Is there anything wrong with skinny dipping on your own?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

IMO it is not a matter of "can" or "cannot", it is a matter of "good" or "not good".

1 Corinthians 10:23: ""All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up."

I don't think there is a definite answer to this question, but depending on the situation, consider whether such act is good and helpful (to yourself and/or others). If not/in doubt, don't do it.

Correct.
The Apostles agreed all , NOT to cause ANYONE ELSE to stumble, ever, as far as was possible . They refused to do anything that would cause anyone weak in faith to stumble in any way,
as causing someone, anyone, to stumble is JUDGED SEVERELY by YAHWEH.

 

[dayhiker]

Helpful for... what?

I find it very peaceful.
The best way to socialize is nude in my book.
No cold swim suit when I get out of the hot tub.
Get an all over tan.
There is nothing like waking up and walking directly outside to see what the weather is when in the Caribbean.
Love the feel of the wind on my skin.

 

[DamianWarS]

I've seen a bit of discussion on these forums about skinny dipping with other people around, normally said to be a bad thing, based on the idea of a doorway to sin (although coming online to post that is a much bigger doorway to sin...). However, for purposes of this thread, I want to ask Christians: Is there anything wrong with skinny dipping while alone?

For example, I like to kayak on the river near my house. It's out in the country, and a small river, and I've kayaked it enough to know where I'm in sight from a road or someone's house. One time, I was kayaking on my own, and decided I wanted to swim, but didn't have swim trunks or a change of clothes, and was about half a mile away from where I pull out of the river. So, I pulled over where no one was around, took everything off, and swam around for awhile, enjoying the water & thanking God for the chance to do this.

While I've never regretted this incident, I thought it would be good for discussion: Is there anything bad about swimming without clothes when you're alone?

the question is "Is there anything wrong with skinny dipping on your own?" the qualifying answers would be something like "yes, there is something wrong with it" or "no, there is nothing wrong with it" but instead it says essentially "yes, there is nothing wrong with it" and "no, there is something wrong". I'm confused.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

the question is "Is there anything wrong with skinny dipping on your own?" the qualifying answers would be something like "yes, there is something wrong with it" or "no, there is nothing wrong with it" but instead it says essentially "yes, there is nothing wrong with it" and "no, there is something wrong". I'm confused.

When, since the beginning, did Yahweh demand modesty and when did He demand to cover the nakedness of the body ? (in His Word, not tradition nor men's thinking).

 

[DamianWarS]

When, since the beginning, did Yahweh demand modesty and when did He demand to cover the nakedness of the body ? (in His Word, not tradition nor men's thinking).

I was making a grammatical point not a moral one.

 

[Archivist]

Correct.
The Apostles agreed all , NOT to cause ANYONE ELSE to stumble, ever, as far as was possible . They refused to do anything that would cause anyone weak in faith to stumble in any way,
as causing someone, anyone, to stumble is JUDGED SEVERELY by YAHWEH.

Do you drive a nice car or live in a nice house. Couldn’t that cause someone else to be envious? When someone comes to your house do you serve good food. That could cause gluttony. There are all sorts of things you could do that could cause anger and greed.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Correct.
The Apostles agreed all , NOT to cause ANYONE ELSE to stumble, ever, as far as was possible . They refused to do anything that would cause anyone weak in faith to stumble in any way,
as causing someone, anyone, to stumble is JUDGED SEVERELY by YAHWEH.

Do you drive a nice car or live in a nice house. Couldn’t that cause someone else to be envious? When someone comes to your house do you serve good food. That could cause gluttony. There are all sorts of things you could do that could cause anger and greed.

And putting encouraging someone to come online to Christian Forums opens a whole array of doorways to sin. Jesus is very serious about the sin of scandal; "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Matthew 18:6). But how do we do it in a rational way?

This is a very heavy question, and really depends on the people involved. For some people, being alone with their girlfriend is too strong a doorway to sin. But when I had a girlfriend, we were alone together several times without any hint of issue. Better to be cautious, of course, but taken too far, you can't do anything, because every moment of every day is an opportunity for holiness, or an opportunity for sin.

Still good to discuss, though.

And pray. Always pray.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

IMO it is not a matter of "can" or "cannot", it is a matter of "good" or "not good".

1 Corinthians 10:23: ""All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up."

I don't think there is a definite answer to this question, but depending on the situation, consider whether such act is good and helpful (to yourself and/or others). If not/in doubt, don't do it.

Ah, Tharseo, but we are all pretty bad at assessing what is "good" or "not good," aren't we?

Your response is pretty much in line with traditional Christian thinking, but allow me to offer a different biblical perspective...

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

Here Paul instructs us that it is NOT good to submit to false man-made standards of righteousness. We should, in fact, actively oppose, reject, and disregard such "rules," because not only are they not from God, they are literally useless and of "no value."

And we can safely add "Do not skinnydip" to a list of man-made rules, for it is certainly not taught in the Bible.

There is something very GOOD about rejecting anything that is false and intentionally living according to the truth. And in the case of the matter under discussion, it can be a very good thing for a person to intentionally act in direct defiance of a man-made rule for righteousness.

Falsehoods bring bondage. The truth makes free. And that's a good thing.

David

 

[Tharseo]

Ah, Tharseo, but we are all pretty bad at assessing what is "good" or "not good," aren't we?

Your response is pretty much in line with traditional Christian thinking, but allow me to offer a different biblical perspective...

Here Paul instructs us that it is NOT good to submit to false man-made standards of righteousness. We should, in fact, actively oppose, reject, and disregard such "rules," because not only are they not from God, they are literally useless and of "no value."

And we can safely add "Do not skinnydip" to a list of man-made rules, for it is certainly not taught in the Bible.

There is something very GOOD about rejecting anything that is false and intentionally living according to the truth. And in the case of the matter under discussion, it can be a very good thing for a person to intentionally act in direct defiance of a man-made rule for righteousness.

Falsehoods bring bondage. The truth makes free. And that's a good thing.

David

Thank you very much. I am glad that you brought that up.

I fully agree with you, that if someone says "you cannot skinnydip", he makes a man made rule. But that is why I said no one should think that one "can" or "cannot" skinnydip. I would rather ask whether it is "good" or "bad". That is not a rule. One can find skinnydip "good" and do it, but at the same time, another one can find it "bad" and not do it, both perfectly fine before God.

The point is, do you think spiritually, and consider what is good and acceptable to God and to others? It is how we make decisions. It is not easy to assess what is good and bad, but we can at least try, so that we can make good decisions.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Correct.
The Apostles agreed all , NOT to cause ANYONE ELSE to stumble, ever, as far as was possible . They refused to do anything that would cause anyone weak in faith to stumble in any way,
as causing someone, anyone, to stumble is JUDGED SEVERELY by YAHWEH.

Jeff, I challenge you to take another look at the two "stumble" passages in the scriptures.

It's pretty evident to me that the way Paul used "stumble" and the way Jesus used "stumble" were quite different... but Christians frequently conflate the two and assume that they were talking about the same thing.

In my own studies, have concluded this...

• Jesus (Matt. 18):
  • To "stumble" means to miss out on salvation and end up in hell.
  • To "cause to stumble" therefore is a matter of being a catelyst to another person's eternal damnation.
  • This is why Jesus' judgment against one who causes another to "stumble" is so severe.
• Paul (Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8)
  • To "stumble" is for a person to participate in a neutral activity, even though that person's own conscience still considers it to be wrong.
  • To "cause to stumble" therefore is to participate in a neutral activity (which is not a sin to do, in and of itself) while in the process of doing so, another person is encouraged to violate their own conscience in order to join you in the activity. Salvation is not at stake.
    • NOTE: contrary to most Christians' belief, this does NOT mean that someone has an ungodly reaction to something that we do... (i.e. lusting, getting angry, attempting to kill us)... for in that case we would have to assert that Jesus was in sin when he intentionally did things that precipitated the Pharisees' murderous response to Him.

It is, therefore, a mistake to treat both passages as if "stumble" were one and the same idea

Review the scriptures yourself... you'll see what I mean.

We are not taught to avoid activities to which others respond sinfully... so if someone responds with lust/anger/hate/etc., that's on them (it was in their heart already... see Mark 7:14-23). When Jesus' disciples picked and ate grain on a Sabbath, He rebuked those with a sinful response... not those who dared do something that others believed was sinful. When Jesus healed on a Sabbath, it was his critics who were wrong, not the Healer.

David

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sorry, no. That's wrong.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Thank you very much. I am glad that you brought that up.
...
The point is, do you think spiritually, and consider what is good and acceptable to God and to others? It is how we make decisions. It is not easy to assess what is good and bad, but we can at least try, so that we can make good decisions.

Thank you for your gracious comments.

My point is that, yes, it IS a spiritually good thing to reject false rules--be they spoken or unspoken--and the nudity-taboo notion that pervades western Christian beliefs is one rule that it IS good to reject and "violate."

Such a conclusion and course of action should not be based on simple subjective personal assessment... for our consciences need to be "trained" to discern good an evil (Heb. 5:14).

David

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Sorry, no. That's wrong.

Please give evidence.

 

[Tharseo]

Jeff, I challenge you to take another look at the two "stumble" passages in the scriptures.

It's pretty evident to me that the way Paul used "stumble" and the way Jesus used "stumble" were quite different... but Christians frequently conflate the two and assume that they were talking about the same thing.

In my own studies, have concluded this...

• Jesus (Matt. 18):
  • To "stumble" means to miss out on salvation and end up in hell.
  • To "cause to stumble" therefore is a matter of being a catelyst to another person's eternal damnation.
  • This is why Jesus' judgment against one who causes another to "stumble" is so severe.
• Paul (Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8)
  • To "stumble" is for a person to participate in a neutral activity, even though that person's own conscience still considers it to be wrong.
  • To "cause to stumble" therefore is to participate in a neutral activity (which is not a sin to do, in and of itself) while in the process of doing so, another person is encouraged to violate their own conscience in order to join you in the activity. Salvation is not at stake.
    • NOTE: contrary to most Christians' belief, this does NOT mean that someone has an ungodly reaction to something that we do... (i.e. lusting, getting angry, attempting to kill us)... for in that case we would have to assert that Jesus was in sin when he intentionally did things that precipitated the Pharisees' murderous response to Him.

It is, therefore, a mistake to treat both passages as if "stumble" were one and the same idea

Review the scriptures yourself... you'll see what I mean.

We are not taught to avoid activities to which others respond sinfully... so if someone responds with lust/anger/hate/etc., that's on them (it was in their heart already... see Mark 7:14-23). When Jesus' disciples picked and ate grain on a Sabbath, He rebuked those with a sinful response... not those who dared do something that others believed was sinful. When Jesus healed on a Sabbath, it was his critics who were wrong, not the Healer.

David

Sorry, no. That's wrong.

Jeff, Saying something wrong without reasons stops discussions. I hope you understand that.

But, David, indeed I think there are flaws in the way you study the Bible.

1. The word "stumble" has (at least) three forms in the Bible in Greek, skandalizó (G4624) for 29 times; proskoptó (G4350) for 8 times; and ptaió (G4417) for 5 times. IMHO your study on this word does not grasp the full picture of the meaning of this word.

2. You could not say that a person use this word differently from how another person use the same word. This is not always the case. A person may often use a word for certain meaning. That does not mean that he/she will not use the word for another meaning.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

'you', not 'others'/'them'

Study Bible
Food Sacrificed to Idols
…12By sinning against your brothers in this way and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to stumble.
Berean Study Bible · Download

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jeff, Saying something wrong without reasons stops discussions. I hope you understand that.

Good. Glad you noticed.

We do not have the power of moderators or staff to stop things, do you ?

No matter in any case, power or no power,

we preach Christ Crucified !

And obey the Father in heaven - in everything we (Ekklesia) do, and in everything we speak, all the time, every day, as Jesus did, lived, and taught us to do.

 

[LostMarbels]

Me and my wife in a private place.... sure. Other grown men in a public shower or spa... sure. But I personally hold to the notion that your kids are not to see the nakedness of their parents, and I do not want to see the nakedness of someone who is not my wife. I have never seen my own children naked after they were potty trained. I feel that is Mommy's job. I would defiantly feel odd swimming with people the same age of my own daughters in the nude. (late 20's) I feel it is inappropriate even if not a sin. Personally, I can swim just fine in shorts.

I'm the kind of person that didn't allow his daughters to wear a 2 piece bathing suit until they were 18 and had the legal authority to chose for themselves. They got to wear lip-gloss, and get their nails and hair done, at 16. Modestly.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Jeff, Saying something wrong without reasons stops discussions. I hope you understand that.

But, David, indeed I think there are flaws in the way you study the Bible.

1. The word "stumble" has (at least) three forms in the Bible in Greek, skandalizó (G4624) for 29 times; proskoptó (G4350) for 8 times; and ptaió (G4417) for 5 times. IMHO your study on this word does not grasp the full picture of the meaning of this word.

2. You could not say that a person use this word differently from how another person use the same word. This is not always the case. A person may often use a word for certain meaning. That does not mean that he/she will not use the word for another meaning.

Tharseo,

My take is that while the Greek word does indeed have a very literal and practical meaning (a rock that someone could literally strike their foot against and stumble over), both Jesus and Paul used the word metaphorically... not literally. To be sure, the natural meaning of a word will inform the metaphorical usage of the word, but it does not determine the metaphorical meaning as used by a given speaker/author.

Consequently, our task is not so much to discern the natural meaning of the word, but rather to discern how the speaker/author is using the word in the immediate context.

And as I read Jesus' usage of the metaphor, I sense a very different specific application of the metaphor as compared to Paul's employment of the term.

As I said before, when Jesus used the term, it's evident that the one who "stumbles" has ended up in hell (Take note of His assertion that it's better to go through life hand-less and eye-less than to "stumble" by that hand/eye and burn in hell - Mark 9:43-48). By contrast, when Paul describes someone who "stumbles," he describes a person that has violated his/her own conscience by participating in a morally-neutral activity which they still believe is wrong ("to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." - Rom 14:14). In Paul's mind, there is literally nothing sinful about the actual activity the "stumbler" is participating in... only the fact that he's doing it in violation of his conscience. These two usages of the "stumbling block" metaphor are different.

I make this claim solely on the contextual usage of the term by each speaker. As in all efforts to interpret the scriptures, "context is king."

Can you demonstrate that my analysis of the context is in error?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

'you', not 'others'/'them'

Study Bible
Food Sacrificed to Idols
…12By sinning against your brothers in this way and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to stumble.
Berean Study Bible · Download

Jeff, you need to supply more than a proof-text.

I agree that according to Paul, we sin against Christ if we cause a weaker brother to stumble.

But Paul was very clear about his definition of "causing to stumble"... and it had everything to do with influencing a person's decision to violate their own conscience (even though the thing they did was not objectively sinful for all people).

Can you show me from the Bible that my assertion is incorrect?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As in all efforts to interpret the scriptures, "context is king."

Jesus says the FATHER REVEALS,
quite different than your posts.

i.e. no such interpretation is permitted, as you claim.