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

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Love to know your thoughts! :)

So far it doesn't sound like you're saying much of anything. I suspect that you've got some controversial positions on sexuality lurking beneath the surface that makes you want to disarm those arguments.

So what do you wish to promote that this argument would seek to strike down?
 
Upvote 0

Tetra

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2016
1,223
708
41
Earth
✟64,448.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So far it doesn't sound like you're saying much of anything. I suspect that you've got some controversial positions on sexuality lurking beneath the surface that makes you want to disarm those arguments.

So what do you wish to promote that this argument would seek to strike down?
I've never denied I don't have controversial positions... my intro here at CF alluded to that. :)

I'd rather not delve into everything in this thread, my point is I don't find the original argument persuasive, and fairly weak.
 
Upvote 0

Tetra

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2016
1,223
708
41
Earth
✟64,448.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
and these weren't between men and women?
You realize this wasn't about homosexuality right? It was just an example in the original post. I mean, personally I have no issues with homosexuality, but that wasn't the point of the argument. I've seen many variations of this argument which have nothing to do with homosexuality. In any case, I find it unpersuasive.
 
Upvote 0

S.O.J.I.A.

Dynamic UNO
Nov 6, 2016
4,280
2,641
Michigan
✟98,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
You realize this wasn't about homosexuality right? It was just an example in the original post. I mean, personally I have no issues with homosexuality, but that wasn't the point of the argument. I've seen many variations of this argument which have nothing to do with homosexuality. In any case, I find it unpersuasive.

what other things have you seen this argument used for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

S.O.J.I.A.

Dynamic UNO
Nov 6, 2016
4,280
2,641
Michigan
✟98,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I have heard it used in discussions of; sex outside of marriage, polyamory, and polygamy

Certainly not just in reference to homosexuality though.
all those things would be prohibited in Scripture but the "original design" argument would be insufficient in dealing with those particular issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Tetra

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2016
1,223
708
41
Earth
✟64,448.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
all those things would be prohibited in Scripture but the "original design" argument would be insufficient in dealing with those particular issues.
I agree, and that's why it's use is so frustrating to me.

However, we may disagree on polygamy... I'd more side with Martin Luther's position:
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."
In fact, this would be my exact position on that topic, but I'll save that for a future thread. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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.
Given that the writer of Genesis clearly has a problem with nakedness, if a person was clothed in light from my creation and then the light died because of a loss of relationship with the light, it would explain the shamefulness and disgrace of being naked.

I think that you are somewhat correct in your estimation of inconsistency, and that this was the purpose of what Christ Jesus achieved for us.

How many of us teach a moral religion full of ceremony, rank and control; eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
When we should be leading one another to the tree of life to remain in Him and Him in us, and to be lead by His Spirit into all truth and life.

If we allow ourselves to be lead by His Spirit we begin to fulfill the original design purpose once again, as image bearers of God and this of course follows into all areas of life including but by no means limited to sex and marriage.
 
Upvote 0

Blade

Veteran
Supporter
Dec 29, 2002
8,165
3,989
USA
✟629,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your trying to figure something out with out the main part. Anyone looking out side in .. will never understand. To them its nothing more then words written by man. Yeshua/Jesus is real. You used a word "wife" then hug her hold her.. JESUS is more real then that.

And Christ like or not we are ALL still in the flesh. And with Christ we are ALWAYS thinking about the other never our self. This is not about us. We DIE to selfs so Christ can live. HE IS REAL!

This "plan" .. one has to be blind for it is written through out the word. I know what your trying/looking for. Be like a child.. and read it. It has to be HIS way period
 
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
  • An individual can definitively know God's original plan, or interpret scripture in such a way they definitively know.
  • We have the capacity to live a pre-fall life.

#1 is easy. The simplicity an clarity on this subject could only be "missed" by willful ignorance.

#2 is impossible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Are you saying it's easy to know definitively God's original plan?

We agree on #2, which proves my point.

Again, only those with an ulterior motive could ignore such clarity and simplicity. What's yours? My guess is that you wish to promote or at least condone homosexuality. If I'm wrong, my apologies.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Tetra

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2016
1,223
708
41
Earth
✟64,448.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Again, only those with an ulterior motive could ignore such clarity and simplicity. What's yours? My guess is that you wish to promote or at least condone homosexuality. If I'm wrong, my apologies.
I don't promote anything for anyone's life. I'm actually quite careful in how I write. I will state my own position though, and there's a difference.

I simply like to call out poor reasoning. The "God's original plan" argument, the "you're trying to justify sin" argument, and the "God says" argument listed in my other threads are perfect examples of that. Up next I'll write about the you-have-been-deceived-by-the-devil argument which carries about as much weight as the others. :D
 
Upvote 0

jimmyjimmy

Pardoned Rebel
Supporter
Jan 2, 2015
11,556
5,728
USA
✟234,973.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I don't promote anything for anyone's life. I'm actually quite careful in how I write. I will state my own position though, and there's a difference.

I simply like to call out poor reasoning. The "God's original plan" argument, the "you're trying to justify sin" argument, and the "God says" argument listed in my other threads are perfect examples of that. Up next I'll write about the you-have-been-deceived-by-the-devil argument which carries about as much weight as the others. :D

I would be the first to agree with you that there are huge issues with poor reasoning in Christian circles. Spend 5 minutes on CF, and that will be clear enough; however, pointing out poor reasoning for the sake of working toward orthodox is far different than pointing out poor reasoning in order to push toward heterodoxy.

You don't seem to be desiring to helping the Church have airtight arguments which defend God's word. You seem to be intent on undermining biblical ideas regarding marriage and sex.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tetra

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2016
1,223
708
41
Earth
✟64,448.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would be the first to agree with you that there are huge issues with poor reasoning in Christian circles. Spend 5 minutes on CF, and that will be clear enough; however, pointing out poor reasoning for the sake of working toward orthodox is far different than pointing out poor reasoning in order to push toward heterodoxy.

You don't seem to be desiring to helping the Church have airtight arguments which defend God's word. You seem to be intent on undermining biblical ideas regarding marriage and sex.
I'm not intent on anything, and once again, not promoting anything. I like discussion.

If a byproduct of pointing out poor reasoning, leads people to have a harder time defending their position... I fail to see how that's my problem. I also don't know if "undermining" traditional western Christendom views on sex and marriage is the same as undermining Biblical ideas. I think you're presupposing that. I'm just saying I don't necessarily think they're equivalent. Note, I'm not agreeing that I'm trying to undermine anything, just correcting your presupposition was all, no offence intended.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0