Regarding Race
This post is prompted by an article that I saw posted a little while back regarding mixed marriages. I gave it some time to ruminate, and after much thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is my firm belief that one should indeed marry only within his or her own race. Now, before you start picking up stones to throw at me, please read on and see if you agree.
It is fashionable today to say that “there is only one race—the human race.” Things like ethnicity, culture, faith, etc. do not matter. What matters is one common humanity. After all, our DNA is pretty much 100% identical no matter what ethnicity you are. The accidentals like dark or light skin are just that. Accidentals with no meaning beyond aesthetics.
In a biological sense that’s true. All mankind does share the same basic physical makeup. And if physicality was all there was, they would be right—there is only one race, the human race. But that doesn’t tell the whole story.
On the other hand, we have the reaction against these modern views of anthropology. There are some who believe that ethnic groups constitute race, and that these races ought to remain distinct and separate. As such, there should be no marriage or mixing between the various ethnic groups. Some even appeal to the Bible for such a position (yes, the article I saw was from this site). After all, God divided the peoples into many tongues at Babel, and thus created ethnicity. Who are we to try to reverse that? That would be like trying to rebuild the tower of Babel.
I would propose what I believe is a more Biblical view—that there are only two races. There is Adam’s old humanity which fell with him into sin and death, and there is the new humanity in Christ that is raised to life and righteousness. For in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free. All are one. In Adam all die, but in Christ are all made alive.
To be in Christ is to be not only a new person as an individual, but a member of a new humanity, born of water and Spirit. The old man and the former race is no more. For the believer is a part of that New Creation.
As for Babel, that was a curse upon the old Adamic race. God reversed that curse at Pentecost, when the confused languages of the many peoples became no impediment to the spread of the Gospel. The scattering of nations is finished for all united in the Church as the Bride of Christ. Any attempt at a united humanity apart from Christ as the old Adamic man is indeed a rebuilding of Babel. Because only in Christ can true legitimate unity be found.
And so, I say again, one must not be joined to another outside of one’s own race. If you are a member of the new humanity in Christ, how can you even think of being united to one of Adam’s lost race? And if that person from across the Pacific is your brother, how can you even think of him as a foreigner to you?
August 26, 2010 1:47 PM 
Subscribe
Haha! I was a little scared at first, but this is dead on. Great post!@ everyone else: read to the end.
Haha! I was a little scared at first, but this is dead on. Great post!@ everyone else: read to the end.
Great post, Chris.
Like Peter, I was a bit scared at first, too, but as I read on I was thinking, " Go Chris!" Loved this.
"And if that person from across the Pacific is your brother, how can you even think of him as a foreigner to you?"Chyeah.
“And so, I say again, one must not be joined to another outside of one’s own race. If you are a member of the new humanity in Christ, how can you even think of being united to one of Adam’s lost race?”
Chris, are you so much The Shepherd as to declare the lost sheep unfit to marry the found ones? Your post neither mentions, nor allows for the possibility of conversion.
Circumcise your heart and append what you have said to also include the possibility of conversion.
Nothing is impossible with God.
Matthew,
At conversion, one is then no longer of Adam’s race, and becomes of the race of Christ. Of course there is always the possibility of conversion through the work of God’s Spirit. I am simply saying that these two races ought not to mix. If there is a conversion, and a change of race, it’s no longer a mixed marriage, is it?
Semantics. To say the two races ought not mix is like saying a man should only evangelise to his friends. What credit is it to him then?
A good, Christian marriage like the evangelisation which validates it, is built on The Holy Scripture. Our Lord Jesus Christ always put Himself out amongst the lost ones where there was work to be done, where there was an opportunity to teach. And if a certain people wanted to throw him off a cliff, then He, by Providence, was spirited away.
Whether it was Him going out to them (dining with prostitutes), or them coming to him (the syrophoenician woman), He himself always allowed for the possibility of conversion.
Matthew,
This is not semantics. I am saying we ought only to marry “in the Lord” as Paul says. I am not saying we may not evangelize. We should. However, marrying someone outside the bounds of the covenant is not an appropriate method of evangelism. You may speak with the unbelievers, you may eat with them, you may even live amongst them. But you may not marry them! UNTIL such time as they are converted and are no longer of Adam’s race. In which case you’re no longer marrying an unbeliever.
“…You may speak with the unbelievers, you may eat with them, you may even live amongst them. But you may not marry them! UNTIL such time as they are converted and are no longer of Adam’s race. In which case you’re no longer marrying an unbeliever.”
“…Until such time as they are converted and are no longer of Adam’s race…”
Please find a way to put that into your original post.
“…However, marrying someone outside the bounds of the covenant is not an appropriate method of evangelism.”
This is true, however, if the one who knew better were to confess and repent of his sin, would he not be forgiven?
We both believe the answer is yes. Don’t we?
Forgiveness facilitates conversion, and conversion facilitaties a just marriage in this regard.
“Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”
You and I both know this petition wasn’t just for the foundlings.
Matthew,
I don’t think any change to the original post is necessary. What you’re saying is assumed. The conclusion is still the same. Christians ought only to marry Christians. Obviously if someone becomes a Christian, then another Christian may then marry them!
Your question of what is to be done if the Christian disregards this rule is really not within the scope of my post, the purpose of which was simply to say what ought to be.. But yes, there is repentance and forgiveness in case of sin. Is that Christian still married to an unbeliever? Well, yes, for better or for worse, and he/she should earnestly contend for the salvation of the spouse in that case.
I understand Christians marrying Christians is the only way and to entertain the possibility of conversion among the lost race could lead to one being devoured, but isn’t it worth the chance? Can you not trust that one can emulate Our Lord Jesus Christ and through his intercession have the good sense enough to know when to leave the angry mob before meeting the edge of a cliff?
“I send you out a sheep amongst the wolves.”
There will always be perils to face among the lost race and Christians alike, but isn’t the possibility of conversion worth the chance?
Matthew, I am not sure what you’re asking. I am all for evangelism. And I’m all for being with the lost and leading them to Christ. But if you are asking whether it is worth sinning by marrying an unbeliever on the off chance that they may later be saved, then the answer is no. This is not what Jesus did, and it’s not what Christians are to do.
If someone has already done it, there is forgiveness, as well as consequences, but the expectation of forgiveness is not license to sin.
Romans 6:1-2
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!
Fair enough.
A Christian should only date whom they intend to marry and consequently whom they intend to convert.
It would be easier for a courting Christian to seek out a mate from among other Christians, but whose to say the courting Christian’s ideal mate isn’t of the First Adam’s ilk?
Who would even think of being united to one of Adam’s lost race?
I would. Provided they convert.
So you’re talking about dating a girl (let’s say) who is not a believer in the hope that you can witness to her and she’ll be converted? Sorry, Matthew, but that is just not right. Nor is it wise. And it has nothing to do with what is “easier.”
It isn’t right because we are told only to marry in the Lord. You said yourself that you should only date whom you would marry. Would you marry someone who is in unbelief? If not, then you should not court her either.
It is tempting God to court an unbeliever, expecting Him to convert her so that you can have your way. It is unwise because awful things happen when we tempt God. When you enter into a “romantic” relationship with anyone, emotions get drawn in on both sides. She will want to do and say what will please you, and you will want to believe her.
If you want to witness to an unbelieving girl, then fine. But no romantic attachments with her. If she converts through your witness and is saved, fine. Carry on. We are ALL at one point from the First Adam’s ilk, and conversion is always possible. But until it happens, no entanglements should be allowed.
Good. This is you, this is really you. Thank you. This is where you should be writing from all the time.
This is the air of moral detriment to which your original post was speaking. If moral detriment is your sole focus, then that’s all you’re ever going to see.
Being of the First Adam or the Second, romance is always a risk and to date anyone is to think of being united to them.
Affection is not a sin on its own. Only when the Christian vaunts affection above his convictions, casts his scruples to the wind for physical sensation, does affection become a sin. No one can say every Christian will do this when affecting and unbeliever. But we can say, “You should not court and unbeliever, but if you are, then know that we are all at one point from the First Adam’s ilk, and conversion is always possible. Conversion must be the foremost priority. Do not grow lax, be insistent through your words and actions. If she is not resolute with regard to becoming a Christian, then do not let yourself be deceived and end the relationship. To continue the relationship without resolution is waste of time and that makes it a sin.”
Time is the only currency any human being really has and since we don’t know how much time we have, it is more pragmatic to be exclusive, to say stay away.
——-
The old man and the former race are still here. They are called the Jew. One must first be found in order to be called lost. The last time the Jew was lost was in the Book of Exodus.
“I have not come to remove one letter of the law, but to fulfill it.”
Jesus was a Jew, the best one. Would Our Lord Jesus Christ, the best Jew, decide that the ordinary Jew is worthy of Heaven? I say yes, but it is for Him to decide, not us.
Yahweh and The Almighty Father are one and the same. Their way is good, but our way is better.
It is impossible to assume that a Hebrew-only Jew didn’t hear and understand Peter in his own ear at Pentecost.
It is not fair to imply that non-Christians marrying outside of our beliefs are lost and consequently rebuilding Babel, precisely because the Jew exists.
The Jew is the exception who invalidates the aforementioned implications for everyone on earth.
To relegate the Jew to being a lost, rebuilder of Babel is to slight Jesus himself.
(These, your implications are what compelled me to respond to your post and why I think it’s incomplete. Thank you for your patience, Chris.)
“So you’re talking about dating a girl (let’s say) who is not a believer in the hope that you can witness to her and she’ll be converted? Sorry, Matthew, but that is just not right. Nor is it wise. And it has nothing to do with what is “easier.”
It isn’t right because we are told only to marry in the Lord. You said yourself that you should only date whom you would marry. Would you marry someone who is in unbelief? If not, then you should not court her either.
It is tempting God to court an unbeliever, expecting Him to convert her so that you can have your way. It is unwise because awful things happen when we tempt God. When you enter into a “romantic” relationship with anyone, emotions get drawn in on both sides. She will want to do and say what will please you, and you will want to believe her.
If you want to witness to an unbelieving girl, then fine. But no romantic attachments with her. If she converts through your witness and is saved, fine. Carry on. We are ALL at one point from the First Adam’s ilk, and conversion is always possible. But until it happens, no entanglements should be allowed.”
You are right. I am wrong.
The thought of a disingenuous conversion is heartbreaking.
Hmmm, I did not like this post… not at the beginning, nor the end. The conclusion does not sound any less divisive to humanity than the racist sounding start. It's ultimate purpose seems to be the promoting of an 'Us and Them' mentality that, to my ear, sounds cruel and dangerous – just as cruel and dangerous as any run-of-the-mill racism. Divide the world in two? Declare one group to be agents of death and the other agents of life? Then tell people to not marry those other people? Sounds racist… or something very close to it.
Thanks for the comment, Guy. You are correct that the idea of belief in any sort of an absolute Truth is inherently divisive. As is a belief in right and wrong or good and evil. The simple fact is that faith divides, and it should. Ethnicity, on the other hand, should not.
These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them . . . "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."Matthew 10:5, 34-39
"In other words… you can marry inter-racially, but only if the other person is a fellow follower of Christ."Exactly." But – in my opinion – the Matthew quote has its own host of problems, more than the preceding article."If you think that Jesus has more problems than I do, then there are other issues that need dealing with . . ."The upshot of the Matthew quote is to suggest that it is not enough to just believe, but that in addition to believing, one should marginalize and vilify those who don't share a belief"No, you have completely missed the meaning and the sense of what Jesus is saying. The point is not to villify, but to say that we must be willing to be rejected even by our family if that is what it takes to follow Christ. The "sword" that Jesus is talking about is not a literal weapon of war, or even a metaphorical weapon that WE take up, but rather a sword that divides people, father from son, mother from daughter etc. Note that the sword is not for OUR use. It is simply something that Jesus brings."There are ways to move toward a belief in something where shedding one's old ways and one's old associations are done peacefully and respectfully"So you say, but in Jesus' day that was far from the case . . . and even today this is many times untrue. As soon as a Jew said "I believe Jesus is the Messiah," he would have been ostracized from his family. That is hardly peaceable. And while Christians are to live in peace with all as far as we are able, we cannot help it if others cut us off violently. That is the sword that divides.Today in Islamic nations, for instance, they experience much the same thing. Daughters have been literally killed by their fathers for believing in Jesus."Marginalizing the unworthy, in order to justify killing them. This is the best path toward Christ?"Who said anything about killing people? The solution is to preach the Gospel to them so that they may come to faith in Christ. After that, of course, a Christian is free to marry the new convert. :c)
"making anyone feel unworthy in any way, FOR ANY REASON, is cruel"Here is the crux of the matter. Because the exact opposite is true. It is only when we realize that we are unworthy, that we are dead in trespasses and sin, that we can put our trust in Jesus Christ as our atoning sacrifice, believe on Him and be saved. Paul tells us in Romans that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We have all broken God's commandments and are a total offense to Him, and are deserving of his righteous indignation. And it is only by His grace, mercy, and covenant love that any are spared.So to show someone that he/she is unworthy in the sight of God is to show love, not cruelty.
"It was not about how belief divides, it was about the sometimes questionable ways people use such divisions to organize the world into something they want it to be."Can I ask you a question? What standard do you use to order the world in the way YOU want it to be? Why do you think that all should be united in a sort of homogeneous lump? I believe the ultimate standard for how the lines are drawn come from the Bible, God's revealed Word, and I try to be consistent with that. If you want to show me that I am inconsistent with my own standard in drawing these lines, then that's great. I'll be happy to listen. But if all you have is your own personal opinions and hunches and feelings to go on, then it's just your word against God's.
/—–If you think that Jesus has more problems than I do, then there are other issues that need dealing with . . .—–I don't care who among us has more problems, I'm just examining the words being presented./—–No, you have completely missed the meaning and the sense of what Jesus is saying.—–I don't think I've completely missed the point at all. Whether the sword in question is metaphorical or literal, there is more to that quote than Jesus alone separating people from each other. There is a clarification that peace is not the purpose. There is the statement that man will be "set against his father" not just separated from his father. And there is a clear distinction that the result will be enemies. The 'sense' that I'm getting includes hostility… perhaps even a call to war, or an expectation of hostility. Or, at the very least, incompatible states of existence that will not foster peace, will tear families apart, and create enemies. Hence, my question about whether this is really the best way to go?/—–The point is not to villify, but to say that we must be willing to be rejected even by our family if that is what it takes to follow Christ.—–Now I think you are missing the point. There is a difference between you being willing to be rejected versus you rejecting others. The original article, your commentary, and the Jesus quote from Matthew seem to be focused more on instructing someone as to who they must reject, and with how much devotion, in order to be counted among the advantaged… i.e. thou shalt not marry "those people" but instead should consider them your enemies. Which, in the final analysis, sounds very intolerant… to the point of sounding just as racist as the beginning of the original article. So again I ask if being racist is really the best way to go?/—–"There are ways to move toward a belief in something where shedding one's old ways and one's old associations are done peacefully and respectfully"So you say, but in Jesus' day that was far from the case . . . and even today this is many times untrue. As soon as a Jew said "I believe Jesus is the Messiah," he would have been ostracized from his family. That is hardly peaceable. And while Christians are to live in peace with all as far as we are able, we cannot help it if others cut us off violently. That is the sword that divides.—–This speaks to the heart of the issue – Us and Them. It's all about Us and Them isn't it – or Us versus Them – those we've been instructed to make into our enemies. What would happen if you didn't view people that way? Would the whole belief structure collapse? If you were to abandon that form of thought, people with differing beliefs might marry each other, and then… what? What great catastrophe is it that results from people who believe different things marrying?/—–And while Christians are to live in peace with all as far as we are able, we cannot help it if others cut us off violently.—–Again, I think you are missing the point. Because the article wasn't about Christians being cut off, it was about Christians being told who THEY should cut off – i.e. all those who don't follow Christ. The article was about not marrying them. The Jesus quote was about making them into enemies… pre-emtively, we should add. Simply by not being followers of Christ, they are to be viewed as enemies, even if they are your own family. Without DOING anything other than not believing something, they are enemies. Obviously, Christianity is not the only religion to have this mindset… which is what leads to so much tension between various groups of people who thrust such hostility onto people pre-emptively, and in some cases, as a matter of logical necessity to the very tenets of their belief. Which leads me to ask again if there isn't a better way?/—–So to show someone that he/she is unworthy in the sight of God is to show love, not cruelty.—–Well, I think this takes us a little off topic, but it is interesting how similar this sounds to Charlie Manson's idea about how the best way to show someone you love them is to kill them. Or… a bad boyfriend telling his girlfriend that she is nothing without him. I'm afraid I'm not on board with the whole unworthy, sinful falling thing. There is enough low self esteem in the world already. To have that as an integral part of a philosophy of living seems cruel. There ought to be a better way to move people in a desired direction than to appeal to their sense of low self esteem. Is there no better way?/—–Can I ask you a question? What standard do you use to order the world in… the way YOU want it to be? Why do you think that all should be united in a sort of homogeneous lump?—–This too, speaks to the heart of the issue – the desire for order in the world. When one person's or group's sense of order encounters an incompatible 'other' sense of order, most people think that one sense of order needs to win out over the other, and with luck dominate for eternity as the one absolute sense of order for all to follow (i.e. God's word)… and that anything less than that is a Tower of Babel… which… tends to gives people anxiety. So as long as their is a Tower of Babel, the people who neeeeeed order in their life, feel anxiety. The anxiety causes them adopt a belief structure. The anxiety causes them to do what they can to try and make that belief structure the dominant view and with luck, some day, the only view. While, in the mean time, pre-emptively declaring all other views to be their natural born enemy. This is a fear-based approach. Convincing people of their low worth is also using fear to obtain a result.To answer your question, I try to not do those fear based things. Not to myself, or other people. I like order just as much as most people – it's great. But it's not all there is to life. Different points of view can generate confusion and that can lead to anxiety. But I think we need as many points of view as possible, because what we are talking about is so hard to perceive within the limitations of human perception. In fact… I might like to deliberately marry someone who doesn't believe what I believe, JUST to have that other point of view around, keeping me on my toes./—–But if all you have is your own personal opinions and hunches and feelings to go on, then it's just your word against God's.—–Once again, you go for the mindset that makes this into a divisive, competitive, waring thing. My word against God's? I'm just asking if there isn't a better way? Can you think outside the box… er, Bible? Or is it your master, and you the slave? (another fear-based concept). This is not about my word against God's. This is about me not liking the tone of that original article, and it conclusions about racism. And me not liking the tone of the Jesus quote. So far, everything you've said has just made things less and less appealing. Is there no better way?
"Is there no better way?"You may as easily ask, "Is there no better/other way than Jesus Christ?" And the answer would be no. That is a tenet that I hold to be an absolute and unchanging Truth. If someone else does not believe the same, then I don't have to cut them off at all. We are already naturally essentially at odds. That is the point of the Jesus quote. His point is not to MAKE enemies, but to recognize that by following Him, those who do not are ALREADY naturally enemies.The solution, again, is not to kill the enemies, as you suggest, nor to "cut them off," but rather to make the enemies into friends and brethren. The purpose of unity is completely pointless if it is not founded on Truth."There is enough low self esteem in the world already. To have that as an integral part of a philosophy of living seems cruel."Doctors tell their patients all the time that they have a potentially terminal disease, that if untreated will kill them. Wow. Doctors must be the most cruel people in the world! Imagine how much depression and sadness could be avoided if they just didn't tell them."the Jesus quote from Matthew seem to be focused more on instructing someone as to who they must reject, and with how much devotion, in order to be counted among the advantaged"You definitely are missing the point. Jesus is not saying to reject your family. Rather he is saying that following Him will unavoidably make you enemies. Thankfully, our "advantage" is not based on the fervency of our devotion, because we all fail in that regard. Rather it is based on God's grace in calling us and working in us to will and to do of His good pleasure."This too, speaks to the heart of the issue – [my standard is] the desire for order in the world."At least I assume that is what you were saying (with added phrase in brackets). And this simply confirms what I said last time. Your only standard is yourself. As you said "my desire." Why should anyone else share that desire? What makes it good or better than anyone else's? That is what I meant when I said it is simply your feelings, your word, your subjective hunches against a transcendent standard of the God's Word.You see, the thing is, whether or not you LIKE what is said here is entirely immaterial. It doesn't matter. It is either true or it is not. My article is simply being consistent with my worldview, which is based on the presupposition that the Bible is God's revealed will. If you don't share that presupposition, then you're not going to like the conclusions, of course. But that would not change the truth value of the proposition.Until you deal with the underlying presupposition that the Bible is true and to be believed and that Jesus is the Son of God, then arguing on the outworking of the implications would be fruitless. To use my own imaginations as my standard and to yet call myself a Christian would make me a hypocrite.Because the Bible tells us that there are two covenantal races based on faith and that they ought not to mix, then those who claim the Bible as their standard should be consistent with that claim and follow God's Word. Otherwise they would find themselves to be hypocrites."So as long as their is a Tower of Babel, the people who neeeeeed order in their life, feel anxiety."I agree. And as I have said before, there is one solution. Unity and peace in Christ."Can you think outside the box… er, Bible?"Sure I can. Just like criminals think outside the law. It's called sin.
I am going to ask you a more fundamental question here. Since it seems you certainly have a sense of morality. You believe in being a good person and not hurting other people:What standard do you have for judging "goodness" or what is "wr…ong"? Why is it wrong to murder or cheat or steal or lie? Or is it wrong? Is it just your personal private feelings that makes it wrong for you? If so, then how can you insist on imposing your own feelings on anyone else?You see, despite what you want to believe, you are not on a neutral ground. You have your own worldview of how things "ought" to be, and you take measures to see that you can make things that way if possible. Inasmuch as you do that, you are imposing your own view on the rest of the world.The imposition becomes greater as soon as you present a rationale for WHY anyone else should do things your way. So you see, neutrality is a myth, and a philosophical impossibility.
My purpose was to add a comment about the article posted… not as a Christian, nor as a non-Christian, nor as an anti-Christian, but… as a person listening to an idea. As a person listening to an idea, the ending of the article didn't sound any less racist than the beginning. And while I can see how people of your faith are obliged to see the world this way in order to be faithful to the faith being promoted within the article, the elaborations of purpose that have followed have not helped to make the article, or the faith, seem any less racist. Which has caused me to add the additional comments about how unappealing that faith seems… to me./—–You may as easily ask, "Is there no better/other way than Jesus Christ?" And the answer would be no.—–I didn't ask if there was a better way than Jesus Christ, I asked if there wasn't a better way of moving someone into the direction of Jesus Christ… perhaps, a method that doesn't make enemies of others, or lower people's sense of worth or self esteem, and doesn't use fear as a primary motivator, or characterize deviations from dogma as a sin, or a disease in need of a cure. Maybe there isn't. I find that kind of severity and inflexibility and fear-based motivation unappealing./—–Doctors tell their patients all the time that they have a potentially terminal disease, that if untreated will kill them.—–Looking at others as diseased enemies. Not appealing to me. Sounds like Nazisim. I can see how it would make those looking down on the diseased enemies feel superior. That kind of self-righteous perspective would definitely be a strong motivator to following the dogma. But at a cost to humanity that I would find less than appealing./—–You see, the thing is, whether or not you LIKE what is said here is entirely immaterial. It doesn't matter. It is either true or it is not. My article is simply being consistent with my worldview, which is based on the presupposition that the Bible is God's revealed will.—–And my comments are being consistent with my worldview. And as our worldviews collide, I am happy to hear you use the word "presupposition" in describing the Bible as God's revealed will. Because it is a supposition… rooted in faith of a belief./—–If you don't share that presupposition, then you're not going to like the conclusions, of course. —–True./—–But that would not change the truth value of the proposition.—–Not true./—–Until you deal with the underlying presupposition that the Bible is true and to be believed and that Jesus is the Son of God, then arguing on the outworking of the implications would be fruitless.—–True./—–You see, despite what you want to believe, you are not on a neutral ground. You have your own worldview of how things "ought" to be, and you take measures to see that you can make things that way if possible. Inasmuch as you do that, you are imposing your own view on the rest of the world.—–That's true. But normally I don't do much of anything to impose those beliefs on anyone. I've made an occasional attempt, when talking to people who seem close to having a similar worldview. But I don't necessarily view those who I am not able to persuade as diseased, or my natural born enemy. In that way, it's not an Us and Them philosophy at all. And the worldview that my own bias gravitates to is not one that asks people to lower their sense of worth at any time. /—–The imposition becomes greater as soon as you present a rationale for WHY anyone else should do things your way. So you see, neutrality is a myth, and a philosophical impossibility.—–True. But… as people strive for perfection of purpose in expressing a belief, striving for the impossibility of neutrality is much less offensive to humanity than dividing us as natural born enemies. If people strived for the impossibility of neutrality rather than striving for the impossibility of making their worldview dominant among diseased enemies, we might have fewer wars and less ethnic cleansing. No? There is a degree of tolerance to a neutral approach that seems to be missing among worldviews that divide and view others as diseased enemies. I'll choose the latter.Oh well. Nice chatting anyway.