# Biblical literalists: why is sucking a penis a sin, but sucking a lollipop isn't? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 3, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505 "2003-01-03T22:47:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/121 "2003-01-07T12:46:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\*C’mon **Joe** , we’ve covered this already; yes the thread title, when taken in isolation, appears to imply that Biblical literalists are a homogenous group and that they all condemn fellatio, but we’ve all read past the thread title by now. > > **Lib** : may I take the liberty of restating your question, in the hope that we can start addressing the actual issue?: > > **"Would those people, _whatever_ term they would describe themselves by, who believe that there is a firm Christian theological basis for the prohibition of fellatio, be kind enough to enter into a debate on this belief?"** \*\* Yes, that would be fine by me. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/122 "2003-01-07T15:20:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Joe\_Cool wrote (apparently thinking he was Arnold) > > You consider conservative Christians to be a “small group”? Positively bizarre.\*\* No, I consider conservative Christians who consider oral sex to be intrinsically sinful based on a literal interpretation of the bible to be a small group. What’s bizarre is your need to twist words away from their meaning. > [@](#): > > **If you knew that I provided that link, what was with your disingenuous blathering about “small groups”? Religious Tolerance explains quite clearly what they mean by literalists: those who believe that the Bible, as originally written, is the inerrant word of God. That is also what I mean. What do _you_ mean?** Well, again in light of your apparent total inability to capture the meaning of a sentence, here you go: A biblical literalist believes the Bible to be inerrant and derives his theology from a literal reading of it. A literal reading of the Bible does not call oral sex sinful. But Biblical literalists believe that oral sex is sinful? How does your conclusion follow from your premises? Or perhaps you’d like to show me where in the Bible oral sex is called sinful? > [@](#): > > \*\*Contradiction. > > You: “Arnold is not making a claim that oral sex is unnatural or sinful.” > > Arnold: “The Biblical literalists that claim that fellatio is a sin, do so because they view it as an unnatural sexual practice.”\*\* Reading comprehension? Or willful ignorance? You make the call. Read your own posts. Arnold said: THE LITERALISTS WHO CLAIM THAT IT IS A SIN DO SO BECAUSE **THEY VIEW IT** AS AN UNNATURAL PRACTICE. I said ARNOLD DID NOT CLAIM THAT IT IS UNNATURAL OR SINFUL. Both statements are true and compatible. Arnold related that the so-called literalists, whom you cited, view oral sex as sinful. NOT that it is, in fact, sinful. > [@](#): > > **Definitions** > > 1. Biblical literalists: Conservative Christians, i.e., those who believe that the Bible, as originally written, are free from error — from Religious Tolerance, a reputable authority on comparative religion\*\* As close to the truth as I expect you to come, so I’ll accept it for the purpose of this farce. > [@](#): > > 1. Demons — invisible evil spirits with various sizes and shapes, including the demon named “Succubus” that causes its victim to seduce males and engage in such things as oral sex — from End-Time Deliverance Center, cited by Religious Tolerance as an “impressive conservative Christian resource” Here we diverge. If you are discussing the beliefs of Biblical Literalists, you need to connect the literal reading of the Bible with your definitions of Demons. Show me where the Bible makes reference to a Succubus, or indeed any Demon, engaging in oral sex. Once you’ve done that, and shown me that the sinfulness at hand is, in fact, the oral sex and not intrinsic to the Demon itself, or even simple disobedience and defiance, then we can proceed. > [@](#): > > **Premises** > > 1. The Bible makes reference to demons. (Induced from Strongs reference number 1142, [symbol]daimwn[/symbol]) Accepted. But you still have not connected the Strong’s definition to the Religious [Tolerance.org](http://Tolerance.org) definition which includes types of Demons not mentioned or referenced in any way by the Bible. > [@](#): > > **Inferences** > > 1. Biblical literalists believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. (Definition 1) Accepted. > [@](#): > > 1. Christian scripture contains references to demons. (Premise 1) Accepted, provided that said scripture is the Bible. We are, after all, talking about literalists. > [@](#): > > 1. These references are to be interpreted literally. (Inference 1) Accepted. > [@](#): > > 1. Demons are sinful, Accepted, but… > [@](#): > > including Succubus, the demon of oral sex. (Definition 2) False, by the fallacy of equivocation. The Succubus and the Biblical demon are different and incompatible uses of the word Demon. There is no Biblical evidence of such a creature, nor of oral sex being sinful in and of itself. > [@](#): > > **Conclusion** > > Biblical literalists believe that oral sex is a sin. (Inferences 3, 4 by modus ponens) False. For the reasons I listed. The same argument can be made that anything a demon can do is, therefore, sinful. Which is false, by the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The same error you made in your original post, along with the fallacy of composition. > [@](#): > > QED Swiss Cheese. > [@](#): > > Quite frankly, their metaphorical relations are legion throughout literary history. We are not discussing metaphorical literary history. We are discussing Biblical Literalism. > [@](#): > > I specifically have pointed out, numerous times now and since the beginning, that “because the Bible says so” is not a logical argument, and is therefore unacceptable for the debate. In fact, it is a logical fallacy — petitio principii, or begging the question. Also false. When Biblical inerrancy is a core tenet and the source of the belief under scrutiny, you cannot dismiss out of hand the argument “the Bible says…” What the Bible says is integral to the discussion at hand. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/123 "2003-01-07T20:06:13Z")
Joe\_Cool wrote: > [@](#): > > No, I consider conservative Christians who consider oral sex to be intrinsically sinful based on a literal interpretation of the bible to be a small group. Let me give you that concession since it is so important to you, I couldn’t care less, and it has nothing to do with the debate. Given that you are right, I am interested in the views of the “small group”. > [@](#): > > Well, again in light of your apparent total inability to capture the meaning of a sentence, here you go: Now, Joe, honestly. You mean to say that you do believe that I can’t capture the meaning of a sentence, but you don’t believe that conservative Christians are Biblical literalists? That doesn’t speak well for your credibility. > [@](#): > > A biblical literalist believes the Bible to be inerrant and derives his theology from a literal reading of it… How does your conclusion follow from your premises? Or perhaps you’d like to show me where in the Bible oral sex is called sinful? Well, you can’t hold me to your private definition of Biblical literalist, so your question is irrelevant. But given your definition, I have two questions: 1. Where in the Bible is any mention of a “Trinity”? 2. Where in the Bible does Jesus say, “I am God”? > [@](#): > > Reading comprehension? Or willful ignorance? You make the call. Bifurcation (or false dilemma). Another logical fallacy. The call I make is neither of the selections you give. My call is that Arnold said what I quoted him saying, and that you said what I quoted you saying. They were diametrically opposed with respect to a Biblical literalist scriptural interpretation. > [@](#): > > As close to the truth as I expect you to come, so I’ll accept it for the purpose of this farce. No, you can’t do that. I don’t mean that you can’t insult me — I’m sure that nothing would stop that. I mean that you can’t accept the definition that I took from Religious Tolerance because Christian conservatives would not be a small group. Unless you mean something by “small” that I might not have suspected. > [@](#): > > Show me where the Bible makes reference to a Succubus, or indeed any Demon, engaging in oral sex. Irrelevant. The demons were not defined in the inferences. They were defined from an “impressive conservative Christian resource”. And you already said that you accept the definition of Biblical literalist, albeit begrudgingly. > [@](#): > > False, by the fallacy of equivocation. The Succubus and the Biblical demon are different and incompatible uses of the word Demon. That’s not my problem. How Biblical literalists derive such things as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and dick sucking demons is beyond the scope of the proof. > [@](#): > > False. For the reasons I listed. The same argument can be made that anything a demon can do is, therefore, sinful. Which is false, by the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The same error you made in your original post, along with the fallacy of composition. Affirmation of the consequent is an inference of the form A -\> B: B, therefore A. Modus ponens is an inference of the form A -\> B: A, therefore B. Let A = “Biblical literalists interpret Biblical references to demons literally”. Let B = “Demons are depicted by the Bible as sinful”. The conclusion that Biblical literalists interpret demons as sinful is reasonable (a modus ponens) for A [symbol]Ú[/symbol] B, and is not an affirmation of the consequent. The composition fallacy, if it exists, was made by Religious Tolerance. But I see no evidence that their definition is fallacious. > [@](#): > > We are not discussing metaphorical literary history. We are discussing Biblical Literalism. Unfortunately, as Mangetout has pointed out, “we” are discussing everything under the sun, except for why sucking dicks is a sin. You say (I think) that sucking dicks is not a sin generally, but is a sin for anyone but a man’s wife. By ducking into that enclave, you remove yourself the debate. And yet — here you are! > [@](#): > > Also false. When Biblical inerrancy is a core tenet and the source of the belief under scrutiny, you cannot dismiss out of hand the argument “the Bible says…” What the Bible says is integral to the discussion at hand. The very notion of Biblical inerrancy is itself petitio principii. The reason the Bible is inerrant, according to these people, is because the Bible says that it is. There is no more classic example of begging the question. ---
**Author:** ![Houyhnhnm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/d26b3c/32.png) [@Houyhnhnm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Houyhnhnm)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/124 "2003-01-07T21:16:27Z")
The Israelites who fixed on one deity also fixed on the idea that sexual gratification designed to avoid conception was evil. There may be no explicit condemnation of cock-sucking in the Hebrew Bible, but all Hebrews knew it was wrong - perhaps too unthinkable even to name. All sorts of sexal activity was condemned by the ancient Hebrews. The reason for their condemnation of such acts? Their explicit reasons are probably not as important as the “natural selection” effect: those groups that condemned all sexual gratification outside of penile/vaginal intercourse between married people tended to increase in numbers. Other rules from the Torah, such as the proscription of pork-eating and -raising, also increased the number of these desert-dwellers (as Marvin Harris has explained, pork raising is an ecologically dangerous economy in a desert or near-desert environment; in times of drought, the pigs would take precious food from humans; other animals did not compete for the same food as humans). Does it matter that the reasons the ancient Hebrews gave for the pork prohibition may have had nothing to do with ecology? Not for non-Hebrews. For modern Jews, however, especially those who don’t live in deserts, the reasons should cause them some concern. Most modern Christians have set aside huge chunks of Hebrew law, of course, especially when it comes to diet. Oddly, the whole sexual logic of the ancient Israelites still exerts influence over modern Jews and Christians. That most would not condemn oral sex is irrelevant for matters of logic. They just don’t dare to confront the strictness of their ancient texts… ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/125 "2003-01-08T00:43:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > Yes, that’s what you’re saying despite the fact that I gave you a link to an authority, Religious Tolerance, that lists oral sex as one of the demons recognized by Biblical literalists. And as I pointed out to you, the evidence they had for that was a quote from a site called [demonbusters.com](http://demonbusters.com), which AFAIK doesn’t represent any large group of Biblical literalists. As I mentioned to you before, I have discussed this issue before with biblical literalists / conservative Christians, and I never heard anyone say that fellatio per se is sinful. (You probably think I’m lying - see below.) Sex outside marriage? Sure. Homosexuality? Sure. Fellatio? No. > [@](#): > > This whole business of pretending that Biblical literalists, even including the Westboro Baptist Church for cryin’ out loud, are tolerant of dick sucking. You know better, no matter what you pretend. No I am not lying just to irritate you, despite what you wish to believe. But I appreciate the accusation just the same. Even though the Westboro Baptist church hates homosexuals, it does not necessarily follow that they condemn fellatio between heterosexuals - though I would not be surprised if they did. But the sentence you quoted did not convince me, since it mentioned fellatio in the process of attacking homosexuality. > [@](#): > > Logic, please. Not baseless assertions. Deduce that oral sex is unnatural and that unnatural is sinful. Well, as you may have guessed, I am not a Biblical literalist. After a Google search, I haven’t found any Biblical literalist justification for condemning fellatio (strange, isn’t it? Since all Biblical literalists forbid fellatio?) so I don’t really know how to answer you, and I am not willing to spend the time to try to guess at the logic involved. But I see that you were able to demonstrate it yourself, therefore I leave it to you to debate yourself until you find a Biblical literalist ready to discuss the issue, which should not be difficult since so many of them abhor the practice. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/126 "2003-01-08T00:50:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > “Would those people, _whatever_ term they would describe themselves by, who believe that there is a firm Christian theological basis for the prohibition of fellatio, be kind enough to enter into a debate on this belief?” (crickets chirping) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/127 "2003-01-08T02:09:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Houyhnhnm \* > \*\* > For modern Jews, however, especially those who don’t live in deserts, the reasons should cause them some concern. Most modern Christians have set aside huge chunks of Hebrew law, of course, especially when it comes to diet. \*\* Well, but modern Jews don’t think oral sex (between a married heterosexual couple…have to throw in the caveats) don’t think oral sex is a sin. You can go as far back to the Talmud, which says oral sex isn’t a sin. As far as I know, no large group of Jews ever considered oral sex a sin, as far back as biblical times. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/128 "2003-01-08T12:01:46Z")
Arnold wrote: > [@](#): > > And as I pointed out to you, the evidence they had for that was a quote from a site called [demonbusters.com](http://demonbusters.com), which AFAIK doesn’t represent any large group of Biblical literalists. Then Religious Tolerance lied. They called it an “impressive conservative Christian resource”. > [@](#): > > As I mentioned to you before, I have discussed this issue before with biblical literalists / conservative Christians, and I never heard anyone say that fellatio per se is sinful. (You probably think I’m lying - see below.) Sex outside marriage? Sure. Homosexuality? Sure. Fellatio? No. Fine. Another hill that I don’t care to die on. May we then reform the debate this way?.. Why is **a man** sucking a penis a sin, but **a man** sucking a lollipop isn’t? And should I open a new thread since this one has been wrecked? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/129 "2003-01-08T12:45:17Z")
I think you’d have to qualify the reformed debate thus: Why is it _that certain people consider_ a man sucking a penis to be sinful, but consider a man sucking a lollipop not sinful? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/130 "2003-01-08T13:10:18Z")
Mange I would be remiss if I did not thank you for your genuineness in this thread. I blame myself for framing the debate in such a way that it gave an escape hatch for weaseling. I’ll open a new debate when I’ve given the matter more thoughtful consideration, which is what I should have done in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/131 "2003-01-08T17:45:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Why is a man sucking a penis a sin, but a man sucking a lollipop isn’t? \*\* Because a penis isn’t the same thing as a lollipop? A penis is a body part, and a lollipop is an assemblage of crystallized sugar? Not trying to be a smartass here, Lib, but I honestly don’t see how you can compare these two things, absent any anti-fellatio Fundies showing up and arguing “against”. Maybe a better debate would be, “Why is sucking someone’s penis a crime in North Carolina, and sucking someone’s big toe isn’t?” [http://www.nccasa.org/LegalResources/sexcrimestatutes.html](http://www.nccasa.org/LegalResources/sexcrimestatutes.html) > [@](#): > > Below is a summary of the North Carolina criminal statutes related to cases of sexual assault as of September 2002. > > \< snip \> > > MORALITY CRIMES > > Note: Consent is no defense. > > Crimes Against Nature > [GS 14-177, Class I felony] > > Oral sex, anal sex, sex with objects by unmarried persons, and bestiality. > [@](#): > > **And should I open a new thread since this one has been wrecked?** If you’re gonna change the debate to comparing penises and toes, then yeah, I think you should. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/132 "2003-01-08T20:00:15Z")
Thanks, Duck. I will consider your advice. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/133 "2003-01-08T20:33:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > Then Religious Tolerance lied. They called it an “impressive conservative Christian resource”. Referring to “[demonbuster.com](http://demonbuster.com)” If by impressive they mean well-designed, then I disagree. The page sucked. If by impressive they mean noteworthy for the sheer amount of idiocy on the site then I might agree. If by impressive they mean a site that represents the beliefs of many followers then they might have evidence for that. But I would think a large organization with many followers could come up with a better designed website, including for example an appeal for donations, some contact information, etc… ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/134 "2003-01-08T20:39:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > Why is **a man** sucking a penis a sin, but **a man** sucking a lollipop isn’t? Well if you frame your question as relating to homosexuality, that’s easy! A man fellating another man is a sexual act. Homosexuality is forbidden (see Leviticus somewhere, I can find the exact verse if required.) Why - it involves the primary sexual organ (the penis) and orgasm. A man sucking a lollipop is not a sexual act. Why not - the man is by himself and does not achieve orgasm. If the man does achieve orgasm through the act it would be masturbation which is different than homosexual sex. If the man is sucking a lollipop with the intent purpose of having another man achieve orgasm, because the other man has a fetish for seeing lollipop-sucking, then it becomes a sexual act -\> homosexuality -\> forbidden. The same thing would apply to sucking toes, or other things like for example giving a massage. Is giving a massage a sin? No. Is a man giving a massage to another man, with the intent purpose of having the other man achieve orgasm, a sin? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/135 "2003-01-08T20:41:39Z")
One might think it, but my experience is that most people, even people with large businesses or organisations, couldn’t webdesign their way out of a wet paper bag. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/136 "2003-01-08T20:45:20Z")
Leviticus 18:22, KJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 20:13, KJV: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Given that a woman does not possess a penis, one cannot, in sucking a penis, be lying with mankind as with womankind. Nor even crouching or kneeling with mankind as with womankind. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/137 "2003-01-08T21:05:01Z")
Arnold Once again, I’m not interested in Biblical question begging about Biblical laws; I’m interested in reasoning from a premise about God to a conclusion about sin. But thanks just the same. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/138 "2003-01-08T23:22:21Z")
I don’t see why a Biblical literalist would need to “prove” God’s rules by using logical deduction. God says “don’t do X” so I don’t do X because God said so. The ways of God are mysterious etc… ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2003, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/139 "2003-01-08T23:27:47Z")
By the way, what do you need another poster for? Didn’t you use logical deduction yourself, in one of your posts above, to show why a Biblical literalist should oppose fellatio? I don’t understand the point. Are you trying to convince a Biblical literalist that he should think fellatio is sinful, so that once he believes it, you can show him that he’s wrong? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2003, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505/140 "2003-01-09T01:02:07Z")
Lib – I am the son, brother and nephew of Southern Baptist ministers. – I attended two different Bible Colleges and graduated one, Moody, which is a flagship of conservative, “literalist” Christianity. – I was on staff with Campus Crusade for Christ. I’m not sure I fit the category anymore, but I’m pretty well familiar with American Fundamentalism, and I have never, _ever_ heard anyone say anything bad about fellatio, or anal for that matter, among married couples. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalists-why-is-sucking-a-penis-a-sin-but-sucking-a-lollipop-isnt/146505.md?page=8)