Sexual Morality “There must be integrity between body and life. You must not do with your body what you’re not willing to do with your whole life” (Keller). Keller is directly talking about our individual sexual morality and how or how not it should be perceived in a social context. Most people think sexual dilemmas of it in a broader spectrum, not directly related to one’s morality, by saying “this act isn’t right” where others may simply say “why not”. Yet, what justifies an act for one person and condemns it for another?
There are two options to consider here. One of them is that actions are moral or immoral because god commands them, this would mean that god lacked reasons for his commands. If this was the case, then that god would be imperfect. Let us take rape, for example. In the case where god lacks reasons for his commands, rape would be okay because there is no right or wrong.
My belief is that no one's personal morals should be incorporated into the US government as this contradicts the idea of Free America. I don't feel that laws should be passed to protect homosexual rights and expression, but to protect everyone's rights and expression. Anyone who wants to follow the bible's morals and the idea of natural marriage and procreation, should absolutely be allowed to do so. And anyone who wants to have and practice moral beliefs opposite or in any way different than the bible's established beliefs. However it's important that people realize that everyone has opinions, and some people are bound to have different opinions then some of the people around them.
As scripture interprets scripture, he points out that Ezekiel, Jude, and other texts all support homosexualities’ blanket condemnation. Via seems m... ... middle of paper ... ..., they should not act upon them in a sexual way, as they can be fully alive without sex. Some questions I still harbor: If homosexuality is something God has given humanity as a sign of God’s wrath (as Via implies) and not necessarily a sin, ought we still accept it? Can we take the Leviticus passage out of context and put it with the “impure” laws about menstruation when it actually rests between a verse about not sacrificing to idols (obviously against both OT and NT law) and having sex with animals? If we can, then we may make the case that beastiality was just an impurity law and is now a legitimate form of sexual expression.
Sufficiently Less Than Enough: Consent, Sex, and Moral Behaviour Consent is uniquely argued position within philosophical analysis of moral and immoral behaviours, especially in regards to positions refuting consents ability to be sufficient enough to legitimize moral behaviour. We must remain critical in our analysis of consent, and ways that it may, or may not legitimize moral behaviours. At first glance, one might assume that; the consent of two people is enough to constitute moral behaviour. Upon further investigation, we become aware of another’s ability to consciously consent and engage in acts that will degrade and cause some form of harm to the other, usually for their own mental or physical pleasure, inducing the fact that consent is not sufficient for ensuring moral behaviour. Consent is certainly a necessary part of contextualizing and legitimizing moral, sexual behaviours, however, consent is not implicitly sufficient for moral behaviour on its own.
Waldron wishes to answer the inconsistencies in the paradox of the moral right to do wrong. One way Waldron says we misunderstand the moral right to do wrong is ... ... middle of paper ... ...ose misunderstandings and addresses why we have that moral right to do wrong. I agree with Waldron’s views since they connect to the enhancement of a diverse society. we know now that Waldron is looking at “wrongs” from a moral view not a legal view. An objection can be that his conception is limited because it only deals with morals and leaves the legal point of view aside.
However, I feel more emboldened to share. If God can heal me, He can heal others through me. I so agreed with what Penner said regarding sexuality being a part of one’s created being and not a result of the fall from grace (page 25). The idea that God also instilled the desire for sex within His creation is a solid biblical thought. In my opinion, the inability of Christians and the church at large to embrace this truth is the greatest obstacle to the freedom to enjoy God’s good gift and the inability to protect the same good gift from perversion.
Therefore, these arguments would not make sense for a person who has a low view of human morality. Since, these arguments cannot prove Christian sex ethics to someone who does not accept his basic beliefs, informing them would strengthen his reasoning. For example, Goldman’s Plain Sex says that by separating love and sex it is possible to enjoy sex without running into ethical problems. Goldman’s definition of plain sex is that the purpose of sex is to achieve human contact in order to achieve physical pleasure (). Furthermore, this will allow sex to be only be surrounded by ethics that are same as other activities.
As Christians, we all should be doing our best to avoid sin at all costs, but inevitably we will fail. I agree with the explanation that the article "What does the Bible have to say about Christianity? Is homosexuality a sin?" has to say about homosexuality as a sin. It reads, "God does not create a person with homosexual desires.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE The primary... ... middle of paper ... ... case in the present world in which we know given certain conditions person A would hypothetically engage in a morally evil action. It would no be impossible for God to create a world that were almost identical the present world, except that the person would then not engage in the evil. Since, to do so would deny him the freedom of individuality and his personality. That is, for God to ensure that he not engage in the evil would deny his freedom. The only other solution is for God to not create the world at all.