Originally posted by VoidSpiritThat's why I don't advocate that most people jump in cold turkey, as so many critics here curiously seem to think that I (and all other like minded people) should do.
the hardest part will be convincing those who have it all to let it go. jesus had this same fundamental problem. his "solution" consists of raising an army and waging war on them.
So far in this thread I've only talked about the end result (metaphorically referred to as The Kingdom), which would have much in common with the Hutterite communities (although it would not necessarily be an exact copy of them). What seems to confound people is that they're too habituated in their servitude to mammon to imagine how one might get from here to there. Indeed, in order to justify their base behavior, they pretend that there is no way to get there from here.
Going forward, I will set aside the Hutterites and the final destination of the Kingdom and try to shed some light on the path that leads there. It will draw its inspiration from sources such as the so called utopian socialism of the 19th century (which saw a great flowering of communal experimentation), to the communes, ecovillages and worker owned businesses of today. There is a whole gradient of communal and semi-communal options between the fallen world of mammon and the Hutterite inspired Kingdom. A whole gradient of options that need not be taken in one giant step.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou speak some strange variant of english, but that's just how you roll. i'll leave you to it.
those are legal formalities, stewardship is defined as "ownership" and it does confuse people, this thread is evidence of that.
if anyone can take your property away from you, you don't own it. it's as simple as that.
Originally posted by rwingettThe brick wasn't a literal one.
The process will be more oblique than you seem to anticipate. For most people it will consist of many incremental steps. The laying of bricks, when it comes to that, will be the easy part. The hard part will consist of fundamentally altering people's perception of what constitutes an acceptable society.
Originally posted by SwissGambitlike i said, it's only a formality. the terms have changed to befuddle people.
You speak some strange variant of english, but that's just how you roll. i'll leave you to it.
if the feudal eras, the king owned all the land. he delegated stewardship of his lands to nobles, the nobles in turn delegated their portions to the peasant farmers. they collected taxes and paid the king because the king owned it.
if the king did not like the way a noble was running his land, he would kick the noble out and put in another.
in the modern era, the terms have changed. king is now government. instead of the king owning the land, now the government owns the land (not really, but i don't want to get into who really tugs at the strings of governments and owns the land at this time). instead of nobles, we have state and municipal governments. instead of peasants... well we still have those.
different terms, same principle. you don't own anything which someone else can seize if they are unhappy with the way you are running things.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritInstead of Kings, we have bankers and corporate CEOs. Government is merely the means by which they bind you to their systems of control.
like i said, it's only a formality. the terms have changed to befuddle people.
if the feudal eras, the king owned all the land. he delegated stewardship of his lands to nobles, the nobles in turn delegated their portions to the peasant farmers. they collected taxes and paid the king because the king owned it.
if the king did not like the way a no ...[text shortened]... nything which someone else can seize if they are unhappy with the way you are running things.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSo America owns the world because they have the military power to take your property away from you?
if anyone can take your property away from you, you don't own it. it's as simple as that.
Or is it China as they could buy out just about anyone?
What about the fact that we as people can change the government? Do we therefore also have ownership?
-Removed-And I say unto you Divegeester, that St. Paul never met Jesus (in the flesh). Even if we accept his brief vision on the road to Damascus as being true, his direct experience of Jesus was very brief. Yet he was able to preach the gospel in a most effective fashion; the results of which are now self-evident. And in a like manner I have taken it upon myself to preach the gospel of the coming Kingdom to unrepentant sinners like you, Whodey and FMF.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadi don't know if they own the world. they have to contend over pieces of property with the other would be owners of the world (and they often do, with a lot of blood-shed to-boot).
So America owns the world because they have the military power to take your property away from you?
Or is it China as they could buy out just about anyone?
What about the fact that we as people can change the government? Do we therefore also have ownership?
you as a people can't change the government. you can only change the visible figureheads. the ones who run the government are the ones who have influence over the figureheads. it is for the most part, not the people.