Benk, there is not anything to be ashamed of! I imagine you in a beautiful dress with cute clogs, picking tulips, under the ochred-coloured sunset of Rotterdam. :heart:

Something like this:

I agree with your post, Timothy. But I don't know what to say. My aim is not to argue about a specific religious branch. I am fully aware that religious belief is not unique, and I have even already discussed this in another thread, where some users started to rant about the bad 'influence' of Christianity due to the Spanish empire. And then, I asked them: what kind of Christian group are you referring to? Because it is obvious that there are a lot of distinctions between Catholics and Protestants, for instance.

Nonetheless, I think I will keep learning more about Christianity from a personal perspective. It is the main religion - and custom - where I live. I am not bother to understand different religious perspectives. It will be interesting, but I am not ready yet.

Look how many exchanges and debate Kierkegaard produces! More than 200 replies have this thread, when we are 'only' discussing spirituality from a Christian Ethics view...

All good. Godfather the best. — Mikie

Every time I watch the movie I discover a new detail. What an excellent movie. And John Cazale was a fabulous actor! What a shame the cancer took him away so soon...

Humiliated and Insulted also known in English as The Insulted and Humiliated, The Insulted and the Injured or Injury and Insult… (also known in Spanish as Humillados y Ofendidos) by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Униженные и оскорблённые, Unizhennye i oskorblyonnye

Jesus! Why is the Russian language that difficult?

What Wayfarer also points to is that Christianity (like most faiths) can be made to argue anything at all — Tom Storm

I agree.

it's in the interpretation you choose which may have nothing to do with what the religion may in fact stand for or have originally intended. — Tom Storm

And that's why I struggle with religious faith! :smile:

Also: google doesn't know "anfaestgalse". My mothertongue's German, and the word doesn't sound very Germanic either. Some sort of typo? — Dawnstorm

Firstly, I am sorry because I didn't write the word correctly. The word is correctly written in this way: 'anfægtelse'

I think I haven't expressed myself clearly, but I will explain my concern again:

Context: Kierkegaard, in his work Fear and Trembling, discussed the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham during the Binding of Isaac.

K presents this problemata about contradiction and anxiety with three different questions open to debate or discuss:

A) Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?
B) Is there an absolute duty to God?
C) Was it ethically defensible for Abraham to conceal his undertaking from Sarah, From Eliezer, and from Isaac?

In the book, and the answers to those questions, Kierkegaard states: During three days and three nights, Abraham suffered from 'anfægtelse', because doubt was set in motion. Abraham had to choose between the ethical requirements of his surroundings and what he regarded as his absolute duty to God.

This anxiety experienced by Abraham is described by K as anfægtelse. My Spanish edition translated it as anxiety as well. But I found English works which translated it as 'trial of the soul'

This is very interesting...

What did K actually feel like? Anxiety at the moment or what could come afterwards?

you're worrying a lot about this topic, and from a non-spiritual perspective such as mine this looks like the extent of what spiritual trial might be. Judge, jury and defendant in one person, only the defendant isn't much interested in defense.

It's this soul stuff I don't properly understand, though, so I'm likely wrong. So: — Dawnstorm

A trial of the soul is a concept used by Kierkegaard. Precisely, K talks about 'Anfaestgalse' a Danish word which there is a big debate on what really means. I have the Spanish version, and it is translated as 'anxiety', but I found some English papers and the authors translated it as 'trial of the soul'. Approaching the main topic of this thread, I wonder if, after behaving badly or unethically, there would be a trial about my soul. I mean, is there a cause and effect? It is obvious that in the tangible or real world there are a lot of consequences. People stop trusting me and I lack confidence and I suffer from anxiety. But I want to dive deeper into this matter. Afterwards, is there a possibility that our spirit will experience a trial because of our actions? By the way, I am not referring to karma.

I'm not sure what difference a "soul" makes. I never had much use for the concept of "sin", for example. — Dawnstorm

Because sins, bad actions, unethical behaviour, lying, etc, Have to affect someone or something. Don't you think? I believe those affect the vitality of the spirit.

too afraid of the world maybe? — Dawnstorm

Yes, frankly.

It is said to be the etymological origin of the word 'sin' — Wayfarer

Ah! Interesting, thanks for that Wayfarer. It is a pleasure to learn something new. :smile:

It is indeed a good metaphor! I understand what you took from it. Well, everything can be a lesson, don't you think? Even the bitterest consequences of our actions.

If I am not wrong, that quote assumes the sense of being alive is making wrong choices perpetually. There is not anything bad with this, until we pass some limits though. It is not the same as making mistakes for being ignorant than for acting deliberately.

Aren't you inflicting one upon yourself right now? — Dawnstorm

No! I don't think so. There is nothing here which causes me infliction. It is completely otherwise. I think it is good to open myself to others in this thread.

Given the same act, do you find it easier to forgive it in others than in yourself? — Dawnstorm

Indeed. Why does this happen? Well, because when a person (like me) is used to acting in a mask constantly, it is not that difficult to keep acting in the same way. OK. I say sorry to the ones I lied to. But how do I know I will not lie again? This is where the problem arises. I don't want to cause that bad behaviour as part of my 'nature'. At the moment, the only solution to this issue is redeeming myself. To start, finally assuming that acting badly has its consequences and there will be a trial to my spirit after all.

I'm neither spiritual nor religious, so I probably can't fully understand what you're going through. — Dawnstorm

Hmm... Didn't you ever feel anxiety for not acting accordingly to values and ethics?

Bear in mind, one possible derivation of the word 'sin' was 'to miss the mark'. — Wayfarer

Right. It is a softer way to see it.

You often suspend your ethics? Errrr, that doesn't sound so good. — Astrophel

I know Astrophel. :sad:

That's the main point of my concern in this thread. Back in the day, I wasn't aware I was suspending the ethics to achieve ephemeral pleasures, but I did it now. It was not pride but ignorance. At least, I am very aware that I didn't act with purpose or deliberately.
Thanks to this exchange, I am getting to the conclusion that, although I often acted wrongly, and my spirit started to get dirty, I realize I can start to clean it up by proceeding with confession.
If I didn't expose myself on this site, I would suffer from deep anxiety. Don't take my wrong, I suffer a lot in my daily life, or as I call it, the physical/tangible world. I don't usually trust people, I am a reserved person and my opinions or concerns don't usually go out of my mind...
Why does this happen? Well, I already expressed myself and I think I did it clearly. Due to my corrupt actions, I feel fear and anxiety about being rejected.

If I hadn't been honest with my parents (who are the most sacred), how do I know I would not act in the same way with the rest of the people? I usually feel I deserve to be 'ghosted' by the rest, etc. It is scary how all of this is only in myself (or inner me). That sordid feeling that the spirit is dying. Well, I am happy to know I am at this point now. Better later than never. Imagine how many unethical acts I would have done without realizing this problem.

Will there be a trial of the soul after all?

Cool! A bit weird, but the murmur gives me chill vibes. Maybe I am weird too!

You might like this. Ambient by way of spiritual jazz. — Noble Dust

By the way, that track is amazing and brilliant. It is the kind of ambient music I am looking for. These diamonds are very difficult to find around the internet, but I know you have many interesting tracks on your list. Thanks for sharing them with me.

@Noble Dust

Sure! And why not? If it works, it works. I just say, that "it works," is the workings of Mind. — ENOAH

OK, whatever... maybe the spirit and the mind are more tangled than I used to think.

Why? What demonstration of this do you have? This sounds more like an odd compulsion. — Tom Storm

My only demonstration is experience. Whenever I behaved unethically, I felt bad afterwards. But, beyond just my anxiety, it is obvious that my decisions caused a negative impact on the receiver. That's for granted. Sometimes, I deserve the lack of confidence some people have in me.

Dostoevsky (if he wrote this) is wrong. It should be: 'If there is a god, then anything is permitted.' Of course Dostoevsky didn't really put it like this
... — Tom Storm

I promise Dostoyevski wrote it in the way and sense I quoted above. It is is written in the Karamazov Brothers. I think the phrase actually appears as it is written, but maybe the translation differs. I remember the phrase when Ivan and Smerdyakov had the wish for the death of their own father.

Smerdyakov claims that Ivan was complicit in the murder by telling Smerdyakov when he would be leaving Fyodor Pavlovich's house, and more importantly by instilling in Smerdyakov the belief that, in a world without God, "everything is permitted.

What is spirit? — Tom Storm

Good question, Tom. I am writing a lot of posts about the spirit, but I haven't defined it yet! For me, spirit is the representation of ourselves in the intangible world.

But still I think we are talking about healing one and the same thing. Whether we call it Mind or Spirit. It might be convenient for discourse to think of the Mind as, for e.g., the seat of reason, and the spirit, for e.g., as the seat of the sacred, and thus of guilt and despair. They are not divided, but the same thing. — ENOAH

This point is very fascinating... Then, according to your argument, the mind can experience the anxiety about not acting accordingly as well. I wonder this because the mind is where the ration is allocated, and the latter helps us to see the problems and ethical dilemmas more objectively...

You suggest that the Spirit alone can be healed by confession. Yet many forms of psychotherapy involve speaking out your mind's issues to a qualified other. As long as it needs healing by apologizing, — ENOAH

Thank you for your help, understanding and support. But I don't feel I am ready to go into therapy yet. I choose to confess because I feel it is more personal. It is like a redemption with myself.

But yes, K was very disturbed in his struggles with faith, his long nights of inner struggle. Good thing he didn't marry Regina Olsen. — Astrophel

There is an interesting debate about what would have happened to Kierkegaard if he got married to Olsen!

I am certainly not against such a thing, but I think one has to rethink Kierkegaard as a model for spiritual guidance. The existential revolt against Hegel's rationalism puts all eyes on existence, one's personal existence. — Astrophel

It is a great guidance to feel myself better. But, sadly, I don't always understand Kierkegaard. This is due to my lack of knowledge about religious topics. Thus, th content of the Bible or Christian dilemmas. Being a spectator of K coming from an atheist background is fascinating, but I assume I lack key points that maybe a person with a religious background would have. For example: An atheist background would affect me in the sense of denying the existence of a spirit. Thanks to K, I learned this actually exists, and I can experience a tormenting trial of the soul because I often suspended my ethics.

Hello NOS, thanks for your feedback.

Firstly, spirit means something to me. I understand this concept created a big debate in the thread because I read that most fellows don't give this word the credit it deserves. Some argue it is about the mind, and you claim it is the individual behavior after learning for making mistakes. All of these arguments are perfectly taken to improve my knowledge, but what is the cause of behaving accordingly then? Here is my second point in this thread:

I personally believe that every sin, lie or bad action has consequences. I don't tend to see them as a quick response. I lied to my parents but I learned the lesson and I keep living. No... It goes deeper than that and at least this is how I see it. One person doesn't end up with this anxiety because of just one mistake. It is about very corrupt behavior for a long time. When these actions are repeated, the spirit could be dying, getting rotten, putrefacted. If I didn't feel this way, I think I would be an AI. It is not too easy to learn the lesson, or furthermore, to emerge unscathed.

That is what it is about... Suffering from the anxiety of being aware that I had done terrible things. How can I heal this? Some say to go to a therapist, others to see a priest, etc. The only way is to confess. This action goes deeper than just apologizing.

My intention is not to be wholly good. I just don't want to fail in temptations... If I lied to my parents is due to trying to flirt with a woman. Nature surpassed my innocent spirit. But now I understand this clearly: I haven't taken this into account because I was ignorant about taking care of my spirit! I thought there was no soul! No rotten experience! No corruption of the essence! Because without God everything is permitted' as Dostovesky would say... Well, I would say: Without a spirit, everything is permitted.

It might be better to put it where some people feel they belong. There are probably just as many people (perhaps more?) who find churches cold, intimidating, unremittingly vulgar or simply unsafe on account of having been abused (or know people abused) by religious clerics and laypeople. Just saying. :wink: — Tom Storm

You are right, Tom. It is true that churches can be intimidating for some. I will not lie and say every sacred temple is friendly. Here is another big difference between the groups inside Christianity. While Gothic churches are tenebrous, Lutheran churches are friendly, minimalist, transparent, etc. And they give a sense of peace. This is what I felt when I was in Denmark at least. :sweat:

The meta-ethics will assuredly heal your "spirit," but you are (respectfully) unwittingly using "spirit" when you mean Mind..
— ENOAH

The malaise you reference is a construct of the Mind. — ENOAH

It is another way to approach this issue. Honestly, I haven't thought about my mind once since I started expressing my anxiety in this thread. This is due to the fact that I consider the mind as a part of the problem. When I didn't act accordingly, I ended up with the conclusion that my mind was flawed because it didn't stop me. A big sense of free will which my mind provides drove me to a sense of guilt later on. For me, the mind, it is where rationality is allocated. What I learnt after some experiences was that the mind does not always act ethically. The spirit goes beyond this. Who is the part of my body which suffers from guilt or despair? I am talking about intangible states. Does rationality go to despair or 'sins'? I think not...

The system works. It doesn't have to be religion. You feel bad. Fix it. Apologize and henceforth be honest. — ENOAH

You are referring to apologise, but I am referring to confess. I can say sorry for not acting accordingly, but will this act heal my spirit? As far as I understand this, confessing only heals the spirit because the latter is sacred, religious, etc. I mean, they are different concepts with different results. Don't you think?

Where Kierkegaard holds that he can never be a knight of faith because he could never truly suspend the ethical as Abraham did, meditation goes further (as yet not as far): meditation is an annihilation of ones "existence". Abraham is simply suspended, as are daily affairs, politics, one's personality, everything. Suspended, put out of play, forgotten. All in search of one's true primordial self, which is rapturous. — Astrophel

Good point! And Jesus! God (or whatever deity) blessed his soul for interpreting in such an intelligent way the dilemma of Abraham. If I am not wrong, K admitted he had a lot of admiration for Abraham for suspending the ethical. I read the Spanish version, but looking around the internet I found this interesting commentary:

Abraham “intending the death of his son” on Mount Moriah did not bother most “classical Jewish thinkers, because they never conceived of this act as murder. For them, Isaac was an appendage of the father, and Abraham’s act was one of supreme self-sacrifice.” In other words, in an archaic view according to which Isaac is Abraham’s most prized possession, his willingness to offer Isaac back to the same God who gave Isaac by miracle to his aged wife Sarah is proof of Abraham’s absolute devotion. However foreign this view of children is to us now, it helps remind us that the problems and lessons which Kierkegaard intends us to see in the story of Abraham and Isaac may not be close to those on which ancient Hebrew readers or medieval Jewish scholars focused. Our topic is Kierkegaard’s sense of the story, not the original Akedah itself, however far the implications drawn by his pseudonym Johannes de silentio may be from the true intent of the book of Genesis. And for him, the idea that Abraham might be guilty of attempted or intended (even if forestalled) murder is crucial. — Eschatological faith and repetition: Kierkegaard’s Abraham and Job

The church will give you nonsense and faith. Kierkegaard knew this!! — Astrophel

:lol:

Kierkegaard is a radical philosopher, complaining about the church as an institution, on the one hand, and Hegel on the other, — Astrophel

Kierkegaard didn't want to be a philosopher in the literal sense, and he, in opposition to Hegel, didn't preach Christianity as an illusion. K also considered himself an undoubtedly Lutheran, etc. I personally think Kierkegaard felt more comfortable debating about theology, the Bible and Christian Ethics. He became a philosopher accidentally. I see him as one of the representatives of existentialism. I really like K and I always like to get deeper in his thoughts. I think this has already been discussed here but Kierkegaard, apart from other things, is dialect! He used specific words in Danish which are difficult to translate into our languages, like 'anfægtelse' which means 'spiritual trial'. Kierkegaard shows the anguish inherent to the authentic God-relationship and also the dangerous possibility of the individual imagination's. It is here that Kierkegaard's emphasis upon individual responsibility.

Hello ENOAH. Nice feedback.

The former's "purpose" is soteriological, or emancipatory. That is, to "lift" one up from/out of secular and mundane attachments, including morality. To use Eliade's term, It belongs to the sacred. — ENOAH

I agree that "religions" have exploited spirituality to "scare" us into accepting that the main purpose of same is to "be good." — ENOAH

The concept of sacred is sometimes blurred. I knew I would end up in a complex rabbit hole because of the limitless significance of religious concepts and their extension. Nonetheless, I think we can agree that religion (or Abrahamic/Judaism beliefs) and theology are the only branches which actually believe in the existence of a spirit. I want to sound clearer. A theologian would defend that the spirit is a tangible being separated from our body. I also believe there has to be a spirit, but I disagree with religious dogmas. Maybe I sound contradictory, but I want to know where I should look at... I feel my spirit is sick and if I attend meta-ethics they will teach me about principles to motivate better behavior. But where did my spirit go? It is clear that a secular system rejects the existence of a spirit.

I mean, if there is a God, and or a spiritual reality, why would it be restricted by our relative morality? And if you think religious morality is not relative, read the old testament, koran, and Mahabharatas to see how much our religious morality has evolved (improved!), relative to our secular views. — ENOAH

I haven't denied the relativity of holy books. It is obvious that the interpretation of values and ethics are opened to each person and this proves that ethics can rarely seen objectively. Yet I agree with some users who claim there have to be universal principles or code of conduct which we can rely on. Do you agree with me that lying to our parents is one of the dirtiest things to do? I personally believe this is accepted by all. What comes afterwards, thus, the consequences is very relative. I feel my spirit is rotten after doing so, but others claim to calm down and try to learn the lesso, keep going and find a code according to my nature.

Yes, morality is a bi-product; but not the essence of spirituality. — ENOAH

Again. If morality is not the essence of spirituality, why do we act accordingly? We establish values, principles, ideas, beliefs, etc, arbitrary not randomly.

Interesting thoughts. I like that you feel nostalgic about its aesthetic vibe, rituals, ceremonies, etc. Churches have always been (and they still are) a place where people feel they belong to. I only disagree with why these sacred places are the ones where I can redeem my spirit or myself. It is true that, thanks to the advancement of technology or other disciplines, each person can express himself freely and feel heard. But let's be honest, I can't go to random places and confess I feel my spirit is sick. I debated this with 180 proof, and he said to me, I should go to either a therapist or a priest... Let's see where I end up with.

The Church and Christianity in general was and I think still is a remarkable and fascinating hodgepodge of certain ancient pagan philosophical and religious beliefs and Judaism, but I stopped being a believer long ago. — Ciceronianus

It is very remarkable that most of you share the same experience. Everyone started with a good hype, but when time passes by, each person starts to lose the aim of believing in God. Why does this happen? I mean, I understand your reasons, but it is unclear to me why many people end up losing interest in Abrahamic ideas.

How about difficult philosophical reading? — Astrophel

Philosophy is difficult per se. I never found a philosopher who wrote his essays or texts with clarity. I guess this is one of the main features of philosophy. Furthermore its difficulty, I haven't limited myself to jumping and reading classic philosophical authors. Kierkegaard is the philosopher (or theologian, according to others) who I read the most, and I even reread some of his works, like 'Fear and Trembling'. I don't attempt to diminish the great quality and quantitative value of philosophy. It is very important, and I am always interested in it. Nonetheless, I have been coming through different perspectives thanks to reading Kazantzakis and Dostoevsky. I hadn't accordingly rated Christian Ethics with sincerity until I read those authors. They changed my view on life, and well, thanks to them, I discovered an important premise in my beliefs: I fully believe I have a spirit (which can be corrupted by bad actions), but I struggle with religious faith/dogmas.

What is this about, this terms that are so much in play when religion discussed, terms like redemption, the soul, divinity, holiness, heaven and hell, the glory of God, miracles, eschatology, and so on? — Astrophel

It is not necessary to take all those religious concepts are granted and I fully respect the people who don't buy sacred texts and ideas. Due to religious books are always that controversial, I wonder if I can believe I have a spirit without getting tangled in religion or not.

Read Kierkegaard — Astrophel

I already did. Thanks to him, I started this thread. :smile:

Frankly, the matter gets wickedly difficult because one seeks something so occluded by historical institutions and these have to be argued out of one's thinking — Astrophel

Exactly. This is one of the main concerns I exchanged with MU. It is unfair that the Church seems to be the only place where my spirit may be heard. Some institutions take natural worries as part of them...

Good point, and your comment made me understand myself better. Yes, it is obvious that I am enforcing a code of conduct. If this happens, it is due to a sense of despair. What you consider as 'very nature' (seeking a woman). I experienced it as a tremendous fault, a sin, indecent behaviour. If only I were honest with my parents, I wouldn't have experienced this anxiety. The key element is why I am not more transparent, and here is where the code of conduct and my hypocrisy crash.

When I started this thread, I admitted that I struggle with religious faith and ethics because some of the Bible's content is not reliable because it is written by the Gospels. Nonetheless, I am aware that I have a spirit and the latter started to get rotten because I didn't act accordingly in some actions. Yet this is very new in my life because, in the old version of myself, I never considered it a bad action to lie to my parents. It is something I realised recently. So, this behaviour truly reflected my nature.

For this reason, I think I don't have to change my code but my corrupted nature...

It may be true that we can reach a state of perfect equanimity, insight and eternal repose, but it seems very hard to square with the reality of the human condition which is typically considerably more fraught. And that is where belief enters the picture, even if, in an ideal existence, it may not be necessary, or it might become superfluous. — Wayfarer

I agree in the sense that it is very difficult to square them in the huge difficulty of the human condition. But why is the belief superfluous to spiritual repose? I see these two are connected. It is true that I can't see which preceded the other. One of the main points of my arguments in this thread is that I actually believe I have a spirit and I want an equanimity in it. If I give up on one of these two sets, the equation is useless.

I understand you better now, 180 proof. I was asking those questions with the aim of receiving new inputs, and I appreciate your feedback on this thread. I thought moral judgement or values were dependent upon the belief in the existence of a soul/spirit... but now, I also take into account your views and opinion. Another perspective to help me to understand.

Nonetheless, I have to be clearer on one specific aspect: I do not have anxiety because of my 'inconsistently choosing' to follow rules, but precisely, because I haven't followed them sometimes. And the consequences of not following a code of conduct, values, virtues, etc. (Whatever if they are religious or not), made me end up in a state of awareness where I feel my soul is rotten. At least, I already accepted this fact, as I confessed to Metaphysician Undercover and BC...

Honestly, I don't get why you doubt whether I am sincere or not on this topic. I personally believe that, if you read my answers, you will notice that I am opening myself (and spirit) to the people here. I hate not being sincere, and therefore I promise I am answering frankly.

If love is your top priority, you will not act badly. Of course, we are all influenced by a variety of different things though. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, BC referred to love. I wasn't aware that this could be a motivation for behaving accordingly to values... I guess I have to find out where love is located because I tend to be very sceptical about it.

If you lied to your parents, then you allowed something to take higher priority than love of your parents. but that's what I mean when I say we are influenced by a variety of different things. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you are trying to help me to not feel that bad about myself, and I appreciate your support a lot. The exchanges in this thread are more helpful than my sessions with my therapist, indeed. Nonetheless, I disagree with you in that quote above. I personally believe there should not be anything greater than the love for my parents. I am very influenced by Dostoevsky on this issue. If I allow 'something' to be more important than my respect for them, I am acting both selfishly and negatively. There is no doubt that a person can be influenced by many factors. Some of them could be fear and shame. Shame to tell them the truth, and shame because of the following consequences. But these are just weak arguments. Lying is even worse, and the latter is the main cause of why I sometimes feel I am sinning... and sickening my spirit. I am lucky that my parents always raised me accordingly, and they have never been abusive to me. I don't have any excuse for lying to them.

In other words, I like to always keep myself busy, because the bad habits never seem to get completely annihilated, they lurk so be aware. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good advise.

Who are the inheritors of the crown of Castile? — Vera Mont

Me. I am Castilian.

Do they all behave in the same way? — Vera Mont

No. Absolutely not. But I think it is very difficult for me to prove it.

Who here has commented on? — Vera Mont

Really? Is this new or what? :roll: We already discussed this, Vera... In this thread and another with Ciceronianus.

Cheers, BC. Your comments are always a source of wisdom. Everything seems too big, interesting and unlimited. I know that perhaps getting deeply into Abrahamic religions will not make me a better person, but I am now at a point in my life where I need different ideas. I rejected these issues, and theology precisely, because I always considered them as something to be opposed to. It is unfair because I never really had a good cause or basis to oppose myself to different beliefs. Keep in mind that my intention is not to find a meaningful way to live, but to be alive without the less possible sense of despair, sins, guilt, etc. I know I can get this if I try to be a better person. At least, I started with the basic starting point: I accept I haven't always been a nice person, and I feel my spirit got poisoned by bad manners and unethical behavior.

Practice good scholarship with your books and practice loving kindness with your neighbors. — BC

I think I always behave kindly towards my neighbors. I say Good Morning when I meet them, and I am not a toxic fellow. I don't cheat on the water counter supply, nor destroy the elevator. I think this is common sense, and it is how every neighbor should behave in the community. This is the best ground for putting my ethical concerns into practice, but my worries go deeper.
I am concerned about abstract problems: lying and its consequences; having sexual desires without limitation; wasting savings on useless stuff when they were there for food or supplies, etc. I don't understand why I shortly act this way sometimes...
What I am aware is that this is bad and it corrupts my soul.

... The first step has already been taken: self-realization.

Who is going to say that I am not unintentionally prophetic? — Lionino

Yeah. Who would say otherwise? Sorry, I didn't pay so much attention in the replies of this thread because it is always the same. North European countries are good, South European countries are bad. Christianity is very evil, and it is against democracy, etc. It is funny how some say I should not judge in mass. But they quickly spread negative comments on the inheritors of the Crown of the Castile.

From the perspective of a 'naturalistic moral agent' one judges whether "lying" or "honesty" reduces needless suffering (right) or fails to reduce needless suffering (wrong) and then one acts accordingly. Practice – learning by trial and error application of this principle (criterion) – gradually improves (habitualizes) moral judgment/conduct. — 180 Proof

Agreed. But... The improvement of moral judgment/conduct needs to affect something, for better or worse. I know those will affect my spirit because I believe I have one. But how would affect you 180 proof, if you reject spirituality? What is the aim or cause of improving my moral judgment according to your beliefs and ideas? You just reduce this to 'needless suffering (right) or fails to reduce needless suffering (wrong)'
Don't you think it could all be deeper than that surface?

What is displayed here is a move away from a system consisting of a code of ethics stipulating what you ought not do, toward a virtue ethics directing you to act toward appropriate ends. The virtue ethics provides guidance to motivate good behaviour, instead of the code of ethics which provides rules to deter bad behaviour. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting input, friend. I am not attempting to move forward to something, because I haven't started at any point yet. The virtue ethics can serve me as guidance to motivate my good behavior. This sounds great, but again I fall into some questions and doubts. What is it to have a good behavior? What if I have good behavior, but I accidentally lie to my parents once? Etc. Also, I guess that guidance has to be based on basic and universal principles of ethics. Although you clearly distinguished both figures, I think they can overlap because they find the same appropriate end. One motivates good behavior and the other helps to avoid bad acts. Can we use these two at the same time? I think it could be worthwhile with the aim of avoiding a sense of guilt, corruption and putrefaction of my soul.

Confession is a big part Catholicism. It is the first step toward forgiveness, which is the way to bring yourself out from those bad feelings associated with guilt. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't confessed to a priest in my entire life yet. I think this act would prove that I am contradictory, because if I didn't buy the writings of the Gospels, I should not go to a Church to confess myself. What will the priest do, by the way? He would listen and answer generic answers based on the Bible. This is another reason why I struggle with religious faith. It is unfair that sacred temples - like churches - and their members are the only places to confess the redemption of the spirit. I wish we could do this differently...

Do I sound contradictory if I say I believe I have a soul, but I reject the institution where my spirit can be listed?

On the other hand, I wonder whether a person can experience bad feelings if he rejects the existence of spirituality. Because guilt, sins, lies, bad actions, etc., only rot the essence of the spirit. What would be the main point otherwise?

What do you think makes Kierkegaard's "teleological suspension of the ethical" possible? Ethics (re: eusocial norms of judgment and conduct) and religion (re: cultic paths to salvation/liberation) are independent of each other — 180 Proof

Good point.

Maybe you have an emotional need for "faith" (i.e. magical thinking) but it's the unbelievability – hope for things too good to be true – — 180 Proof

No. I promise I don't have any emotional need to achieve faith. I know I could be hypocritical and cynical if I tried to find out faith somewhere when I didn't even buy the writings of the Gospels. But what can I do? There has to be a path, code of conduct, teaching, behaviour, etc. Which can help to understand the correct way to act. In the latter, my intention is to see ethics objectively. Is there a universal principle of good and bad? What about lying and honesty? Etc.

As I confessed to Metaphysician Undercover, I lied to my parents multiple times. Some would say it is not a big deal because these things usually happen. But I think it is bad anyway, and my soul feels corrupted, or as James Joyce says: engendered by putrefaction.

I think it could be universally accepted that cheating and lying to someone who loves (or respects) you is evil/bad. Even more, when we are talking about relatives.
Dostoevsky uses this dilemma a lot in his novels... 'Crime and Punishment' is a good example. That sordid and unbearable mental and spiritual state when someone is fully aware that he is lying to others and experiences an ethical dilemma with himself...

From what I understand there is quite a debate within Christian theological circles about the original teachings of Jesus Christ, which I think is the result of people wanting to return to the source material for essentially the reasons we're discussing here. — Tzeentch

I know. What I attempted to explain is that we don't have a book or text written by Jesus of Nazareth. There is not a record of that. The extensions of his teachings are located in the Bible. A text that, for better or worse, tries to teach a code of conduct, or basic notion of values/ethics at least.

I'd consider it very natural for the philosophically inclined to find religious faith problematic and to desire the actual understanding — Tzeentch

True, and I am getting one of these conclusions during the debate of this thread. Honestly, I have never considered the religious faith problematic, but not reliable... If I am not wrong, ethics and values are a set of principles which help us find the correct answer to moral dilemmas. Where is the problem? Well, in most cases, these sets are written or established by creeds. This is why I struggle with religious faith, because I want to understand Christian Ethics objectively. But the cross-cultural interference hit me drastically. I think the understanding of these values depends upon each person. Some would say philosophical teachings are more reliable, others would choose theology instead, etc.

Hey, thanks Wafarer, for your book recommendation.

And I've come to realise that this is what philosophical spirituality is always trying to convey, but that it's a very difficult thing to convey and to understand — Wayfarer

Indeed. This was the main point of starting this thread. I knew I would receive substantial and helpful answers, and that's exactly what happened with the exchanges with the fellows.

It is an exploration of the relationship between the individual life and the ultimate nature of being, through the perspective of Eastern philosophy particularly Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism, but also with references to Christian mysticism. — Wayfarer

Before diving into this complexity, I think I should start to understand the basic teachings of Buddhism and Eastern philosophy, but obviously by keeping in mind Christian mysticism. I am aware this could take years. It is a path I am ready to try. I was always an infantile atheist, and I never respected those ideas and beliefs. Now, everything has turned different. I want to be more open-minded on this matter.

If I want to know about Christianity, I want to know what Christ - the sage - had to say. His followers I'm not so interested in. — Tzeentch

Very good point, Tzeentch. But, sadly, the teachings, values and ethics of Jesus only appear in the Gospels, which were twisted and even invented by the apostles...

I agree. It is true that the Church maintains a complex hierarchical organisation, non-democratic, and corrupted. Yet, as I said previously, I am not very interested in the role of the Church. If I wanted to get deep into it, I would be disappointed. This is why I struggle with religious faith. It seems to me that 'Christian Ethics and Values' (or whatever we can call it) is kidnapped by the Church, and if someone is interested in how it works, he needs to be part of the creed. Hmm... not my cup of tea indeed. I fully dislike how spirituality depends on them and their 'lectures'.