In present American culture, "divisive" labels the worst possible malfeasance against relativism. If you "divide," you're saying something is right, and let's stop wasting time, because you're actually just saying that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Can you believe that? Somebody might be wrong out there. The "divider" thinks he's right, which means not everybody is right. This is where we're at now with "divisive," and hardly anyone blinks. They just accept it as so.
Let's say you had a whole nation of boot-licking, goose-stepping unity, not that it has ever happened before. Then you had this small group who thought different, like an Apple designer or something. They would be divisive. Bad, huh? No, good. Why? Of course, because the majority is wrong. Wrong. Someone is wrong. People are wrong. The majority can be wrong.
Being consistent in a relativistic culture means consistently allowing everyone to be right without saying they're right. If they say they're right, then they're divisive, which is the one wrong, so it's only their opinion (IMO). The only dividers are people confident they're right. Hail doubt! Uncertainty brings people together, ya know. No one could be bothered with like a lack of conviction. Only like, because there isn't anything settled about my lack. I only might lack. Actual lacking might offend some non-lacking person. It can be tough being relative all the time, er, some of the time. Uncertain.
I realize that to stay the most divisive of a small division of a division, that I have to break the relativist's manifesto of unity and his logo, the question mark. This thought does bring me to the idea of unity, which is as important as division in the discovery of definitions. I can't understand division without understanding unity. You've really got two choices for unity. So as not to offend, let's consider the choice of the relativist first. His unity is built around toleration. Toleration is the one absolute. Everyone believes in toleration. If you want to offend the relativist, burn the question mark in his lawn. The other choice is absolute truth. You unify on absolute truth, which is, um, absolute. It's certain. Why do I feel this urge to apologize? I'm just presenting like the two possibilities. Come on!
Just want to digress for a moment. The growing population of effeminate men directly relates to the nuance of relativism. Part of manhood is decisiveness. Decisiveness is a violation of relativism, of unity. Modern manhood can't make up its mind and gets a standing ovation for this. Not knowing is a new strength. This is a reason why a big segment of America doesn't understand Putin, which is a digression of a digression. So I am saying that I think someone is calling me a man. That doesn't bother me. I recognize that it should today, but I'm really fine being a man.
Let's assume for argument sake that the above is the wrong usage for "divisive," even if it seems to be permissible at least as a form of propaganda. How should we understand divisive?
Someone who is divisive is dividing off of something. He isn't continuing to unify. Should someone unify around error, even a certain amount of error? If there is absolute truth, which the absolutist believes, does he do well to continue to unite on error? This is where we get to differing views of the world, and this relativist-absolutist argument. What's happening today is that the relativists are nibbling, nibbling, nibbling, until the absolute is a small list.
I don't get offended with someone dividing with me over truth. I'm actually not offended with any kind of dividing from me, because I'm secure in my position. I don't like to be called names, but it's something I should expect in this culture. I want to be right, and I do believe that it is possible to be wrong. However, if I believe I'm right, I have no problem standing on that. I would await some argument from the Bible. Name-calling isn't going to persuade me.
Let's digress again. I understand the usefulness of name-calling. It is the chief argument of the apostate. He is a mocker walking after his own lust. He traffics in ridicule. If he argues, he's got to admit truth and error, so he doesn't -- he mocks. His point isn't doing right, but doing what he wants. He doesn't want rules or authority. He wants his own way. He's a rebel at heart. He doesn't like absolutes, because it appoints some big brother to watch over him. He doesn't want to be watched over. He wants acceptance. He's insecure. He wants approval. If he doesn't get it, he calls names. I see him as a loser. He can't argue, so all he's got is name-calling, because he's already lost. There will be people, other losers, who will think he's made a point.
When I go door-to-door evangelizing, I often tell people I'm willing to be a Buddhist or Hindu. I mean it. To be truly open-minded, you have to be willing to believe something. I am. I am willing to believe, not just to taste, but to swallow. I just never get a good reason to be either a Buddhist or Hindu, and I never run into either who wants even to tell me why to be one. They're fine with my being myself. That's not good enough.
The Bible satisfies me. I'm sold on it. I'm certain of it. I'm too certain of it for a growing number of people. I get that. Men like minded with me divide from error. We believe someone is wrong and that the truth is worth keeping.
All the relativist has for unity is uncertainty. The proponents of relativism unify around doubt. Is that really unity? Is that what we're talking about? If we don't bow out of absolutes, out of certainty, we're dividing from the ethic of relativism? Then we're divisive? Perhaps in the world, but not God.
If the truth is unity, then the greatest unifiers are those who unify on the truth and the truth alone, not on some degree of uncertainty. That isn't unity. For that reason, I actually don't believe that I'm a divider. I believe with great certainty that men like me are the greatest forces of true unity, the only unity, on earth.
Who is the most intolerant in the whole universe?
The NBA? They divide 300 or so people from everyone else. If you don't play basketball like they do, you are not welcome. Their fans are similar. They stop watching if they don't play very well. No one calls them divisive.
Medical school? They have this standard that relatively few can meet. If they do, they're doctors. The expectations are very high. They're very intolerant. Their patients are similar. They want medical schools to be tough and keep people out. No one calls them divisive.
And then there is God. He divided the whole world from eight people with water. He'll divide the whole world of the future from just a few with fire. Those who don't take His way, He sends to Hell forever. His intolerance brings more pain for more people than anyone. No one is more divisive.
And then there is evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Division bad. Tolerance good. Almost anything goes. They're intolerant of bad entertainment and bad food -- totally divisive there. They are very tolerant of their own comforts and conveniences. God can take whatever kitsch, sloppy seconds. That's tolerated. And if you won't, you're divisive. Go figure.