Oliver: That’s fine, it was the technical language of “null hypothesis or negative heuristic” that threw me, not your typing and pace. I think Paul and the Council of Nicea would have had nothing of interest to say if it had not been for Jesus.

I can be cautious and open-minded about a lot of things – especially in what I say to other people – but the divinity of Jesus is not one of those things. I self-score 1.0 on that as well. Beyond that, I’d like to be well-mannered and easy to get along with.

Waterboy, I thought most secular ethicists relied on consequences to enable them to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action. And, I think one can argue a case for saying that prostitution inevitably produces harm, not just that it might sometimes. That is, the interior harm I was hinting at a couple of posts back.

But, if you want a non-consequence argument to gnaw on, try this. It’s based on the idea of an “ideal” – like I said, a word we don’t hear much anymore. If we were workshopping a definition of sex, I would personally insist that procreation be included somewhere. Not that it’s all that sex is about, but I think to define sex without mentioning procreation at all would be pretty silly. Once you do that, it follows I think that any activity that fails to recognise this is flawed, or wrong. The further away from this understanding you go, the further from “ideal” you are. I’m assuming a kind of principle here – the principle that one should use a thing for what it is, and not pretend it’s something else. A matter of integrity. I would say that prostitution is far from ideal - tough, but not "honest".

I would also say that sex should be loving, intimate. Again, prostitution falls short. Tragic, because sex brings people close, and to fail to love when at close range is a great pity.

Pax,

Marrying for money is prostituting oneself. There are many examples of prostitution other than sex workers. A man who goes against his better judgment to fit an expectation and to advance in his job prostitutes himself for social and financial gain. All examples are a moral hazard to the best expression of self. Outside of disease and the social discomfort of seeing men(boys) and women(girls) hustling for clients, selling their sex for money, it can be honest trade. However. There are many instances of women not living up to their sales pitch and many men who refuse to pay, and various instances of violence from both sides. Altogether not a very satisfactory way to enrich oneself monetarily nor spiritually. Attacking Sells for making this point doesn't seem honest to me.

goodthief,

"That’s fine, it was the technical language of 'null hypothesis or negative heuristic' that threw me, not your typing and pace. I think Paul and the Council of Nicaea would have had nothing of interest to say if it had not been for Jesus."

With Paul and Nicaea, I am saying that an "official" version is institutionalised which might not be accurate. Like the Amercicans, spin their assissinated presidents. Lithugy and creed protect the religion from forensic study.

My comment above was in opposition to the idea of being a 1 or 7. I would argue that one needs to maintain the alterntaive possibility, even if remoting, so. I feel that the Big Bag superior to the Steady State theory. But feel the later should be totally diregarded. That is one can hold a [tentative] positive conviction and the opposite via as a counterbalance, as to avoid being closed in outlook or feeling infallible/absolutionist.

When contributors "have a go" at Sells it is sometimes just a hit and run attack with little consideratation. Several others though have failed to engage him through the application of philosophy, science and the behavioural sciences. From my perpective, that say the period leading to Nicaea [the debates] could be revisited like anthropolists revisit histographics.

My plea to Sells is not "don't believe" it is be forsenic in one's approach, be willing to change, and don't adopt a priori positions

For a sexual ethic to be Christian it must be Biblically based. This naturally leads to some tension in our secular and pluralist society where the Bible is not given equal authority from all parts of said society. For most of the last three thousand years of Judaeo-Christian history, as evidenced by the Bible, heterosexual, monogamous marriage has clearly been held to be the only context in which sexual activity was acceptable and the rationale for this lies in the idea that procreation is the primary purpose for sex and that social cohesion and consistency depended on the familial structures determined by heterosexual, monogamous marriage. The inherent logic of this is so powerful that it has commonly been accepted that this is Gods intended arrangement. Accordingly Hebrew law proscribed adultery (Lev20:10,Deut22:22) and homosexuality (Lev18:22) and discouraged men from engaging prostitutes (Prov5). There is, however, another strand to Hebrew understanding of sexuality as evidenced in the creation stories of Genesis and by the Song of Solomon. These texts emphasise the relational and pleasurable aspects of sexuality rather than holding procreation as the primary purpose of sex. While this latter view potentially, logically leads to quite a different theology/ethic of sexuality such is not really developed elsewhere in the Bible and is virtually absent from the NT. In an age where procreation can be controlled through contraception and greater knowledge provides the means of managing health issues we might reasonably revisit the ethics of sexuality. Indeed the 'Sexual Revolution' did just this and there is no reason why Christians should not participate in this revolution, albeit with continuing reference to the Bible for guiding principles, remembering that the Bible is not to be taken literally or legalistically.

waterboy,

A modern clergyperson would condemn the incest and pack rape in the Bible. The Song of Solomon (your citation). Likewise, Lot knowing his daughters.

The Dead Sea scrolls refer to scacred prostitutes for Holymen, who were no "always" chaste. Essenes? The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, is silent on Jesus' viginity or knowing.

If we are to apply 19-21 century morality to Christianity, it would be necessary to cleve the OT from its scriptures.

In the Middle Ages, it is recorded incubi would often manifest themselves as priests (Sagan). I wonder why?

The esteemed characters in the OT and the History of the Clergy are poor role models towards high morality

Waterboy, great post. The Song of Solomon is a notoriously full-blooded, sensuous and joyous tribute to sex. And I’m not complaining. I think it is saying that people who have sex should be enjoying it to the max. However, this is not a promotion of promiscuity, or anything other than the sexual ethic of Judaism. It just means that, when you have sex you should go for it. Married people should be enjoying each other more, not enjoying other people.

The Christians inherited the Jewish sexual ethic, but they dehydrated it. Many still find the Song of Solomon too saucy, which is sad. Like you, I suspect that Paul has a bit to do with this – a bit monkish, he was. Anyhow, conventional Christian sexual ethics are pretty constipated.

I wasn’t saying procreation is the “primary” purpose of sex, but only that an understanding of sex must include procreation – for the obvious reasons.

Genesis: if you mean the Creation narrative, I would say that “the two became one flesh” of Adam and Eve supports the view that sex is so profound that it shouldn’t be bandied around. If you go around “becoming one” with lots of people – whatever it means exactly – you will end up in a mess, or seriously depleted or fallen to bits or something. This is why the Catholics are so reluctant to allow divorce.

So, Oliver, as a Christian I would not want the Old Testament culled from the Bible. It would deprive the Christian understanding of sex of its necessary flavour and heart. I would rather keep that heart, and then wrestle with the problems you point out. By “wrestle”, I mean try my best to understand what they mean, given that they are inspired (somehow) by God just like the nicer and clearer parts. Some parts of the Bible still leave Bible readers, even Bible believers, mystified. But, we love God and God’s word, so we’ll probably persevere with it.

Pax,