Second Debate Negative By John Kundert
Mr. Roberts' words about failing
"to speak to the real issues," attempting to "sidetrack the discussion"
and employing "evasive maneuvers" motivated me to carefully scrutinize
everything that's been written for this debate so far. My analysis yielded
an important discovery. In this debate Mr. Roberts is supposed to be affirming
the proposition that "Social nudism is condemned by the Bible as sinful,"
yet in his two articles he's primarily been affirming that "LUST is condemned
by the Bible as sinful." Well of course it is! If that was really
the debate proposition there wouldn't even be a debate because we'd
both be on the same side!
Mr. Roberts first began sidetracking
the debate when he insisted that "Social nudism is wrong because it can
provoke lust." Based on this logic he could also contend that delicious
food is wrong because it can provoke gluttony and money is wrong
because it can provoke greed. The Bible won't let him do that, of
course. Scripture clearly does not condemn food or money, but it
does soundly condemn their abuse. It's a sad fact that there's nothing
on earth that human beings cannot abuse, and for that reason no one can
condemn something simply because it can be abused. Since Mr. Roberts has
admitted in his articles that the Bible discusses conduct which "dramatically
parallels," "exactly parallels" and "mirrors...perfectly" social nudism,
the onus is on him to prove that the Bible plainly condemns this conduct
itself
and not just its abuse.
Mr. Roberts also sidetracked
the debate by doing the very thing he rightly warned against in his first
article. "We are...not talking about what we think or feel," he wrote.
"We are discussing what the Bible says is right and wrong." Among other
things he has wanted to discuss what others "think or feel" about Christian
nudists and what I "think or feel" about my own participation in nudism.
If Mr. Roberts can in the first instance prove that the Bible plainly
condemns what he says "exactly parallels" social nudism, then personal
opinions about current nudist practices are of no relevance to this debate.
I regret that in my first
article I sometimes naively followed Mr. Roberts' lead away from the proposition
of this debate and away from the Bible into matters of personal opinion.
No more! We must both get back on topic and back to the Bible!
In his second article Mr.
Roberts wrote that "Bathsheba's bathing in 2 Samuel 11 exactly parallels
social nudism as defined by Kundert. Bathsheba was not doing anything to
entice David. She was bathing and innocent." So then, here we have Mr.
Roberts affirming that nudism is sinful by describing Bathsheba's "nudism"
as innocent! An intriguing debate tactic!
Mr. Roberts follows this
portrayal of Biblical "nudism" with a description of how one person abused
it: "Yet she was seen naked and lust occurred." So where does the real
problem lie: with Bathsheba's "innocent" behavior or with David's evil
behavior? One would think the answer would be obvious.
Mr. Roberts wrote, "Kundert
asserted that 'Neither can God-created nakedness, in and of itself, tempt
anyone to evil.' That is wrong. David saw Bathsheba's nakedness and was
tempted to lust." There are two major problems with what he's written here.
First, Mr. Roberts neglected to include my quote's important reference
to James 1.13-14: "[God] Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is
tempted when he is carried away and enticed BY HIS OWN LUST." Let's be
clear. God is the Creator of our bodies. Scripture leaves no doubt about
that. If our bodies alone tempt people to lust, then Scripture is wrong;
God does indeed tempt people by the very way He creates us! May it never
be said.
Second, Mr. Roberts implies
that if Bathsheba had just refrained from her unenticing and innocent behavior,
then this whole nasty incident would never have happened. He's employing
a very questionable tactic here called "Blame the victim for the crime."
Never mind David's adulterous heart (remember, Jesus taught that
committing adultery in the heart precedes looking lustfully — Matthew 5.28).
Never mind David's lack of self-control. Never mind David's abuse
of power as King. No, according to Mr. Roberts the blame for David's
sin rests on Bathsheba's nakedness! That's not the way God saw it, however.
God's condemnation of David's conduct is unmistakable and severe; God's
condemnation of Bathsheba's nakedness and conduct is non-existent.
Mr. Roberts accepted my remarks
about the commonness of public bathing but noted, "Mr. Kundert did not
quote a single verse of Scripture showing unmarried men and women bathing
together." True. It's also true that he didn't quote a single verse that
condemns
such bathing. Why should it be so remarkable that Scripture doesn't comment
on something so commonplace and accepted? If one seriously considers the
Israelite's wilderness journey, for instance, it simply defies credibility
to suggest that more than a million people could travel for years through
a barren desert — living together in tents with no access to private bathrooms
and with no bathing "facilities" other than rivers, lakes and small oasis
pools — without ever seeing nakedness or without ever being together naked
in a non-sexual context like bathing.
Mr. Roberts again wrote about
the clothing commands of Exodus 20.26 and 28.42-43. I seriously doubt that
he obeys Old Testament ceremonial law yet here he insists that I do.
I find this odd.
Mr. Roberts also revisited
1 Timothy 2.9. "Whatever is made of 1 Timothy 2," he wrote, "it still says
women have to wear something, something that is modest. How can a nude
woman claim to be obeying 1 Timothy 2?" It should be noted that 1 Timothy
2 also says that women are to be silent (v. 12). How, then, could a woman
ever speak and still claim to be obedient to 1 Timothy 2? The answer is
quite simple, really. If she was speaking where Paul expected her to be
silent (at public worship, for instance), then she would be disobedient.
However, if she was speaking where there were no such expectations (at
home, for example), then she could speak freely and still be in full compliance
with 1 Timothy 2.
In the same way, if a woman
wasn't modestly clothed where Paul expected her to be so dressed (at public
worship, for instance), then she would be disobedient. However, if she
was completely unclothed where nakedness was commonly expected and lawful
in Paul's day (while bathing outside in a lake or at the public baths,
for example), she could be nude and still be obedient to 1 Timothy 2.
Paul would no more demand that women remain clothed twenty-four hours per
day than he would demand that they remain silent twenty-four hours per
day.
Mr. Roberts dismissed my
use of the terms "chaste nakedness" and "modest nakedness," comparing them
with "kind murder" and "loving adultery." The problem here is that murder
and adultery are clearly condemned in the Bible as sinful, but he has yet
to prove non-sexual nakedness to be similarly condemned. Until he does,
I stand by my assertion that chaste, modest nakedness can be found in a
wide variety of situations and environments, including nudist clubs.
Mr. Roberts claimed "Nakedness
is, by definition, the opposite of modesty and chasteness." In truth, Webster's
Dictionary defines nakedness as simply the opposite of being clothed!
There's no moral component in such a definition.
"No one is modest when they
are naked," wrote Mr. Roberts. Let's not forget that he believes "indecency"
is "a lack of modesty." If our bodies are inherently immodest and indecent,
then Mr. Roberts cannot escape the conclusion that God (the Creator of
our bodies) is also the Creator of immodesty and indecency. I profoundly
disagree! It should not be lost on readers of this debate that by Mr. Roberts'
standard even private nakedness between a man and his wife is immodest
and indecent!
Mr. Roberts wrote, "Kundert
tries to act like there is nothing wrong with nudism, and that everyone
naked in the Bible does so without condemnation [untrue; see below (JK)].
He even says 'Never is physical nakedness itself a matter of shame, embarrassment
or condemnation.' Really?" Readers should note that Mr. Roberts neglected
to include the crucial second part of this quote: "It's always the conditions
or actions surrounding nakedness — the context — that result in these negative
connotations." Thus, the illicit actions of a naked prostitute are indeed
condemned by the Bible while the lawful actions of an "innocent" naked
bather like Bathsheba are not. Let's now look at Mr. Roberts' Scripture
list:
Genesis 9.22-23: While Noah's
drunkenness is difficult to excuse, the only thing actually condemned in
this passage is the conduct of Noah's "youngest son": "When Noah awoke
from his wine, HE KNEW WHAT HIS YOUNGEST SON HAD DONE TO HIM. So he said,
'Cursed be Canaan...'" (Genesis 9.24-25). Most Bible commentators agree
that this passage indicates some action or conduct apart from simply seeing
Noah's nakedness actually brought about Canaan's condemnation.
2 Chronicles 28.15; Ezekiel
18.7: Being in need of clothing's physical protection no more implies shame,
embarrassment or condemnation than being in need of other necessities of
life like shoes, food, water and medicine (all mentioned within these verses).
About Ezekiel 18.7 Mr. Roberts wrote, "Why does the good man cover nakedness?
Kundert says good people go naked!" Such words
mock the suffering
of destitute people. I've never said — and would never say — that it's
a "good" thing for anyone to be without clothing when it's needed for physical
protection.
Micah 1.11: The nakedness
in Micah's vision occurs within the context of forced humiliation. Isaiah
20.4-5 shows that forcibly stripping prisoners was meant to shame and humiliate
them. The emotional difference between voluntary nakedness and being forcibly
stripped is not unlike the emotional difference between giving to a charity
and getting mugged. Even social nudists, who obviously have no problem
with nakedness, would find being stripped against their will a humiliating
experience. Note that verse 8 has Micah himself going about "barefoot and
naked" in his vision, just as God commanded Isaiah to do in real life (Isaiah
20.2). Mr. Roberts believes that God condemns non-sexual nakedness where
it can be witnessed by the opposite sex, yet God placed Isaiah in exactly
that situation for three full years! God does not command sin, Mr.
Roberts. God does not command what He also condemns.
The rest of Mr. Roberts'
Scriptures are figurative or symbolic in nature. Crossing the boundary
from literal to figurative nakedness presents serious problems for
those who feel these verses are germane to a discussion about actual bodily
nakedness. In Revelation 3.18, for example, the Laodicean church is counseled
"to buy from [Jesus] gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich;
and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and
salve to put on your eyes, so you can see." To make the "shameful nakedness"
of Revelation 3.18 into literal, physical nakedness is to make Jesus the
literal
seller of literal gold, literal white clothes and literal
eye-salve! Just as Revelation 3.18's nakedness actually represents the
Laodicean's shameful spiritual destitution, the references to nakedness
in the remainder of Mr. Roberts' list represent something other than physical
nakedness and as such are irrelevant to our discussion.
In this article I have relied
heavily upon the Bible to show why I believe nothing that resembles the
physical activity of social nudism is condemned as sinful in Scripture.
Even though it could easily be seen by others of the opposite sex, neither
Bathsheba's nakedness nor the many other examples of non-sexual nakedness
found in the Bible receive any condemnation from God. I contend that neither
Mr. Roberts nor anyone else has the authority to condemn that which God
Himself does not condemn!
It's now time for Mr. Roberts
to put first things first and concentrate on making one last attempt at
proving from Scripture alone that the physical activity of social nudism
is condemned by the Bible as sinful.
Copyright © 1994-2008 Fig Leaf Forum All Rights Reserved
This Web site is printer-friendly.
