By a Texas preacher

Can the editor 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 the editor has not met his obligation in our debate, and how nudism remains condemned as sinful.

From the outset I have pressed the editor about lust. I have repeatedly questioned him about how lust is avoided by nudists. In my first affirmative: "The editor 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. Editor, 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, the editor has never told us how he avoids lust, or if he has ever lusted (interesting!). The editor 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 the editor 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?

The editor 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 the editor 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, editor: how can you guarantee that you are not causing people to lust when you exhibit yourself naked?" Remember, the editor 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, the editor 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 the editor 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.

The editor 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 the editor's outrageous charge that my standards make nakedness in marriage wrong). What the editor (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....

The editor 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 the editor 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?

The editor 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).

Next article: Final Debate Negative

Sign Up

This article offers just a tiny hint of all the good stuff available from Fig Leaf Forum! Sign up today for free access to the world's largest archive of information for Christian nudists and Christian naturists!