Final Debate Negative By John Kundert
"Social nudism is condemned
by the Bible as sinful." That's our debate proposition. I'm disappointed
that in his concluding article Mr. Roberts mostly affirmed that "Lust is
condemned by the Bible as sinful" and mostly ignored his own stipulation
that we limit our discussion to "what the Bible says is right and wrong."
I hope it won't be lost on readers of this debate that his last thousand-word
article contained only two Scripture references!
In his final affirmative
Mr. Roberts quoted Michael Satlow to rebut my remarks about public bathing
during the Exodus. Unmentioned was the fact that Mr. Satlow's article focused
on Jewish attitudes towards nakedness based upon
rabbinical law and
traditions (yes, the very kinds of rules and traditions of men criticized
by Jesus in Matthew 15.2-9 and Mark 7.6-13) dating from 70-500 A.D., some
fifteen
centuries after the era I was discussing. That Mr. Roberts would even
quote from such an article surprised me since he himself stipulated that
in this debate, "History is not our standard.... We are discussing what
the Bible says is right and wrong."
Interestingly, Mr. Satlow
also spoke about "context-dependent understandings of nakedness" in his
article. "Who is naked and in what context he or she is naked convey
different meanings: Is he or she naked in a locker room, at a strip-show,
or at an academic conference?" Sound familiar? It should. That's precisely
the point I made in my first article, a point Mr. Roberts summarily dismissed
as "nonsense"!
Mr. Roberts wrote, "If nakedness
is such a great thing, why does the Bible use it as a mark of shame and
sin?" I might just as easily ask, "If clothing is such a great thing, why
does the Bible use it as a mark of mourning and repentance?" Of course,
not all clothing represents mourning and repentance in Scripture (only
sackcloth, as in Genesis 37.34 and Matthew 11.21), just as not all nakedness
represents shame and sin. For Mr. Roberts to continually ignore context
when interpreting nakedness is inexcusable.
Mr. Roberts wrote, "Kundert
also chose to assert that since God made the body if the body causes lust
God created lust." That I rejected such ideas by writing "May it never
be said" apparently escaped his attention. He further wrote, "Yes,
God made the body (and sex). In the right context these are pure and not
inherently indecent.... What Kundert (and free love advocates) don't want
to recognize is that God's creation is also subject to God's law." While
his preposterous comparison of "free love" with the topic of this debate
clearly betrays Mr. Roberts' ignorance about social nudism, his observation
that both sex and nakedness are "subject to God's law" is absolutely correct.
Just as the Bible clearly differentiates between prohibited and permitted
sex, it also differentiates between prohibited and permitted nakedness.
Nakedness "in the right context" can indeed be "pure and not inherently
indecent." That many of these "right contexts" in Scripture are non-sexual
and public is something Mr. Roberts has been trying to ignore throughout
this entire debate.
Does Mr. Roberts know more
about non-sexual public nakedness than God? God certainly knew how to make
it clear when and for whom such nakedness was prohibited (Exodus 20.25-26,
28.41-43). Did God appoint Mr. Roberts to pencil prohibitions and condemnations
into the Bible that were mistakenly omitted? Mr. Roberts says non-sexual
public nakedness causes others to lust. If this is true, why didn't God
prohibit or condemn public bathing (Exodus 2.5; 2 Kings 5.10-14; 2 Samuel
11.2)? Mr. Roberts says non-sexual public nakedness leads others to sin.
If this is true, why didn't Jesus prohibit or condemn the public nakedness
of field workers and fishermen (Matthew 24.18, KJV; John 21.7)? Mr. Roberts
says non-sexual public nakedness destroys one's influence. If this is true,
why did God order His own prophet Isaiah to walk naked among his people
(Isaiah 20)? Why didn't He prohibit or condemn nakedness among His other
prophets (1 Samuel 19.23-24)? Why didn't God condemn King David for his
exposure while worshipping Him (2 Samuel 6.14-23)?
These passages (supported
by historical evidence available to anyone willing to search for it) demonstrate
how common and accepted voluntary non-sexual public nakedness was for most
in Bible times. God didn't prohibit or condemn this nakedness because He
rightly knew what modern social nudists have simply rediscovered. He knew
that non-sexual nakedness simply doesn't provoke lust or sin in the way
folks like Mr. Roberts imagine.
Mr. Roberts has every right
to condemn what God condemns, including abuses of voluntary non-sexual
public nakedness (of which 2 Samuel 11 is the only example in all
of Scripture). However, Mr. Roberts has no right — NO RIGHT — to prohibit
or condemn what God chose not to prohibit or condemn as sinful in His Word,
and that includes conduct that he himself claims "dramatically parallels,"
"exactly parallels" and "mirrors...perfectly" social nudism — responsible,
voluntary, non-sexual public nakedness.
Social nudism is NOT CONDEMNED
by the Bible as sinful, and the Scriptural evidence I have provided in
this debate proves it.
A final note. Mr. Roberts
has attempted repeatedly to leave readers with the impression that I'm
trying to avoid issues like lust, "damaged Christian influence," etc. He's
wrong in doing that. When we were establishing debate guidelines he wrote,
"I am not interested in someone cluttering the debate with endless talk
off topic about everything except the key issues being debated." I believe
"off topic" describes far too much of Mr. Roberts' performance in this
debate. For my part, I'll make no apologies for not addressing "oranges"
when the topic of debate is "apples"!
Mr. Roberts, if you really
want to debate these other topics, then let's establish a new proposition,
refine our guidelines and begin again. Contrary to your false accusations,
I'm more than willing to publicly state and defend my position on such
issues when it's done in the proper forum. The ball, as they say, is in
your court.
Copyright © 1994-2008 Fig Leaf Forum All Rights Reserved
This Web site is printer-friendly.
