The "Original Design / Plan" Argument & Why It's Irrelevant

[Tetra]

The "Original Design / Plan" Argument & Why It's Irrelevant
(Note: I'm speaking of a specific form of the argument)

I've heard this argument growing up, but it seems to be popping up in my life a lot lately, so I thought I'd discuss it a bit.

The argument is typically used when discussing marriage and sex, and in my experience, never used in any other way (although it could). I'm solely talking about the pre-fall variation of the argument (read more below).

When discussing marriage outside of a traditional "Christian" worldview, an example of it is as follows:

"I disagree with you, since God's original design (or plan) was one man and one woman"​

a more crude variation

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" (note, this isn't a discussion regarding same-sex marriage, just the usage of the argument)​

I've seen many variations depending on the topic, but in the "pre-fall" variant, it presupposes two things:

1. An individual can definitively know God's original plan, or interpret scripture in such a way they definitively know.
2. We have the capacity to live a pre-fall life.

Why It's Irrelevant?
Well, mainly because it proves nothing, or rather, it doesn't disprove the original position. This is due to the presuppositions being made, consider, I'm not necessarily convinced one can definitively know God's original plan, at least not in a way that they can speak into the lives of others, and even if they did, we do not actually have the ability to live a pre-fall life.

A common criticism here is, people will simply say we do have the ability to live a pre-fall life through Jesus, but this is in error. We have the ability to restore the relationship through Jesus, but we cannot remove the punishment. I could ask my wife if after she accepted Jesus, she magically felt no pain during childbirth (Gen. 3:16), but I'd be risking a punch to the face.

One of the more frustrating aspects of this argument, is that it's generally only used in reference to sex and marriage. I mean, I've never heard anyone use this argument to convince people to join nudest colonies and run around naked (Gen. 2:25), isn't that how God originally designed us? Or use this argument to convince me to be vegan? (Gen. 1:29-30) Nope, by some sort of philosophical wizardry the argument only applies to sex an marriage.

Have you heard this argument before? Have you used it, and if so, in what context? Do you like it, or dis-like it?

Love to know your thoughts!

Tetra.

[EDIT] It's use in scripture doesn't necessarily prove it's use in the way I mean. If scripture references the pre-fall state, it doesn't necessarily mean the post fall action is a sin. Consider, Jesus references the "original plan" to define His position regarding divorce (Mark 10:2-6), yet we see divorce can still be permitted.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Jesus and Paul seemed to have no problem with the argument
Matthew 19:3-9
Ephesians 5:25-33

 

[Tetra]

Jesus and Paul seemed to have no problem with the argument
Matthew 19:3-9
Ephesians 5:25-33

I suspect context will matter here...

Are you referring to Jesus referencing "male and female"?

Can you please direct me to the specific spot in your second quote?

However, if the argument is acceptable, why are we not striving for a nudest vegan lifestyle (for example)? I mean, there shouldn't be anything inherently wrong with that.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I suspect context will matter here...

However, if the argument is acceptable, why are we not striving for a nudest vegan lifestyle (for example)? I mean, there shouldn't be anything inherently wrong with that.

because,
genesis 3:21
genesis 9:1-5

though there's nothing wrong with veganism.

 

[Tetra]

because,
genesis 3:21
genesis 9:1-5

though there's nothing wrong with veganism.

You didn't really answer my question, I'll rephrase, is there something wrong with advocating a nudest, vegan lifestyle on the same basis? From both verses above, I don't gather it's "wrong"...

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

You didn't really answer my question, I'll rephrase, is there something wrong with advocating a nudest, vegan lifestyle on the same basis? From both verses above, I don't gather it's "wrong"...

when adam sinned, man's sexuality was broken, which is why they initially covered themselves in shame of each other's nudity, then God followed up by covering their nudity with skins. that lack of shame was lost in the fall.

the same can't be said for marriage between a man and a woman which takes us back to what Jesus and Paul said. we know the original plan for this since God has told us in Genesis and confirmed it through Jesus and the apostle Paul.

 

[Tetra]

when adam sinned, man's sexuality was broken, which is why they initially covered themselves in shame of each other's nudity, then God followed up by covering their nudity with skins. that lack of shame was lost in the fall.

the same can't be said for marriage between a man and a woman which takes us back to what Jesus and Paul said. we know the original plan for this since God has told us in Genesis and confirmed it through Jesus and the apostle Paul.

I don't know if there is a scriptural basis for the bolded text in the quote above. Also, it doesn't mean advocating nudity is wrong, is that what you're suggesting?

Also, it's use in scripture doesn't necessarily prove it's use in the way I mean. If scripture references the pre-fall state, it doesn't necessarily mean the post fall action is a sin, which is what I think you're presupposing. Consider, Jesus references the original plan to define His position regarding divorce (Mark 10:2-6), yet we see divorce can still be permitted. So respectfully, I fail to see your point here. An edit to my original post was made.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

if their sexuality was pre-fall intact they wouldn't have found shame in each other's nudity. neither would noah's sons find shame in their father's nudity and one of the children wouldn't be cursed for not taking the initiative to cover his father nudity(genesis 9:20-25). We also wouldn't have God prohibiting His people from ascending His alter on stairs due to indecent exposure(exodus 20:26)

there's simply no biblical basis to say we should advocate for public nudity. we can't really use the example of divorce as we have a clause straight from Jesus that allows for it to happen. not so for public nudity.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Shame is subjective,

I gave you two instances in scripture where God himself covered peoples nudity and demands that peoples nudity not be exposed. are you going to disagree with God on this topic? would you want to advocate something that God saw as shameful?

if you believe there is a biblical basis for public nudity by all means present your case.

the pre-fall account of adam and eve doesn't command or endorse public nudity. it simply documents the state they were in at the time before their sexuality was warped by a fallen and sinful mind-state. with marriage, it's actually purposed, defined, and mandated by God in genesis 2:18-24.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Hmmm, maybe there was a misunderstanding... yes you gave instances where it was viewed as shameful, that doesn't mean sinful. There is no scriptural basis for being simply nude as a sin... I've been in Christendom a long time and that would be a first for me.

so you would desire to advocate something that God views as a shameful act?

 

[Tetra]

so you would desire to advocate something that God views as a shameful act?

I understand you're saying GOD views it as shameful, I don't know if that's the case, nor have I seen that exact phrasing in the Bible. Can you give me a verse where God Himself said it was shameful?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I understand you're saying GOD views it as shameful, I don't know if that's the case, nor have I seen that exact phrasing in the Bible. Can you give me a verse where God Himself said it was shameful?

if God thought it was ok for people to be nude in public I'm not sure why he would have issue with peoples nudity being exposed while going up his alter in exodus 20:26. nudity is related to shame throughout scripture.

 

[Tetra]

if God thought it was ok for people to be nude in public I'm not sure why he would have issue with peoples nudity being exposed while going up his alter in exodus 20:26. nudity is related to shame throughout scripture.

This is simply not true. How come you never answered my question? Can you give me a verse where God Himself said it was shameful? So when a married couple bangs, you're telling me it's shameful? Even if we move past the nudity argument, it still doesn't explain why every Christian isn't gunning for veganism.

To bring it back to the original point, I find the "original design" argument to be unconvincing, and it's application generally inconsistent.

 

[Anguspure]

I suspect context will matter here...

Are you referring to Jesus referencing "male and female"?

Can you please direct me to the specific spot in your second quote?

However, if the argument is acceptable, why are we not striving for a nudest vegan lifestyle (for example)? I mean, there shouldn't be anything inherently wrong with that.

Prior to the fall; What makes us think that Adam and Eve where actually naked in the sense of being able to see each others skin and genitalia in the way that they could see themselves when they fell?
There is some tradition (Adam and Eve had bodies clothed with Light) that prior to the fall these 2 were clothed in light which died when they fell, with the result that they could then see each others nakedness.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

So when a married couple bangs, you're telling me it's shameful?

a husband and wife having sex in the privacy of their bedroom is not 'public nudity'.

to the original point. marriage was defined and mandated by God in the beginning and is nowhere changed. if you can provide a text that gives another definition of marriage then you'll have something.

 

[Tetra]

Prior to the fall; What makes us think that Adam and Eve where actually naked in the sense of being able to see each others skin and genitalia in the way that they could see themselves when they fell?
There is some tradition (Adam and Eve had bodies clothed with Light) that prior to the fall these 2 were clothed in light which died when they fell, with the result that they could then see each others nakedness.

Specifically: Gen. 2:25

However, I'm fairly open to alternate positions, I just see no issues with them being naked in the first place.

Again though, I think this is a separate topic. I still maintain the inconsistency in the arguments use. In my experience, Christians use this argument to suggest striving for God's original design is a good thing, but then only apply it to sex and marriage, nothing else in Genesis.

 

[Tetra]

a husband and wife having sex in the privacy of their bedroom is not 'public nudity'.

to the original point. marriage was defined and mandated by God in the beginning and is nowhere changed. if you can provide a text that gives another definition of marriage then you'll have something.

I think you're kinda jumping around a bit, you suggested God views nudity as shameful, then when challenged, altered your position. Now God is somehow okay with nudity in the confines of marriage? Just not public nudity... even though there isn't a Biblical basis for this position that isn't conjecture.

I don't understand how you can't see this arguments inconsistent use... and if you do see it, how you don't find that to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

you may be misunderstanding the argument.

no one says "we need to go back to the original design of creation(which includes marriage being between a man and a woman)"

rather, they say "God's original design for marriage during creation was between a man and a woman and we need to remain consistent with that".

the former says we need to go back to where we were in the garden which is not possible due to the fall. the latter says what God originally defined marriage to be and that we have no right or warrant to redefine it.

 

[Tetra]

you may be misunderstanding the argument.

no one says "we need to go back to the original design of creation(which includes marriage being between a man and a woman)"

rather, they say "God's original design for marriage during creation was between a man and a woman and we need to remain consistent with that".

the former says we need to go back to where we were in the garden which is not possible due to the fall. the latter says what God originally defined marriage to be and that we have no right or warrant to redefine it.

I suppose that would depend if we view Adam and Eve as actually being husband and wife. Also, clearly God permitted other forms of marriage after the fall which don't line up with the Genesis account. I'll maintain Christians use this argument inconsistently.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

clearly God permitted other forms of marriage after the fall which don't line up with the Genesis account.

such as?