Is there anything wrong with skinny dipping on your own?

Archivist · Jan 10, 2019

Darkhorse said:
Interesting that you would mention the Boy Scouts...

When I was young, nude swimming was very common during Boy Scout gatherings.
Now, it's officially forbidden; another victim of modern porno-prudery.

We didn’t swim nude when I was in the Scouts except when we were out hiking the Appalachian Trail. However the showers at Scout camp did not have individual stalls. Someone on this thread earlier said that it was wrong for children to see their parents naked. Well, if your dad was a Scout leader that is how you saw him.

MyChainsAreGone · Jan 10, 2019

Darkhorse said:
...another victim of modern porno-prudery.

Great word there...

Think about it... Pornography and Prudery agree on the meaning of the human body!

Porn: The very sight of the naked human body ignites sexual desires.
- (Therefore, look and indulge!)
Prudery: The very sight of the naked human body ignites sexual desires.
- (Therefore, avoid and condemn!)

The core belief about the body is identical! ... only the recommended response is different.

Prudery literally programs people to be prey for pornography.

Darkhorse · Jan 12, 2019

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:
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.

Like you, my first skinnydip was alone and unplanned, but mine was in a ranch pond. The water was warm and I couldn't believe how different it felt to not wear a swimsuit. I also felt very close to God and understanding of His original design for Eden.

I enjoyed it very much, and did it again the next day. I'm still "doing it again", 45 years later, but not in ranch ponds, and not alone.

rjs330 · Jan 16, 2019

Archivist said:
But I have not seen anyone on this thread promoting pornography, fornication, lying, etc.

Except you don't explain how skinny dippy is loosening our morals.

And as I asked before on this thread, is owning a nice house or wearing nice clothing or driving a nice car enjoying good food wrong since any of that could be the trigger of someone stumbling.

I guess wearing nice shoes could cause someone to stumble too.

I suppose we ought to just throw out the whole "cause someone to stumble issue".

Mountainmanbob · Jan 16, 2019

Although usually done by the younger ones skinny dipping is okay.

I've only done it a very few times in my younger years and I did have one very embarrassing moment. My wife and I were up in the Cuyamaca mountains walking around naked out in the woods after taking a little skinny dip and a whole troop of Girl Scouts walked by. We were kind of ashamed and tried to hide behind some little bushes.

Who told you you were naked?

My wife was one of those streakers back in the old days when she was a young girl. Her and her girlfriend's got a kick out of it. Running around the neighborhood naked at night. They were very fast in those days and the old guys might have caught a little Glimpse as they streaked by his house?

Probably good for an old man's heart?
Although they don't have the legs to catch one.

M-Bob

rjs330 · Jan 16, 2019

MyChainsAreGone said:
Once again, this is a FALSE application of the "stumbling" teaching in the Bible.

(For the purpose of this discussion, assume that the legality of public nudity is not a factor in any of the following examples)

According to Rom 14, if I go skinnydipping, I have caused a brother to "stumble" IF (and only if) the following happens.

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.

=========

Unfortunately, that is not what most people who invoke the "stumbling" prohibition mean.

Let me give two examples that are NOT "causing to stumble"...

1. Someone is SURE that I'm wrong!!

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.

2. Causing someone to lust.

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).

Consider Jesus' words in Mark 7:14-23

The sight of a woman's body is by definition "outside the man." If that sight triggers a lustful response, it only reveals the lust that resides within that man already!

This conclusion is inescapable from Jesus' words. Even sexual sin comes from within a man...not from what he sees!

In Paul's teaching, "Stumbling" has only to do with emboldening someone to violate their own conscience... and joining someone else in an activity they don't yet realize is not sin.

Any attempt to apply Paul's words about "stumbling" any other way is biblically false.

I DO agree with you here. I think it's an important distinction.

However when it comes to public nudity I think there needs to be a distinction. We may not know that we are causing lust, but the scripture talks of nudity quite often as shameful. Thus it's kind of a different animal.

Archivist · Jan 16, 2019

rjs330 said:
I guess wearing nice shoes could cause someone to stumble too.

I suppose we ought to just throw out the whole "cause someone to stumble issue".

Those of us who have said that skinny dippy is alright we’re not the ones who raised the issue of causing others to stumble, and I never received an answer to my questions.

MyChainsAreGone · Jan 17, 2019

rjs330 said:
However when it comes to public nudity I think there needs to be a distinction. We may not know that we are causing lust, but the scripture talks of nudity quite often as shameful. Thus it's kind of a different animal.

Actually... that's only what we've been told all of our lives. It's not true...

Turns out that whenever shame and nudity are in the same context in the Bible, there's also some other cause--a REAL cause--for shame.

The perception has been made worse by the fact that when nudity is mentioned or implied in the original language text, modern translators have "softened" the mention of nudity unless the nudity could be perceived as "wrong" or "shameful."

One interesting evidence of this is found in Luke 17:7-8...

“Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come immediately and sit down to eat’? But will he not say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink’?” (NASB)

The word "properly" is in italics because the translators are showing that that word is not found in the Greek. The translation really should render it, "Prepare something for me to eat, and clothe yourself..." implying that the servant was not clothed when coming in from the field.

That people doing manual labor worked naked (Like Peter fishing naked in John 21:7) at a time when they likely owned only one piece of clothing is a historical fact that is pretty much unknown or ignored in the modern mindset. It's not specifically mentioned in the bible for the simple fact that it was so common as to be unremarkable.

Add to that the historical fact that without indoor bathing facilities, for all of human history, people had to bathe in public bodies of water... and Jewish ritual baptism (the mikveh) was--and is--considered valid only if the person is fully naked (no jewelry either)... and Christian baptism followed the same requirement for 3-400 years of church history.

RDKirk · Jan 17, 2019

MyChainsAreGone said:
Actually... that's only what we've been told all of our lives. It's not true...

Turns out that whenever shame and nudity are in the same context in the Bible, there's also some other cause--a REAL cause--for shame.

The perception has been made worse by the fact that when nudity is mentioned or implied in the original language text, modern translators have "softened" the mention of nudity unless the nudity could be perceived as "wrong" or "shameful."

One interesting evidence of this is found in Luke 17:7-8...

The word "properly" is in italics because the translators are showing that that word is not found in the Greek. The translation really should render it, "Prepare something for me to eat, and clothe yourself..." implying that the servant was not clothed when coming in from the field.

That people doing manual labor worked naked (Like Peter fishing naked in John 21:7) at a time when they likely owned only one piece of clothing is a historical fact that is pretty much unknown or ignored in the modern mindset. It's not specifically mentioned in the bible for the simple fact that it was so common as to be unremarkable.

Add to that the historical fact that without indoor bathing facilities, for all of human history, people had to bathe in public bodies of water... and Jewish ritual baptism (the mikveh) was--and is--considered valid only if the person is fully naked (no jewelry either)... and Christian baptism followed the same requirement for 3-400 years of church history.

Not "naked." At least not totally naked. They wore nothing less than loin wraps regardless of the chore.

Almost no males anywhere on earth in the history of the existence of body covering failed to wear at least a loin covering. That was pretty much the first thing covered and the only thing covered if nothing else was covered.

Anywhere. Ever.

Nor was "public" fully public even in those times. Men and women did not share mikveh.

When I was a kid, we swam fully nude in the YMCA pool. That is, the Young Men's Christian Association pool. No women.

MyChainsAreGone · Jan 17, 2019

RDKirk said:
Not "naked." At least not totally naked. They wore nothing less than loin wraps regardless of the chore.

There is absolutely no scriptural, textual, or historical basis for this claim. Please document to the contrary if you are able.

Almost no males anywhere on earth in the history of the existence of body covering failed to wear at least a loin covering. That was pretty much the first thing covered and the only thing covered if nothing else was covered.

Anywhere. Ever.

Again, there's no historical basis to make this claim. To the contrary, there IS historical evidence that you are quite wrong.

Consider the ancient Olympics. Consider the history of the Gymnasium in Greek and Roman times.

Nor was "public" fully public even in those times. Men and women did not share mikveh.

There's absolutely no historical basis to make this claim.

The fact is that the pools mentioned in the bible (Pool of Siloam, Pool of Bethesda) were mikveh pools... and quite public... and used by both men and women for ritual cleansing... that's why they were so close to the Temple.

When I was a kid, we swam fully nude in the YMCA pool. That is, the Young Men's Christian Association pool. No women.

Modern practice has absolutely no bearing on the practices of people in biblical times.

And furthermore, morality is not determined by common modern' practices, nor even by common ancient practices... rather, by the word of God. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where God commands clothing?

Is there anything wrong with skinny dipping on your own?