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... — javi2541997

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.

Anyway, to come back to your original problem;

I think religious faith is not necessary for those who are able to retrace the footsteps of the sage and understand their teachings.

The problem is that due to the profoundity of such teachings, many lack the capability, will or time to fully understand them. Religious faith and religion is the next best thing to actual understanding, or so some may argue.

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

It seems to me that 'Christian Ethics and Values' (or whatever we can call it) is kidnapped by the Church. — javi2541997

After all, "the Church" invented "Christian Ethics and Values" which, in effect, "kidnapped" pre-religious, naturalistic morality just like other cults had always done and still do. As Plato's Euthyphro implies: morality and laws cannot follow from the decrees of "God or gods", javi. 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, even though the latter usually "kidnaps" the former. However, Good is not dependent on "God or gods" and vice versa.

This is why I struggle with religious faith.

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 – that is in conflict with your reason and/or lived experience. Maybe you'd benefit from therapy rather than reading about the 'spiritual torments' of others and online discussions like this one ...

As Plato's Euthyphro implies: morality and laws cannot follow from the decrees of "God or gods", javi — 180 Proof

We create our own values, therefore we are gods, although small.

We create our own values, therefore we are gods, although small. — bert1

:roll:

Yeah, who said we're small!?!

I'm getting larger by the week.

some people are gods, some people are blobs

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.

The statement is interesting. I guess you consider it as something to obey. Did you impose this belief yourself? I agree with you. Philosophy is a very reliable tool which helps us to understand ourselves and what is around... But it is not the epitome. I often felt lost when I searched for answers regarding ethics and values. — javi2541997

I found that the rational inquiry for ethics and values didn't help me understand my own place in the world at all. Even if I did get attached to a new ethical theory, so what? Why do I have to always obey it? What did e.g. utilitarianism tell me about me as a person? Not very much except that I'm basically one ethical unit among many. That's why you get these philosophers who may be very book smart but fail as people and live unhappy lives because they can't function in society or form meaningful relationships.

I believe in God because I find revealed wisdom that is so rare and brilliant within the Bible that I have no term for other than divine revelation. I don't know how ancient people would have reached these conclusions just by themselves especially given we as moderns didn't. It's like recovering lost knowledge. Divine dialogues reveal truths that reason just cannot penetrate yet are necessary for life/a healthy society.

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...

I remember reading Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception & Perennial Philosophy years ago and he comes to a similar conclusions regarding our inherent connectedness. I've heard such ideas before and they're intriguing but I'm not quite sure what the upshot is. Where does one go from there?

... my intention is to see ethics objectively. Is there a universal principle of good and bad? — javi2541997

Yes. Consider the 'naturalistic morality' I've pointed out already ...

Reducing suffering is like reducing illness: though the local customs of morality (or public health) vary, the problem confronted is the same for every member of the human species. How can it not be? — 180 Proof

And furthermore:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892545

What about lying and honesty? Etc.

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.

Firstly, yes, I am trying to establish a forced code of ethics. — javi2541997

Why? What I tried to relay to you, is that the forced code of ethics is the wrong way. Notice that a central tenet in The Old Testament is The Ten Commandments, then in The New Testament, this is reduced to one principle 'love thy neighbour as thyself' or "The Golden Rule". This marks a huge advancement in moral principles. Instead of a whole list of things "Thou shalt not...", a code of ethics, there is simply one principle of guidance toward how you ought to behave. 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.

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. — javi2541997

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. The first principle, "Love" encourages one to forgive, and forgiving encourages confession. Confession allows one to rid oneself of those bad feelings.

Ethics then is a prerequisite for freedom. The man who can't actualize what he thinks is truly good is limited in some way, as is the man who acts out of ignorance about what is truly good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sorry Count, but I totally disagree with what you posted. Freedom is clearly prior to ethics, as the reason why ethics is needed. If it was the case, that there was no freedom prior to the existence of ethics, then ethics would never come into existence because there would be no need for ethics, being no freedom to act otherwise, nor even the freedom to create ethics.

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?

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?

On the one hand, you could spend the rest of your long life sorting out just some of the issues tangled up in the theology and history of Judaism and Christianity -- and it would be quite interesting, but it won't in itself make you a better person.

On the other hand, you could try to apply the summation provided by Jesus: Love one another as I have loved you. (John 13:34) Doing this will make you a better person, whatever else you decide to do in your life.

You have a scholarly bent, and that is a good thing--don't lose it. But when you are looking for meaning in this life, you will find it in your relationships with other people. There's no contradiction here. Practice good scholarship with your books and practice loving kindness with your neighbors.

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.

Where does one go from there? — BitconnectCarlos

Practice, study, contemplate.

But when you are looking for meaning in this life, you will find it in your relationships with other people. — BC

You can find it many other places, depending on your dispositions. I think it's reasonable to know this, a head of time, so you don't despair if those relationships are unfulfilling. It took me nearly 30 years to find meaningful relationships - and there is no discernable reason for this. Other things fulfilled me.

You said: "My basic point is that I always have a deep spiritual concern for morality and values." There are genuine ways to approach this issue philosophically. Spirituality is not a term so irrational that it defies discussion, in fact, it is the kind of thing one finds in the very essence of philosophy once mundane conversations are put on hold and more penetrating inquiry is desired. I am simply pointing out that if you are sincere about this, but you are fed up with with the wishy washy thinking and the equally deplorable dogma of popular religions, and want something substantive and meaningful that is not instantly assailable, then philosophy can accommodate. It does take some work, though. Sincere people are willing to put in the work.

Certainly there are many meaningful and meaning-giving endeavors which we can undertake. But for better or for worse, we are made by our relationships with other people -- parents and siblings first, then peers, teachers, neighbors, gangs, acquaintances, partners, lovers, etc. There's nothing simple or guaranteed about any relationship. Living in relationship with others can be hard -- maybe impossible with some people.

But for better or for worse, we are made by our relationships with other people -- parents and siblings first, then peers, teachers, neighbors, gangs, acquaintances, partners, lovers, etc. — BC

While it's probably impossible to reject the underlying idea (that relationships are unavoidable, and carry meaning even if we ignore it) I don't think they 'make' us, any more than our biology does. Which is to say, a lot. LMAO.

What is it to have a good behavior? — javi2541997

The good behaviour is what comes naturally from the principle of love, as described by BC above. If love is your top priority, you will not act badly. Of course, we are all influenced by a variety of different things though.

What if I have good behavior, but I accidentally lie to my parents once? — javi2541997

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.

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... — javi2541997

I as well, believe that you do not need the Church to redeem yourself. The example of Catholic confession was an example of the type of thing which could be done, but it is obviously not the only route to redemption. If you keep in mind that principle of love, described by BC, or a similar principle, you'll find many different ways to redeem yourself.

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. — javi2541997

I suggest that you consider these things as habits. Habits, when identified as bad, are difficult to break. The first step, which you've made, is to recognize them as bad. That is the point of confession, you're beyond that now. The next is to move forward with a strategy which will allow your will power to break the bad habit. Different types of people use different types of strategies, and different types of strategies are required for different types of habits. Each bad habit has to be individualized and a plan put in place specifically designed for annihilating it. And make your goals achievable, aiming too high invites failure which is not conducive to mental health. Remember habits are difficult to break, often requiring much time. I like to find many things to do, to occupy my time, (like being here), and this directs my attention away from the influence of the bad habits. 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.

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.

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.

I know those will affect my spirit because I believe I have one. But how would affect you 180 proof, if you reject spirituality? — javi2541997

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking, javi. As a moral naturalist, I believe the "affect" on me has been to help me daily to be a more effective moral agent who is also free of superstitions. :strong:

What is the aim or cause of improving my moral judgment according to your beliefs and ideas?

The "aim or cause" is to develop habits of "moral judgment" (i.e. virtues) in order to help reduce your apparent anxiety at 'inconsistently choosing' to follow rules (i.e. "obey religious commandments"). I assumed I'd made this clear in my previous posts. :confused:

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...

I think religious faith is not necessary for those who are able to retrace the footsteps of the sage and understand their teachings. — Tzeentch

I wanted to circle back to this as it makes an important point. Originally this pursuit of 'retracing the footsteps' was very much the practice of ancient philosophy (as Pierre Hadot explains in his books). 'The sage' was regarded as exemplar, one whose conduct and understanding were exemplary, and whom the students, often referred to as disciples, were to emulate and follow. In that respect ancient philosophical schools were more like a religious order than is today's philosophy (a point Hadot also makes).

But there's another factor in respect of religious traditions, and that is the idea of revealed truth or spiritual illumination which provides the liberating understanding that is being sought by the disciple. 'You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free', said the Biblical Jesus. But it turns out that 'knowing the truth' is a pretty difficult ask. 'Be ye perfect, even as your father in Heaven is perfect', was another commandment. Also daunting, right? We don't know, and we know that we don't know, and we also know that we are sometimes in:

a state of awareness where I feel my soul is rotten — javi2541997

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.

I feel my soul is rotten — javi2541997

Forgive me but this sounds like you need a therapist or priest and I don't think you'll find either here on TPF.

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. — javi2541997

Didn't you say that you lied to your mom to tell her that you were going to the library when you were really going to see a woman? So, isn't this an instance of something taking higher priority than love for your parents? As much as you say "there should not be anything greater than the love for my parents" you allow that there actually is something greater, and that affects your behaviour accordingly. This is how divisions within oneself arise, conflicting priorities which divide you.

That is the reason for the anxiety you describe, and the reason why you say your soul is rotten. You do not adhere to your own code. You attempt to enforce a code (nothing higher than your parents) which is contrary to your very nature (you seek a woman). Therefore a chasm opens up between your code and your actions. Now, you must either change your code to reflect more truly your nature, or exercise your will power and determination, to enforce your code, and annihilate parts of your nature determined as consisting of bad habits. Otherwise you will be forever torn between your code and your actions, rife with anxiety concerning what you apprehend as your own sins.