The predominant sexual ethic today is built on three moral principles: 1) Consent; 2) No harm involved; 3) Whatever feels good. As long as it feels good, no one is getting hurt, and those involved are consenting to it, it is deemed to be morally acceptable. Timothy Hsiao has written a great article showing why consent and harmlessness are not sufficient to justify a sexual behavior.
Regarding consent, Hsiao argues that consent ought to be based on what is good for us (not just desired by us), and thus the inherent goodness of the act – not just consent – is required. Furthermore, to give consent is to give someone moral permission to do what they would not be justified in doing absent the consent. Giving consent, then, presumes that one has the moral authority to give that permission to another. But if one lacks the moral authority to grant such permissions, consent is not sufficient to make an act ethical. If the act in question is not morally good, then the consenter lacks the proper authority to give consent.
Regarding harm, this principle is usually defined too narrowly. Harm refers to any setback to our wellbeing and flourishing. That could include our physical, spiritual, moral, psychological, and financial health. To determine if a sexual act is harmful, then, we must first determine if it is moral (because every immoral act necessarily brings harm). If we have to ask the moral question before we can determine if something is harmful, then the principle of harm cannot be what determines whether something is moral or not. At best, the principle of harm serves to confirm rather than determine a moral truth.
Check out the article.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/09/15171/
Thinking to Believe 
October 26, 2015 at 10:37 am
Christians love to moralize about others:
Forget about deciding what’s right for each other. Here’s what you need to be concerned about: that you don’t get in the way of someone else, making life more difficult than it already is. I’m convinced—Jesus convinced me!—that everything as it is in itself is holy. We, of course, by the way we treat it or talk about it, can contaminate it. Rom. 14:13,14
Cultivate your own relationship with God, but don’t impose it on others. You’re fortunate if your behavior and your belief are coherent. But if you’re not sure, if you notice that you are acting in ways inconsistent with what you believe—some days trying to impose your opinions on others, other days just trying to please them—then you know that you’re out of line. If the way you live isn’t consistent with what you believe, then it’s wrong. Rom. 14:22,23.
In other words (Blessed) Happy is s/he who does not condemn self for what s/he approves.
LikeLike
October 26, 2015 at 8:37 pm
Re: post # 1 —
The verses from Romans chapter 14 are taken out of context. Yahshua/Jesus never taught “that everything as it is in itself is holy”.
In Romans 14 Paul confronts Gnosticism heresy as he often did [for example in Colossians 2 and 1 Timothy 4]. http://www.theopedia.com/gnosticism
References to “clean & unclean” in Romans 14 concern food and the dietary instructions found in Leviticus 11. Paul declares the integrity of God’s Torah [Romans 14:6-17, 20-23] against those such as the Gnostics whose false man-made doctrines attempt to twist Scripture and lead believers astray.
But put on the Lord Yahshua Messiah, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts. (Romans 13:14)
LikeLike
October 26, 2015 at 9:37 pm
Not out of context at all: When commentators talking over a golf tournament whisper; its what you do. if you want to save 15% go to Geico, its what you do. Christians are always moralizing; its what you do.
The whole chapter relates to moralizing:
Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat;
Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls.;
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike;
But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother?;
Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.;
for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.;
LikeLike
October 26, 2015 at 10:43 pm
WYC: 14 I know and trust in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean by him, no but to him that deemeth any thing to be unclean [but to him that deemeth any thing to be unclean], to him it is unclean.
OJB14 I have da’as and am convinced in Adoneinu Yehoshua that nothing is tamei beetzem (intrinsically), except that to the one who reckons something profane, to that person it is profane.
ASV: 14 I know and am convinced [as one] in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean [ritually defiled, and unholy] in itself; but [nonetheless] it is unclean to anyone who thinks it is unclean.
AMP: (14 I know[n] and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing[o] is defiled[p] in itself [q], except to the one considering anything to be defiled— to that[r] one it is defiled).
NIV: 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.
KJV: 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
All translations seem to say that Jesus did not view things like you Frank, they are saying ……..convinced, ……….trust the lord that nothing is unclean by him……fully persuaded………nothing is defiled…….
LikeLike
October 26, 2015 at 10:47 pm
This is the same reasoning why I agree with Jesus who agrees with me that the sabbath, beauty, sin, defiled, unclean, unholy, pure and good is in the eye of the beholder and why Christians are always moralizing as if they have some uncanny insight into righteousness.
LikeLike
October 27, 2015 at 8:55 am
Leo, the context of Romans 14 is about food/drink and observing days. You can’t generalize it to everything under the sun as this would be going beyond the text.
I do agree with you in part and would say that any restrictions on food/drink or observing days is legalism and is living under Law which believers are not called to do although we should be careful not to cause offense towards those that are weak in the faith since love is the prime directive.
Naz
LikeLike
October 27, 2015 at 11:23 am
Naz:
Yes Naz, I agree with you that the narrative is about food generally but the observance of days such as the Sabbath was injected to point out that this stumbling does not necessarily apply only to dietary observance. It has a wider relevance in being judgmental because of certain acceptable doctrine which for one person is X and for another person Y but if the X wants to persist in putting his position in the face of Y, that is not love nor is it acceptable. This is where discretion is paramount so that you dont incite your brother who believes his position is true. And while your position may be the opposite, in essence you are both right and both of you are okay in the eyes of the Father.
This is why Jesus tried to instill the idea that sin is in the eye of the beholder; for example, when Jesus and his disciples picked corn on the Sabbath because they were hungry, there were those who condemned the action because to them it was profanity against the commandment to honor the Sabbath and to do no work. And the reason Jesus said it was okay and used a previous biblical example how David went into the sanctuary and ate of the shew bread which was not for anybody except the priests to eat and then passed the bread around to his followers who were also hungry.
Jesus was trying to explain that sin is in the eye of the beholder and circumstances sometimes permit extraordinary deviations from the norm not that they are sin but because the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath therefore Man is the master of all the laws that previously governs expected behavior. From eating or not eating pork, shellfish and the like. General rules are always general and sometimes particular rules are waived for the very reasons that David ate the Shewbread and the Disciples picked and ate the corn.
If your brother is dead against wearing a hat in a revered place of sanctity and you do it just to get under his skin because to you it is a moot point and irrelevant; then you are wrong to do that to the stumbling and inciting of anger in your brother who is offended by your actions. That is not love nor is it conducive to good behavior for the sake of at.one.ment with you fellows.
LikeLike
October 27, 2015 at 11:29 am
Naz:
Please understand:
Jesus explains why sin is in the eye of the beholder.
Sin is for the most part exactly what religious decree (dogma) dictates. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life after a trial for heresy, providing he recanted his agreement with Copernican theory that put the sun as the center around which the earth revolved going against the religious decree that the earth is immovable in Deuteronomy. Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade the Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus’ ideas. In the end, a decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were “false” and “altogether contrary to Holy Scripture”. His offending Dialogue was banned; and publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future. This remained for more than 200 years because of the darkness of religious insanity.
It is worth noting that Jesus himself said that sin was in the eye of the beholder when he gave the example of John the Baptist: who came fasting and not drinking and it was said he had a demon; in other words, he was “FULL of sin. Yet the Son of Man came eating and drinking and was called a glutton and winebibber keeping company with sinners(in other words himself full of sin) by the clergy and their generation. Two different lifestyles and yet the clergy claimed that both were sinners Would you be prepared to tell Jesus that your idea of sin describes sin better than Jesus’ description of “sin in the eye of the beholder” as illustrated by him?
Now please understand this: all religions derive from a person and all supernatural entities derive from a person, all morals derive from people and man is the engineer of all holy books, writings, rituals, gods, angels, demons and prayer. No imaginative story from mythology was ever inspired by anyone other than a person, no miracle ever happened but that a person conjured it up; the laws of physics of the universe are never suspended to support clergy’s ludicrous claims of miracles; none, not one, nada, non, nein, nyet.
You have heard about the sanctity of the Sabbath, or the Sunday observance ritual in religion; some call it “divine” because it is the word of God that on the seventh day man should rest as God rested after the creation; well, Jesus answered this question quite succinctly too when he was questioned about it and his answer in all its sheer simplicity is as profound as what I, using many more words than he, just tried to explain: Mark 2: 23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
LikeLike
October 28, 2015 at 5:14 pm
Messiah says, do this:
not that:
LikeLike
October 30, 2015 at 10:27 am
Leo, I understand.
I think that Christians spend too much time talking about sin and trying to figure out was is right and what is wrong. This is a dreadful way to live and not the way of the Spirit. The Spirit will lead and guide in the paths of righteousness and not into sin.
That said, you are still generalizing way too much with the “sin is the eye of the beholder” doctrine. You are just as guilty of the religious in making such an absolute statement about sin, only you are too far bent in the other direction.
For example, if I say murder is not sin to me because in my eyes I’m OK with it, this doesn’t fly. I know this is an extreme example but it illustrates my point, which is why I’m saying you can’t make a “sin in the eye of the beholder” argument universally applicable to all things.
Surely there are things that can be sin to one person and not to another. However those things are due to the weakness of the faith of the individual. When I say weakness, I mean to say that individual is uninformed or does not understand the gospel and the liberty it has freely given us. This would be the case for those who think it is sin to eat shellfish or pork for example. Apart from this, a discerning born again heart will know what sin is and we need to trust our new heart.
1Jn 3:21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God;
In the end the spirit of God that lives inside us is supposed to be our guide and help us distinguish right from wrong, if one is born again. I stress that this is through the Spirit and not the letter which is important because the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. In other words, relax and know that God is on your side even if you fail to follow the leading and make some mistakes. Our behavior and choices are not always perfect.
Cheers Leo !
Naz
LikeLike
October 30, 2015 at 6:36 pm
Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: everyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous. We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. (1 John 3:7,8,10-12,16-18,21,22,24)
LikeLike
November 7, 2015 at 7:44 am
Great post – I like the thinking about “consent.” I feel that, Biblically, sex is marriage – go for it if this is the one you’ll stay with – still working all of that out.
LikeLike
November 9, 2015 at 3:07 pm
The primary purpose of organized religions for the past 3000 years has been to provide moral guidelines for their followers, almost always appealing to the authority of an all-knowing, all-seeing supernatural being as the source of those guidelines and judge of the related behaviors. Its not surprising that the advocates of that higher authority consider mere mortals as being insufficiently equipped to guide their own behavior. I find the golden rule version of the ethic of reciprocity to be a sufficient guideline for my personal behavior.
LikeLike
November 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
Naz says:
Post #10………….For example, if I say murder is not sin to me because in my eyes I’m OK with it, this doesn’t fly. I know this is an extreme example but it illustrates my point, which is why I’m saying you can’t make a “sin in the eye of the beholder” argument universally applicable to all things………….
Sin in the eye of the beholder is universally acceptable to all things as Jesus pointed out in the above noted characterization by Jesus, Post # 8. John the sinner because he had a demon(according to the Pharisees) and Jesus as a sinner because he is a glutton and a drunk(according to the Pharisees). Same thing…in the eye of the beholder.
To your point of murder. Yes it is extreme example but it also goes to the argument sin is in the eye of the beholder. We may say the murders in Paris were wrong but in the eyes of others they are justified. We may say the murder of one of the jihadists by police shooting is justified. To others it is wrong and a sin.
Death sentences are still on the law books in many States and countries; to some it is a sin and to others it is not a sin. Death is war is a sin on one side and not a sin on the other side. One side justifies; the other condemns.
31 States in the U.S. have the death penalty; 19 have abolished the death penalty.
Obvious examples of…. in the eye of the beholder…..support the position and Jesus position that sin is in the eye of the beholder.
* In March 2009, New Mexico voted to abolish the death penalty. However, the repeal was not retroactive, leaving two people on the state’s death row.
** In May 2015, Nebraska voted to abolish the death penalty. The status of the 10 inmates on death row is uncertain at this time. A petition has been submitted to suspend the repeal and put it to a voter referendum.
^ In 1979, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that a statute making a death sentence mandatory for someone who killed a fellow prisoner was unconstitutional. The legislature removed the statute in 1984.
# In 2004, the New York Court of Appeals held that a portion of the state’s death penalty law was unconstitutional. In 2007, they ruled that their prior holding applied to the last remaining person on the state’s death row. The legislature has voted down attempts to restore the statute.
LikeLike