Is there anything wrong with skinny dipping on your own?

MyChainsAreGone said:

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?

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

That was actually my first thought about the topic. My second thought was what would the media say when they found the drowned body nude.

Click to expand...

Tharseo said:

Thank you very much for giving the details.

Unfortunately, there are no hints that Paul used it in a different way. I did a quick word study, but since it is really quick, I don't want to say something I am not absolutely sure. But I will explain how I study the word "stumble" in 1 Corinthians 8 to you.

1 Corinthians 8:9-13: "But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble."

So this is not merely a fault that doesn't matter. It causes the person who stumbles died. Paul is talking about if a person's conscience is wounded, he is sinful and will die. And the one who causes this wound is also sinful. This is consistent with Romans 14, as with rest of the Bible.

Romans 14:20-23: "Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin."

Whoever doubts is sinful, and whoever makes a person doubts is also sinful.

Click to expand...

• In 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14 the answer is: When he violates his conscience.
• In Mark 9, the answer is: When belief in Jesus is shorted out and a person ends up in hell.

MyChainsAreGone said:

Here's another observation worth making from Paul's two passages... While Paul is talking to each of us--warning us to not cause someone else to stumble--he's literally addressing something that we DO have the FREEDOM to do!! "But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block..." Or in Rom. 14, "One person has faith that he may eat all things... Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." (vss. 2 & 22).

One final comment that I think is worth making... Consider this question: "Is it God's intention that a 'Weak' brother remain weak?" The text itself doesn't address that question, but isn't it self-evident? So, if we really apply Paul's teaching, it implies that the need to defer to the "weaker" brother is only a temporary limit to our freedom, for as we continue to invest discipleship into that brother, he will cease to be a "weak" brother, and then we no longer need to avoid the activity (either the brother will now be able to participate with us without violating his conscience, or else he will simply not join us, and thereby not violate his conscience). By contrast, there's no way that whatever the one "causing to stumble" did that Jesus was talking about would ever be okay!

Click to expand...

MyChainsAreGone said:

First of all, it doesn't say that the brother "died"... it says that he's a brother... for whom "Christ died."

Click to expand...

MyChainsAreGone said:

Secondly, this is not a matter of heaven vs. hell, either... for the brother is called "brother."

Click to expand...

MyChainsAreGone said:

Here's another observation worth making from Paul's two passages... While Paul is talking to each of us--warning us to not cause someone else to stumble--he's literally addressing something that we DO have the FREEDOM to do!! "But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block..." Or in Rom. 14, "One person has faith that he may eat all things... Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." (vss. 2 & 22).

Click to expand...

Tharseo said:

1 Corinthians 8:11: For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
...
A false brother is still a brother. A weak brother who is ruined, well, I don't think it is any better.

Click to expand...

True that we are free to do this thing. But it does not mean that we can always do the thing. For example, we are free to put off all our clothes when taking a bath, but this does not mean it is legal to do it in the centre of a mall.

Click to expand...

• In Paul's teaching, it is clear that a person MAY do the activity in one context, but may NOT do it in another.
• In Jesus' teaching, it is clear that a person can NEVER do the activity that causes someone else to stumble.

Tharseo said:

True that we are free to do this thing. But it does not mean that we can always do the thing. For example, we are free to put off all our clothes when taking a bath, but this does not mean it is legal to do it in the centre of a mall. We are free to eat and drink anything, but it is a sin to do it in front of a weak brother. It is not the same in different situation.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

Yes.

And so, what is the difference?

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything is edifying.

Modern translations put "everything is permissible" in quotes, explaining in some way that Paul didn't really say that. But there are no quotation marks in koine Greek, there is no indication Paul isn't really expressing this as his own opinion--and it very much follows in the line of what he says elsewhere about the written code of the Law.

I believe Paul is establishing a new benchmark for Christian behavior. The old benchmark was a written code: "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not." So people studied the written code carefully and established rules for how to follow it, such as "do not turn on a light switch on the Sabbath, because that's just like striking a match, and you can't strike a match on the Sabbath, because that's starting a fire and starting a fire is work and the Law forbids work on the Sabbath."

So Paul states boldly: There is no written code for Christian behavior. Don't comb through scriptures to determine by the written code exactly where on the line every action falls, and then assert it as doctrine.

Instead the bar is: Is that action beneficial (to yourself as a Christian, to anyone else as a Christian, to the Body of Christ, to the mission of Christ)? Is that action edifying (to yourself as a Christian, to anyone else as a Christian, to the Body of Christ, to the mission of Christ)?

This is identical in concept as the Philippian Prescription:

Click to expand...

Tharseo said:

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.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

I believe Paul is establishing a new benchmark for Christian behavior. The old benchmark was a written code: "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not." So people studied the written code carefully and established rules for how to follow it, such as "do not turn on a light switch on the Sabbath, because that's just like striking a match, and you can't strike a match on the Sabbath, because that's starting a fire and starting a fire is work and the Law forbids work on the Sabbath."

So Paul states boldly: There is no written code for Christian behavior. Don't comb through scriptures to determine by the written code exactly where on the line every action falls, and then assert it as doctrine.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

MyChainsAreGone said:

RDKirk, I think you make a good point... although I think I would hesitate to say it as starkly and absolutely as you did... I do think it's possible to find some clearly articulated behavior commands in the NT... but that's a different discussion.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

What we need to do is look at those clearly articulated behavior commands in terms of what their beneficial and edifying effects actually are. For example:

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes

Click to expand...

• the word translated "dress" (cosmeo) does not mean "put on clothing" in Greek.
• The word translated as "modestly" (katastole) has nothing to do with keeping body parts covered.
• The word translated as "decency" (aidos) has nothing to do with sexual propriety.

• Do not be drunk with wine.
• Forgive one another.
• Husbands, love your wives.

MyChainsAreGone said:

That's an unfortunate example... because the translation itself is not good...

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

No, it's exactly the example I deliberately chose because my point is to that we must examine what the benefit is supposed to provide--what it was supposed to be then and how to achieve the same benefit today--not to attempt to follow it by the letter.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

Yes.

And so, what is the difference?

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything is edifying.

Modern translations put "everything is permissible" in quotes, explaining in some way that Paul didn't really say that. But there are no quotation marks in koine Greek, there is no indication Paul isn't really expressing this as his own opinion--and it very much follows in the line of what he says elsewhere about the written code of the Law.

I believe Paul is establishing a new benchmark for Christian behavior. The old benchmark was a written code: "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not." So people studied the written code carefully and established rules for how to follow it, such as "do not turn on a light switch on the Sabbath, because that's just like striking a match, and you can't strike a match on the Sabbath, because that's starting a fire and starting a fire is work and the Law forbids work on the Sabbath."

So Paul states boldly: There is no written code for Christian behavior. Don't comb through scriptures to determine by the written code exactly where on the line every action falls, and then assert it as doctrine.

Instead the bar is: Is that action beneficial (to yourself as a Christian, to anyone else as a Christian, to the Body of Christ, to the mission of Christ)? Is that action edifying (to yourself as a Christian, to anyone else as a Christian, to the Body of Christ, to the mission of Christ)? There are no pre-emptions by a written code, but a discernment by a renewed mind, a mind of Christ.

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

This is identical in concept as the Philippian Prescription: “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things and the God of peace will be with you”

By saying "whatever," Paul is saying that there is no pre-emption by a written code, but a discernment by a renewed mind, a mind of Christ, of what is beneficial and edifying.

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

Yes and the general pattern of this world is anything goes. The world tells you nudity in public is fine, pornography is fine, homosexuality is fine, fornication is fine. Lust is fine. Lying is fine. Gluttony is fine. Divorce for any reason is fine. I could go on.

Click to expand...

The patterns of this world are not fine. We as believers have a higher calling. A higher standard to live a righteous life. Part of that life is to not do things that cause our Christian brother to stumble. The world would tell us if we just loosened our morals more people would embrace Christianity. Yet Jesus told us the way was narrow and few would find it. Why? Because it's a harder way. Pick up your cross is sacrifice. It's not the easy way. The easy way is the world's way.

Click to expand...

So in answer to the original post, no it's not a sin to skinny dip by yourself. There is no one else around it's just fine. No one to cause to stumble. Skinny dipping with others (other than your spouse) is dangerous for you and others and could cause you to or others to stumble.

Click to expand...

SkyWriting said:

Swimming alone is against the Boy Scout Code of Safety. You would not get your merit badge if you suggested swimming alone was OK.

Buddy System Minute

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

So in answer to the original post, no it's not a sin to skinny dip by yourself. There is no one else around it's just fine. No one to cause to stumble. Skinny dipping with others (other than your spouse) is dangerous for you and others and could cause you to or others to stumble.

Click to expand...

• I go skinnydipping. I do so because before God, I know it's not sinful to swim naked... nor is it a sin to allow myself to be seen naked by other people.
• My Brother who is with me does not fully believe that skinnydipping is morally permissible. Yet, because I'm his brother, and he trusts me, he figures "If David is skinnydipping, what will it hurt if I do, too?" So he strips down and joins me skinnydipping.
• RESULT: because by my freedom, I was a catalyst that resulted in my brother being emboldened to violate his own belief about the morality of skinnydipping, I have caused him to stumble.

• I go skinnydipping. I do so because before God, I know it's not sinful to swim naked... nor is it a sin to allow myself to be seen naked by other people.
• My Brother who is with me does not believe that skinnydipping is morally right. So, he declines to participate.
• RESULT: All is well. Everyone is fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5) and there is no stumbling and no sin. He doesn't have to skinnydip, and I don't have to refrain.

• My daughter goes skinnydipping. She does so because before God, she knows it's not sinful to swim naked... nor is it a sin to allow herself to be seen naked by other people.
• My Brother who is with her has a weakness with reference to sexual lust. He sees her naked and has lustful thoughts.
• RESULT: The Brother is in sin because of his lust. My daughter is not in sin... and she did NOT cause her Brother to "stumble."
• NOTE: Having a sinful response to an external impetus is always and totally the responsibility of the one having the sinful response.
  • Jesus was not responsible for the Pharisees' hatred.
  • Joseph was not responsible for Potiphar's Wife's lust.
  • Bathsheba was not responsible for David's lust.
  • The Angels visiting Lot in Sodom were not responsible for the lust of the men in town.
  • The woman in Jesus' teaching is not responsible for the mental adultery of the man who looks lustfully at her (Matthew 5:28).

Mark 7:15 said:

there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.

Click to expand...