Cynicism, it’s not bad

I kind of get the impression that when it comes to empathy, some Christians are genuinely empathetic whilst others are aloof and critical of people that in some cases cynicism/distrust might not be a bad thing. That’s if it constantly runs in some Christian communities that rather than denying it, they should accept that they’re cynical. Both in the technical and philosophical sense.

After all, it’s not uncommon for some Christians to be critical of homosexuality and other religions that it’s practically the elephant in the room. Though it’s possible to love one another, I don’t think other Christians are prepared for compassion and empathy. At other times, rather than trying to be somebody that they’re not it seems cynicism might be preferable to outright tolerance.

That’s if they want to lead the pure, austere life and be distrusting of other ideologies and beliefs that cynicism might not be a bad thing after all.


I’m inclined to think Christianity is a faith ruled by distrust and cynicism. But in order to accept this, that would involve a greater amount of self-awareness and if you will honesty that in a way outsiders would get. If because it seems less patronising if Christians admitted to being distrusting and cynical.

Cynicism was a philosophy marked by austerity and chastising people for whatever they do, which Jesus was identified as such. If Buddhism is a faith marked by relaxation, Christianity is a faith marked by paranoia and fear. You can’t trust anybody especially if they screw up that you chastise or talk down to them.

You can be empathetic but a good number of Christians I know are often harsh, cynical and distrusting that cynicism might be the natural side to Christianity and not sentimentality.

Human Nature

I’ve come to the conclusion that human nature doesn’t change much wherever you go (time and place) to whatever degree. But that also necessitates seeing them as human in that if put in such a situation that people will act similarly regardless of who they are. Based on my habit of hanging out at foreign websites and the like, it seems they share similar problems and sentiments.

Australian women have sex with Balinese gigolos and find them romantic and respectful but so do their Swedish, America, Canadian, Japanese and Korean counterparts. There are even Japanese who’re aware of sexism, racism (since ethnic minorities do exist in Japan, be they immigrants or Ainu and Okinawans) and some don’t even like anime or aware of paedophilia.

Likewise racism and sexism also exists in Scandinavia, especially when it comes to the existence of MGTOWs and far-right that it’s going to be the same in Norway and Sweden as it would be in America. Even black men can be misogynistic and same with everybody else. That’s not to say all humans are bad but everybody can be guilty of being bigoted, stupid, mean or whatever.

Because human nature doesn’t change much.

The nature of immorality

I still think evil can be a lot subtler than doing something obviously cruel. Conversely speaking, sometimes in order to do good you have to do something bad or at least left-field/unconventional. Kind of like Robin Hood stealing the money from the nobility only to give it to the poor.

Paedophilia is an understandable evil. Shooting coyotes as to prevent sheep predation’s a necessary evil. If because nobody wants their future food and fabric supply gone in the future. This is what I mean by necessary evil and is also a lesser evil. (It would be more evil to neglect sheep and make everybody starve.)

So sometimes what’s good and evil isn’t always what people think it is.

The canine cynic

If it does sound odd to some contemporary audiences that cynicism stems from the old Greek word for dog, it would be more parsimonious to think of cynics as human analogues to stray dogs and guard dogs (or any dog that’s untrained and barks at strangers and guests). If cynics distrust people they dislike, so do dogs (especially if they see somebody getting abused as I know from personal experience). Dogs can be cynical. Whenever they approach suspects, they either run away or attack.

If dogs attack people with their fangs, cynics attack people by being sharp-tonged and through concern trolling. (Others may’ve gotten it too.) If it’s odd to assume that dogs are distrusting animals, it makes much more sense had ancient dogs been expected to ward off intruders. So much so that it makes the link between dogs and cynicism all the more apparent and understandable. It’s not that dogs were entirely despised in Ancient Greece.

But if cats hadn’t been around in Ancient Greece, let alone en masse dogs would’ve taken their place. Especially as the original mean animals (also because dogs came first).

The near-lack of cyncism

It’s not that Christians are entirely lacking in cynicism but that when you neglect intellectualism (or at least intellectual curiosity) for adolescent ego-satiation (though that may not always be a bad thing) that it makes it harder for Christians to be aware of the topics the Bible may’ve been talking about. At other times, I actually think it’s Christians who should care more about dog predation if because they know the Bible seemingly doesn’t have that high of an opinion on dogs (though at other times, it may often be ambivalent).

Most secular people don’t know any better but when secular people end up doing the heavy-lifting, though it could be viewed as validation it’s also sometimes a failure to have any real curiosity into the possibilities others don’t consider much. Besides dog predation was already recorded as early as the 20th century and possibly even earlier. But it seems to be ignored. As is the lack of awareness of prostitution even though one Dutch Christian group’s aware of it.

But it seems the lack of awareness of seemingly secular topics makes me think Christians have abandoned age-old cynicism for never-ending ecstasy even if that provides insight into vice and the like.

The start of monotheism

This too’s highly debatable but there’ve been some Western studies based on that some African pygmy communities are monotheistic. That and a penchant for monogamy and some wariness to dogs. These may give a good idea of how Judaism developed. Maybe not exactly but close enough to give an idea and the possibility of the original human religion being monotheistic.

This makes sense as some Pygmies do believe in a singular creator-god and there were precedents to Judaism and Christianity before. Even some ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle seemed to be somewhat monotheistic and don’t approve of polytheism, thus making them honourary Christians of sort.

But if that’s the case, it makes sense to think that at least some Pygmy communities are the closest to how Judaism developed.