The degrading exposure of a victim's naked, tortured body was a key aspect of Roman crucifixion as described by historical sources. It not only would have served to exemplify the broader degradation and helplessness of crucifixion victims, but it also would have displayed any marks of torture the victims had already suffered, which evidenced the other injustices the criminals may have received beforehand. The Biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion itself is consistent with the evidence for forced nudity in Roman crucifixion [1], and many pastors have drawn attention to this. Many of those same pastors would also not disagree with the idea that Jesus alone did not deserve crucifixion, which, if true (the Bible totally contradicts this asinine claim), would mean other victims did.
Ultimately, without realizing the thoroughness of their own stupidity and inconsistency, the typical evangelical would agree with the claim that voluntary public nudity is Biblically immoral while also agreeing with the claim that the thieves crucified alongside Jesus deserved the punishment Roman law assigned to them, which included forced nudity and other unbiblical tortures. There is also the ironic cultural relativism inherent in approving of both Roman crucifixion and modern prison sentences for the same crimes, but it is already obvious from other examples that evangelicals are cultural relativists when it comes to the details of matters like justice.
The hypocrisy surrounding nudity and crucifixion, however, is far less visible to many who either support or criticize evangelicalism (I have only met one other person who claimed to have heard of this hypocrisy being brought up, and I have never met anyone who claimed to have discovered this on their own). It is nonetheless an inconsistency that exposes the backwards legalism that most Western Christians at least superficially agree with when they encounter it. The Christians in question literally think that a person sins by choosing to exhibit their naked bodies and thinks that it was just for the Roman Empire to have numerous people crucified while in a state of total, involuntary nudity.
This set of cognitively dissonant beliefs is the exact opposite of what the Bible actually teaches on both matters. Voluntary nudity is blatantly nonsinful on the Christian worldview [2], and everything about Roman crucifixion is utterly antithetical to Biblical criminal justice laws [3], including the forced nudity that amplified the psychological torture for victims. The Evangelical world has inverted its collective stances on these matters, even if approval of Roman crucifixion in the cases of victims other than Jesus is subtle except when certain pastors or writers explicitly express it either to emphasize the sinlessness of Jesus or to grossly mischaracterize the kind of treatment some people deserve from others.
Only a fool would believe either of these things on an individual basis after reflecting rationally on what the Bible actually teaches about nudity and criminal justice, and only a greater fool would adhere to both ideas when they contradict each other. Of course, that is precisely what evangelicals are: whether the issue is their legalistic additions to Biblical teachings about morality in the name of slippery slope fallacies and non sequiturs, their apathy or hostility towards genuine rationalism, their insistence that reason and belief in unproven concepts are compatible, or their sexual prudery, evangelicals are deluded by irrational and unbiblical beliefs. The deep evangelical hypocrisy concerning nudity and its relationship to Roman crucifixion is less obvious to many people, but it remains a clear example of intellectual and moral incompetence.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/jesus-nudity-on-cross.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/06/nudity-in-ancient-jewish-culture.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-are-getting-what-our-deeds-deserve.html
Your discourses would benefit if not be more warranted IF You could produce an actual QUOTE from a real ( not an imaginary bogeyman strawman ) “evangelical” “pastor” “writer” who You seek to criticize; it’s not only ethical journalism, but Fair rationally to at least occasionally specify Your Opponents’ actual statements rather than falling into Your own contrived collectivist fallacy fantassy that ALL folks in Your specified category espouse the anti-Nudity beliefs You ungraciously attribute to Them without being able to provide legitimate verifiable details. To wit, I have attended & viewed many diverse religious services & CANNOT remember even one instance, when a Member of Clergy uttered a single Remark about #Nudity #Nudism #PublicSocialNudity #NudeCruxifictionOfChrist ore related matters; it’s more memorable & remarkable that They Avoid any & all mention of such topics; BUT that Avoidance cannot rationally & should not be interpreted in a knee-jerk way as Indictment. Show Me some Indictments from Living Critics of Nudism or Denialists who refute that Christ was Nude when Cruxified, Please, Cooper Cooke.
ReplyDeleteIf You are going to Indict a nameless faceless person or group as “stupid” “foolish” “hypocritical” “backwards” “delusional” “irrational” & “hostile”, it would bolster Your Claims “IF” You can produce a few actual real easily verifiable triangulatable published QUOTES; otherwise, You look like the Person.