital sex. When it came to religious beliefs, however, they were at a loss for words since what they believe is so nebulous to start with.

Finally, we must stress that Christianity is not about avoiding this or doing that. It is about a one-to-one relationship with the Creator of the universe. If we get that right, everything else should flow from it. Focus on the Family created trueu.org, an interactive Christian worldview website for older teens and college students. Parents of adolescents should check it out. Or log on together. It could help them strike a decisive blow against “benign whateverism.”

Simpson Keeps What Works, Loses What Cramps Her Style
It’s easier for teens to fall into that trap when entertainers model a pick-and-choose spirituality. Jessica Simpson, the daughter of a Baptist youth minister, told Glamour, “My spirituality has grown, though my thoughts on religion have changed. Now I might take encouragement from a Buddhist in certain situations, whereas when I was younger, I would have said, ’No, what would Jesus do?’”

Simpson’s pragmatic compromises also led her to proclaim, “I want to show my body, and that’s OK because God gave me my body … I definitely want to turn heads.” She proceeded to do just that as bikini-clad Daisy Duke in the Dukes of Hazzard movie. Judging from Simpson’s willingness to play an immodest tease, 1 Timothy 2:9 and Romans 14:21 are among the cast-off verses that no longer fit her lifestyle.

http://www.pluggedin.com/familyroom/articles/2010/littlesqueakscanmeanbigproblems.aspx

A while back I took my 1982 Datsun in to get an irritating noise checked out. I knew I was in trouble when the mechanic called and asked if I was sitting down. His estimate: $802. In this case, the cost of fixing the vehicle exceeded its value. More to the point, the squeak I assumed would require just a quick adjustment was symptomatic of a need for major restoration.

Our kids will emit occasional “squeaks” that indicate a need for spiritual adjustments. If we’re sensitive to them, these issues can be handled rather quickly at minimal cost. A word of encouragement. A hug. A prayer. That may be all it takes to shift a young person back into high gear. But sometimes these indicators are as foreboding as the dreaded oil light. One of those spiritual gauges involves entertainment.

Prior to my delivering a chapel message to Christian school students in Minnesota, the administration surveyed all of the 6th to 12th graders. One of the questions asked for examples of inappropriate entertainment. A high percentage of them said things that indicated trouble under the hood. Here are a few of the “squeaks” I heard:

Nothing is totally inappropriate.When asked how to tell if it’s okay for a Christian to listen to a song, watch a TV show or movie, or play a video game, they shared the following comments: There is no way. Anyone can listen to whatever they want. [An Eminem lyric was penned next to this response.]

Undecided.

NOTHING.

Nothing made for entertainment is too inappropriate. It’s all fun.

Absolutely nothing.

I love all music, from Bach to Slipknot. It doesn’t affect you if you don’t let it.I’ve become so accustomed to [entertainment that] not much phases me anymore. But I know it does affect me a lot.At the risk of sounding harsh, those Christian teens and countless others like them need a tune-up. Their value systems are misfiring. You just heard the knocks and pings of this world’s hollow and deceptive philosophies (Colossians 2:8). But who’s going to get their hands dirty? Perhaps their parents are hoping the Christian school will do it. Or the church. That’s assuming that Mom and Dad even know there’s a problem.

I watch and listen to whatever appeals to me.… My mom doesn’t really mind.

It’s only entertainment. They should be able to decide. Anything’s okay.

With my old clunker, I decided the best option was a trade-in. But we can’t trade in our children. We work to fix ‘em no matter what it takes and no matter what the expense. So as we shop for back-to-school supplies that will prepare our kids for another school year, let’s also equip them in another vital area by scheduling the following maintenance:

A spiritual inspection.   Paul commands us, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.” (2 Corinthians 13:5) There’s no higher calling than making sure that our children are living radical, vibrant lives of faith. How do we find out? You can begin with the media questions I posed to the students. Then be more direct about their spiritual life and relationship with Jesus.

A spiritual tune-up.   There are many ways to grow in Christ. Beyond prayer, fellowship and Bible study, there are summer camps, mission trips, seminars, Christian concerts and any number of other activities that can help strengthen a young person’s faith and moral resolve.

If you hear an entertainment squeak or two, such as “I’m tired of Christian music” or “Rap helps me relate to urban suffering,” probe deeper to find out if you’re in for a minor tune-up or a major overhaul. Beyond spiral-bound notebooks and a pack of No. 2 pencils, a little preventative spiritual maintenance may be just what your teen needs to head back to school with confidence.

Written by www.pluggedin.com

Video games. It’s a pretty good guess that despite the title of this article, right now you’re picturing some teen boy clicking away at a tightly clutched controller. Girls might play on the Neopets website when they’re 10, you figure, but after that, games are the things young women play on the sports field or in social circles.

But all of those assumptions are false.

Women have been a part of video gaming for a long time. Their influence is stronger than you think. And their numbers are growing. These days, 43% of the gaming world is made up of the fairer sex. And as far as that teen boy notion is concerned, the truth is that there are far more women over 18 playing video games today than there are guy gamers under 18.

Of Centipedes and Bubbles With Bows
It’s quite true that in the great unwashed yesteryears of gaming, almost all of the participants were dudes. Most of the early programmers were from the male ranks, and so the little blinking-light sports and shooting titles they created did tend to appeal to scratch-and-spit sensibilities. I come by that bit of information firsthand since I was in that crowd—scratching, spitting and mashing buttons. But then something interesting happened.

Right around 1980, Centipede was released. And when girls spotted it—perhaps while accompanying their boyfriends to the local arcade—they started playing. The game became a massive hit with both guys and gals. Why? Most folks just said the game’s squiggling antagonist and pink-and-green color scheme was more appealing to the sugar-and-spice set. Little known was the fact that the game’s creator was one of the first female arcade game designers.

Another arcade mega-hit was Pac-Man, a title that everyone remembers and even your kids know about. The story goes that the game’s creator, a guy this time, was looking around at the more typical male-oriented activities in the game rooms and purposely decided to create girl-friendly fun. So instead of a button-mashing shooter or blasting-tank title, he devised a clever bit of maze madness with colorful bug-eyed critters playing what amounted to a big game of tag. And what was this super-hit’s even bigger sequel? The pink-bowed Ms. Pac-Man, of course, a game that even let Mr. and Ms. marry and spawn a junior Pac.

Casual Is the New Console
Development companies quickly created something of a formula designed to maintain a general appeal for girl gamers. It wasn’t about raining Pac-Men. Rather it was games you could step up to and play quickly. And added to that were interactive titles that had a bit more thoughtful approach—complete with puzzles, falling blocks, more mazes and, yes, even shopping. Some women looked down their noses as such “pandering,” choosing shooters and sports titles right along with the boys. But just because something’s a salacious stereotype doesn’t always mean it’s not true.

Think of the Sims games that splashed on the personal computer scene at the beginning of the last decade. Those were games about building houses, communities and relationships. In an industry considered to be dominated by bloody blasters, Sims became the biggest selling PC game of all time—proving that if you can create something that guys and gals can both enjoy, you’ve got a winner.

In fact, today’s Wii-triggered and Kinect-copied casual gaming can be linked directly to a desire to create something women can sink their controllers into. It’s a family-friendly trend that has taken the video gaming world by storm and doesn’t look to be letting up anytime soon. Of note: Designers have tried to create M-rated titles for hard-core guy gamers on the Wii—and they’ve pretty much tanked every time.

Girls in Games
The women portrayed in video games have come a long way, too. And some have even gone the distance in style. I recently had a discussion with Megan Gaiser, president and CEO of computer game publisher Her Interactive. Her creates titles based on the intrepid girl detective Nancy Drew, who has represented the female adventuring spirit in books and games for some time now. OK. A very long time now.

“For our audience, we picked up on their preferences early,” Gaiser said. “And they told us from the very beginning that they don’t appreciate being portrayed as victims or victims of violence, and they don’t appreciate characters with exaggerated body parts.”

So she and her company generate games that are filled with mild mysteries and puzzles. And at the same time they give gamers a gutsy, smart, resourceful, spunky and independent Nancy Drew-next-door heroine to guide and be, in turn, inspired by.

“I believe that games have an impact. We have the ability to impact a generation and future generations,” Gaiser continued. “We take that seriously and so create games that are inspiring. And we’re all about empowering women and girls.”

A Woman’s Word for the Wise
Let’s face it, though, ever since the hot pants loving tomb raider Lara Croft spelunked her first cave and the raven-haired Jill Valentine blasted her first zombie, female characters in games have often tended to be either put-upon victims in close-fitting scanty outfits—or backside-kicking, hyper-sexualized vixens in close-fitting scanty outfits. When guys play these kinds of games, issues such as titillation, debasement and misogyny rear their ugly heads. When girls play them, they’re soaking in not-so-subtle and not-so-moral cues about how they’re supposed to look and act. Nancy has one message. Lara and Jill have quite another.

“They say you are what you eat, what you consume,” Ms. Gaiser told me. “That’s kind of the way I look at it. It’s really important that parents are aware of the content of games. It’s forced us to take a more active role in engaging with our daughters and sons, to understand where they [game producers] are going with these games.”

That is indeed a wise word from a female gamemaker to parents. But it may actually mean more for the women making games now and the girls who are playing them—and will make them in the future.

Written by www.pluggedin.com

Both films have content concerns that are way out of bounds for a young teen (and most other folks, too, for that matter). But at the time, if you had asked me if I thought the films impacted me in a negative way, I’m sure I would have said something like, “It’s just a stupid movie! It doesn’t really matter. It’s no big deal.” My conscience knew better, though, and I still recall the illicit rush of watching something we knew we weren’t supposed to be setting eyes on.

These days, kids watching R-rated films isn’t as taboo as it was back in my day (when we couldn’t even text our friends while walking uphill both ways to school against the wind). Technology has made getting R-rated material—or any kind of material, for that matter—orders of magnitude easier than it was for my friend Joe and I in 1984.

That said, I think today’s teens would respond exactly like I would have if you asked them whether R-rated content influenced them. “No big deal,” most would say. “I watch this stuff all the time. It’s not hurting anyone.”

But I was wrong. And they’re wrong, too. Increasingly, researchers are solidifying the link between what teens see in R-rated films and what choices they make in real life.

Little Eyes R Watching
In her 2010 commonsensemedia.com article “Sneaking Into R-Rated Movies (Without Leaving Home),” writer and mother Liz Perle wrote, “I clearly recall telling my then 13-year-old son that the movie Superbad was a total non-starter for him. Full of underage drinking, I didn’t want him to think getting plastered was hilarious. So he didn’t go sneak into the theater with his friends. But a week later, he was quoting movie dialogue. He didn’t need to see the movie. He simply went online and watched the trailers. Then he went on to YouTube for more. Finally, he illegally downloaded a pirated user-posted copy by using an open source file-sharing application called BitTorrent. A total wipeout. Not only had he seen the movie, but he’d also broken the law.”

But most young teens and tweens are watching R-rated films in more “mundane” ways: buying movies at Walmart with their allowance money, casually snagging tickets at the theater, streaming them on Hulu or simply watching on TV. In 2007, the Federal Trade Commission released a report showing that about 40% of 13- to 16-year-olds were able to purchase theater tickets for R-rated movies. Nearly 80% successfully purchased DVDs of similar films. No sneaking around necessary. A 2007 article published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine reported that more than 75% of all U.S. children between the ages of 10 and 14 watched R-rated movies at home with no parental supervision.

In August 2008, Dartmouth Medical School researchers published the results of a survey of 6,522 children they conducted in 2003. The study’s authors asked them whether they’d seen 40 recent films that had been rated R for graphic violence, including Blade, Training Day, Hollow Man and Bride of Chucky.

It turns out Scary Movie was the film 10- to 14-year-olds were most likely to have seen, with 48% having watched it. Boys, minorities, those from lower-income families and those with lower academic performance were more likely to have seen the ultraviolent fare. Perhaps most significantly, about one in three reported that their parents let them watch R-rated movies. But even among those whose parents prohibited them, nearly a quarter had seen at least one of the movies on the list.

R You Seeing Smoke?
Permissive parents might have a different perspective if they understood how imagery in R-rated films influences teens’ choices. One area that’s been subject to repeated scholarly inquiry has been the correlation between teens witnessing smoking in R-rated films and how those images influence whether or not they imitate that behavior themselves.

Research published in a 2007 issue of the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that white U.S. teenagers who frequently watched R-rated movies were a whopping seven times more likely to start smoking than peers with less exposure to such films. Even allowing for other influences—such as friends who smoked, poor performance in school and lack of parental guidance—young whites viewing more R-rated fare were still three times more likely to begin smoking. (Researchers also found a link between unsupervised television consumption and picking up the habit.)

Backing up that data are two more recent studies. In 2009, research published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine reinforced the notion that children who watch R-rated films are more likely to smoke than those who don’t. “Parents need to be mindful about the movies their children watch for a variety of reasons,” said co-author Dr. Joseph DiFranza of the University of Massachusetts Medical School. “This study points out one more reason for not allowing children to watch movies that are not appropriate for their age.”

Rebecca de Leeuw, a doctoral student at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands, echoed those statements when talking about the results of her research, published in the January 2011 issue of Pediatrics. De Leeuw again found that teens who watch R-rated movies are more likely to begin smoking than those who don’t, estimating that completely restricting R-rated movie viewing among 10- to 14-year-olds could cut their risk of smoking two- to threefold. “When watching popular movies, youth are exposed to many risk behaviors, including smoking, which is rarely displayed with negative health consequences and most often portrayed in a positive manner or glamorized to some extent,” she said.

But smoking isn’t the only subject academics have focused on. Dartmouth Medical School researchers investigated the relationship between R-rated viewing habits and alcohol. They found that almost 25% of children whose parents let them watch R-rated movies “all the time” had tried an alcoholic drink without their parents’ knowledge. In contrast, just 3% of kids who were “never allowed” to watch R-rated movies had tried drinking. (According to the study, alcohol consumption is portrayed in about 90% of R-rated movies.)

Dartmouth pediatrician and professor James Sargent, who co-authored the study that was published in the March 2010 issue of Prevention Science, commented on those findings: “The research to date suggests that keeping kids from R-rated movies can help keep them from drinking, smoking and doing a lot of other things that parents don’t want them to do.”

Then he added, “The message to parents is clear. Take the movie ratings literally. Under 17 should not be permitted to see R-rated movies.”

The research doesn’t end there. And neither does common sense. But this article must. So with such a wealth of research backing up Sargent’s statement, there’s more than enough proof to say emphatically: Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Whether it’s cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, violence or sex, R-rated movies do influence teens. And it matters not a whit what I might have thought when I was 14.

Written by www.pluggedin.com

In Psalms 139:16, the psalmist David wrote about God:
      “You saw me before I was born.
          Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
            Every moment was laid out
              Before a single day had passed.”

“Faith For One” is believing and receiving the plan of God for your love life, committing to the one He has for you before you ever meet, and trusting that God will bring you together at the perfect time.

Suggested donation is $30
Contact The Core Youth Ministries for more information.
Tel: 870.741.6804

Answer:
Let’s define these two words.
Personification = 1: Attribution of personal qualities; especially : representation of a thing or abstraction as a person or by the human form
2: A divinity or imaginary being representing a thing or abstraction
(http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/personification)

Personification = A figure of speech in which human characteristics are given to an animal or an object.

Hyperbole = “Extravagant exaggeration”
(http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole?show=0&t=1291226799)

Hyperbole = “An exaggeration that is so dramatic that no one would believe the statement is true”

Let’s talk about personifications first. Yes, personification as it is simply defined is used.
Valleys that sing (Ps. 65:13)
Stones that cry out (Hab. 2:11)
Blood of Abel that cries from the ground (Gen. 4:10)
Tongues of the arrogant that strut through the earth (Ps. 73:9)
Rivers clap their hands (Ps. 98:8)
Babylon is a prostitute (Rev. 18)
Money a rival deity (Matt. 6:24)
Seeing waters (Ps. 77:16)
Wisdom raising it’s voice (Prov. 1:20)
Confounded moon and an ashamed sun (Is. 24:23)

Now for the hyperbole…
This one, for me anyways, is harder to make a definate conclusion about. It appears that the Bible uses a hyperbole occasionally. One such possibility is found in Matthew.

Matthew 7:3 “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?”

Does one usually have a plank, or as the greek has translated at other times, a log, or beam, in their eye? The answer is no…Is it possible that someone has had a log thrust into their eye?…If you work around such materials I think it could be possible. But this passage is more than likely saying that before we judge something small someone else is doing that might not be right we should be careful not to ignore a major problem in our own life. So, is this a true example of a hyperbole? Or, is there something we are overlooking? Some people view any kind of exaggeration as a lie. People would have nothing to hold onto in sickness, or famine, or even in near death situation if the Bible uses exaggeration that were untrue. But in the case found in Matthew 7 the exaggeration is not based on something untrue but an on a truth. Almost in a comedic way the Bible teaches us that it’s abnormal to look at someones small but real sin issue and make a big deal about it when you have a serious, obvious sin issue in your own life that you seem to be avoiding. So then, what conditions or rules does the Bible follow, if any, to justify the use of an exaggeration? Is this a true example of a hyperbole or a metaphor?
I have done some research on the web about this…and…I don’t think I have enough information to complete my answer thoroughly. So I am going to leave it as is for now and continue to do some more study.

Answer:
Yes, there is a side of our heavenly Father that does get angry. Another question we need to ask is what does He direct His anger towards? A simple answer is found in Romans 1:18-19.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.”

So we see that He does show His anger…He does get upset…but He is upset at ungodliness and unrighteousness…the reason…becuase He has revealed Himself to us, mankind, and we are the only ones who can truly express who He is to others. If we refuse to do what is right, we are actually limiting others from knowing the truth. Throughout scripture this has always made God angry.  Look at Matthew 18:6-7 for more insight on how God thinks about those who get in the way of His truth.
God is a just God. All His ways are upright. God is not on our side…He doesn’t take sides..We are on His side! God looks after those who call upon His name.
Further study:
Isaiah 66:14 NLT, Message
Deuteronomy 28:1-2
Deuteronomy 7:15
Galatians 3:13-14
Exodus 12:23-24
Judges 2:11, 14-15
Nehemiah 9:27, 28
Nehemiah 9:17
Lamentations 3:32-33 (This passage is key in understanding that God passes judgment which allows access to the destroyer into peoples lives, but He does not do this willingly…It grieves Him to do this. Does God put sickness on people? NO! He passes judgment which allows access to the destroyer. (Exodus 12:23-24))
Galatians 6:7-8
1 Corinthians 5:1-2, 5
Romans 8:2