Adam's Sin

[Kathlene]

Hey all, I am just putting a story in here by Max Lucado about the sin of Adam. I've read it and thought it was pretty powerful. Wanted to see any opinions on it. !

 

The Choice

 

by Max Lucado

 

He placed one scoop of clay upon another until a form lay lifeless on the ground.

All of the Garden’s inhabitants paused to witness the event. Hawks hovered. Giraffes stretched. Trees bowed. Butterflies paused on petals and watched.

“You will love me, nature,” God said. “I made you that way. You will obey me, universe. For you were designed to do so. You will reflect my glory, skies, for that is how you were created. But this one will be like me. This one will be able to choose.”

All were silent as the Creator reached into himself and removed something yet unseen. A seed. “It’s called ‘choice.’ The seed of choice.”

Creation stood in silence and gazed upon the lifeless form.

An angel spoke, “But what if he … ”

“What if he chooses not to love?” the Creator finished. “Come, I will show you.”

Unbound by today, God and the angel walked into the realm of tomorrow.

“There, see the fruit of the seed of choice, both the sweet and the bitter.”

The angel gasped at what he saw. Spontaneous love. Voluntary devotion. Chosen tenderness. Never had he seen anything like these. He felt the love of the Adams. He heard the joy of Eve and her daughters. He saw the food and the burdens shared. He absorbed the kindness and marveled at the warmth.

“Heaven has never seen such beauty, my Lord. Truly, this is your greatest creation.”

“Ah, but you’ve only seen the sweet. Now witness the bitter.”

A stench enveloped the pair. The angel turned in horror and proclaimed, “What is it?”

The Creator spoke only one word: “Selfishness.”

The angel stood speechless as they passed through centuries of repugnance. Never had he seen such filth. Rotten hearts. Ruptured promises. Forgotten loyalties. Children of the creation wandering blindly in lonely labyrinths.

“This is the result of choice?” the angel asked.

“Yes.”

“They will forget you?”

“Yes.”

“They will reject you?”

“Yes.”

“They will never come back?”

“Some will. Most won’t.”

“What will it take to make them listen?”

The Creator walked on in time, further and further into the future, until he stood by a tree. A tree that would be fashioned into a cradle. Even then he could smell the hay that would surround him.

With another step into the future, he paused before another tree. It stood alone, a stubborn ruler of a bald hill. The trunk was thick, and the wood was strong. Soon it would be cut. Soon it would be trimmed. Soon it would be mounted on the stony brow of another hill. And soon he would be hung on it.

He felt the wood rub against a back he did not yet wear.

“Will you go down there?” the angel asked.

“I will.”

“Is there no other way?”

“There is not.”

“Wouldn’t it be easier to not plant the seed? Wouldn’t it be easier to not give the choice?”

“It would,” the Creator spoke slowly. “But to remove the choice is to remove the love.”

He looked around the hill and foresaw a scene. Three figures hung on three crosses. Arms spread. Heads fallen forward. They moaned with the wind.

Men clad in soldiers’ garb sat on the ground near the trio. They played games in the dirt and laughed.

Men clad in religion stood off to one side. They smiled. Arrogant, cocky. They had protected God, they thought, by killing this false one.

Women clad in sorrow huddled at the foot of the hill. Speechless. Faces tear streaked. Eyes downward. One put her arm around another and tried to lead her away. She wouldn’t leave. “I will stay,” she said softly. “I will stay.”

All heaven stood to fight. All nature rose to rescue. All eternity poised to protect. But the Creator gave no command.

“It must be done … ,” he said, and withdrew.

But as he stepped back in time, he heard the cry that he would someday scream: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) He wrenched at tomorrow’s agony.

The angel spoke again. “It would be less painful … ”

The Creator interrupted softly. “But it wouldn’t be love.”

They stepped into the Garden again. The Maker looked earnestly at the clay creation. A monsoon of love swelled up within him. He had died for the creation before he had made him. God’s form bent over the sculptured face and breathed. Dust stirred on the lips of the new one. The chest rose, cracking the red mud. The cheeks fleshened. A finger moved. And an eye opened.

But more incredible than the moving of the flesh was the stirring of the spirit. Those who could see the unseen gasped.

Perhaps it was the wind who said it first. Perhaps what the star saw that moment is what has made it blink ever since. Maybe it was left to an angel to whisper it:

“It looks like … it appears so much like … it is him!”

The angel wasn’t speaking of the face, the features, or the body. He was looking inside—at the soul.

“It’s eternal!” gasped another.

Within the man, God had placed a divine seed. A seed of his self. The God of might had created earth’s mightiest. The Creator had created, not a creature, but another creator. And the One who had chosen to love had created one who could love in return.

Now it’s our choice.

From In the Eye of the Storm

Copyright (Thomas Nelson, 1997) Max Lucado

[Dhampir]

It's feelgood bullshit, bereft of any sense or deep thought. I'd explain why in detail, but I really have little patience for this type of drivel anymore.

[Thurisaz]

Selfishness as The Sin eh?

 

Well aside from the well-known fact that few things are ever only good or only bad, I'd agree that selfishness can be cause for untold horrors.

 

Bonus in this story: As far as I've seen (didn't read every single word slowly I admit), no mention of any "divine" torment. Not that I'd have expected to see this crap from Kath

 

If this story would be the only thing about christianity, there would be far less problems with it. Sadly, as we all know, it ain't.

[Vixentrox]

-laughs- idiot drivel.

[mwc]

Blah blah blah...Free will...blah blah blah

 

Free will is choosing between vanilla and chocolate ice cream. Not just vanilla ice cream and killing the ice cream guy with his own scooper.

 

Why does it always have to be some bullshit argument about good versus evil? Good versus things that are just as good is a valid free will choice.

 

mwc

[OnceConvinced]

Feelgood BS is correct, designed to appeal to emotion rather than common sense and logic. Who does this author think he is trying to put his own spin on the creation story? I call blasphemy on this, him trying to put words in the mouth of God.

 

Sigh. I get so sick of this whole fallacy that things like belief are somehow a choice. In the case of this load of BS, it's trying to make out that love is a choice. How is love a choice? You may have a choice to perform acts of love, but you can't choose to love someone. You really have no control over your emotions unless your a Vulcan and even then it takes many years of training yourself to inhibit your emotions.

 

Nobody can choose to love God. Love either comes naturally or not at all. Even less possible is to be able to choose to love something you don't believe in.

 

I also take exception to this line: “But to remove the choice is to remove the love.”

If my child is going to do something that is going to result in harm to himself or others, if I love that child I will step in and prevent that child from doing it, thus taking away his choice to do that thing. If I just stand by and let him do it, I cannot claim to love him, just as God cannot claim to love a human being if he stands by and allows that human being to do something that would result in their own destruction. I can even less claim to love my child if I create a system where he is inevitably going to harm himself. I will create a safe play ground for my child, one where he cannot come to any harm. If I create the harm (which God did in the form of Satan), then I must take some of the responsibility when my child is harmed.

 

Really the whole concept of a blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sin is ludicrous. God didn't need to instigate such an act. In fact all it is, is a symbolic gesture and a symbolic gesture cannot do anything in itself. In the long run it's God who cleanses, not the blood of an innocent. So there was absolutely no need for any kind of blood sacrifice, least of all his own son. What is loving about sacrificing your own son to appease your own blood lust? Could God not have come up with a less barbaric solution? A loving God would.

 

BTW, the author forgot the magic words: God’s form bent over the sculptured face and breathed, "ABRACADABRA!". Dust stirred on the lips of the new one. The chest rose, cracking the red mud. The cheeks fleshened. A finger moved. And an eye opened.

[Phanta]

Hello, my lovely Kathlene!

 

Interesting piece. I haven't had a lot of exposure to this sort of stuff, so here goes.

 

The Choice

 

by Max Lucado

 

He placed one scoop of clay upon another until a form lay lifeless on the ground.

All of the Garden’s inhabitants paused to witness the event. Hawks hovered. Giraffes stretched. Trees bowed. Butterflies paused on petals and watched.

 

Trees bowed to "witness" the event. The author is personifying the trees for emotional effect.

 

“You will love me, nature,” God said. “I made you that way. You will obey me, universe. For you were designed to do so. You will reflect my glory, skies, for that is how you were created. But this one will be like me. This one will be able to choose.”

All were silent as the Creator reached into himself and removed something yet unseen. A seed. “It’s called ‘choice.’ The seed of choice.”

Creation stood in silence and gazed upon the lifeless form.

An angel spoke, “But what if he … ”

“What if he chooses not to love?” the Creator finished. “Come, I will show you.”

Unbound by today, God and the angel walked into the realm of tomorrow.

“There, see the fruit of the seed of choice, both the sweet and the bitter.”

The angel gasped at what he saw. Spontaneous love. Voluntary devotion. Chosen tenderness. Never had he seen anything like these. He felt the love of the Adams. He heard the joy of Eve and her daughters. He saw the food and the burdens shared. He absorbed the kindness and marveled at the warmth.

“Heaven has never seen such beauty, my Lord. Truly, this is your greatest creation.”

“Ah, but you’ve only seen the sweet. Now witness the bitter.”

A stench enveloped the pair. The angel turned in horror and proclaimed, “What is it?”

The Creator spoke only one word: “Selfishness.”

The angel stood speechless as they passed through centuries of repugnance. Never had he seen such filth. Rotten hearts. Ruptured promises. Forgotten loyalties. Children of the creation wandering blindly in lonely labyrinths.

“This is the result of choice?” the angel asked.

“Yes.”

“They will forget you?”

“Yes.”

“They will reject you?”

“Yes.”

“They will never come back?”

“Some will. Most won’t.”

“What will it take to make them listen?”

The Creator walked on in time, further and further into the future, until he stood by a tree. A tree that would be fashioned into a cradle. Even then he could smell the hay that would surround him.

With another step into the future, he paused before another tree. It stood alone, a stubborn ruler of a bald hill. The trunk was thick, and the wood was strong. Soon it would be cut. Soon it would be trimmed. Soon it would be mounted on the stony brow of another hill. And soon he would be hung on it.

He felt the wood rub against a back he did not yet wear.

“Will you go down there?” the angel asked.

“I will.”

 

What's interesting to me is that the author makes no reference to "the Son". He is very clear that God will "go down" in human form. Which leads me to my latest pressing curiosity: What is it about Jesus that makes him "Son", "offspring", of God, rather than just plain God as human?

 

“Is there no other way?”

“There is not.”

“Wouldn’t it be easier to not plant the seed? Wouldn’t it be easier to not give the choice?”

“It would,” the Creator spoke slowly. “But to remove the choice is to remove the love.”

He looked around the hill and foresaw a scene. Three figures hung on three crosses. Arms spread. Heads fallen forward. They moaned with the wind.

Men clad in soldiers’ garb sat on the ground near the trio. They played games in the dirt and laughed.

Men clad in religion stood off to one side. They smiled. Arrogant, cocky. They had protected God, they thought, by killing this false one.

Women clad in sorrow huddled at the foot of the hill. Speechless. Faces tear streaked. Eyes downward. One put her arm around another and tried to lead her away. She wouldn’t leave. “I will stay,” she said softly. “I will stay.”

All heaven stood to fight. All nature rose to rescue. All eternity poised to protect. But the Creator gave no command.

“It must be done … ,” he said, and withdrew.

But as he stepped back in time, he heard the cry that he would someday scream: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) He wrenched at tomorrow’s agony.

 

Why would God cry out this thing to...himself? Weird.

 

The angel spoke again. “It would be less painful … ”

 

I think it's interesting that God is capable of pain, of suffering. I thought nothing impure was within God's grasp, hence the reason dirty, flawed humans can't be with God for eternity. Apparently some negativity can touch God. We do effect God. We have some power to inflict some hurt on God. Fascinating.

 

The Creator interrupted softly. “But it wouldn’t be love.”

They stepped into the Garden again. The Maker looked earnestly at the clay creation. A monsoon of love swelled up within him. He had died for the creation before he had made him. God’s form bent over the sculptured face and breathed. Dust stirred on the lips of the new one. The chest rose, cracking the red mud. The cheeks fleshened. A finger moved. And an eye opened.

But more incredible than the moving of the flesh was the stirring of the spirit. Those who could see the unseen gasped.

Perhaps it was the wind who said it first. Perhaps what the star saw that moment is what has made it blink ever since. Maybe it was left to an angel to whisper it:

“It looks like … it appears so much like … it is him!”

The angel wasn’t speaking of the face, the features, or the body. He was looking inside—at the soul.

“It’s eternal!” gasped another.

Within the man, God had placed a divine seed. A seed of his self. The God of might had created earth’s mightiest. The Creator had created, not a creature, but another creator.

 

Really? A creator of what? Certainly not beings, like God. But...doesn't say...

 

And the One who had chosen to love had created one who could love in return.

Now it’s our choice.

From In the Eye of the Storm

Copyright (Thomas Nelson, 1997) Max Lucado

 

Interesting.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

Sigh. I get so sick of this whole fallacy that things like belief are somehow a choice. In the case of this load of BS, it's trying to make out that love is a choice. How is love a choice? You may have a choice to perform acts of love, but you can't choose to love someone. You really have no control over your emotions unless your a Vulcan and even then it takes many years of training yourself to inhibit your emotions.

 

You seem to be suggesting that acts are totally separate from emotions, that emotions are not lead at all by actions (choices). I suggest that while we cannot choose in an instant what to feel, we can lead the mind and body, through choice of actions, over time, on a path more likely to yield positive emotions like love. This training is not inhibiting, but rather reorienting toward the positive, opening, allowing.

 

Buddhist teachings and psychology studies suggest to me that a change in emotions sometimes follows from deliberate practice of certain actions. This is why sometimes, "fake it 'til you make it" works. For instance, a practice of compassion and love (as deliberate actions) can lead to softer feelings in the practitioner toward the receiverover time, including love (the feeling). It is possible sometimes at least; it takes deliberate work. I don't believe, though, that we can ensure the end result (loving feelings). In some situations, we may die an never get there.

 

In this way, moving toward an openness to loving feeling is the only choice here. My view.

 

Phanta

[Thackerie]

Didn't read pass the first few paragraphs before I had to look away because this over-wrought, sappy, sugary-saccharine concoction was about to send me into a diabetic coma. And I don't even have diabetes. (At least I didn't when I woke up this morning.) Nothing but glurge*.

 

 

* Glurge: Anything overly sappy, corny, or kitchy used to incite an emotional reaction. It is usually fictional, absurd and over-exaggerated and therefore fails at its intended task. - urbandictionary.com

[Legion]

I think selfishness gets a real bad rap. To be alive is to be selfish in my opinion.

 

Can anyone name even a single species which is not selfish? Even one?

[Brother Jeff]

Adam and Eve? Sin?

 

This is the 21st Century, and sadly, many Americans still believe in these absurd Bronze Age fairy tales and concepts. No wonder most of the world laughs at us.. And no wonder our educational system is in deep trouble... I don't have time for absurd bullshit like this, and neither do other rational people...

[Dagan]

That's a nice story, but that's not what the bible says at all. It says Eve ate the apple because the serpent told her she would be like God, knowing good and evil. Then she gave some to Adam, who was with her (the whole time, apparently) and he ate it too, with the same consequences.

 

They made a choice, yes, but this modern Christian revisionist reading of the story as God setting up free will for his creation is simply not there. It isn't. And it shows in the consequences. Eve gets painful childbirth, and Adam, and I've highlighted the important part, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you," gets to be a farmer for the rest of his life.

 

God only kicks them out of the Garden of Eden because he didn't want them eating from the tree of eternal life. Once again, it's not some free will thing. The support just isn't there in the Genesis story.

 

If the Bible was written the way Max Lucado writes, it would be beautiful, maybe even believable. But it isn't. It shows a progressive reinvention of core beliefs over centuries to fit past scriptures, and the development of doctrine shows a consensual, collective delusion, where different people make up different parts of the whole story and "professional" pastors and priests explain it to the layman.

[oddbird1963]

Lucado knows how to spin a story. He could probably make taking an insurance examination a tear-jerking tale of God's grace.

 

But many of the previous posters are correct. Just because the story creates positive fluffy emotions, it doesn't make the tired old philosophy behind it any more reasonable.

 

It's like the kid who gets caught by his parents with his hand in the cookie jar so he tells jokes and makes his accusers laugh until they forget the fact that their son had taken the cookies. It sure feels good to laugh, but the fact of the infraction remains.

 

Lucado can fluffify the free-will / problem of evil issue all he wants, but when the tears are dabbed away there still remains the fact of the fallacies.

[Purple]

Okay, others have said, not only is it fluff, but it's not even what the bible says. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall the first, aka original sin was disobedience, not selfishness. Adam and Eve were tossed, not because of an internal motivation, but because of their act of disobedience.

 

Oh yeah, and the one who told the truth in the bible story was the snake. That's for another time though I think.

 

Question, Kathlene, why did you post this here?

[Ouroboros]

I heard from a Rabbi that the original sin was not what Adam and Eve did, but what Cain did to Abel. Adam and Eve only introduced the ability to sin, but they didn't sin. They were punished for their disobedience, but God can only judge someone's sin based on their intent and ability. Since A&E were innocent and without guile, they didn't commit a sin even though it was a crime (like manslaughter isn't murder, it's all about intent).

[agnosticator]

You seem to be suggesting that acts are totally separate from emotions, that emotions are not lead at all by actions (choices). I suggest that while we cannot choose in an instant what to feel, we can lead the mind and body, through choice of actions, over time, on a path more likely to yield positive emotions like love. This training is not inhibiting, but rather reorienting toward the positive, opening, allowing.

 

 

 

In this way, moving toward an openness to loving feeling is the only choice here. My view.

 

I think this is true, Phanta. But deliberate actions used to elicit positive feelings towards another can also work against oneself. Cults use this method to control people's feelings of cohesion and openness. They are then more easily manipulated. It also is not a good thing to do when someone dislikes or even hates you. I know because I have done it in the past, and suffered the consequences. Not everyone deserves our loving actions. I find it becomes masochistic in these circumstances. Although these deliberate actions are very good to do in a relationship where we desire to be closer and more open.

[Mriana]

How is that powerful? It is just another version of a Creation Story, of which there are many. This one happens to be another version from the Xian angle.

 

BTW, the clay is a "Mother Earth" motif, just not as profound as it is in other mythologies. In fact, before all is said in done in Xianity, "Gaia" is pushed aside and ignored, in favour of a Patriarchal rendition, BUT they had to have some form of it in Genesis in order to get the story going. In fact, the Hebrews started out as a polytheistic society, which moved to a monotheistic society. Originally they did have a male and female god, but they had to get rid of one in order to be monotheistic. In this case, the female was discarded.

[par4dcourse]

One couple of numb-nuts make one bad choice and therefore millions of people had to be tortured forever. Makes perfect sense to me, and I'm not even up to farmer level.

[Phanta]

You seem to be suggesting that acts are totally separate from emotions, that emotions are not lead at all by actions (choices). I suggest that while we cannot choose in an instant what to feel, we can lead the mind and body, through choice of actions, over time, on a path more likely to yield positive emotions like love. This training is not inhibiting, but rather reorienting toward the positive, opening, allowing.

 

 

 

In this way, moving toward an openness to loving feeling is the only choice here. My view.

 

I think this is true, Phanta. But deliberate actions used to elicit positive feelings towards another can also work against oneself. Cults use this method to control people's feelings of cohesion and openness. They are then more easily manipulated. It also is not a good thing to do when someone dislikes or even hates you. I know because I have done it in the past, and suffered the consequences. Not everyone deserves our loving actions. I find it becomes masochistic in these circumstances. Although these deliberate actions are very good to do in a relationship where we desire to be closer and more open.

 

I agree with everything you have written. Emotions can be nurtured through conscious actions or suppressed through conscious actions. You are advocating wisdom in choice, and while I would also advocate that. We make a choice, and that choice can effect the tendency of our emotional output.

 

My previous post was responding to the idea posited that we have no choice about our feelings. You and I, on the other hand, are both affirming that a mechanism to influence emotional output does exist, i.e. that loving action can lead to loving emotions. My post wasn't meant to be a moral judgment on the choice. It is merely a disagreement regarding the mechanism, which I affirm exists in a low-level form. That is, I believe choices influence our emotional tendencies, but do not control them.

 

Phanta

[Moonshadow]

The geneological timeline of Adam, in Eden, according to the bibilical account whether jewish or protestant has been calculated at approximately 4025 B.C. The problem is the Hebrews did not have a written language until about 1000 B.C., but just so everyone knows, the scene of Adam's creation according to the biblical account would have occurred in the midst of a thriving Sumerian civilization, with a written language at that same time.

[OnceConvinced]

Sigh. I get so sick of this whole fallacy that things like belief are somehow a choice. In the case of this load of BS, it's trying to make out that love is a choice. How is love a choice? You may have a choice to perform acts of love, but you can't choose to love someone. You really have no control over your emotions unless your a Vulcan and even then it takes many years of training yourself to inhibit your emotions.

 

You seem to be suggesting that acts are totally separate from emotions, that emotions are not lead at all by actions (choices). I suggest that while we cannot choose in an instant what to feel, we can lead the mind and body, through choice of actions, over time, on a path more likely to yield positive emotions like love. This training is not inhibiting, but rather reorienting toward the positive, opening, allowing.

 

Buddhist teachings and psychology studies suggest to me that a change in emotions sometimes follows from deliberate practice of certain actions. This is why sometimes, "fake it 'til you make it" works. For instance, a practice of compassion and love (as deliberate actions) can lead to softer feelings in the practitioner toward the receiverover time, including love (the feeling). It is possible sometimes at least; it takes deliberate work. I don't believe, though, that we can ensure the end result (loving feelings). In some situations, we may die an never get there.

 

In this way, moving toward an openness to loving feeling is the only choice here. My view.

 

Phanta

 

Sure, you may decide to take an action and in doing so it may affect your emotions, but that does not make your emotion a choice, but an outcome of an action. The emotion still seems to me to be an involuntary thing.

[florduh]

The story is not even biblical, makes no logical sense, and is just childish.

 

I'm sorry, I've just had it with this infantile view of reality and deliberate ignorance. People who write, admire and distribute tripe like this are mentally damaged. People who choose out of weakness to believe fairy tales when they know better are disingenuous hypocrites and an embarrassment to sentient beings everywhere.

 

Where's Grandpa Harley when we need him? I'm afraid I lack his extensive and colorful vocabulary, but it's called for here.

 

If the poster didn't have a previous life here, many would be calling TROLL. It's getting ridiculous. Pray for the gift of embarrassment, K, for you should have it.

[cullyloden]

This is a passionate writer, clearly filled with reverence for a being in whom he believes.

I have a close friend who often speaks this passionately about her own beliefs, but the lithium tablets seem to be helping quite a bit, and the voices are less convincing now <i>she says.</i>

Chuckle, shrug, recoil as you please...

My point is, any person can express this much passion over any delusions they may have.

Bondye, Zeus, Chris Angel, Middle Eastern mythologies, Santa if you're seven and a half...

I do salute the writer's passionate adoration. He is no Tennyson, but all in all this is a cute short fiction. Thanks for sharing it.

-Cully

[Brakeman]

Hey, why are they disparaging poor Adam anyway? It was the tramp Eve that first sinned.

Poor Adam was just led astray by the woman he trusted, he couldn't think she was evil.

 

See where following your _____ will get you..

 

[bdp]

 

 

Free will is choosing between vanilla and chocolate ice cream. Not just vanilla ice cream and killing the ice cream guy with his own scooper.

 

 

 

 

I think the best thing I could ever do on any of these threads is stay out of the way and give more room to those of you with 'the gift.'