“The great divisions among humanity are never racial (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White), sexual (man, woman), economic (rich, poor) geographic (urban, rural), intellectual (educated, uneducated), or national (West, East), but ethical (covenant-keeper, covenant-breaker).
The great strategy of rebellious man is to posit the division anywhere but the ethical.”
Legend in his own mind
The fact that the great division, religiously speaking, is between covenant breakers and covenant keepers in no way diminishes other distinctions as Andy’s post implies. The fact that these very really distinctions are turned into divisions is indeed the consequence of sin as sin introduces a conflict of interest motif vis-a-vis a harmony of interest motif that one finds in the Christian faith. However, this does not mean that the distinctions turn into irrelevant realities upon conversion. Upon conversion men remain men and women remain women. Upon conversion the different races remain the different races and the different socio-economic classes remain the different socio-economic classes. One doesn’t get extra IQ points simply because one converts and so distinctions remain between the education and uneducated.
Because this is all true we would have to say that the great strategy of the stupid and rebellious man is to try and make these distinctions go away by blaming those who take these realities seriously as being rebellious. Most Kinists believe that one day the whole world, or at least much of the world will be converted. However, even in that happy day men and women will be distinct, the races will be distinct, geographic origins will still matter, IQ differences won’t disappear and national differences will remain. And all that is true when the ethical anti-thesis goes into abeyance because all men gladly bow to Christ as Lord of Lords.
Kinists understand these distinctions exist. Kinists understand that religiously speaking the great division is ethical. However, Kinists do not go all Gnostic by suggesting that grace destroys nature.
“However, this does not mean that the distinctions turn into irrelevant realities upon conversion. Upon conversion men remain men and women remain women.”
This is what pagan mystical spiritualism often denied. They thought that “soul,” or whatever they called it, had no sex or any other “carnal” identity. (After all, through reincarnation a person could be woman in one life and man in the next one!)
Take the Jains for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Jainism#Siddhas
“The Acharanga Sutra 1.197 describes siddhas in this way:
The liberated soul is not long nor small nor round nor triangular nor quadrangular nor circular; it is not black nor blue nor red nor green nor white; neither of good nor bad smell; not bitter nor pungent nor astringent nor sweet; neither rough nor soft; neither heavy nor light; neither cold nor hot; neither harsh nor smooth; it is without body, without resurrection, without contact (of matter), it is not feminine nor masculine nor neuter. The siddha perceives and knows all, yet is beyond comparison. Its essence is without form; there is no condition of the unconditioned. It is not sound, not colour, not smell, not taste, not touch or anything of that kind. Thus I say.[12]”
Inspired by similar kind of sentiments, the Gnostic heretics (who often wildly mixed Biblical and pagan materials in their theories) predictably made a mess of Christ’s comments about the resurrected people not marrying or having children, and denied the reality of biological sex. And not co-incidentally, it was among Gnostics alone in early Christian history that one could find “gay-affirming” or gender-bending stuff…