Arnold wrote:
Your claim, perhaps, but not mine.
Why your only interest is in hijacking the thread is beyond me. (In case you missed the OP, I invitied Biblical literalists to debate why, logically, sucking a penis is any more sinful than sucking a lollipop.)
I indulged your pretense at not understanding, and I defined what I meant by Biblical literalist. I then gave you a supportive link to an authority on the matter. If that doesn’t satisfy you, you’ll just have to be unsatisfied.
Arnold wrote:
An answer? I already know the stock answer. I anticipated it in the OP, and specified that I wanted logic, and not the-Bible-says-so.
And if for some reason, you don’t believe that Religious Tolerance knows what it’s talking about and that Southern Baptists are not by-and-large conservative Christians, then by all means procede. Otherwise, could you please participate in the debate? Or else watch?
One search, and my first hit was the headline:
WBC to picket Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, in religious protest for manifest hypocrisy in firing Rabbi Zimmerman for sinful heterosexual daliances
The first paragraph is:
“It’s just not right. Reform Judaism leads the world in promoting the filthy fag agenda. Anal/oral copulating, same-sex marriage? Step right up! It’s fine with the Central Conference of American Rabbis. So what’s the big deal with HUC president – Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman?”
You can also find in their new archives many links to cites supporting that oral sex is filthy, unhealthy, and leads to AIDS. If you truly believe that these people are tolerant of sucking penises, then you are naive beyond hope.
Joe_Cool wrote:
Don’t speak for me. You do a poor enough job speaking for yourself.
Insufficient.
First of all, it says no such thing. Second, if you cannot logically explain why sucking a penis is sinful while sucking a lollipop is not, then you lose the debate. I made no differentiation between a man sucking and a woman sucking.
That’s a differentiation that YOU’RE making without regard to logical reasoning.
Jesus also said to love your neighbor as yourself. Do you believe that a man who can do self-felatio may suck another man without sinning?
Actually, upon reflection, I realized that it’s not very likely for him to have been talking about anal sex at such length without using the word “sodomy”, since anal sex = sodomy, and sodomy is pretty much categorically prohibited no matter what denomination you’re talking about.
“Sodomy” pops out of the McBurneys’ mouths in the first paragraph.
Ted Wise answers this question–
–not by saying “Yes” and “sodomy” and “yes” and “wrong”, but by giving four Bible verses that don’t have anything to do with sex as such.
And I don’t think Ted Wise would have concluded his article with a reference to the Song of Songs if he had been talking about sodomy.
If he’s talking about anal sex there, he’s wayyyyy more liberal than any Christians I’ve ever met. (And isn’t it interesting, the way he assumes God must have had quite a problem writing a PG-rated version of the Song of Songs. Guess he’d be shocked by folks reading the Bible for the dirty parts, huh? 
)
His home church.
http://www.pbc.org/lib.htm
Doctrinal statement.
http://www.pbc.org/doctrine.html
The rest of the doctrinal statement sounds pretty mainstream conservative Christian to me. They’re not “The KJV is the only Real Bible!” Inerrantists, but they’re not “God the Mother, God the Daughter, and God the Spirit of New Beginnings” SoCal New Age Liberal Christians, either. I think if Ted had been talking about anal sex, he’d have used the word “sodomy” at least once.
I am glad I was able to demonstrate to you how your previous statement contained an error in logic.
I am debating your basic premise. You say “Biblical literalists think fellatio is sinful” and I am saying that your basic premise is incorrect. You should be saying “a tiny minority of Biblical literalists think fellatio is sinful. Why do they do so?”
Mangetout, maybe this answers your question too, concerning why I bother disagreeing with the OP. These inaccurate generalizations get very tiresome. If someone started a thread saying “Christians, why do you think homosexuals will go to hell?” or “Republicans, why do you support the Ku Klux Klan” and then “prove” my point by finding a few people that fit the cliche, I would fully expect that the SDMB posters would protest the the phrasing of my OP. Which is what I’m doing here.
What pretense? I never heard of a Biblical literalist that was against fellatio until now, and I have discussed sex prohibitions in the past with more than one fundamentalist christian, one of my ex-girlfriends, a Southern Baptist, for one. If your cites are Rev. Phelps and the people at demonbuster.com[sup]1[/sup], all I can say is that I’ve never heard of either of them. By the way, your quote from the Phelps site mentions oral sex immediately next to anal sex, between “fag agenda” and “same-sex marriage”. My conclusion is that they are talking about oral sex between homosexuals.
[sup]1[/sup]The Religious Tolerance site gets their quotation about oral sex from demonbuster.com. So for you to claim that the Religious Tolerance site says that Southern Baptists forbid fellatio is not accurate.
OK. I’ll answer your OP. The Biblical literalists that claim that fellatio is a sin, do so because they view it as an unnatural sexual practice. they do not think that sucking a lollipop is an unnatural sexual practice.
I can now go back to watching the christians debate back and forth “the parts of the Bible I believe in are much better than the parts of the Bible you believe in.”
Perhaps he did use the word sodomy, and it was replaced by XXX? Though I am willing to admit that it is in very possible that the article was dealing with oral sex.
Not mouth-to-mouth kissing. That’s a strictly Western perversion (although one that’s caught-on around much of the world).
And who would argue that the mouth is designed for kissing? That’s got to be one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard, and I’ve read Lib’s threads. 
You know I thought long and hard about including kissing in the list of supposedly designed purposes for the mouth; I included it because kissing is mentioned throughout the Bible, but anyway, as I say; it’s not my argument…
Well- even longer. Generally, dudes don’t like people practicing other faiths, or practicing “magic” outside of the State religion. From time to time for instance- the Pagan Romans cracked down upon what we would call “witches” (they really hated poisoners, and some of the “witches” sold such concoctions), and I have no doubt other societies and religions did so also. Today you can be imprisoned for life in China for pushing Falun Gong or even Christianity.
This has likely been happening as long as there has been religion.
Can we suppose that fellatio, cunnilingus and buggery are actually the inventions of the church and not found in the writings of the bible? (I dare anyone to find lollipop in the bible)
IMHO, the church created the Sins of Sodom, broke them down into catergories of varying grievousness based on an affront to God and Nature (unnatural acts such as touching male genitals to mouth or anus, beastiality, incest) and derived justifications from several pasages from the Bible which may or may not be related to sex.
howcome putting a knife in a baby is a sin, but putting a knife in a cake isn’t?
Hey!! His post you respond to? I brought up the same point two pages ago!
Sigh Nobody loves me. I probably couldn’t even get anyone to perform an unnatural act with me 
.
Hah!
It sounds like the same argument to me!
Not quite the same argument (although this may be a nitpick); putting a knife in a baby causes harm - it’s the harm (and the desire to harm) that would be sinful in this case, isn’t it?
Arnold wrote:
More pretense. Your statements do not constitute my errors.
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.
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.
I made no such statement. You are the one hung up on Southern Baptists.
Logic, please. Not baseless assertions. Deduce that oral sex is unnatural and that unnatural is sinful.
Because one is an abuse of a nonconsenting human being, and the other is not.
Your errors are there in black and white in your OP. Reread it. You didn’t ask why some small groups who claim to be biblical literalists believe that oral sex is sinful, you asked why biblical literalists believe that oral sex is sinful. Big difference there.
They claim that literalists believe oral sex is sinful. Even though there is nothing in a literal reading of the bible that prohibits it. But Religious Tolerance.org is authoritative on what “biblical literalists” believe? Maybe they use a different definition of the word ‘literal’.
Strawman. Arnold is not making a claim that oral sex is unnatural or sinful. Therefore he does not have to defend the premise that you keep prodding him to defend. But, his “baseless assertion” came from the very links that you provided. Since you are so upset about my “anecdotes” and Arnold’s “baseless assertions”, how about if you provide some LOGIC leading to the assertion that literalists do, in fact, believe that oral sex is a sin? Of course, as I’ve said before, it doesn’t matter if it’s natural or unnatural. Being bitten by rattlesnakes is natural. Many kinds of poison are natural. Sinfulness is Mankind’s natural state. Kids don’t have to be taught to lie or steal. It comes naturally.
So deduce, logically, that natural necessarily = good. Show your work.
And Your original argument, before you backpedaled was (quoting from the thread title):
Frankly, your initial premise is utter B.S., because sex can hardly be compared to eating a piece of candy.
But, since there is nothing in the bible addressing oral sex in particular, a strict literalist does not consider it to be sinful, provided it takes place in a venue where sex in general is permitted, i.e. within marriage between a man and woman. In other words, aside from the literal prohibitions against homosexual and other extramarital sex, it is not a sin. QED.
Are you finished yet?
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?"
Joe_Cool wrote (apparently thinking he was Arnold)
You consider conservative Christians to be a “small group”? Positively bizarre.
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?
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.”
Definitions
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
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”
Premises
Inferences
Biblical literalists believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. (Definition 1)
Christian scripture contains references to demons. (Premise 1)
These references are to be interpreted literally. (Inference 1)
Demons are sinful, including Succubus, the demon of oral sex. (Definition 2)
Conclusion
Biblical literalists believe that oral sex is a sin. (Inferences 3, 4 by modus ponens)
QED
Quite frankly, their metaphorical relations are legion throughout literary history.
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.
If that’s all you have, I suppose I am.