Here is statement/Article of Faith #2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
What does this one mean? It does not sound as simple as the first one, does it.
First of all, Adam's transgression is when Adam and Eve fell from the Garden of Eden, bringing sin and death into the world. Now that there was sin and righteousness, there was choice. We had to choose to sin, or not to sin. We can choose what to do, but we can't choose the consequences.
Here's a story that might help you understand it:
Once upon a time, there was a man. This man only had spinach to eat, so he only ate spinach. Then, one day, the man invented candy!! Now, he could have candy whenever he wanted, or he could continue to have spinach. Not only did he have to decide, but all of his neighbors now hd a choice. Some of them decided to stick with the spinach come what may. Some of them would only have the candy occasionally, but would mostly eat spinach. Some of the people would only eat the candy, and they would eat it and eat it and eat it!
Now, there are some obvious consequences. The people who stuck with the spinach were strong (as strong as Popeye :)), and the people who only had a little bit of candy were pretty strong, too. But the people who only had candy were sickly and weak.
Which would you rather be? Strong, or weak?
Now, just to set the record straight, I like candy, especially chocolate. I think that it is very, very heavenly :). I don't really like spinach (who does?). But those are just parts of a metaphor.
The spinach stood for righteousness, and the candy stood for sin. Adam was the man who invented candy (although, technically, Satan/the devil is the author of sin.) We are his nieghbors.
So, that is Adam's transgression. Now for the rest of the statement. "Men will be punished for their own sins." That makes sense, doesn't it? Why should the police arrest you because your 3rd cousin (once removed) stole someone's car? It just isn't fair.
In history, we learn about instances when a person rebels against the king, and the person's whole family is killed. When I read things like this, I feel sick inside. (Who cares that it happened hundreds of years ago, people were people back then, too). It just doesn't sit right that someone will get in trouble because of something that someone else did.
That is statement #2. Come back next time for #3 ;)
What does this one mean? It does not sound as simple as the first one, does it.
First of all, Adam's transgression is when Adam and Eve fell from the Garden of Eden, bringing sin and death into the world. Now that there was sin and righteousness, there was choice. We had to choose to sin, or not to sin. We can choose what to do, but we can't choose the consequences.
Here's a story that might help you understand it:
Once upon a time, there was a man. This man only had spinach to eat, so he only ate spinach. Then, one day, the man invented candy!! Now, he could have candy whenever he wanted, or he could continue to have spinach. Not only did he have to decide, but all of his neighbors now hd a choice. Some of them decided to stick with the spinach come what may. Some of them would only have the candy occasionally, but would mostly eat spinach. Some of the people would only eat the candy, and they would eat it and eat it and eat it!
Now, there are some obvious consequences. The people who stuck with the spinach were strong (as strong as Popeye :)), and the people who only had a little bit of candy were pretty strong, too. But the people who only had candy were sickly and weak.
Which would you rather be? Strong, or weak?
Now, just to set the record straight, I like candy, especially chocolate. I think that it is very, very heavenly :). I don't really like spinach (who does?). But those are just parts of a metaphor.
The spinach stood for righteousness, and the candy stood for sin. Adam was the man who invented candy (although, technically, Satan/the devil is the author of sin.) We are his nieghbors.
So, that is Adam's transgression. Now for the rest of the statement. "Men will be punished for their own sins." That makes sense, doesn't it? Why should the police arrest you because your 3rd cousin (once removed) stole someone's car? It just isn't fair.
In history, we learn about instances when a person rebels against the king, and the person's whole family is killed. When I read things like this, I feel sick inside. (Who cares that it happened hundreds of years ago, people were people back then, too). It just doesn't sit right that someone will get in trouble because of something that someone else did.
That is statement #2. Come back next time for #3 ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment