First, as it seems I wasn’t clear in my original post - that isn’t my position, it is a restatement of an argument I have heard many times.
I doubt you’re going to find any mainstream denominations condemning it. It’s going to be more in the realm of non-denominational, right-wing churches - and in my experience, it is a not uncommon idea. ((I was once told at an conservative, interdenominational camp that kissing before an engagement was a sin.)) Duck Duck Goose, one of my high school youth leaders joked along those lines once, and then told us “Wait until you’re married, you’ll see.”
In which case, I’d like to see some actual cites. We’ve already seen that outsiders often have huge misconceptions about what the church actually teaches. In addition, we’ve seen several cites indicating that oral sex is okay within marriage – and at best, one cite which MIGHT indicate that it’s wrong.
Maybe, maybe not. Even if your recollection is accurate though, we are discussing an entirely different issue, and thus, can not logically extrapolate from that single example which you give. That is, not if we want to avoid strawman argumentation.
But they are by no means representative of Biblical literalists. In fact, they only constitute an infinitesimal minority thereof.
Let’s say that two Puerto Ricans beat up an old lady yesterday. By your logic, since these two identify themselves as Puerto Ricans, we can logical conclude that Puerto Ricans condone beating up old ladies. Logic dictates that this conclusion simply does not follow.
Yes, I might be deluded and misremembering things all over the place. Silly me.
Luckily, some things are written. Example, Pat Robertson in “Answers to 200 of Life’s most Probing Questions” was kind enough to point out “oral sex is against nature.”
I explained (and documented) what I meant by Biblical literalists just above the post you quoted. So, I’ve not made any statistical fallacy. And what you’ve called my logic isn’t.
Well, it happens. In addition, people often misconstrue what the church actually says – as evidenced by those SDMB posters who repeatedly claim that sex is inherently sinful in the eyes of the church.
First of all, I’d like to see the exact context of that quote. And second, even if Pat Robertson personally believes that, he is not a denomination – and even if he were, he still would not be representative of Christendom in general.
But we aren’t talking about Christendom in general. We’re talking about people who say that the Bible is the inerrant “word of God” — literalists. (See thread title near top of page. ;))
I presume you’re alluding to the so-called “No True Scotsman” fallacy. (I say “so called” because its not a proper fallacy, IMO.) At any rate, you’re misapplying that term. I’m not saying that NO true literalists can consider oral sex to be wrong. I’m merely pointing out that NOT ALL literalists do. The two claims are quite different indeed.
No, your logic is still guilty of statistical suicide. In your own words, you defined a literalist as follows:
This definition is by no means limited to Fred Phelps and his ilk. In fact, as we’ve repeatedly pointed out, Phelps and company consititute an infinitesimal portion of those who profess to be literalists. Ergo, it is fallacious to conclude that because Phelps is a literalist, and because Phelps abhors fellatio, that literalists in general consider it to be wrongful.
Point taken – but as I’ve subsequently emphasized, that distinction doesn’t salvage your case either. Unless, of course, you can produce hard evidence that literalists in general believe as you claim they do.
Therefore everyone who thinks s/he’s a libertarian is actually a libertarian? Everyone who thinks s/he’s a christian is actually a christian?
The problem with choosing such a small sample, with the question then becoming “Why do the followers of Rev. Phelps in Topeka, Kansas, USA think that fellatio is sinful? What verse from the Bible do they use to justify their belief?” is that it will be difficult to find an answer, due to the small number of the membership of that church. I doubt any of the Rev. Phelp’s followers are members of the SDMB.
Now if you could show that, for example, the Southern Baptists say fellatio is sinful, you would have more of a chance to an answer.
If you sincerely want to know what Bible verse is used by the followers of Rev. Phelps to prove that fellatio is sinful, then I think your best bet is to contact the Rev. Phelps directly. If your purpose is to show that you are more broad-minded and forgiving than Biblical literalists, then carry on.
P.S. Much as I hate to increase the number of “hits” at the hate site to which Libertarian links, I did go check out the link and I didn’t see anything saying that fellatio is sinful.
I thought the reference to dietary laws was to indicate that one should look to Leviticus, where there are several references to sexual behaviour. Reading the article by Ted Wise, I think he might have been talking about anal sex, and not oral sex.
Well, I was looking for the Pat Robertson quote, but I got hopelessly sidetracked by one Kay Arthur, who has written a book and who was interviewed by CBN, which is as close as I can get for now. BTW, the “Pat Robertson says oral sex is against nature” factoid is widely repeated on the Web, but apparently it’s from a book, so it’s not on the Internet as such, that I can find offhand. And anyway, Kay is SO much more fun.
Yes, sex is like Drano. And if people want to understand what God has to say about sex, they should buy my book (see below).
A quick check of Google under “endometriosis risk factors” shows no link between multiple sex partners and endometriosis. I suppose she thinks it’s just another Pelvic Inflammatory Sexually Transmitted Disease.
That’s because they are learning from the streets, and the streets don’t even know what constitutes sex. If they would buy my book (see below), they’d know better.
That’s because they are learning from the streets, and the streets don’t even know what constitutes sex. If they would buy my book (see below), they’d know better.
Okay, now, enough of the book plugs–does the following paragraph make sense to anybody?
Ummm…She’s saying that if you have multiple sex partners before you get married, and you experiment with lots of kinky stuff, like presumably oral sex, that you will have trained your body to expect an orgasm every night in many unusual ways, whereas once you get married, you’ll have to make do with once a week, missionary position, and no more oral sex? And you won’t be satisfied, so you’ll go looking for some extramarital action, and ruin your marriage, all because you weren’t a virgin when you got married and you learned to like oral sex?
And finally, she cuts to the chase.
[No, it tells you everything that Kay Arthur says that God says about sex…] Buy my book!
[Go through everything Kay Arthur says that God has to say.] BUY MY BOOK!!
If I change my name to “Russet,” because I think I’m a potato, does that make me so? Weak, weak argument. I expected better from you. And as JThunder pointed out to you already, you’re committing a huge fallacy:
Phelps is (supposedly) a literalist.
Phelps believes that oral sex is sin.
Therefore, literalists believe that oral sex is sin.
I could just as easily say this:
Libertarian (the poster) is a libertarian.
Libertarian (the poster) uses logic with more holes than swiss cheese.
Therefore, all Libertarians use poor logic.
Disagree all you like. But I’m as uninterested in your opinions as you are in my anecdotes. I believe that oral sex is a sin between two men because the Bible says that sex between two men is a sin. You’re fixating on the wrong word here: The operative item is SEX, not ORAL. For one who demands logic so loudly, you’re woefully short on providing it.
If you’re only going to fight against strawmen, you’re as useless as I am.
Jesus said it’s not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean, but what comes out of it.
Why is everybody expecting Lib to demonstrate that all or most literalists believe that oral sex is sinful; apart from the thread title that can be interpreted that way, if seems abundantly clear that the OP is an invitation for that subset of self-professed literalists that do hold such belief to step up and explain why.
But (again) in this thread, I am interested in a debate with those who do.
I made no such conclusion. I gave Westboro Baptist Church as one example, which Arnold demanded. I then gave Religious Tolerance as an authoritative cite that more broadly defined Biblical literalists and said that they consider oral sex to be a demon.
Stop reformulating my arguments. Either debate the topic or go nip at someone else’s ankles.
