In the beginning, there was ...

[Taalcon]

Why should I glorify God? He's perfectly capable of glorifying himself without my paltry assistance.

All that we have, or can have, is due to Him, and that in sustaining Him, we are assisting in His work to guide mankind, His Children, to achieving their full potential.

[Taalcon]

I have a few “problems” with the concept of “sin”.
a) What is the purpose of the “original sin”? As far as I understand, the fact that Adam and Eve wanted to become as knowledgeable as God (and therefore listened to the “evil serpent”) was seen as the first sin (hence the name) and then all their descendants (i.e. all of us) are guilty of it.

I do not believe that all are guilty of Adam and Eve's transgression. Rather, I believe we are all subjected to the results - a fallen state of mortality, in which we can truly experience good, evil, pleasure, plain, Joy, and Sorrow. It is my belief that one cannot experience the fullness of joy something brings unless one has first lived without it. This is part of what the Fall brings to humanity - separation from God, and the opportunity to return, and truly experience and appreciate the fullness of Joy back with him.

I believe Children are born innocent, but that all of us will inevitably sin upon coming to a phase of life where one can truly decide to do something they know is wrong. It is these sins we are accountable for - not Adam's transgression.

Was the coming of God’s son supposed to wash that sin? BTW, did it also wash away all the other sins accumulated until that point?
Can someone be forgiven their “original sin”? If I don’t believe in the story about Adam and Eve, is that a sin also? (The fact is that as I don’t believe that to be more than a story, I don’t accept any responsibility resulting from the “original sin” anyways.)

the Atonement of Christ, when accepted, can and will remove all sins that you have personally committed, when accompanied with true repentance.

b) Why is “forgiving sins” possible? I mean, if one knows that after they make a sin, it’s enough to follow some ritual (e.g. confessing to a priest and repenting) and they are forgiven, what would stop them from making that sin again and again? Why not make the sinner be responsible and make them pay for their wrongdoings?

The only way the Atonement washes away a sin is when the request for forgiveness is accompanied by true repentance. Just saying "I'm sorry" is not repentance. Sorrow for the sin, and the choice to never commit it again. Also, if something was done against someone, doing the best one can to make restititution with those that were affected.

What’s the point in confessing if God is “up there” and sees all anyway? If one is repenting sincerely, what’s the need for the priest to be involved?
(Note that I’m not talking about any sin in particular, because that is another story. There are many things that are considered “sin” that I don’t see the point in being so. That could be a tangent if anyone is interested.)

I don't believe any earthly mediators are necessary in the day-to-day repentance process. While I do believe that in many situations, Church leadership are very, very helpful in helping one see through with the process of restitution. But the key process is between the sinner and the Lord. It is not the leadership who does, nor can forgive the sins in the eyes of God.

[suminonA]

Eaquae Legit and Taalcon, thank you for your extended replies I'll study the references that you provided and I am sure that I'll come back with more questions.

In the meanwhile, Taalcon, what's your view on the Genesis in the Bible? How literal do you consider it to be?

A.

[Taalcon]

I believe it has deeper allegorical significance.

[Rei]

Okay, I said I would address these, so I'm going to try and do so more thoroughly now. And I think in two installments.

in answer to the definition of perfection, perfection is, in this case, without sin. So anything that is made pure in that way is, by definition, perfect. This does not mean Adam and Eve could do maths perfectly or any other skill. It simply means that they were sinless and in that way pure, or perfect.

I have a few “problems” with the concept of “sin”.
a) What is the purpose of the “original sin”? As far as I understand, the fact that Adam and Eve wanted to become as knowledgeable as God (and therefore listened to the “evil serpent”) was seen as the first sin (hence the name) and then all their descendants (i.e. all of us) are guilty of it. Was the coming of God’s son supposed to wash that sin? BTW, did it also wash away all the other sins accumulated until that point?
Can someone be forgiven their “original sin”? If I don’t believe in the story about Adam and Eve, is that a sin also? (The fact is that as I don’t believe that to be more than a story, I don’t accept any responsibility resulting from the “original sin” anyways.)

EL has already posted a link to the Catechism on Original Sin. A further note on what Jesus' death and ressurection did regarding sin and Original sin may be found in articles 651-655, particularly the last two:

654 The Paschal mystery has two aspects: by his death, Christ liberates us from sin; by his Resurrection, he opens for us the way to a new life. This new life is above all justification that reinstates us in God's grace, "so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."525 Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace.526 It brings about filial adoption so that men become Christ's brethren, as Jesus himself called his disciples after his Resurrection: "Go and tell my brethren."527 We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace, because that adoptive filiation gains us a real share in the life of the only Son, which was fully revealed in his Resurrection.

655 Finally, Christ's Resurrection - and the risen Christ himself is the principle and source of our future resurrection: "Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. . . For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."528 The risen Christ lives in the hearts of his faithful while they await that fulfillment . In Christ, Christians "have tasted. . . the powers of the age to come"529 and their lives are swept up by Christ into the heart of divine life, so that they may "live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised."530

(Emphasis mine)

So by this we can see that Christ’s death and resurrection washes away Original Sin, as well as all other sins we commit and have committed. As for all other sins committed, I’m getting the feeling that you are speaking of all the sins committed before us staining us, just as Original Sin stained us. If I’m wrong, feel free to ignore this next bit. If we go back to the analogy of the rebel camp, Original Sin is unique. When Adam and Eve committed Original Sin, they were separated from God. That sin did not represent a distance of separation, but merely the fact of separation. And as we are all born in that rebel camp, we are all born with that fact of separation from God. This means that, instead of the sins of our ancestors – or even just Adam and Eve – accumulating and moving us a great distance from God, that one sin has caused the separation and no additional sins move the camp further from God. This is why people – evangelical Protestants especially emphasis this – say that all sins are equal; because sins separate us from God (whether the sin be lying or murder).

In reference to Original Sin being forgiven, I’ve already mentioned Jesus’ death and resurrection has made possible the grace to forgive this. And if I were you, I’d be more worried if I did believe the story of Adam and Eve, considering you don’t believe the rest of either the Tanakh or the Bible (as in both testaments)

[Rei]

This second half I’m going to do a tad out of order.

I must say that the concept of “sin” and “confession” is quite clever, because by confessing, there is at least a way of keeping track of the “sinner’s sins”, even if the priest is bound to an oath of silence and cannot make them public. (Not that the priest being human, they could give a 100% guarantee of keeping it).
For me this is just a way of (the Church) getting power over the people. The funniest consequence of that is the fear of “excommunication” from the Church. But I have no more comment on that.

This point has been taken to an extreme by the Scientologists who require all new members to “unload all their negative history” to them (allegedly in order to purify themselves). That gives a nice record of “shameful actions” of each member, so when one should decide they want to separate from that ideology and/or denounce it, the means of blackmail are already in place. Quite neat, isn’t it?

To be honest, this point is fairly amusing. Confession is not always done in a booth with a curtain between the confessor and the person confessing. Also, it would require that not one priest in the Catholic Church today or in the past honestly believe in the grace of Reconciliation or in Jesus. Not to mention that there would be far fewer vocational weekends, encouraging people to see what being a nun, monk, or priest is all about and to consider becoming one. So I generally feel that, whether Christianity is right or wrong, this is not a concern we need to be worried about.

b) Why is “forgiving sins” possible? I mean, if one knows that after they make a sin, it’s enough to follow some ritual (e.g. confessing to a priest and repenting) and they are forgiven, what would stop them from making that sin again and again? Why not make the sinner be responsible and make them pay for their wrongdoings?
What’s the point in confessing if God is “up there” and sees all anyway? If one is repenting sincerely, what’s the need for the priest to be involved?
(Note that I’m not talking about any sin in particular, because that is another story. There are many things that are considered “sin” that I don’t see the point in being so. That could be a tangent if anyone is interested.)

The first item, why is forgiving sins possible, goes back to Christ’s death and resurrection. Jesus died as a sacrifice, the Lamb of God, so that our sins might be forgiven. So the God end of it is satisfied. The bit you appear to be more concerned with, and logically so, is the human end of it.

You point out that God sees everything, so why bother because He already knows. That is true. However, if you saw someone do something that hurts you, or catch a friend in a lie, or doing any wrong against you, would it not make sense to give them a chance to ask forgiveness? Even if you point it out to them, would you not like them to acknowledge that they were wrong and ask forgiveness?

On the method of forgiveness, you will agree that penitence is necessary. If someone is not actually sorry for what they’ve done, any apology they make is not worth much of anything. And if someone is truly penitent, they will try not to commit that sin, or any other sin, again. (Of course, being fallen creatures, we are prone to sin and do sin again, but as Jesus said when asked how often we should forgive our brother, He said not seven but seventy times.)

Next we should deal with the Sacrament of Reconciliation and its role in forgiveness. You point out how, if we are repenting sincerely, we should not require a priest to absolve us of our sins. You are correct. God alone can absolve us of our sins; God alone can forgive. So we can pray to Him and ask Him for forgiveness and we will be forgiven. But He has also given us permission to forgive sins and to absolve them in His name (see articles 1440-1449). Now the question of why comes into play. This requires an understanding of mortal sins and venial sins. Articles 1854-1864 offer a good discussion of these. In particular, regarding the Sacrament of Reconciliation, look at article 1856:

Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130

(Emphasis mine)

So it is not for all sins that Confession is so strongly advised, but just mortal sins. A reason why that would be the best environment for reconciliation would be that the priest is both a representative of God and the Church community. So when he offers you the sacrament, it is both God and the community forgiving you and you are welcomed back into the community. (This is necessary, as the catechism says, because mortal sins separate one from charity which is the soul of the Church.)

I hope that helps to explain things a little.

[eriador]

So it is not for all sins that Confession is so strongly advised, but just mortal sins.

How then does one justify the policy of not allowing someone to partake in communion without a confession, no matter how trivial their sins are?[/quote]

[Eaquae Legit]

One doesn't, because it's not a policy. It's encouraged, but it's not required.

[eriador]

Well, my dad grew up that way...

So I don't know what to say.

[Eaquae Legit]

A lot of things evolved out of Vatican II. I believe that may have been one of them.

[eriador]

That's a good possibility. My dad hasn't been part of the church for 20-30 years.

[AnthonyByakko]

My minor is in Biblical Studies. I know what I'm talking about and I can bet that I know alot more about the Bible then you (eriador and Anthony).

So, the proof that you know more about the Bible is that you study the Bible? Nice.

I'll take that bet, by the way. The passages in question were Leviticus chapter 17. While irrelevant by modern standards, this is the kind of thing people were stoned to death for by your forgiving, merciful god.

[Jayelle]

What? I thought that arguement had died.
Fine. But I'm not doing it here. I'm starting a new thread.

[suminonA]

... this is the kind of thing people were stoned to death for by your forgiving, merciful god.

Try not to confuse the people (claiming to be) acting in the name of a concept, with that concept.

Don't you think that is very plausible, that the utmost inconsequent human beings are responsible for saying one thing and acting another (and then blaming it on some imaginary deity)?

My hypothesis is that “God” is just a (human) concept, with no physical existence. So I’d refrain blaming anything on it.

Maybe that’s what you want to say too, but your phrasing points to something else.

---

As for the references to the catechism given in the previous posts, I’m still working on it, but I must say that it doesn’t seem to make more “sense” for me than any other arguments that start with the premise that “God exists”. Yes, they do explain in some degree what the Christians mean with most of the concepts, but they all come down to “true faith”. Maybe that is what I can’t grasp rationally, and maybe it isn’t even supposed to be rationalised.

(I will come back with more specific questions about the “inconsistencies” in the “God story” as I perceive them.)

A.

[suminonA]

Next we should deal with the Sacrament of Reconciliation and its role in forgiveness. You point out how, if we are repenting sincerely, we should not require a priest to absolve us of our sins. You are correct. God alone can absolve us of our sins; God alone can forgive. So we can pray to Him and ask Him for forgiveness and we will be forgiven. But He has also given us permission to forgive sins and to absolve them in His name (see articles 1440-1449). Now the question of why comes into play. This requires an understanding of mortal sins and venial sins. Articles 1854-1864 offer a good discussion of these. In particular, regarding the Sacrament of Reconciliation, look at article 1856:

Ok, there is this article:

1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

I find this fairly explicit. You need the Church for your reconciliation with God. Do you accept that? (I don’t.)
Isn’t it obvious that here lies the “power” of the Church?
If it really is the “will of God”, then I’d like to be told so unequivocally by Him, and not by His “representatives”. It’s too easy for them to be self-proclaimed, especially while preaching one thing, doing another, and then blaming it all on “God”. If only they were more consistent with themselves.

The Church has a great part in defining and keeping together a community. I get that, there is no problem with that. But to claim that my reconciliation with the alleged God is possible only through the Church, makes me wonder: why do I need that reconciliation? Oh, because the Church told me that even if I have never sinned, I’m “separated from God” ever since birth, because some ancestors (i.e. Adam and Eve) did something called the “original sin”… (for which I received no compelling proof, and even if it were so, I don’t accept to “pay” for something that wasn’t my fault/choice in the first place).

How much self-declared power can the Church claim?

So here is a BIG question: Why should I want “reconciliation” with “God”?

A.

[jotabe]

Be aware that there are 3 meanings for Church:
1-The physical place where a christian community assembles.
2-The Church as a clergy organization.
3-The Church as "Ecclesia", the reunion of all christians, all believers in Christ.

In times of Jesus, where He lived, the only Church.1 were the Sinagogues, the only Church.2 was the Jewish priesthood, so He was more than likely talking about Church.3.

[suminonA]

Be aware that there are 3 meanings for Church:
1-The physical place where a christian community assembles.
2-The Church as a clergy organization.
3-The Church as "Ecclesia", the reunion of all christians, all believers in Christ.

In times of Jesus, where He lived, the only Church.1 were the Sinagogues, the only Church.2 was the Jewish priesthood, so He was more than likely talking about Church.3.

Ok, then explain to me what does "reconciliation wiht Church.3" mean. Thanks.

A.

[jotabe]

The Church.3 (lol) is in communion with God through Christ. Sin takes the sinner away from the Grace of God, takes him away from the communion with God, and hence, takes him away from the Church. Through the Reconciliation, you reconcile with God, and hence, with the Church.

[suminonA]

jotabe, you're turning the things on their head .
What the catechism say is that reconciliation with the Church is a necessary stage/tool for the reconciliation with God. And now you're making it sound as the former is a byproduct of the latter. How do you see it, exactly?

And you (or anybody else) still didn’t answer my BIG question: Why should I want “reconciliation” with “God”?
And let me add a few little ones:
1) Do I need it?
2) Can I be a good person without it?
3) Am I sinning for asking such questions?

A.

[jotabe]

I see it as two things that are exactly the same: it's similar to receive the communion with the wine or the bread; both are equivalent to each other, because they are part of each other.
Of course, the Catholic Church has some official views that are pretty unorthodox, and do not meet my correct oppinions. So i wouldn't be surprised if the Pope disagreed with me. Maybe i will have to send him a letter asking him to correct himself, or he will be excommunicated.

Ok, jokes aside.
If you don't know why you should want reconciliation with God, then, explaining you why would be meaningless. Why would you want to reconcile with a dear friend, with whom you had a serious misunderstanding?
Also:
-Yes, you need it. You just don't know why.
-Yes, but unhappy, even if you think you are happy.
-We are all sinners. Questions about faith are never sins by themselves, though. But in any case, i don't see why would you worry over being a sinner, since you use different cathegories than we do.

[suminonA]

I see it as two things that are exactly the same: it's similar to receive the communion with the wine or the bread; both are equivalent to each other, because they are part of each other.

Well, I’m sorry but your analogy doesn’t work here. What I was asking about is if you agree that the Church (be it .2 or .3 in your notation) is necessary for what it is called “reconciliation with God”. If you do, then in my opinion you are giving it a power that is unjustified. But it is your choice and I don’t argue that.

If you don't know why you should want reconciliation with God, then, explaining you why would be meaningless.

That is unfalsifiable and also useless to say.

Why would you want to reconcile with a dear friend, with whom you had a serious misunderstanding?

Well, see, that’s just it: I don’t recall any “serious misunderstanding” with “God”. And you can see my “confusion” as I don’t even recall meeting Him, much less offending Him or having a quarrel or anything.
And if my “separation” begun with “the original sin of Adam and Eve” then I’m still waiting for a proof of such “offence” ever happening and a justification of why I should be guilty of it.

Also:
1-Yes, you need it. You just don't know why.
2-Yes, but unhappy, even if you think you are happy.
3-We are all sinners. Questions about faith are never sins by themselves, though. But in any case, i don't see why would you worry over being a sinner, since you use different cathegories than we do.

Also:
1- How do you know that?
2- Excuse me?!?!?!?
3- Talk about yourself (about being a sinner). And I’m not worried about it. I’m asking because I’m curious about the way the believers think. I’m simply presenting the things that I find contradictory or unsustainable (in my view) and want to learn about how Christians or other believers justify them (for themselves).

And for the record: I’m not here to be converted nor to “convert” anyone. I want to learn more about the way other people think.

A.

[AnthonyByakko]

It's pretty simple. On this topic, Jota "thinks" using his emotions, assuming that they are some ineffable means of communications with another, more pure dimension - one which stores all the answers to his metaphysical questions. A "hard line", if you will, to higher power, which he believes to be the controlling element of both the other dimension and this shabby, painful, gruesome and short one.

[suminonA]

How do you know that about jotabe? Or is it that you think this is the case?

A.

[AnthonyByakko]

How do you know that about jotabe? Or is it that you think this is the case?

A.

Clarification: If he actually believes as he has previously stated, yes, I know it. The primacy of emotion and the rejection of reason is essential to "actually" believing in a religious construct.

[suminonA]

The primacy of emotion and the rejection of reason is essential to "actually" believing in a religious construct.

I don’t agree with the “rejection of reason” part. I know plenty of people who have their reasons to believe what they believe about various “religious constructs” respectively. Starting their reasoning with different postulates (than my own) is not illicit in any way. As long as they stay consistent with themselves and with the real world (as they perceive it) they are entitled to defend their position.

My favourite analogy are the various systems of geometry that we know today. Sure, Euclidian Geometry works well and “feels true” but what do you know? It isn’t the only consistent geometry and it even fails to model the Universe at larger scales. Other geometries, that are incompatible with the Euclidian one do that better at those scales. So is there a “true” one and a “false” one? I don’t think so. They all have their utility.

Therefore, when I meet someone with a system of beliefs that is incompatible with mine, I ask questions, I don’t jump to the conclusion that they are “unreasonable”. I point out the “inconsistencies” as I see them and question their justification in the “real world”. But I don’t forget that “real world” is a different thing for each person.

The key word is “consistency”.

A.

PS: my religious premise is: "A deity doesn't exist until it can prove its existence (and does so)".

[AnthonyByakko]

The form of reason, as we are discussing it:

1. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
2. Good judgment; sound sense.
3. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.

Consistancy =/= reason. I mean, I'd say George Bush Jr. has been pretty "consistant" in his beliefs - doesn't mean they're rational. "Reason" is man's capacity for understanding the universe - not how he "perceives" it. Our perception is our senses, not our consciousness. The geometric analogy falls short because different geometric constructs and systems are all based on the real world, on the laws of nature and the universe. Just because some apply to different concepts does not make them "faith-based". As you said, they all have their utility. Religious abstractions are NOT founded on the laws of nature and unlike your geometry comparison, some are not "true" in some situations and "false" in others.

[jotabe]

I try to keep all my beliefs consistant.
Also i try to make most of them rational.
Still, in certain fields, i have no choice but to admit that some of my beliefs are not rational (having in account that i only see as rational beliefs that steam from observation and experimentation). Still, i believe my beliefs are reasonable.

Sin is an offence to God, by itself. But since you don't believe in Sin, nor you believe in God, it's obvious you don't feel the need for Reconciliation, what was your original question, and what this is all about.

Yes, we believers believe that we live happier and more meaningful lives than non-believers, or believers in other religions. I have already explained it in another thread, and i explained why this cannot be taken as offensive. When you make a choice to improve your happines, and after a time, you are happy with that choice, it is obvious you will believe that you are happier than people who didn't take the same choice.

[AnthonyByakko]

Which is kind of my point - "belief" over "truth" in the premise of religious construct.

[suminonA]

Well, as long as "truth" in religious matters (i.e. the existence of God) is still un-decidable by rational means, it kind of nullifies your point.

Un-decidable =/= false.

A.

PS: more on “rationality” and “consistency” soon, now I have to take off for the day

[AnthonyByakko]

Well, as long as "truth" in religious matters (i.e. the existence of God) is still un-decidable by rational means, it kind of nullifies your point.

Un-decidable =/= false.

A.

PS: more on “rationality” and “consistency” soon, now I have to take off for the day

HOLD IT

[suminonA]

AnthonyByakko, could you expand on that? I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that "Objection!".

A.

[Qing_Jao]

Okay, I read through some of this, skimmed the rest, and wanted to add my two cents, forgive me for sounding ignorant of what's been discussed before.

Not all Christians believe in Original Sin. Most do. I, however, am one who doesn't. I won't go into the differences theologically here, but I believe that we are sinners because we sin.

I don't think asking these questions makes you go to hell. Quite the opposite. I think that asking these questions is the first step to understanding.

Going all the way back, since I hadn't read this thread before, I define spiritual gifts as two things simultaneously. One, the inherent way we think and how that manifests in how we worship; and, two, special means God gives people to get His work accomplished. (That's where things like "speaking in tongues" come in.)

I'm oversimplifying things becasue I think JL and EL and the others are doing a great job on the rest. I just wanted to put my thoughts in there.

[hive_king]

Something I don't understand: what is the purpose of speaking in tounges? I mean, in the bible when people spoke in tounges it was a practical language they could use to spread the Word. When people nowadays speak in tounges, as far as I know it isn't a language anyone aroung them knows. What's the practical reason?

[Rei]

And you (or anybody else) still didn’t answer my BIG question: Why should I want “reconciliation” with “God”?
And let me add a few little ones:
1) Do I need it?
2) Can I be a good person without it?
3) Am I sinning for asking such questions?

A.

Okay, my apologies for not replying sooner. I am a student in November.

First things first, the Church spoken about, I believe to be the body of believers in Christ. So when God says we must be reconciled with the Church, He is saying that we must be reconciled with the body of believers. It just so happens that going to a priest for the sacrament of Reconciliation achieves this, although that particular method is not necesssary.

That said, let us approach your main question of "Why?"

In response to your three questions: yes, sort of, and no.

You are not sinning when you ask questions. Asking questions allows for discussions which can lead to understanding and the more we understand why we believe something or do something, or do not believe or do something, the better.

But can you be good if you are not reconciled with God and His Church? Of course you can be good and do good things. You do not need to be a Christian to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. These are good things to do, and these are things that good people do. Indeed, this is the work of God which all Christians are called to do, and the work of God is good as He is good. So you do not need to be a Christian to do good or be good. Sort of.

There is another aspect to being good in the Christian perspective. In order to be fully good, one must do the work of God for God. If you are not reconciled with God, either by not being a Christian or by being an errant Christian, you are not truly doing the work of God for God. A Christian should always put God first in everything, so if you have strayed from Him, it is your duty first and foremost to be reconciled with Him. Anything else that you do instead or that you do before being reconciled with Him and His Church will not have His full blessing which includes drawing you as close as possible to Him. Sin is a barrier between God and Man and no matter how much good Man does, he can not cross it.

So in order for all the good that you do, as a person desiring to do good, to be fully effective and to make you truly good, you need to be reconciled to God, who is good. Without this reconciliation, you will always be stuck a distance from God and so anything you do will not be as good as it would be if you were doing it for Him. And this applies to God's Church as well, as we are the body of Christ. Each Christian must be reconciled with the Church, the body of believers, the body of Christ, in order to be reconciled to God. And it is the utmost responsibility of a Christian to place God and communion with God, which is only found in reconciliation to Him, before all else.

Of course, all of this depends upon you believing first in some form of God. Second, you need to believe that God is good and the source of all good. Third, you need to believe that we are sinful and thus separated from this good God. If you do not believe any of these three things, you will see no reason for reconciliation nor any need for it.

That said, yes, you need reconciliation. I say this because I do believe in such a God and I do believe that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And further, as you are not a Christian, I believe that you need reconciliation all the more so that you, too, may join us in communion with our God who is good.

I hope this helps to make things clear.

~Rei

[Rei]

Something I don't understand: what is the purpose of speaking in tounges? I mean, in the bible when people spoke in tounges it was a practical language they could use to spread the Word. When people nowadays speak in tounges, as far as I know it isn't a language anyone aroung them knows. What's the practical reason?

I am not the best for answering this question, but I will do my best. Until grade 10 or so I had always believed the gift of tongues to be like at Pentacost when the Holy Spirit gave Peter and others the ability to speak and be heard by everyone in their own native tongues. In grade 10 I was talking with a fellow who introduced me to this concept of speaking in a language unknown to anyone. From what I can understand, this language is a particularly intimate one between you and God. Its purpose, I believe, is to help you to grow closer to God in a unique way. Aside from that, I'm afraid I can't help. If anyone else cares to talk about it, especially if you actually do it, I'm in the crowd of the curious when it comes to its exact role in Christian life.