 |
 |
and what's so wrong about eating meat? Let me ask you a question: What exactly would anarchism achieve? a better world? a safer enviornment? Is no rules better than any rules? Say you did achieve a governmentless world, would that really make people more free? the rules are the face of things, and unless you have some ability to change men's hearts (and in the perfect world there would be no need for rules) then only more destruction would be wrought in a world without any law. And i think in this discussion who Christ is is absolutely pertinent. He brought an end to law by fulfilling the law and in that He is able to change men's hearts so that men could live in love without the condemnation of law. This is just what you're getting at, essentially, with you "anarchism". But your version fails because it will achieve nothing but dissolution. And you certainly have confused Christ (who is Alive) with the same man-made structures that He was showing to be insufficient. In what way is Christ "imperialistic"? If you really think about it, any world without perfect logical order (not law) is horrid and true prison. The order of which I speak is perfect freedom in perfect love, in which there is no need for laws because there will be no imperfection. What are the alternatives? how else would you have it. >as a vegan living in a world that's a killing meat-making machine i have to >adjust my dialogue constantly. and the same applies to talking about nation. >an anarchist for twenty years i remain so. if my statement "reeks of >nationalism" (from your pov) it's because i need to use its terminologies to >express myself, to work against it. it's impossible to escape the terms of >reference. i will work on ways of overcoming this. regardless of my spiritual >beliefs, i cannot accept christ as part of this discourse - in this context he >represents cultural, spiritual, and social imperialism. i stick by my >statement. > >best, >jk >simone weil -- "every separation is a link" > >>