Yes, that would be fine by me.
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.
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?
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.
As close to the truth as I expect you to come, so I’ll accept it for the purpose of this farce.
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.
Accepted. But you still have not connected the Strong’s definition to the Religious Tolerance.org definition which includes types of Demons not mentioned or referenced in any way by the Bible.
Accepted.
Accepted, provided that said scripture is the Bible. We are, after all, talking about literalists.
Accepted.
Accepted, but…
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.
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.
Swiss Cheese.
We are not discussing metaphorical literary history. We are discussing Biblical Literalism.
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.
Joe_Cool wrote:
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”.
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.
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:
-
Where in the Bible is any mention of a “Trinity”?
-
Where in the Bible does Jesus say, “I am God”?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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…
And as I pointed out to you, the evidence they had for that was a quote from a site called 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.
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.
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.
(crickets chirping)
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.
Arnold wrote:
Then Religious Tolerance lied. They called it an “impressive conservative Christian resource”.
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?
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?
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.
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
If you’re gonna change the debate to comparing penises and toes, then yeah, I think you should.
Thanks, Duck. I will consider your advice.
Referring to “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…
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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…
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? 
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.