Devils Advocate: Are "CHRISTIAN" Natuists, Hypocrites"

[Bare_Truth]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Devil%27s%20Advocate?s=t

a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination.

So please bear in mind that while I present this accusation, I believe it is a wrong one but present it to draw out counter arguments against it. It should be regarded as a charge leveled by one or more members of the homosexual community against the Christian Naturist community.

You so called "Christian" Naturists who hide behind yoiur bible are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. You either condemn or reject or fail to support the homosexual rights movement when you were in the same boat seeking the same tolerance that we ask for ourselves and our lifestyle.

In the earlier part of this century, (20's thru 50's, mostly, but still some today) your movement was seeking to go without clothing without legal persecution and supression by the powers of the state denying you free practice of your life style, even sometimes trying to deny you custody of your children and other such sanctions and generally suppressing your lifestyle.

It matters not one whit that you say the Bible permits what you do! It was a matter of your lifestyle being suppressed by someone else's religious ideas that they claimed sprang from the very same Bible, often expressed with the power of the state because you were a minority and they were the majority. It was their religious interpretation and belief that was used to deny you your freedom. Now it is your religious interpretation of that Bible that you want to impose on us and deny us our freedom in this country whose constitution says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Now today, many of you are "conservative christians" and you reject tenets of our lifestyle and oppose our practise of them. The shoe is on the other foot now, and you are the oppressors. Even while you seek more acceptance for nudity and less interference from the powers that be and even demand protection from the excesses of your opponents and seek to use the law for your protection; you object when the state intervenes to protect our rights to not be discriminated against and you oppose our efforts to obtain the sort of acceptance that you have largely gained and are seeking to expand. Many of you would even discriminate by trying to keep us out of your naturist "preserves" and clubs.

You are not naturist Christians, you are naturist hypocrites. If you don't like that title and don't want to change, give us a good list of reasons why this analogy is false.

Fortunately that accusation correctly identifies the argument as basically an analogy and even gives a primary avenue to defeat it, if good reasons for rejecting the analogy can be proffered. There may be other avenues to deflect its assertion, (e.g. the analogy contains multiple assertions and they might be dealt with separately). Prima facie, it looks as if there may be at least some analogous factors in the argument. Also, the accuser seems to have some knowledge of the history of naturist movement in the U.S. during the 20th century.

-- Are Naturist Christians guilty of wanting for themselves what they reject to grant to the homosexual community in this matter?
-- How much of this accusation is justified?
-- What can be said against this argument?

[Jon-Marc]

The so-called "gay" lifestyle is sinful and condemned by God in His word; He does NOT condemn the nude human body.

[JimShedd112]

Personally, I think the argument is valid in many respects. I didn't hear God nor his Son, Jesus, condemn the acts many find repulsive or sinful. Yes, I can read in the Bible homosexuality is against God's law but those words are/were written by men.

How many condemn homosexuality because you find it repulsive as opposed to against God's law as some will claim. No, I am not and have no desire to become a homosexual but I will not judge them for their acts either. As reportedly said by Jesus, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Jim Shedd

[natman]

The so-called "gay" lifestyle is sinful and condemned by God in His word; He does NOT condemn the nude human body.

From a Christian and religious perspective, that is EXACTLY right.

The Bible contains MANY verses that directly condemn homosexual activity in both the Old and the New Testaments.

On the other hand, the Bible NEVER condemns simple nudity. In fact, the authors ("scribes" actually, as God is the "Author") go to great lengths point out God's pleasure in His creation, our bodies, which He says are made in His own "Image and Likeness"; declared "VERY GOOD" rather than merely "good" as He described the rest of His creation; which He holds so dearly as to demand that a life be taken by anyone who wantonly destroys one of His "image bearers"; that He is pleased to have His prophets preach and prophesy for days and weeks on end in the nude; that He COMMANDS some of His prophets to go nude for years at a time; that rather than chastising David for dancing nude in the streets of Jerusalem as the Ark of the Covenant was brought to the temple, He chastised David's wife for criticizing his actions by making her barren for the rest of her life; that He was not ashamed that those His Son, Jesus Christ, called to be His apostles worked fishing in the nude; that His Son was beaten and nailed to a cross, nude for all to see, yet still sinless such that He could take on the sins of the world; that His Son rose from the dead, leaving His burial clothes in the tomb, was seen by two women who, because He was nude, assumed He was a mere gardener.

From a naturalistic perspective, homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, causes damage to the human body by destroying the muscles in the anus and by introducing bacteria into a part of the body that is not designed to fight them, which causes damage to the bowel and digestive system and weakens the immune system.

On the other hand, our bodies are so designed that they are much HEALTHIER if they are allowed to be nude for portions of each day, exposed to natural sunlight, air and water, that in doing so, our immune systems are actually boosted.

[Bare_Truth]

First a comment on "Accuser's accusation":
I think when he said "conservative Christians, he may have meant fundmaentalist Christians which may be percieved as a strict literal belief in the scriptural record as originally delivered and close adherence to the primary tenets of doctrine.
----------------

The so-called "gay" lifestyle is sinful and condemned by God in His word; He does NOT condemn the nude human body.

Though it be a true argument It is doubtful that it would evenbudge "Accuser". He has already rejected that argument as significant having cited how naturists were persecuted by people who said that the naked human body was proscribed in the Bible
-------------------

... Yes, I can read in the Bible homosexuality is against God's law but those words are/were written by men. ...

True enough the ink and parchment/papyrus was wielded by men but the question is where did the words originate. Were the men the "authors" or were they just "scribes". And that is a whole different topic. Chapter 18: of Deuteronomy in which homosexuality and zoophilia are condemned as abominations starts out with "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, ....." So saying that it was just written by men will not persuade fundamentalists. The real question is are we christian naturists being hypocrites.
----------------
An interesting discussion that has been put forth, is if Homosexuals are "born that way" and hence cannot be blamed for following their instincts and hence are not guilty, then why is it not just as credible that perhaps "straights" are born with an instinct to abhor homosexuality and hence are "born that way", and "not guilty" and "cannot change" either. After all, in nature the instinct to reject the abnormal is a common instinct among animals. i.e. the problem is insoluable And should anyone care to argue that abhorance instinct can be changes/suppressed, then wouldn't that hold true for the homosexual instinct too ??? Or if the one instinct can not be imposed upon by forbidding its practice cannot the other be protected from being forbidden as well.
-------------------
And now back to the question of whether homosexuality is a legitimate parallel to Christian Naturism or are Christian Naturist just hyoocrites.............

[Bare_Truth]

And Now I will make this a separate post because for the moment I am taking my Devil's Advocate Hat off.

To attack "Accuser's" argument I will open the matter a bit broader, not to just the similarities between the Homosexual Movement vs Christian Natuists but to the differences, or in this post just one class of difference. Namely the Christian Naturist response.

The christian naturist community sought Accomodation and not:
-- Confrontation,
-- General Toleration,
-- Acceptance in the public sphere or
-- Approval.
And I very much doubt that you can find a single occasion where a couple planning a nude wedding ever sued a bakery for not putting nude bride and groom figures on the top of the cake. I think you will find that we merely accepted that was not a service offered by the vendor because he/she did not want to offer that.

-- Christian Naturists did not demand that all resorts allow us to stay at their resorts and not wear clothes.
-- We did not have Naturist Pride parades,
-- We did not demand that naturism be taught as just as valid a life style as what the majority lived.

Now someone will jump in here with the World Naked Bike Ride but I will counter with the notion that it is a recent phenomenon of public protest and not really a part of how Christian Naturism has reached the level of acceptance and toleration that it now receives. If one takes Steven Gough's case. He is being confrontational and that is not working all that well for him. To what extent I can respect his effort, I see his protest as against the hypocrisy of the law in allowing the opinion of a cop on the beat to arbitrarily decide that Steven is engaging in antisocial affront, offense and disturbance when there is no actual law against nudity. It is ridiculous that when no complaint of affront offense or disturbance has been filed or called in that the police officer can just decide that in his official capacity he is affronted. Of course here in the U.S.A we do have a bit more of an ethic that you don't have a right to not be offended.

Comparing the World Naked Bike ride to a Gay Pride parade, I would make the point that the nakedness in the bike riding is ancillary attention grabbing to the point of the protesting hazards to bike riders and issues of polution, whereas blatant homosexual display and even homosexual acts as reported in some media is all about homosexuality and promoting it. I realize that some may think that to be a distinction without a difference but I do not see it that way.

In my future posts on this strip, please check to see which hat I am wearing when I post anything.
Bare_Truth

[JimShedd112]

Well argued Bare_Truth. Thank you presenting this challenge and then defending your position(s).

Jim Shedd

[jasenj1]

Of course here in the U.S.A we do have a bit more of an ethic that you don't have a right to not be offended.

Really? It seems in the USA these days you have the right to be offended by just about anything and insist the offender stop their behavior. See Confederate flag, "trigger" warnings, prohibitions on foul language in resort areas, oh, and of course, extreme gymnophobia.

As for the original "Accuser", as has been pointed out, homosexuality is clearly condemned by God in the Bible. Explicitly and repeatedly. Nudity has no such condemnation. Setting aside that HUGE difference, there are many parallels between naturists' struggles and homosexuals' struggles. Homosexuals have been far more militant and combative in advocating for their lifestyle - and have been successful, while I believe they are still a pretty small minority. Naturists have been unwilling to suffer for their cause the way homosexuals have.

[Bare_Truth]

.... homosexuality is clearly condemned by God in the Bible. Explicitly and repeatedly. Nudity has no such condemnation. .....

This has been pointed out multiple times but if you will notice in the original quote for accuser, accuser is not concerned about what it says in the bible. Accuser is concerned with what people Think the bible says whether they are bible Illeterates or not and whether they reaad things intothe scripture that are not there. Hence Accuser is correct when he says that Christian naturists were oppressed by people who claimed the Bible as their authority despite the fact that they obviously had not read it or engaged in major eisegesis. But fundamentalists can simply cite the passages which say that God abominates homosexuality. And that is arguably the strongest verbal condemnation that can be found in the scripture ranking right up there with anathema..

Arguing for what the Bible says does not affect Accuser's parallel because he bases it on what he sees as disparagement from "christian" religion doing to Homosexuals and what disparagement came from "christian" religion to naturist christians. I think
that part of the parallel is correct, the difference is that fundamentalists Christians who read the bible and avoid exegesis should be able to see that simple, non sexual nudity per se is not prohibited in the Bible. As we know the majority have jumped the track by accepting the non biblical notion that nudity = sex and that we (men especially) cannot see nudity without automatically lusting. What Accuser misses probably just because he does not like the outcome is that fundamentalists do have explicit biblical support for eschewing homosexuality.

So then if I explicitly state that as a difference Naturist Christians can go to their accusers and point out that the Bible does not condenm what we do, but Homosexuals have to radically twist scripture to try to convince us that the Bible does not speak against what they do.

[Petros]

I will weigh in only on the hypocrisy issue.

Edgar finds a wallet, checks the id, returns it to the owner [I have done this twice, which just shows people are careful with their wallets.

Edgar finds a $5 bill blowing across a deserted parking lot. There is no one about. Edgar pockets and eventually spends the money [this happened to me once, and I waited a few days in case I heard that someone had lost the bill.

--------------

Leon sees a $5 bill on the floor at the grocery checkout. He pockets it.

Leon finds a wallet, removes the cash and puts it back.

---------------

May Leon call Edgar a hypocrite when Edgar condemns theft? After all, they both took money that they had not earned.

[Bare_Truth]

I will weigh in only on the hypocrisy issue............

..........May Leon call Edgar a hypocrite when Edgar condemns theft? After all, they both took money that they had not earned.

Real Story:
Walking out of wall mart the woman ahead of me pushing high stacked cart had part of her load shift and had to reachforward to restrain and re settle it. An instant later I heard a coin fall on the tile entrance floor. I thought the woman had kicked a coin laying there. then I noticed her purse was leaning precariously on top of the load. I could also see that she was unaware of the coin on the floor, so I bent down and picked up the coin and she was headed for the outer door when I called out to her,, "Maam, I think yoiu dropped this!" She thanked me and accepted the quarter. Her friend pointed out that one corner of her purse was quite low and obviously it could spill more change.

It occurred to me that had I been walking out alone I probably would have pocketed the quarter. Why? The value was small and the probability of finding the owner would have been small. The difference is the practability of finding the owner is a key factor when weighed against the value. Now had anyone come back in looking all over the floor I would have asked and if they said they lost some money, I would have asked how much and if logically a quarter were plausible part of what they lost I would have offered it to them and if they had lost more I would have tried to help him find the rest.

If it had been a sizeable amount $5, $10 $50, $100, I would have taken it to the store manager and explained the situation and turned it over to him for the lost and found. Might he have pocketed it, maybe but at least I would not have stolen an item of value. Might the manager have pocketed it, maybe, but I tend to follow the advice of Mark Twain who said it was tainted, as in it tain't mine. I think that is a reasonable manner to handle such things. If it were an amount of several hundered I would take even more precaution to see that it got in the right hands.

It comes down to a matter of perception of whether one sees the money as "lost" or "abandoned"; possible to return or impractical to return.

Allow me to propose an experiment: Place an ad in the newspaper that says, "Found, a purse with a sum of money at the corner of 5th and Jefferson but no identification. Call 235-2947 and describe the purse and the approximate amount of cash in order to claim." Could be interesting. wink:

What do you suppose would happen?

I suppose it might be wise to use an anonymous cell phone number.

[Petros]

Yes, that might be interesting. The last case I came on there was a great volume of ID and credit cards, scattered out on the road - the owner had NO idea where she had dropped it.

Slightly off topic - one day I was in a strange town, parked my car, walked a couple of blocks to the store. Back to the car with my purchases. There onm the sidewalk in the snow, I see a wallet. Ah - I will be a good person, I will pick it up and return it to the owner. even if it means a longer stay here before I get back in the road.

I picked it up, checked the ID.

It was mine - must have fallen out of my pocket, I never noticed.

I was VERY grateful to the one who had returned it to me!