MISINTERPRETATION OF RELIGION…………..THE BIG FUGAZZI

Perhaps it is because we are humans that we tend to want what is convenient for us. Perhaps it is because we are humans that we tend to define religion and its scriptures to suit our wants and benefits, or perhaps it is because we need to find something and somewhere we can fit into, that yet satisfies our spiritual needs. Perhaps it is because of this that there are many different religious sects today.

However, it dazzles me how people can choose to accept one part of a whole and reject the other parts of that same whole. Could it be that parts of that whole are bad and the other parts are good? Or could it be just hypocrisy? If Evangelicals say that one must be born again (second baptism) to receive salvation, and Protestants do not, then which is wrong and which is right? An Evangelical definition of being born again would be to repent of one’s sins and accept Jesus Christ as one’s personal lord and saviour. Pentecostals emphasize speaking in tongues and place an emphasis on miracles. This is simply taking a specific scene in the book of the Acts of the Apostles in the new testament, where the disciple were said to have received the gift of the holy spirit; the day of Pentecost, and making it the foundation and basis of a religion, thereby disregarding other important parts of the bible. Surely, this cannot be right or proper. I mean, Jesus Christ supposedly came to save mankind and is said to have suffered death and humiliation for the sake of mankind. Supposedly, it is from the name Christ, that Christianity emerged; Christ-like. If all this is true, then it must be wrong to place emphasis on a scene that took place after his death, and make it the foundation of one’s religion, thereby disregarding other fundamentals of Christianity.

This can also be related to the Fundamentalists, where they believe that modern society is very sinful and unrighteous and so they resort to a more conservative age. The true question however, lies in whether modern society is really sinful, or if they would just rather prefer a more backwards society simply because they cannot afford or keep up with changes in society. The problem of misinterpretation is also evident in Islam. Although the Quran remains in Arabic, and the translation of it into other languages is still discouraged (for fear of misinterpretation), the fallacy of misinterpretation still rears its ugly neck. The concept of Jihad has been one which has been translated and interpreted to mean something which was unintended. There is the jihad by the heart, which is the most important Jihad and which means purging oneself of wickedness as well as cleansing one from evil. There is also the jihad by the tongue, which means verbal persuasion to correct injustice; the jihad by the hands, which means undertaking good works to correct injustice; and jihad by the sword, which means warfare. However, radical Muslims have unnecessarily placed a greater emphasis on the jihad by the sword. They have even abandoned certain guidelines which are supposed to be applicable whilst practicing the jihad by warfare; guidelines like withdraw when opponent withdraws, and how it is supposed to be a defensive tactic, rather than an offensive tactic.

            Yet, religions still often share similar beliefs, concepts and ideas. All religions at least, to an extent share the same basic principles that one must encourage good and discourage evil. The Ten Commandments, the hadith, and other cardinal principles of other religions, share some like values such as discouraging killing of other people and encouraging concepts of loving one’s neighbors. Other values include having respect for one’s parents as well as adults. However, the problems, errors, fallacies and blunders, that religions have managed to attract over the course of years, far outweigh the part of its intended purpose that has stayed unchanged. This, apparently is made evident in the constant splintering and division of religions, as well as religious crisis all over the world. It now becomes very difficult to determine which religion is right and which is wrong. Furthermore, one starts to wonder if there may indeed be a true religion, or if religion simply arose from Man’s need to believe in something. For, how can so many different religions ask you to believe them, or prioritize them over the other religions? Then they would have to either be right or wrong? And if all of them are right then no one is wrong? Supposing all of them were wrong? Then all these years of scholarly and theological research and philosophical thoughts would be in vain.

 So is the whole concept of religion just a “fugazzi?” Is it all a facade. Or is it just a truth with many faces?

 

Uchechukwu Onwuzuruoha

There is nothin…

There is nothing new in life. There are no firsts. Only repetitions. Our actions are repetitive of previous actions. Life therefore, is only a mirror of previous life. And our actions are mere reincarnations of former actions

THE PHILOSOPHY OF REVENGE

There is a quote by William Shakespeare which comes from one of his very famous works, The Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare, through the character of Shylock, tries to examine the ideology behind revenge. The quote is as follows: “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” For most people, vengeance is only a mirror action. Hence the common saying; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I mean, it seems pretty logical. One ought not to inflict upon another, any action which they cannot sincerely and truthfully wish be brought upon them. A good deed for a good deed; and in that same note, a bad deed for a bad deed. The problem however lies in weighing out revenge in such a way that it is proportionate to the action being avenged. In other words, how do you serve sweet cold revenge to your enemies?

In order for revenge to be revenge, it has to fulfill certain objectives. It should be able to make the enemy feel some sort of regret for the wrong they did to you. And whereas, certain intellectuals and philosophers may argue that revenge can serve no positive purpose and the thirst for vengeance can be self-destructive, it is also important to note that the thirst for vengeance can be a very powerful motivator. That being said, the only real revenge that can serve its intended purpose, without having any negative connotation to it, is success. Success used as a tool of revenge, is without act, and is often effortless. It becomes as if vengeance was served without one acting. Success works wonders. Success buys you everything; it buys you better everythings. It buys you a better life, a better support system, it commands you respect, and it even buys you better fake friends. And not only is success a more effective tool for revenge, but it is also a safer way to seek vengeance. Revenge is often driven by anger and anger just spoils things. In the quest to exert revenge, one may get so controlled by anger that they end up destroying the enemy……..and themselves. So should we forgive and forget? Or should we seek revenge and end up finding regret?

So why revenge? Why not forgive? There are philosophers that believe that forgiveness is the best form of revenge. That one ought to just let go and move on. That this is the superior thing to do. That in the name of brotherhood, one ought not to so much as even think evil against another even after one has been wronged.  On that note, let us examine this ancient Arabic saying by the Islamic prophet Sahih al-Bukhari, that when translated in English, goes something like this, “None of you believe, until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” It sounds pretty basic. You hear it and you think it’s sort of like the Golden Rule, “Do unto others what you will that they do unto you.” Well it’s not. Whereas, the Golden Rule holds you to your actions, the above quotation holds you to your thoughts. No one is watching. No one sees what you think. No one judges your thoughts; except you. The idea therefore, is that if you can involuntarily hold yourself to such a standard that your thoughts are so sincere and unbiased, then you can say you have truly understood the concept of brotherhood…….and forgiveness.

However, brotherhood is flawed. Our world is flawed. People are flawed. The concept of true brotherhood would only work in an ideal world. And we as humans need to feel some sort of control. We need to feel that we did not completely give up, accept defeat and let go, without first putting up a fight. We need to feel that we fought to right the wrongs that was done to us. So, why not just succeed, excel and let your enemies say “Oh, we wish we had not wronged him, now he has excelled far past our farthest imaginations?”

 

Uchechukwu Onwuzuruoha

Think about RELIGION; and think about its IDEOLOGY

A good definition of religion would be the practice of spiritual beliefs, or it could be defined as a group of people who share similar spiritual beliefs; or even just the ritual observance of faith. In our world today, religion has encompassed so many blunders and fallacies which have made it lose almost all of the distinctive features of its intended definition and concepts.

There are many different religions today; all of which have a decent amount of old age in them. I do not bear a grudge against religion, nor do I resent people who wish to observe and manifest their spirituality. However, what bewilders me is the many numerous sects within them. If religion is a group of people who wish to express similar beliefs, could it be that after a certain period of time, they no longer wish to express those beliefs? Perhaps they attain a certain height of exceptional spirituality that gives them insight on the ideal values and norms a religion should possess and so they venture to change it, or perhaps the answer lies in the simple philosophy that the only thing constant in life is change? Or do people become religious just to feel a sense of belonging, and when they no longer feel the connection, they tend to alter it to suit their needs? I do not have the answers to these questions, and if I did, I would be in the eyes of other men, another philosopher on the face of the earth, seeking recognition………seeking followers.

But I learned some time ago that religion is not a matter of facts, but meanings. Every religion has the basic ideology of doing ‘good’ and not engaging in ‘evil’. However, the problem arises in defining the concept of good and evil. Is good, simply loving your neighbour as you love yourself? Is it simply cherishing one’s heritage and tradition? Is it simply having respect for authority? Is it just living ethically and ritualistically? Or is it a compilation of all these values into one ideal value? The various religions in existence today would beg to differ. Even more differing are the sects within same religions. Whereas Theravada Buddhists stress the need to help oneself, Mahayana Buddhists on the other hand, emphasize that one does not seek salvation through enlightenment for himself alone, but for others as well. Tibetan Buddhists stress the importance of rituals, symbols and chants as an aid to meditation, while Zen Buddhists are geared towards the ideology of embracing the quiet of the world so one can focus. Now, one cannot begin to talk about the differences between sects within a religion without talking about Christianity. One would assume that from the name Christianity, it should emphasize everything “Christ-like”, but Christianity within itself differs from the following of the commandments in the Old Testament, to the interpretation of the Book of Revelations. Whereas, Catholics emphasize on the role of the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus as highly significant in the Christian religion, Anglicans overlook the role of the Virgin Mary and focuses on the concept of an individualistic interpretation of the Bible, whilst retaining a significant amount of Catholic tradition. Catholics, Anglicans and Methodists focus more on the physical aspect of Christianity whilst blending it with certain aspects of the holies like observing the Holy Communion, Eucharist and Baptism. Pentecostals, on the other hand, cannot overemphasize the importance of “mystic spiritualism”, and the need for miracles; thus portraying Christianity as a magically powerful religion.

Perhaps, it is not in our place to ask these questions. Perhaps we should just accept what we have been taught by our fathers. But there is an old saying that goes “There is no religion higher than truth”. And there is a hunger that is inherent in humans; a thirst for knowledge and answers. And only when we have found the answers to our questions, only then will that thirst be quenched.

 

Uchechukwu Onwuzuruoha