| By Mark Roberts
Can Mr. Kundert sustain his position by ignoring my questions about
nudism? He may think so, but the readers of this debate know better. In
closing, let's see how Kundert has not met his obligation in our debate,
and how nudism remains condemned as sinful.
From the outset I have pressed Kundert about lust. I have repeatedly
questioned him about how lust is avoided by nudists. In my first affirmative:
"Kundert needs to explain to the readers of the debate how a person is
to avoid the temptation to lust in the presence of nudity." In my second
affirmative: "Let me spell this out clearly and explicitly. Mr. Kundert,
when you are naked and a beautiful woman comes into the room what do you
do? What steps do you take to keep from lusting? Have you ever lusted?"
Despite repeated questioning, Kundert has never told us how he avoids
lust, or if he has ever lusted (interesting!). Kundert speaks of lust generally
but refuses to answer direct questions: how does one flee temptation at
a nudist camp?
Of course, Bathsheba has given him great troubles. To avoid these problems
he has twisted and perverted (unfairly) what I wrote, saying I blame Bathsheba
or said her nudism was innocent. None of this changes that 2 Samuel 11
shows the results of a man seeing a woman naked: lust, a lack of self control,
and adultery. In short, sin! How can anyone read this sad tale and say
"Nudism is great!"?
Again, I specifically asked Kundert how he knows that his Bathsheba
won't come to a nudist camp and he will sin. His response? None. He can't
answer because he cannot guarantee his conduct any more than David could.
Again I ask: specifically what safeguards one against lust in the
nudist camp?
Kundert has also said nothing about how he makes certain he isn't causing
others to lust. This point was also made in my first affirmative: "Even
if Mr. Kundert can guarantee that he will never lust (which he can't)
what effect does the display of his naked body have on others?" From my
second affirmative: "Tell us, Kundert: how can you guarantee that
you are not causing people to lust when you exhibit yourself naked?" Remember,
Kundert admitted there are people, like David, who lust in the presence
of nakedness. Yet he won't tell us how he can be sure he isn't a stumbling
block to such people. So again nudism fails. It can lead one to lust, and/or
it can lead others to lust. How can this possibly be "Christian?"
Unfortunately, Mr. Kundert has given just as much attention to my two
other arguments against nudism: it damages one's influence and could lead
others to sin. He has virtually ignored this material. One cannot help
but wonder if the case for nudism is so strong why he doesn't answer my
questions in detail and make that case!
I suspect the readers have also noticed his refusal to answer questions
about his motivation for nudism. Continually I have asked why he wants
to be naked
with others? What does he gain by being naked around
with others that he cannot gain by being naked privately?
Instead of answering my questions Kundert has written lots about Israel
bathing in the wilderness. The reader will note he has not produced any
evidence that men and women ever bathed together. He just asserts it, but
research finds that it is not true. The Jews were exceedingly modest and
would never tolerate nudism. In an article in the Journal of Biblical
Literature (JBL 1116/3 [1997] pages 429-454) Michael Satlow discusses
how reluctant Jewish men were to be naked even in the presence of other
men. Further, Jewish law held "A woman who goes outside with even her
head uncovered or garments ripped can be divorced... all the more so
if she attends a bathhouse in which there are men" (page 442).
Space does not permit fuller discussion here but it is obvious that the
Jews didn't practice any form of nudism.
Kundert also chose to assert that since God made the body if the body
causes lust God created lust. This is the very argument "free love" advocates
make: God made sex so all sex must be right. How lame! Yes, God made the
body (and sex). In the right context these are pure and not inherently
indecent (despite Kundert's outrageous charge that my standards make nakedness
in marriage wrong). What Kundert (and free love advocates) don't want to
recognize is that God's creation is also subject to God's law to guard
against sin. But that brings us back to discussing how nudists guard against
lust....
Kundert closes his last article by trying to say the many passages that
speak of nakedness in a shameful way either speak of poverty or are symbolic.
He misses the point. If nakedness is such a great thing why does the Bible
use it as a mark of shame and sin, symbolically or otherwise?
In conclusion, I find that we end where we began. Once more I am asking
Kundert the same questions that he cannot answer: How does he prevent lust?
How does he know he isn't causing others to lust? How can this lifestyle
be godly when it destroys one's influence? How can he keep from leading
others into sin by promoting the nudist lifestyle? What scripture tells
us that nakedness helps one serve God? Why does he wants to be naked with
others and what does this do for him?
Kundert has failed this debate's readers by refusing to answer my charges
and questions about nudism. The Bible's arguments stand (untouched). Nudism
has been shown to be sinful and wrong. My prayer is that nudists will repent
of their sin and heed the words of Christ: "I counsel you to buy from Me...white
garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness
may not be revealed" (Revelation 3.18). |
