PDA

View Full Version : Calling all Evangelicals...how would you respond to this?




Maestro232
01-03-2012, 10:45 AM
So, the following excerpt is from a Pastor/commentator who likes much of Ron Paul, but this is the central issue for him that would like to see Paul as Secretary of Treasury rather than President. I'm interested in hearing from Evangelical Christians how you would interact with this...


While I appreciate Ron Paul's pro-life stand (I really do), there is still a significant problem for him when it comes to our nation's sexual confusion about the creation order. In Liberty Defined, Ron Paul has said there should be "no limits" to the "voluntary definition" of marriage. He has said that he is supportive of all voluntary associations, and people can call it whatever they want. This is beyond naive -- an orgy is a voluntary association, and sinners want to call it any number of things other than what God calls it -- an occasion for some brimstone.

Because marriage involves property, and heirs, and dependent children, the civil magistrate will necessarily be involved. For example, Solomon adjudicated the custody fight between the two harlots over the baby. Marriage in a republic like ours cannot be reduced to something as easy as a boy and girl in second grade deciding to "like" each other. Whatever the definition of marriage will be, because of the ownership/custody issues that are the necessary ramifications of sex, the civil order will have to add its amen (or not) to that definition of marriage. And if the state is proposing to add its amen to any voluntary definition of marriage, no limits whatever, then I have to confess that I have never heard anything scarier (or dumber) in my life.

Philosophy_of_Politics
01-03-2012, 10:49 AM
I would explain to him, that marriage existed prior to government involvement.

sailingaway
01-03-2012, 10:50 AM
Ron Paul said he would deal with those issues inside the other laws. At least, at the Des Moines Register when they said marriage impacted tax laws he said he'd probably deal with that by changing the tax law. He doesn't think people should pay income tax as a matter of principle, even though it isn't his immediate target, and he certainly doesn't think tax law should be used to incentavize behavior in areas not the government's to regulate.

However MY response is that inheiritance laws etc are supposed to reflect society's typical wishes, not dictate norms.

CaptUSA
01-03-2012, 10:52 AM
Which is why you want this decision made as locally as possible, Pastor. The further away this civil order exists, the less influence you have upon it. Your voice gets smaller and smaller with the more people you add into it. The Founders understood this. What you are hearing from Ron Paul is not what you are inferring. He doesn't want the State - The federal government - to add its amen to any definition of marriage.

Feeding the Abscess
01-03-2012, 10:52 AM
Did that moron seriously bring up Solomon, he of like 700-something wives, in his defense of one man, one woman marriage?

Has he ever read the Bible? I'm not really kidding.

In any event, Ron wants government out of marriage. Period. No sanction of straight, gay, or polygamist marriage.

I'm not an evangelical, though. Take that into account.

tremendoustie
01-03-2012, 10:54 AM
So, the following excerpt is from a Pastor/commentator who likes much of Ron Paul, but this is the central issue for him that would like to see Paul as Secretary of Treasury rather than President. I'm interested in hearing from Evangelical Christians how you would interact with this...

My response is: No, the government will not have to add its "amen". That's the whole point -- marriage is not defined by the government, but by God. It was a bad idea, and a hubristic usurpation, for the government to get involved in it in the first place.

Ron Paul does not propose to add his, or the government's "amen" to any arbitrary definition of marriage -- he's proposing that the government stay out of the business entirely. Such involvement is as dangerous as the idea of a secular government imposing a definition of "salvation", "faith", or "sin" would be. We shouldn't seek to make sure they define it properly -- we should stop them from acting like it is within their power or their jurisdiction to define it at all.

pebcak
01-03-2012, 10:54 AM
As an evangelical myself, I can accept Ron Paul's stance on the basis that the only reason government has any role in marriage at all is for tax purposes, and that they provide a nice and tidy contract which two people agree to. The problem is not marriage, it is government's role. If we eliminate the income tax, much of that goes away, and it boils down to just a contract between two people. Why shouldn't any number of people be allowed to enter a contract? They do it all the time. But marriage itself is religious and takes place in a church, ordained by God. We shouldn't confuse marriage with what government has turned it into, which subsidizes and rewards marriage. People of the same sex are looking to benefit from these same subsidies. Eliminate the subsidy, and suddenly there's nothing left to argue about. Everyone is free, and Christian marriage is still Christian marriage.

Maestro232
01-03-2012, 10:55 AM
I know Ron Paul wants Gov out of marriage. The question is, how do you interact with the objection raised.

Cody1
01-03-2012, 10:56 AM
Exactly, and I hate to break some hearts but there are more important issues in the country than the definition of what marriage is. SSSOOOORRRYYY!

A. Havnes
01-03-2012, 10:59 AM
So, the following excerpt is from a Pastor/commentator who likes much of Ron Paul, but this is the central issue for him that would like to see Paul as Secretary of Treasury rather than President. I'm interested in hearing from Evangelical Christians how you would interact with this...

For one, just because Ron Paul knows that the federal government cannot be involved in marriage (although you should point out that RP is in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act), that doesn't mean that I could step outside, decide I like my dog and marry her!

The church will be in charge of marriage, which is as it should be. Heaven forbid the president can dictate what marriage is and is not while the church is handcuffed and unable to stand against this. If a church wants to marry homosexual couples, then you don't have to support that church. This pastor would be able to put his foot firmly down against any coupling he doesn't approve of, voluntary or not.

Given that this pastor calls an orgy "an occasion for some brimstone," it would seem to me that he's in favor of strong laws regarding sexual conduct (I'm a Christian Universalist, by the way), but what he doesn't realize is that laws preventing homosexuals from being married isn't going to make homosexuality go away. Under a Ron Paul presidency, if he thinks that it's his job to preserve the sanctity of marriage and allow only a man and woman to marry, then he's free to do so. The government isn't going to tell him that he has to marry homosexuals.

Imagine this: say you get a social conservative in the oval office who sets a precidence by signing a law stating that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. Great for this guy, right? Well, what happens if a social liberal takes office after him and changes the law so that the church cannot refuse to marry homosexuals? Then the church is bound, by law, to participate in something it finds morally abhorrent. It isn't good for the church to be bound to the federal government like that.

tremendoustie
01-03-2012, 11:00 AM
I know Ron Paul wants Gov out of marriage. The question is, how do you interact with the objection raised.

Please read my response. His objection is misinformed, because he assumes the state is going to give their "amen" to arbitrarily defined marriages. That's not what Paul is proposing. He is proposing that the state give no "amen".

I really think that if you send him what I wrote, it will be received very well.

Philosophy_of_Politics
01-03-2012, 11:00 AM
edit: above poster answered for me.

agorist ninja
01-03-2012, 11:01 AM
I would explain to him, that marriage existed prior to government involvement.
Bingo. That's really the death blow to these types of marriage arguments.

As Tom Woods points out, it was the French Revolution (a decidedly modern liberal event), where marriage widely became a province of government. Why do so-called conservatives end up defending liberal positions, just because they were enacted long ago? Throughout the vast majority of Christianity's history, no one would have ever dreamed of anything but the church being involved with the sanctioning of their marriage.

That's the question with which to respond.

Maestro232
01-03-2012, 11:01 AM
Marriage is not defined by the government, but by God...Such involvement is as dangerous as the idea of a secular government imposing a definition of "salvation", "faith", or "sin" would be.

Interesting. I like this.

Miss Annie
01-03-2012, 11:02 AM
Ron Paul is running for the office of President, not applying for the job of Pastor. The pastors should teach morality and the government should stay out of it.

jmdrake
01-03-2012, 11:02 AM
Did that moron seriously bring up Solomon, he of like 700-something wives, in his defense of one man, one woman marriage?

LOL. And 300 of them weren't even "wives". They were concubines. The interesting reality is that the way current trends are going what David, Solomon and Abraham did (polygamy) will continue to be illegal while gay marriage will eventually become "legal". Evangelicals are naive on this point. The only way to "win" the culture war is to quit trying to fight it. The more the federal government is empowered on this issue the more likely it is to impose a definition of marriage on everybody that evangelicals can't accept.



Has he ever read the Bible? I'm not really kidding.


Many people have a very superficial understanding of the Bible. How many people, for example, then the term "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" is in the Bible? It might be a true, it might not be true, but it's not biblical.



In any event, Ron wants government out of marriage. Period. No sanction of straight, gay, or polygamist marriage.

I'm not an evangelical, though. Take that into account.

I hate sometimes to admit it, but I fit the "technical" definition of being an "evangelical". I've always, however, found political evangelicalism to be wanting. Chuck Baldwin is the only exception I've allowed to that rule.

Philosophy_of_Politics
01-03-2012, 11:02 AM
For one, just because Ron Paul knows that the federal government cannot be involved in marriage (although you should point out that RP is in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act), that doesn't mean that I could step outside, decide I like my dog and marry her!

The church will be in charge of marriage, which is as it should be. Heaven forbid the president can dictate what marriage is and is not while the church is handcuffed and unable to stand against this. If a church wants to marry homosexual couples, then you don't have to support that church. This pastor would be able to put his foot firmly down against any coupling he doesn't approve of, voluntary or not.

Given that this pastor calls an orgy "an occasion for some brimstone," it would seem to me that he's in favor of strong laws regarding sexual conduct (I'm a Christian Universalist, by the way), but what he doesn't realize is that laws preventing homosexuals from being married isn't going to make homosexuality go away. Under a Ron Paul presidency, if he thinks that it's his job to preserve the sanctity of marriage and allow only a man and woman to marry, then he's free to do so. The government isn't going to tell him that he has to marry homosexuals.

Imagine this: say you get a social conservative in the oval office who sets a precidence by signing a law stating that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. Great for this guy, right? Well, what happens if a social liberal takes office after him and changes the law so that the church cannot refuse to marry homosexuals? Then the church is bound, by law, to participate in something it finds morally abhorrent. It isn't good for the church to be bound to the federal government like that.

This.

This is about the Church standing up for itself, when it comes time for them to decide whether or not to marry the couple. The idea here, is that the government cannot be used as a weapon to boss the church around.

69360
01-03-2012, 11:03 AM
Yet another false christian with a narrow view of the world. God loves everyone just as he created them.

Any two people can enter into any contract and call it whatever they like. The only role of government should be to enforce or dissolve that contract.

Maestro232
01-03-2012, 11:04 AM
Exactly, and I hate to break some hearts but there are more important issues in the country than the definition of what marriage is. SSSOOOORRRYYY!

Well...this commentator also said in the same article...


My issue has to do with the distinction between what is a threat to our security and what I regard as the ground of that threat. If catastrophe comes to us, I am strongly inclined to believe that it will be an economic catastrophe. America is much more likely to be a suicide than a murder victim. If this happens, it will God's just and righteous judgment upon us. If it happens, we deserved to have it happen. That's how judgments work. And while the catastrophe has not yet happened, the reasons for it have.

I would regard the ground of that catastrophe to be our sexual rebellion against God's created order. That sexual rebellion includes the abortion carnage, the full-court sodomite press for gay marriage, women in pulpits and in the cockpits of fighter planes, the porn epidemic, the divorce rates, and so on. If it is right for us to question Newt Gingrich's reliability based on his inability to keep his marriage vows, and it is, by the same token, it should be right for us to question America's reliability based on our rampant sexual confusions. We break promises, we sleep around, and we dismember the inconvenient by-products of our pursuit of sexual pleasure. The penumbrae of the Constitution are conveniently arranged by us to shelter our dirty deeds. At the same time, we have arranged no shelter of any kind for the young Americans who may be constitutionally sacrificed on the altars of our orgasms. This is, I believe, the heart of our disease, the heart of our sickness -- egalitarianism, hedonism, perversion, and every other form of pomosexuality.

So he is making the case that our economic troubles are connected with our aberrant sexuality.

eloquensanity
01-03-2012, 11:04 AM
You can't legislate repentance. It has to be genuine from the individuals heart. :)

sailingaway
01-03-2012, 11:05 AM
Interesting. I like this.

that is what secularists don't understand is the PURPOSE behind most (not all, for everyone) of the religious push back. They see the state encroaching into religion everywhere, and see this as the state DICTATING the substance of a sacrament. They know that Catholic churches now have to offer abortions if they take federal funds and don't want religious organizations to have to close (as Catholic churches have) or perform something they don't see as a sacrament. Ron's approach that government stays out of it addresses that issue.

Philosophy_of_Politics
01-03-2012, 11:06 AM
You can't legislate repentance. It has to be genuine from the individuals heart. :)

This as well.

sunghoko
01-03-2012, 11:07 AM
Every state has marriage age laws. Up to them to decide if marriage should be defined as between man/woman/goat

69360
01-03-2012, 11:10 AM
Well...this commentator also said in the same article...



So he is making the case that our economic troubles are connected with our aberrant sexuality.


These people make me ill. They are false prophets. They twist the words of God to their world view. Real Christians believe the everyone is equal and God loves us all just as he created us.

Maestro232
01-03-2012, 11:10 AM
The more the federal government is empowered on this issue the more likely it is to impose a definition of marriage on everybody that evangelicals can't accept.

Excellent.

FriedChicken
01-03-2012, 11:13 AM
Government standing in the marriage issue puts the government in a position to play God.
As a Christian myself I find that to be a very scary role for government to play - because even if they use that power to do well intended enforcement of biblical principles at first it puts them in a position to to do the opposite with the same power.

The Christian church, generally speaking, has done a poor job of reaching out and ministering to gays and has focused more on making gay relationships illegal. If we as Christians want to see a change in our country towards more Godly principles than we need to start ministering and praying to our neighbors and making sure that our government remains in its constitutional confines so we are still free to discuss our beliefs with others.

When the government acts outside of the constitution, even for well intended reasons, it opens the door to backfiring on our faith.
If we continue to allow the federal government to act outside of the constitution for moral reasons than I can see a society in the future proclaiming it to be "immoral" to preach the word to non-believers or "immoral" for Christian pastors to deny marriage ceremonies to homosexuals.

The kingdom of heaven is further expanded when the government stands out of the way while the spirit works through us to change hearts for Christ.

I also consider it a slap in the face to me, my wife and God when I'm required to get a marriage license. We should not require permission from the state.

Captain Caveman
01-03-2012, 11:14 AM
As I would say it to a pastor.... beit Baptist or Pentecostal, or other "denominational" systems.....

If there must be legalities involved, make it an issue of contract rights (or contract violations, in the case of separation).

Those who do not care about something legally binding, will just shack up in their sins or be Married before witnesses and God.
Those who are in their sins, homosexual or strait, aren't really in God's will anyway, are they? That's the sad part.

Many marriages were entries in a family Bible, before government got involved.. although I understand local courthouses and townships recorded the marriage in their records as well, sometimes.

Just my thoughts. You could call me a "Bapti-costal", if you need to define me.. but I'm not much for organized religion (there are good churches of course).

PastaRocket848
01-03-2012, 11:19 AM
So, the following excerpt is from a Pastor/commentator who likes much of Ron Paul, but this is the central issue for him that would like to see Paul as Secretary of Treasury rather than President. I'm interested in hearing from Evangelical Christians how you would interact with this...

i would tell that guy it's time to claw his way out of the 1700's. seriously.. we can't pander to these people. they're backward. anyone who thinks the federal gov't should be telling people how many people they can have sex with in a given instance or who they are allowed to fall in love with is a religious wingnut bigot. period. thankfully these people are going the way of the dodo bird.. and quick.

this is what is wrong with the republican party. "conditional conservatives". they're all about real conservatism, fiscally, and in terms of their individual liberty to practice their religion. unfortunately all that goes out the window once they want gov't to force their morality on the masses.

Tinnuhana
01-03-2012, 11:19 AM
And then some people flip out about the imposition of shariah law! Moral people can create a moral society; laws about morality can't. Like RP whispered after Herman Cain discussed his 9-9-9 plan in debate: "You won't be president forever"; meaning you are laying tghe groundwork for another president with same power of government, to come in and raise it to 15-15-15 or whatever.
By the way, the arguments already given, are great...just developing on one of the angles. Like, any gov't big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take it all away. Besides tax revenue resource, wasn't gov't involvement in marriage to prevent biracial marriage and to support a eugenics agenda? Just asking.

Created4
01-03-2012, 11:20 AM
"He has said that he is supportive of all voluntary associations"

This itself is a mis-quote. He does NOT support these associations, he believes that their right to choose this behavior is protected by the constitution. That same protection in the constitution protects our religious liberties. But when people mis-quote Ron Paul like this, call them out on it. Say: "He didn't say that" and then correct them. He doesn't personally support gay marriage, he does not personally support drug usage, etc. Help them to understand the libertarian concepts that protects their liberties as well.

Maestro232
01-03-2012, 11:22 AM
If there must be legalities involved, make it an issue of contract rights (or contract violations, in the case of separation).
I like this too.

jmdrake
01-03-2012, 11:23 AM
Because marriage involves property, and heirs, and dependent children, the civil magistrate will necessarily be involved. For example, Solomon adjudicated the custody fight between the two harlots over the baby.

You know, the idiocy of the above cannot be overlooked. People can have joint property and not be married. Some folks never marry or have children and still have heirs. And people who never marry have children all of the time. If two people set up default positions through contract they can handle all of those issues and then some.

Heck, even this "pastor's" own illustration undercuts his own argument. The two women Solomon adjudicated the child custody fight for were not married. So clearly by his own example marriage is not a prerequisite for civil adjudication of family issues.

Edit: I wonder if this pastor even realizes his "Marriage is a necessity to deal with kids, property and inheritance" is the same argument that proponents of gay marriage use to push for that "right"?

Maestro232
01-03-2012, 11:23 AM
Thanks everyone. There are clearly some non-evangelicals responding here :rolleyes: but there are some helpful takeaways too.

Maestro232
01-03-2012, 11:24 AM
You know, the idiocy of the above cannot be overlooked. People can have joint property and not be married. Some folks never marry or have children and still have heirs. And people who never marry have children all of the time. If two people set up default positions through contract they can handle all of those issues and then some.

Heck, even this "pastor's" own illustration undercuts his own argument. The two women Solomon adjudicated the child custody fight for were not married. So clearly by his own example marriage is not a prerequisite for civil adjudication of family issues.

Edit: I wonder if this pastor even realizes his "Marriage is a necessity to deal with kids, property and inheritance" is the same argument that proponents of gay marriage use to push for that "right"?

Excellent

flightlesskiwi
01-03-2012, 11:26 AM
Well...this commentator also said in the same article...



So he is making the case that our economic troubles are connected with our aberrant sexuality.

this is quite common.

what's apparently lacking in his understanding is: a sin is a sin is a sin is a sin.

sexual immorality is always listed as one among many sins.

what makes it qualitatively different in the bible is 1 Cor. 6 v. 18: Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

kind of like Ron says, eh?

also, last time i checked, God judges the individual not the nation.

when i think about the "God's gonna judge this nation and rightfully so because of ______" crowd, i also think: "well i guess that pastor/person/whatever, just isn't doing a good enough job to save the whole nation. standing in judgement with God on the outside world, and thinking they know God's mind and what He is or isn't doing with a nation. what a prideful and horrific place to be-- salvation by works under the guise of righteous morality."

which always leads me back to this verse: "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" Paul is speaking about believers judging non believers. (1 Cor 5:12)

imo, a lot of evangelicals are caught up in doing the opposite-- ignoring the filth rampant in their own ranks and screaming at a deaf world.

samuel
01-03-2012, 11:31 AM
I love Jesus, here's my stance:

Humans cannot redefine reality; God establishes reality, including the definition of marriage. No amount of government intervention, regulation, or involvement can change what marriage actually is. Even if a presidential candidate were to come out and say that "marriage includes male-male relationships," marriage wouldn't include that kind of a relationship. Because it doesn't matter at all what the government does with respect to marriage, there is no use in wasting government time and funds on the issue. Privatization is the best solution.

Miss Annie
01-03-2012, 11:33 AM
Ooops, tired. Wrong quote. Wrong place....... need a nap! LOL

Feeding the Abscess
01-03-2012, 11:34 AM
Just kind of tossing this in here. There's a good way to find out if somebody is with or against us. Liberty brings us together - if someone is looking for ways to distance themselves from Ron and the message, they don't believe in liberty.

amy31416
01-03-2012, 11:44 AM
Why are evangelicals against free will?

idiom
01-03-2012, 11:47 AM
I got irked by the Brimstone comment.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not for their general immorality which any city has, but for their inability to show 10 godly men between them.

Ten righteous individuals would have been all that was required for God to put up with everything else the population was up too.

The message of the Bible is not to go around telling others to stop being bad, but to start being truly good yourself.

When you get married in the church, after the pastor announces you are married you still go and sign the marriage license. Apparently God, the pastor and the community witnessing your vows and contract is not enough. You are only married after the government says you are. This is really absurd. Who gives the government the authority?

erowe1
01-03-2012, 11:51 AM
Ask him which of the issues he mentioned can't be settled by a contract.

If he agrees that they can be settled by a contract, ask him whether or not the federal government should be in the business of deciding who can and can't enter such a contract.

jmdrake
01-03-2012, 11:55 AM
I got irked by the Brimstone comment.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not for their general immorality which any city has, but for their inability to show 10 godly men between them.

Ten righteous individuals would have been all that was required for God to put up with everything else the population was up too.

The message of the Bible is not to go around telling others to stop being bad, but to start being truly good yourself.

When you get married in the church, after the pastor announces you are married you still go and sign the marriage license. Apparently God, the pastor and the community witnessing your vows and contract is not enough. You are only married after the government says you are. This is really absurd. Who gives the government the authority?

+rep! Just this weekend I was reading through Romans and noticed that chapter 2, which condemns homosexuality along with other sins, is followed by chapter 3, which says don't judge other people because you yourself have committed sins. The New Testament message is clear. "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more". The Christian church exists to preach offer deliverance to those who want it, not to condemn those who don't.

mosquitobite
01-03-2012, 11:57 AM
As an evangelical myself, I can accept Ron Paul's stance on the basis that the only reason government has any role in marriage at all is for tax purposes, and that they provide a nice and tidy contract which two people agree to. The problem is not marriage, it is government's role. If we eliminate the income tax, much of that goes away, and it boils down to just a contract between two people. Why shouldn't any number of people be allowed to enter a contract? They do it all the time. But marriage itself is religious and takes place in a church, ordained by God. We shouldn't confuse marriage with what government has turned it into, which subsidizes and rewards marriage. People of the same sex are looking to benefit from these same subsidies. Eliminate the subsidy, and suddenly there's nothing left to argue about. Everyone is free, and Christian marriage is still Christian marriage.

+1 :)

Philosophy_of_Politics
01-03-2012, 11:58 AM
The one point that many evangelicals have stopped practicing . . .

Is that humanity is not to inflict the judgement of God himself. To quit being the hand of god himself. That judgement is reserved, and to be carried out by God.

Captain Shays
01-03-2012, 12:15 PM
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars' and unto God what is God's. Our 1st Amendment says tha Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof. In the Christian religion only a man can marry a woman and only a woman can marry a man but in some other religion (I don't know which one that is) they may allow a man to marry a man. Either way it's not a matter of the government marriage is a matter for religion.

Fetou
01-03-2012, 12:21 PM
The movement should be one thing to all people. Freedom to people who worship and have traditional marriages, freedom for people who peacefully participate in orgies. Separation of church and state is good for both. People who want the government to enforce morality are not on the side of freedom and cannot be incorporated into the movement unless they put this desire aside and prioritize other more pressing issues like the economy. You can't pander to everybody, especially those who disagree with the core principles of the movement.

In terms of the argument, the government would not be giving an amen to any of the social contracts, the individuals involved would. What make's the pastor think the government is any form of religious authority anyhow? Their approval is not relevant to the believer. The liberty position is to have equal rights for people of all religions and beliefs (again, separation of church and state), and the best way to do this is not to pick sides on moral issues. Refusing to deny freedom to some does not imply agreement or support, but rather consistent protection of individuals' right to choose how to conduct themselves.
The law at many times has been inconsistent with the Christian faith in many places in the world. This does not prevent the Christians from leading by example and spreading their message of love, for they do not answer to secular authority but to a spiritual authority. The law is no excuse for the faithful. "Who prevented you from obeying the truth? This persuasion does not come from the one who calls you!" Galatians 5:7-8. << There were many Christian martyrs who refused to obey the law of their land

" For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery. Listen! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all! And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace! For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait expectantly for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight – the only thing that matters is faith working through love." -Galatians 5:1-6

" But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, being jealous of one another. Support One Another Brothers and sisters if a person is discovered in some sin, you who are spiritual restore such a person in a spirit of gentleness. Pay close attention to yourselves, so that you are not tempted too. Carry one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." Galatians 5:22 -6:3