No, but it doesn’t mean that hugging is inherently good either – or inherently bad.
JThunder beat me to it, but the site mentioned by Libertarian is even more out of the mainstream than Mr. Chick’s pamphlets. I meant any biblical literalist that is taken seriously by more than the one congregation.
N.B. I wouldn’t count the Catholic Church as bible literalists either - they draw their rules from hundreds of years of commentary by noted theologians, not strictly from the Bible.
<nitpick>
The Salem witch trials happened in or around 1692. The Inquisitional Witch Trials got started with the publication of the Malleus Maleficorum in 1484. That’s only a difference of a little over 200 years, not 400.
</nitpick>
Witches have been burned pretty much as long as the Christian faith has been in a supreme position. Four hundred years is actually a pretty low estimate.
Yes, you do. The penetetials covered nail biting as well. Along with chewing the skin around your nails, and even (urk) chewing off a scab. IIRC, it required a penance of seven years. They considered it a sort of self-cannibalism.
More the case if the person holding the viewpoint were asserting that God punishes activities outside of the design parameters, less the case if it were that God made things to work in a certain way and that using them in a different way was cautioned against as it could result in damage or injury.
Fellatio aside, that is pretty much the Christian view of sin (or my understanding of it, anyway); not “If you sin, God’s gonna getcha”, but “If you sin, you damage the part of yourself that interfaces with God”.
I take your point though.
And I should say that I really don’t want to be saddled with the task of defending a viewpoint that isn’t my own.
No, actually was it because he failed in his duty. He was required to impregant that woman and by consciously spilling his seed, he was neglecting that duty. A duty which is no longer required.
Yes, you do. The penetetials covered nail biting as well. Along with chewing the skin around your nails, and even (urk) chewing off a scab. IIRC, it required a penance of seven years. They considered it a sort of self-cannibalism.
Lissa
Seven years! Isn’t that a little strict? Didn’t a previous post say that was the penance for premeditated murder? Or was penance just considered to be so good for you that they tried to be sure that everyone got some?
It’s true that Lib’s cite represents a marginal group if you’re asking for a cite which condems all fellatio and not just himosexual, but I think they’re far from anomolous in their blanket condemnation of all homosexual sex, including fellatio. I don’t believe that you will find an explicit prohibition of fellatio (of either sort) in the Bible, but most literalists will point to
generic proscriptions of homosexuality to imply a proscription against any and all homosexual activity.
For those who would broach the “design” argument, I would ask their opinion of oral sex engaged by animals. Chimpanzees, for instance, are known to engage in both fellatio and cunnilingus (homo and hetero).
I’m still searching my shelves looking for the book of penetentials that I own. I’ll confirm or correct the number when I find it, but I really do think it was seven years.
But yes, penance was supposed to be really good for you, spiritually. The more mournful, suffering and self-abasing you were, the better. These penetentials were long books indeed, covering just about every sin you can possibly think of, and some you’ve probably never thought of. Actually, it was suggested by one church father, whose name escapes me at the moment, that new priests should not hear confessions or read the penetentials because it might give him ideas, and make him have naughty thoughts.
You also have to realise that the 7 year penance for murder was on top of whatever your secular sentance might be. You might not live to do the penance, if you think about it. A family member might step in to help you out, and lessen your time in Purgatory in this case. (Gallaleio’s daughter wrote him a letter telling him that she was doing part of his penance after he was punished by the Church for his astronomical views.)
Spiritual crimes were considered WORSE than secular ones. Secular crimes could be dealt with by their laws, but spiritual ones needed a lot of work. A secular crime would get you punished in this existance, whereas a spiritual crime would possibly send you to hell. Eating one of your scabs may not put you in prison, but it sure as heck put you in danger of losing you immortal soul, thus the church had a vested interest in “cleansing” you through penance, because one faulty parishoner might mean that God would be pissed at the whole town. Such as, when King Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn, some saw the drought of the next summer as a punishment on England as a whole. One sinner in the church might inspire God to send a disease to kill off the whole neighborhood’s sheep. (Witches were accused of causing the same.)
The problem was that if you were such a weak person that you comitted one of the spiritual offenses, you needed to “work” on yourself to get rid of that weakness. Part of penance was to strengthen your soul against temptations in the future. For your own good, ya know.
Thanks, I intend to. And you do the same.
Perhaps, but what bearing does that have on this thread? None. The thread is about fellatio in general, rather than just homosexual fellatio.
In other words, saying “The Bible condemns homosexual fellatio!” does nothing to prove that it condemns fellatio per se.
I guess you’re right, JT, I was under the umpression that Lib was referring to homosexual fellatio, but after re-reading the OP, I see that he did not specify it as such. So I would agree with you that I don’t think that many fundies would condemn heterosexual fellatio.
Umm, tell me again how godhatesfags.com is a valid cite for what biblical literalists think? Maybe for whack-job crackpots, but not biblical literalists…
Anyway, I smell strawman here. I’ve never heard that “literalists” call oral sex sinful (unless outside marriage, but that’s a totally different discussion that I’m utterly disinterested in rehashing), and I’ve certainly never heard a claim that the bible calls it sinful.
As DDG already said, Onan’s sin was in disobeying God - refusing to get his brother’s widow pregnant. Nothing else.
In fact, I’ve always thought that the bible said,
Surely there are better positions for you to argue against without making up fake ones, aren’t there? :rolleyes:
So basically, you don’t condemn hypocrisy, as you claim…unless it disagrees with your own hypocrisy, right? I see, now.
ChristianAnswers.net says it’s fine.
However Dr. Trudy Veerman says it’s bad and icky and un-Biblical. Or something like that; I confess the background music every page on that site plays drove me to distraction. I don’t think it’s just a parody site, though.
Dr. Trudy Veerman links to an article by Ted Wise of the Peninsula Bible Church which she seems to regard as supporting her position, but the specific sexual practice in question has been replaced–I kid you not–with “XXX”, so who knows what he’s talking about. And I’m not totally sure what his answer was, even regarding “XXX”.
Christianity Today doesn’t have a problem with it.
Mastering Life Ministries doesn’t flat out prohibit it, but does seem to regard the practice with a great deal of wariness and a certain disdain.
All in all, a very unscientific opinion based on one Google search: evangelical Christians these days don’t seem hell-bent on prohibiting the practice within marriage; your larger and more mainstream groups seem pretty OK with it, but there does seem to be a certain wariness about it in some quarters, and at least occasional outright opposition (by people other than Fred Phelps).
And someone wrote this law, and I don’t think it was the Hindus.
Readers of Mr. Wise’s article will be relieved to know oral sex (I think that’s what he’s talking about) is only “a passing fancy” 
.
Every literalist who believes in a Trinity or believes that Jesus is God is drawing inferences that are not “strictly from the Bible”. There is no mention of any trinity, and Jesus never said, “I am God.”
I consider a literalist to be someone who believes that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God — in other words, people who are referred to by Religious Tolerance as Conservative Christians:
“Most conservative denominations teach that the Old and New Testaments are inerrant. That is, the writings were composed by authors who were inspired by God. They view the Bible is completely free of error, as originally written. The Bible is infallible. It contains dozens of references to Satan and his demons as living entities. Bible literalists can only conclude that both must exist. Inerrancy is such a foundational belief, that it cannot be abandoned.”
According to the aforementioned cite, literalists consider these to be some of the demons that inflict mankind:
“Other demons include pornography, blood transfusions, Valium, fantasy, bankruptcy, greed, oral sex, scorpions, divorce, four-leaf clovers, Rubik’s cube, frogs and many dozens of others. Yoga, Halloween, country music, self-help programs, men’s and women’s lodges, World Council of Churches, psychiatry, Hippocratic oath, and all non-Christian religions are demon associated.”
Joe_Cool wrote:
They think they’re Biblical literalists. They even take their name from Bible verses:
“GOD HATES FAGS” – though elliptical – is a profound theological statement, which the world needs to hear more than it needs oxygen, water and bread. The three words, fully expounded, show:
[ol][li]the absolute sovereignty of “GOD” in all matters whatsoever (e.g., Jeremiah 32:17, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Proverbs 16:4, Matthew 19:26, Romans 9:11-24, Romans 11:33-36, etc.),[/li]
[li]the doctrine of reprobation or God’s “HATE” involving eternal retribution or the everlasting punishment of most of mankind in Hell forever (e.g., Leviticus 20:13,23, Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Malachi 1:1-3, Romans 9:11-13, Matthew 7:13,23, John 12:39-40, 1 Peter 2:8, Jude 4, Revelation 13:8, 20:15, 21:27, etc.), and [/li]
[li]the certainty that all impenitent sodomites (under the elegant metaphor of “FAGS” as the contraction of faggots, fueling the fires of God’s wrath) will inevitably go to Hell (e.g., Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Jude 7, etc.). (If you are concerned with our use of the word “fag”, please click here to find out why we use this word.)[/ol]-----[/li]
Your anecdotes are of no interest to me. What I asked for is logic.
You do believe that oral sex a “sin” when men do it, don’t you? Why? Other than the Bible says so. Besides, I disagree that it does.
If you’re going to dodge the questions, you’re useless here.
Bob Cos: 
Truly sorry if I sounded condescending, but I was just startled to hear someone assume that Lissa was talking about the Salem Witch Trials, and the way my response sounded in my head was as a nudging reminder (eyeballs nervously shifting from side to side, “Um…?” etc.) Sorry it didn’t come out quite right.
What Lissa was describing–
–was quite clearly (to me at least) describing the Inquisition’s witchcraft trials, not the Salem witch trials, which didn’t involve torturing confessions out of suspected witches, and nobody in Salem confessed to having had sex with the Devil. It was all about butter spoiling, and being pinched, and seeing apparitions.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/salem_witches/4.htm
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM
Stuff like that.
There’s a nifty interactive thingie here on the Salem trials, if anybody’s interested.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/features/97/salem/
Ahem…
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm
1326 plus 400 equals 1726. Close enough to 1692 for government work.
It seems clear to me that the article is talking about “oral sex”, meaning both fellatio and cunnilingus, especially the part where he ropes in various dietary laws.
- Clearly he’s talking about “things that you put in your mouth”.
And the ending is unintentionally funny.
- Is he assuming that “FL” would tell everyone at church, “Yeah, I went down on my wife last night”?