COMPROMISING BETWEEN CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTIONISM

The rivalry between Atheists/Agnostics and Christians derives mostly from the incompatibility between their theories that explain the origin of mankind. While the former says an intelligent entity created everything in the universe, the latter claims that nothing was created, but there was an evolution perpetuated by the power of generation.

Hypothesis: both pieces argumentation are valid.

Thesis: they can be merged to give a reasonable explanation about our origin and existence on the Earth.

I’ll start by illustrating an element these two theories have in common: generation.

Whether we go by creation or evolution, we can't deny that a living being has the ability to generate another living being of the same species: animals generate animals, human beings generate human beings, plants generate other plants through their seeds, etc...

Now as this generation takes place there is also an evolution, as in what comes after is better and stronger than what was before. This has been proved by scientific studies that show human beings today live longer and also adapt faster to different types of environment. Also we've grown taller and bigger in structure, thus a change in our morphology.

Having said there was indeed an evolution and that, as long there is a generation, there will always be an evolution: in a thousand of years we'll have a human race that will share similarities with us, as we are today but that will look somewhat different from us; let’s move to the next point.

Generation causes evolution, but we need to find the beginning of this whole process, because nothing generates out of nothing. Physicians have tried but they still haven’t found a plausible theory that can explain the origin of the World: even the Big Bang theory still hangs on to creation to explain why we are here today. We know why we are what we are today, but the question is: how did this whole journey start?

This is where creation takes the upper hand in this argumentation, because it offers a possible genesis, even though it leaves rooms for so many questions without answers, mainly because of the dualistic nature it attributes to mankind: the matter and the soul. The flaw in this theory is that it contradicts a lot that is said about the first creation: it can't explain the imperfection that came after that and that has persisted till today. Christians have traced this imperfection down to the Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit placed in the Garden of Eden by their intelligent designer called God, but, in my opinion, the problem actually starts with the creation of Adam and Eve.

It is said that God created Adam in Its own image:

-          God is a pure soul, a spirit;

-          Human beings made of matter and soul.

If God is not a physical entity, how could It have created man in Its own image?

If God is the perfect being, how come the image It gave humans is so imperfect and vulnerable?

Perhaps the image Christians are talking about is not the same image God created humans with. Given that God is a soul; he can only have created something similar to a soul. The image as intended by the Christian doctrine is nothing but the container God in which hid this precious content, which is the body made of matter, which is nothing like the image of God.

And why would God need to place the soul in a body?

The Earth is made of matter only. In order to interact with it, we need a physical aspect added to our form (the soul is the real essence of human beings). Given the three levels of creation, as taught by the Christian doctrine: the terrain (only matter or matter + soul), the terrestrial (soul awaiting judgment) and the celestial (soul cleansed of all sins); humans, when they are alive, are suspended between the terrain and the terrestrial. When they die, they ascend from the terrain to the terrestrial, where judgment awaits them. According to their deeds they are either sent to the celestial where heaven is or beneath the terrain, where hell is.

In this ascending process they drop the container, the body, because it belongs to the terrain sphere as it is made purely of matter and wouldn’t fit into a matter free sphere. It is dropped also because the matter carries imperfection and makes humans vulnerable. Everything on Earth is prone to corruption.

Even the Christians admit that God gets in touch with human beings through their soul, so it is easily deduced that what God created in Its own image is the soul, which is what man kind have in common with It and what makes that special connection between them.

Another evidence to back up this claim is the hypothesized son of God: Jesus Christ. Why did God have to send Itself through a man for It to cleanse men of their sins?

God operates on a supernatural level. Limited by the free will It gave humans itself, It can interact with the soul, but then the body acts differently because of the needs it has. In order to win both body and soul, he needed to act both on the physical and on the supernatural sphere. Jesus mainly showed human that the body is not what matters (the 40 days and 40 nights he fasted, walking on the waters, his martyrdom, etc…): it can be deprived of primary necessities such as food and water, it can be made massless and it can endure all sort of pain, because as long as the soul (the content) is strong, the body (the container) is irrelevant. Jesus even died to prove this point.

Now that I’ve explained in my words why I think God created the human soul in Its own image and not the human appearance as it commonly preached in Christianity, I want to try and merge creation and evolution as previously stated in my thesis.

Let's start from creation and think of God as an intelligent designer and let’s make an analogy between It and a computer programmer. A programmer is a person that lays the basis for a self-sufficient software that offers the user the possibility to personalize the product they create with this software: likewise God created the human body (the matter) and programmed it through the brain to be self-sufficient and through the DNA to generate other bodies. However unlike a computer which is controlled by the law of determination, the software that operates in human beings works with the law of probability, which more than often makes the outcome of these products casual.

The only element that can’t be replicated in the process of generation is the soul, which is unique for every human being. This is where the breath of life comes to play. When Christians say that God gives life, we can assume they mean that when the container has been created, God breathes into it and gives it a soul. In fact soul, in Latin, anima and in ancient Greek, anemos, means wind, breath. From the same words, anima and anemos, we have the words animation and animated, that signify movement. In order words, God breathes into these bodies to put them in motion and make them function.

To conclude I’ll say this: God created the first matter ever in Adam and Eve and breathed into it to give it life (through the soul). It programmed this matter so it could generate other matters with the same DNA. But, since matter is prone to imperfection, it can only generate other imperfect matters. However through this generation, the matter continues to improve itself by eliminating each time, some imperfections which causes an evolution in the human morphology and ability to adapt and survive. But this improvement will never lead to a complete absence of error, because this error is in the code the matter was programmed with.

I think this is a good attempt to merge creationism and evolutionism, but I’d like to hear from you readers. As an Atheist or a Christian or an Agnostic, do you think this brief write-up works?

Let me know through your comments.

DOCTRINE AND THINKING IN HARMONY

I gave up on religion during my teenage years. I have never been a spiritual or religious type for I can remember: I had always preferred my individual law to doctrines and dogmas. So when I found myself in an environment that encouraged a rational thinking, I was more than happy to abandon all the pretense and deceit I put up in the name of maintaining an African and family identity. Today I’m a free thinker, but as well as other people, I have gone through various phases: first I became a skeptic, then a negationist and lately I have been able to find my balance between my rationalism and the religious doctrine I have major contact with which happens to be Christianity. This is the religion I also grew up with. I knew a few Muslims but we’ve never engaged in any religious debates, because, contrary to what is normally thought and shown in the media, Muslims are more reserved about their faith unlike Christians, who according to the media are very moderate and tolerant, yet, privately they are more oppressing and intolerant towards people who don’t share their faith.

As a skeptic, my first question was “Where was God in this World”. I was not looking for a physical presence, but for something physical and tangible that could actually prove that there was an intelligent force behind everything, as preached by Christians. I was perplexed and disappointed though. For every disaster that happened, you had a Christian coming out claiming it was part of a bigger plan that God has reserved for us, thus justifying all the pain and suffering that existed in the world. But the pain I saw in the eyes of those suffering was too heart tearing to be part of an intelligent plan that a supposed clement god had made for us. The pain was too physical and devastating for it to be brushed off as “expected” and “normal”. There is nothing normal in suffering. The rupture of normality and the passage to instability caused pain. I knew very well that change is the only permanent thing in life, but it was crazy that for something spectacular to happen, a disaster of the same entity had to take place. The law of dynamic says: for every action, there is a reaction of the same force; but in this case it seemed that for everything given to us, we had to give something in return which left me questioning: isn’t this God supposed to be benevolent and love free of charge? Didn’t he create man out of pure love or was he just attention starved and created us for us to worship him and pay back everything he did for us, with a superhuman sacrifice? If we put God and man on a scale, we’d have an entire humanity placed on a plate and yet we still wouldn’t bring the scale to a balance. Now imagine how much suffer we must use to compensate an infinitesimal good God does for us. There is something wrong somewhere. It’s either Christians don’t have a clue about how this God actually operates or this God is a sadist. Because unless he gives us for free, we can never, I mean never, pay back our dues. It’s impossible. A single can’t even if he was given millions of years or millions of lives. Even as a collectivity, we still can’t measure up to the level of adoration required to make things even. And now that we have a divided multitude, with people choosing other religions, philosophies and a growing number choosing to live an irreligious life, it seems we are bound to remain in debt as long as the human race exists. So that justifies all the horrible disasters we have been witnessing for centuries? Is that why we have wars, epidemics, feminine killing innocent people and children every day? At this point it was obvious that I couldn’t remain a skeptic forever. I had either become an fool living in an illusion of a perfect god or a negationist: such god couldn’t just exists.

For years I did live as a negationist and it was very challenging, not for me as a person but for those around me. My mother has never really been that religious but she has always found comfort in the spiritual. She made me baptize and confirm at the Catholic Church and during my childhood until my early adolescence, I sincerely respected those vows, but I later on found out they didn’t belong to me. She didn’t take it lightly. We used to have arguments and fights, until she decided to let me be. I gained my total independence from religion at seventeen, I think. I was very determined to abandon all the falsity attached to the religious words. I saw so many Christians hiding behind their Bibles: self-proclaimed holy and righteous who were so far away from being decent human beings. So in terms of self-conviction I was inflexible. In those few times I attended religious functions, I never took part in their prayers or rites, because I didn’t want to be a hypocrite. There were times though I was forced to participate, and even then I firmly refused. This was perceived as an act of rebellion, as an embarrassment to my family. Trust the bigots to be investigating behind my back on why I didn’t want to be part of their activities. They didn’t know; in fact they don’t know anything. But I respected the pastors enough to let them know that mine wasn’t an act of rebellion or an attempt to question their authority or that of the church. I was there was a learner and an observer. Even though I had rejected Christianity, I still thought it was a very bad idea to set a limit to my knowledge of this religion, so when I could, I went to church. I sang when I knew the song and I danced when I felt the rhythm, but I wasn’t a wolf in sheep’s garment and I was never going to take the Holy Communion or allow the pastor to anoint my head because I was not a liar. The pastors perfectly understood and they let me be, even though the woman-pastor went on privately to try to convert me. I didn’t mind. I liked her and I respected her, not because she was a pastor, but because she was a person of principle. I don’t have anything against religious people, as long as they are faithful to what they preach. Even enemies respect each other when they know they are being absolutely faithful and loyal to their cause, so when I meet someone of principle, I could care less whether they were Christians or not. I’d always respect them for being that brave and bold because it’s really hard to resist the temptation to compromise to stand for what you believe in.

Perhaps she contributed somehow to my transformation into a more moderate thinker, but today I’m glad I have abandoned my state of negationism. I’m now more open to experimenting and I have not totally refused the idea of becoming a believer someday. After speaking with the pastors, they still wanted me to take part in their rites. At first I thought that would be going against my principles, but then having informed the church leaders of my ideas, I felt very free of guilt whenever I took part in their activities. I even allowed them to baptize them a second time and surprisingly, I have fallen twice under the power of anointing. I don’t know: had I eaten those days, would I have fallen? I’m not a very hard task, just a push and I’m already on the floor. But hunger or not, those experiences left me wondering. I believe in karma and I believe in aura; and I think these men of God just happen to have that special aura that captures you and overwhelms you. It may be spiritual or just part of the many human characteristics we are yet to discover.

However today, I’m free. I no longer feel resentful towards religion, neither do I blame religion for the horrible things people do. People are bad regardless of whatever doctrine they belong to; and if someone needs to follow a doctrine to be the best person they can be, then they have to do so and I invite them to. There are those who are meant to lead and others who are meant to be led and a few others who just walk on their own without a guide or a flock. We are all different and we must strive to bring out the best in us. I found my way in this path and I love it.

This is exactly where I want to be and you?

ATTRACTION FROM SIMILARITY AND ATTRACTION FROM DIVERSITY

What triggers our attraction when we see someone? What makes us say “I like him/her” during our early encounters with someone and what makes us decide that we love that person? What eventually makes that love last or fade away?

Here is my theory.

The first element that triggers our attraction is purely sensitive. It can be what see, what we hear, what we smell and what we touch. I would say that taste is the sense that we use less the first time we meet someone. I presume we don’t go around licking or biting people to know how good they taste. But that doesn’t mean that the tongue doesn’t play a fundamental role in the game of attraction as we speak through it. If the beauty, the steps, the smell or the skin texture of someone can trigger our curiosity about someone, words determine if that attraction is going to go past that first encounter.

When we speak to someone, we want to create a friendly environment, thus choosing those topics that deal with interests we are passionate about. From that interaction we decide whether we like how that person’s view are similar to ours or we like how different they are from ours and at the same time interesting how interesting they are.

In the case of attraction from similarity two individuals come to share a lot with one another. Being that the more time we spend with someone, the more we are likely to assimilate some of their behaviours, it’s only normal to observe, in this type of relationship, the couple becoming more and more similar to one another, both in character and also in appearance (so they say). At a point they come to love in total symbiosis, depending one on the other. There is no longer a distinction between the two: he and she become a “we”. Totally inseparable and unbeatable.

On the other hand when the attraction is born from diversity, the only thing the couple has in common is their curiosity for how different one is from the other. Just like I have explained, spending a lot of time with someone, means inevitable taking on some of this person’s behaviours, so in other to maintain the main reason that brought them together, we see the pair looking for more ways to stimulate and keep the interest of one another. In this type of relationship, there is never a confusion of identities. Both are kept separate and distant. There is a he and there is a she. They are very independent from one another and that makes them very fragile as a couple.

It’s not said that one relationship is better than the other, because the individuals that compose these couples are essential in the analysis of the success or failure these relationships are destined to.

First of all, in the case of a relationship based on similarities, it’s very important for the people involved to have reached an individual maturity and self-consciousness and awareness, because as time goes on, there is the risk of a fusion of both personalities, which can result in the annulment of the individual entity. So we basically have a destruction of their original personas; as in I can no longer identify a he or a she without seeing the other party in this identification.  This is a very dangerous scenario, but unfortunately it’s not uncommon. It’s very frequent in rapports between teenagers; so people who haven’t reached the necessary maturity to maintain their respective identities in a highly influential environment. It’s also very frequent in those rapports where one party is very domineering, while the other plays a subservient role. In this case, the submissive party takes on the behaviours of the domineering one and sort of loses themselves in the process.

It’s not said that this doesn’t happen among adults though, because maturity is not always about age.

Just like in the first type of relationship, there are also negative consequences of a relationship where the attraction is based on how different the people involved are. It’s basically all about going against the natural flow: I mean people are supposed to become more similar and compatible as they spend more time together. But given that the foundation in this case is based on incompatibility, there is a strife by both parties to continuously search for new intriguing things about themselves to keep the other interested. It’s a very stressful process because it’s not easy maintaining the interest of someone who would drift away if they no longer feel that diversity from their partner. It can result in both ending up completely worn out and resentful towards another, because in other to impress their partner, they might have done something unusual or inappropriate.

Also in this case, a lot of maturity is required because a limit has to be set in matters of what we can do to keep our partner focused and interested and how the search has to be shared and balanced between the couple. It’s not unusual though to see one party striving and working hard to bring in innovations to the relationship, while the other just sits and approves or discards.

At the end of the day it’s all about balance. If a couple has so much in common, with the right maturity and mind-set, they have a high chance of having a very lasting relationship, which is meant to become stronger and stronger. On the long going, they don’t just remain lovers, but they become best-friends or even siblings; and even when the initial passion eventually fades away, they have so much to rely on, that they can still spend quality time together and remain in total harmony with another.

Also in the case where a couple doesn’t have much in common, they can still last together, if they are able to maintain a certain distance, so they don’t lose their differences. And also both parties finding new ways to make themselves look more interesting as arouse the curiosity of the other, is a key to success.

Happy loving!

LOVE: A COLLECTION OF EMOTIONS

I have been asked on several occasions to give a definition for love and, although I had previously written about the different types of love we experience in our lives, I feel the need to go specific and deal with love as the main object of my research.

To the question “What is love?” I had always answered “I don’t know”, but today I want to give an answer because I’ve had a sort of revelation, after nights spent in lonely thoughts and self-questioning. So here goes my answer.

Love is not a/one feeling: it’s not bi-dimensional and it can’t be reduced to a shape with an area and a perimeter. It has a depth and it has a volume. In geometry it would be a solid figure, certainly not a plain one. We’d need more than a base and a height to calculate the entire surface it occupies. We would even have to integrate, as to simplify the operation, because just because I said it’s a solid doesn’t make it a regular one. And this is just in geometry.

In Art, love is just like the colour white. In our everyday life we are used to identifying this state of mind with the colour red, because that’s how it has been universally represented since the beginning of time. Red, being a hot colour, reminds us of the warmth we experience when we feel love, but that’s just about the sensation. If we are to search for an ontological analogy, then the colour white will be more appropriate. White is known as the sum of all colours and that has been revealed through a very simple physical experiment called diffraction. If you place a white laser in front of a glass, the light passes through the glass and diffracts in all possible colours. So even love can be diffracted into various feelings; reason why I chose the analogy between the colour white and love.

Fact is should love be a unique feeling, it would continuously disappear or be over shadowed whenever another one takes over. But on the contrary, single feelings and sensations become the means through which we express our love for someone.

Having explained this, I want to go on and say that since what we feel and how we react and act are peculiar to the individual and their character and personality, the totality of their feelings, actions, reactions and character/personality also becomes peculiar, thus making love something that can never be the same in two different people. It’s just like a fingerprint: nobody’s fingerprints are the same with someone else’s, so nobody loves the same way as another person. And this leads us to the subsequent point.

Love shouldn’t be measured by quantity, but by quality. For it to be measured by quantity, we’d need to have that feeling expressed in the same identical manner by identical people, talking about their inner entities. But we’ve already said that nobody is the same as another person, so that discards the possibility of quantifying love. Being that love depends on the quality of a person, we can only talk about the way someone loves and not about how much they love.

The way people love is strictly, but not exclusively, related to the way they express or don’t express these feelings. When there is a lack of expression, we can hazard a term like repression to define this type of situation. It’s common belief that love should be expressed and not suppressed. But even when there is an expression, some would still argue that there is a right way to do it, while there are many wrong ways to do it.

Right or wrong when it comes to how love should be expressed is not something to be dealt with in a scientific manner. It’s a matter of moral, of individual preference. We should first of all see what people’s idea of hedonism is, before we can say “this is the perfect way to express love in relation to that person”. It’s very subjective.

It’s part of our nature as humans to continually compare ourselves to other people and more often than we should, we conceitedly conclude that ours is the best way. But the word is various and so are people. Some people believe love has to be painful, whether it’s being given or it’s being received. Others choose sacrifice as the best way to show how much they care about someone.

In the case where there is a lack of expression as in people just not doing anything to show their feelings, so many things can be said in regards. I’d like to hazard a couple of theories to explain this “weird” situation. Unemotional people are not really well seen by their neighbours.

The first explanation is a very high IQ (intelligence quotient). People with a highly developed intellect are more attracted to logic and scientific analysis and they consider emotions uninteresting and devoid of comprehension. In this case there is a refusal to go emotional because it’s more like a lose-lose situation.

The second explanation is a very low IQ. A low IQ excludes the possibility to understand basic human interactions. There is no choice or refusal to be emotional for the simple reason that they don’t even know what emotions are.

The third explanation is mental illness. Sociopaths and psychopaths have their own definition of hedonism, emotions and human interactions. I’m not a specialist, so I won’t indulge further with this.

Among the three scenarios listed above, the first and the second are more frequent, with the first one arousing more curiosity, because people are generally attracted to very intelligent people.

So let’s summarize what we’ve said so far.

-          Love is a collection of emotions

-          Love is a peculiar feeling

-          Love is meant to be qualified and not quantified

-          Love can be expressed or suppressed

-          Love is expressed in very peculiar and distinct ways

-          Love and its expression are in strict relation with our IQ.

This last point opens a door for another topic. How much does our IQ matter in matters of the heart? Does EQ (emotional quotient) really exist? Can they co-exist?

Stay tuned!

THE CULTURE OF FORGIVENESS

Forgive (to): to stop feeling angry with somebody who has done something to harm, annoy or upset you.

Forgiveness: the act of forgiving somebody, willingness to forgive somebody.

(Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary)

That is really a noble trait. Forgiveness gives us peace of mind. Annoyance alters our mood, takes control over our emotions, clouds our sense of judgement and distracts us from important issues; so the moment we let go of all negativity, we feel this sense of freedom, of lightness and liveliness. That’s how it’s supposed to be when we forgive someone.

Nevertheless, sometimes we feel empty even after we have forgiven. Why is it so? Despite saying “It’s OK! There is no problem”, we are still overwhelmed with bitterness and annoyance, as though those words have been forced out of us, yet we said them spontaneously. If we feel this way, even after pronouncing those words, then maybe we haven’t really forgiven that person, because we don’t want to forgive that person. That sort of attitude is not tolerated in our Nigerian setting. We are taught right from time to let go of any grudge and malice we may come to grow against someone, during the journey of our lives. So many negative terms are attached to somebody who obstinately refuses to settle matters with their offender(s): coldhearted, stonehearted, heartless, wicked, cruel, inhuman, selfish, etc... Some even go as far as finding supernatural explanations for our unwillingness to forgive: witch, wizard, possessed, demonic, satanic and even Devil’s incarnate. Laughable, isn’t it?

So, why do we sometimes refuse to forgive someone?

1. They might have done something very terrible.

Some actions can’t easily be condoned: actions that cause irremediable damages to the offended and maybe extend these damages to their family or friends. When the consequences of these actions are drastic changes in the lives of the people involved, we might find it very difficult to forgive. From a pleasant situation, suddenly we are befallen by problems from every corner. It’s as though one single thing done by a person has, somehow, ignited a series of calamities. It becomes a chain of sorrow and despair; going from one problem to the other. We find a solution to one, and immediately after, we have to start looking for a solution to the one that comes after.

It is said that in this case, the first step is to forgive the person who has offended us and from there, start from scratch to build our life again. We know that is easier said than done. Since the bruises are so in-deep and invisible to external eyes, those invitations to forgive sound really superficial, selfish and incomprehensive. Were they in our shoes, would they preach forgiveness with so much shallowness? This is indeed a sensitive case. True no one can see the scars in our hearts. No one knows how many nights we have spent in our bed, tossing and turning, even crying our hearts out; and, it may surprise you, it’s good that they don’t. Why do I say so? For a simple reason: if they did, they wouldn’t be able to dash out their superficial words of encouragement (as if those could ease the pain at once and make everything cool again), without feeling the same heaviness that bothers our minds.

Whether we like it or not, those ignorant people, who suddenly find themselves being comforters in a disastrous situation, are in their own way of help. When we suffer a great offence and we are hit by a storm of negativity, it’s very important for it to be balanced with a sane positivity. In that moment, we may not want to hear about how the world is a beautiful place and about how life is one and only, therefore we must let go of all our negative sentiments to enjoy it to the fullest; but we need it. We need to know that there isn’t only darkness around us, that if we move away from that place we’ve decided to imprison ourselves, we’ll find light. These superficial people help us to make those steps that we wouldn’t make on our own, because we’d be lost in our sorrow, pain and despair. Even with all the irritation that comes with listening to their gibberish, we still owe them a “thank you”.

Now back to the offender: should the relationship we have/had with them influence our decision to forgive them? To a point, it does, but it shouldn’t become a determinant factor.

It’s unarguable that harm caused by people close to us, hurts more than that caused by a stranger. But when it comes to moving forward, we shouldn’t focus on the pre-existent relationship between us and our offenders, but rather focus on where we want to go and what we want to achieve: our peace of mind. It’s not said that that stranger or family member or friend, is still going to be part of our life afterwards, but they are definitely part of the solution. Settling matters with them can help us, and them, to overcome that period of difficulty or at least give us the right kick to start a new page in our lives.

2. They are chronic offenders.

They say an ocean is made up of little drops, the same way an existent problem can arise from a series of other little problem caused by the same person over a period of time. Since they are always minor issues, we might never attach any importance to it and keep forgiving; yet every time we forgive, for the main part we mean it, while for a very little part, we are not really cool with it. On the long going, our state of intranquillity whenever we forgive that person is bound to increase and eventually surpass the state of apparent peace of mind.

How do we handle this case?

The role of ignorant advisers should be limited and reduced to minimum. They shouldn’t be given access to our personal affairs, because the type of situations that usually involve such offenders are most times private, such as relationships or family matters; so the offender statistically speaking is either a close friend, a relative or even our partners. It’s unusual for a stranger to keep offending us in various occasions and for us to suffer passively if there wasn’t a pre-existent relationship between us, be it direct or indirect (very close to someone personally involved with us). So, I’ll take it for granted that we have this relative, friend or partner that is very fond of doing things that annoy us, but by the virtue of the affection and feelings we have for them, we tend to forgive them. But, I must say be careful.

There are offences that are committed out of a habit and there are those that are committed out of character. Old habits die hard, but better hard than never. With love and support, we can help a love one to overcome their weak points and eventually get rid of those attitudes and behaviours that made them chronic offenders. It’s usually not a very easy task, especially when the habit is deep rooted in that person, but whenever there is a possibility of redeeming someone, we should never give up. And this is case one.

Case two: offences born out of bad character traits. I’m sorry to say but there is no solution to this. We can try to curb or improve the character of this person by helping them to be more in control of their emotions and not to listen to their impulse and instincts whenever they try to take over their common sense, but little can be done to eliminate this aspect of a person’s nature. We can either be tolerant and keep enduring their continuous negligence of our happiness and wellbeing or simply put a distance between us and them.

In a situation where this person is just a friend or an acquaintance, it can be very easy to distance ourselves from them, especially if they never occupied a relevant role in our lives. But if this person is a relative or a partner (if we have the privilege of choosing our friends, I suppose we are not so stupid to choose a chronic offender as our best-friend), the decision to redefine our relationship with them may be harder, especially if we are one of those overly emotional and optimistic people, who always see the good in others.

Let’s start from the case of a partner. Love doesn’t cover all. Love is not pain (I mean pain as in whatever situation or emotion that put you in state of discontentment) and you must not believe anybody that tries to convince you it is. The fundamental reason behind coming together emotionally or physically with a person is to take care of one another and derive happiness and pleasure from doing so. When we take care of someone and that person reciprocates our care and attention, we find it very fulfilling. The lack of fulfilment or an overwhelming sense of frustration is the first sign that something is lacking in that relationship. Having a chronic offender as a partner offers the worst prospect in terms of relationship. We can only think of the present, but never about the future, because every attempt of ours to even think of a second ahead of the moment we are living is ruined by the fear/consciousness that our partner is around to corner to inflict another harm on us. Do yourself (I’ve already done it) a favour: call it quits. If you don’t, you’ll only have yourself to blame and others will join you to blame yourself. Why? Simple as ABC.

If a hundred times you have been offended, and a hundred times you have forgiven, why shouldn’t they offend you the 101th time and why shouldn’t you forgive the 101th time too? You have been doing it, you can as well continue doing it. You gave your blessing, legitimated their behaviour and through your constant forgiveness, made it known that you are comfortable with such behaviour, that you condone it and that you love it. I mean, why should you keep putting up with something you don’t love? Their continuous pleadings have become more like an act of formality. They are not really necessary, because you are not going anywhere, but they still plead, so they wouldn’t look insensitive in your eyes and in the eyes of the curious spectators. Is this what you want for yourself?

Now, what if the chronic offender is a relative? A distant relative? You didn’t choose your mother, father and siblings: those are more than enough things over which you don’t have any control, so do away with the distant cousin or niece or whoever they are.

A sibling? Blood is thicker than water, but a person with a nasty character remains a person with a nasty character. Treat them like the chronic offending partner, but always keep a window opened for reconciliation; after all blood is thicker than water.

A parent? Now, from my own personal experience, you just have to learn to tolerate them and love them despite all their flows. You may not remember or maybe you do and think they were at fault, but you also did a lot of things that annoyed the hell out of them, but they never gave up on you. They still loved and took care of you. Their love for you has been unconditional since you were right there inside mummy’s womb. No matter what they do, remember that they are humans and they are bound and allowed to make mistakes. If they didn’t abandon you, even those years you used to think you knew it all, why should you abandon them because of this annoying trait they have? Besides, aren’t you their child? They may have the disease, but you my dear have the antidote.

Our culture loves forgiveness and, true, there are those who take advantage of it to be nasty hoping that you’ll always turn the other cheek and forgive them. But for those who you think are worth it and can change, turn the cheek, but for the rest, punch both of theirs.

Cheers!