Sells – aren’t you also arguing a consequentialist ethic, just drawing the consequences a little more broadly to include spiritual and emotional harm as well as medical risk?

With other posters I still think there is a wide gap between your understanding of what a liberal is and the self-understanding of those who claim the label. You also tend to use value-laden language (“reduce morality to a bare minimum”) to describe liberalism. Hence, you are vulnerable to the “straw man” criticism.

Admittedly, “liberal” is used to describe many people, from left-wing Americans through middle-of-the-road Britons to right-wing Australians, with a whole additional set of baggage for “liberal” theology.

But all these ideas have common roots in respect for the dignity of the person and a consequent insistence on human liberty. I don’t see anything in it that necessarily ignores the deeper harm from activity such as prostitution, although liberals may be less inclined than others to forbid it or condemn those who choose to practice it. You’re partly right that some liberals might think “we are free to do what ever we please as long as no one gets hurt”. But that doesn’t mean that they are indifferent to the choices made or think they’re right or harmless (I fully accept that prostitution is emotionally and spiritually damaging), only that they do not see coercion as a better option. And I see a similar caution against imposing one’s view of proper behaviour in the scriptures I quoted.

What do I think loving my neighbour means? Intimacy, certainly, and non-ownership of the other. But surely liberals are no less fiercely opposed to “ownership” of the other than you – indeed I’d guess we might be more so, as most liberals hold self-ownership to be a central value, and my reading of your theology is that you don’t (I’m aware I risk misrepresenting your position here, having accused you of doing that very thing– my apologies if this is so). And while I accept your commitment to never making your neighbour an object, don’t you rather want to make her a subject?

In contemporary society, the problems with prostitution involve exploitation, dishonesties and immaturities. These are all social problems. That said:

In Biblical times [source: Dead Sea Scrolls], it was there were sacred prostitutes for the holymen, whom were generally chaste, but were permitted physical communion with a women at certain times. I think this may have included the Essenes?

It must be a difficult task for Sells to condemn; perhaps rightly some postitution; where, accepting his God's moral standards [OT]. Genocide and slavery aside, and, focusing on the "sex stuff", Sells' God condones, pack rape and incest. [Lot] When Onan(?), Book of Solomon (?), refuses inseminate his sister-in-law, he struck dead by God. The Church spins Onan's "seed on the ground" [he withdrew], as against mastubation. But, read the story in context. This why Priests should not control the knowledge/lithury of Biblical texts.

Even those whom do not believe it all to be bun should be allowed forensic investigation of the evidence. As a lesson from the OT, as "a standard". Why not a debate (for/against):

- Did Lot commit incest?

From the NT, not to be left out?

- Did Jesus commit suicide? [condemned a oral sin by the Catholic Church)

Yes, Sells the Bible is full of moral harzards, but it is God and Co., whom are the greatest offenders. Secular humanism is a better moral compass, indeed.

Oliver, I got a great kick out of your post. You write of the Biblical stories as if they are other than human recollection. Your secular morality, what ever that is, is no more righteous, superior or different than any other take on morality. We all share the same values. Picking and choosing may differentiate between religious and secular but, right and wrong and moral and ethical remains constant in the human. Religion and politics cover the spread of human expression. There are but two extremes: right and wrong or good and evil, your choice. It's the popular grey area in between that we latch onto to differentiate between ourselves. Your charcoal trying to label me slate, while I describe myself as titanium

I'm as keen as the next secularist to indulge in some christianity-bashing, but after reading Sells' response earlier in the thread, I think he's making some fair points.

I didn't actually see Sellick advocating the removal of prostitution. He may advocate this, I don't know, but hammering him on this basis doesn't seem fair when he hasn't actually said that.

That being said, the point that prostitution can take the love out of sex is hardly a revelation.

aquarivs,

Morality is morality. You are correct. Please forgive me. I had just come-off contemplating the immoralities OT Christian god.

Some 1950s-1960s secular psychologists appear to have worked well in the area of moralities: e.g., Carl Rogers, Lawrence Kohlberg and Abraham Maslow.

Where secular morality might be differentiated from religious codes is inner directedness versus external monitoring.

Christians, well, at least, many Christians, believe the OT "stories" to be true. In fact at the time Justine the Martyr the OT "stories", especially the role of OT Law was under scunity. The Nazarines, in keeping with Jesus' alleged teachings were less doctrine. Docrine and Creed [literally] come Nicaea, not Jesus' life. Moreover, the borrowed/parrallel teachings of Jesus are common to other societies and earlier values.

One does not need a God to be moral.

Peter, another fine effort. There has been no discussion to your question:

"What will become of a society that officially subscribes to a minimalist ethic based on the medical and ignores generations of wisdom about what constitutes the human? "

This is the crux of the matter. Liberalists have trouble seeing any good coming from the human wisdom passed across generations because they were of times where God was a priori in general day to day thought and practice across social strata.

A limitation of Liberalism is that it is an "ism". The "ism" connotes defined and confined ways of thinking and acting. As a Christian who chooses to worship God in the Catholic tradition, I am not enamoured with the "practice" of Catholicism that many catholic church attendees attach themselves to as an identity exercise. And a sanctified way of avoiding the radical call of Jesus in one's life.

Liberal thought and practice can be engaged within any human endeavour. It can coexist with conservative thought and practice in one's total life. Such a blend is the radical.. getting at the roots of truth.

The group is the social: it manifests the dignity of humans and their interrelationship. The individual, must be - to be in communion with the Risen Lord. Once engaged, as the solitary lover, then his/her contribution to the group, in service, emboldens and enlivens the group for the common good.

Of course this is beyond utilitarian liberal thought. The consequences of liberalist licence, "if it feels good, do it" or "What's in for me?" or promoting licence as freedom, has jumped the great divide of the Bohemians and academia into the masses they generally despise. They have nothing to say, but blame the past