17 Jul 10
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasI take your point but at the outset I divorsed myself of any God related talk. Assuming that some Jesus person did exist (and I'm not asserting he did) I am confident he'd have been a normal person like you or I that became the subject of fairy tales after he got the shaft. In this respect I don't acknowledge he prepared himself for any prophecies and such.
I haven't said anything about you personally should live and die like Jesus.
Everyone wanting to live like Jesys should also die like Jesus, hanging on the cross. Because all his life he prepared himself to the prophecy to be hanged. To live like Jesus but avoid being hanged is cheating.
Of course most (all?) Christians would challenge that but it's beyond the scope of this thread for them to do so.
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by AgergThe Hutterite communities have maintained a general size and population density because they've traditionally been agricultural communities. With land prices going up and the profitability of agriculture going down, that has been changing. More Hutterite communities have been engaging in manufacturing, which could accommodate far greater population densities.
I acknowledge your point, and it's a good one, but I don't think it answers the question. We're considering a system that does indeed exist and thrive following the teachings of Jesus, but there is no challenge they need to meet for the benefits of mankind as a whole other than to sustain themselves. Wikipedia says that the maximum size of any colony is roughl ...[text shortened]... ve been generous with usable land and world population, I'll stick with this number.
But I'm not suggesting that everyone should become a Hutterite. I'm saying that the Hutterites could serve as a general template for the rest of society to adapt for their own usage. Plus I think your outlook is too far in thrall to 'top-down' thinking. You presuppose the need for leaders at the top to organize and manage things while neglecting the ability of decentralized communities to cooperate in the solving of their own problems.
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by rwingettYou presuppose the need for leaders at the top to organize and manage things while neglecting the ability of decentralized communities to cooperate in the solving of their own problems.
The Hutterite communities have maintained a general size and population density because they've traditionally been agricultural communities. With land prices going up and the profitability of agriculture going down, that has been changing. More Hutterite communities have been engaging in manufacturing, which could accommodate far greater population densitie ...[text shortened]... the ability of decentralized communities to cooperate in the solving of their own problems.
In my opinion, "leaders" at the top exist for themselves as a way of controlling the wealth.(not sure that says what I mean)
I'm curious rwingett, do you believe that decentralized agricultural communities are an ideal?
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by josephwDecentralized communities are an ideal, whether they be agricultural or not.
[b]You presuppose the need for leaders at the top to organize and manage things while neglecting the ability of decentralized communities to cooperate in the solving of their own problems.
In my opinion, "leaders" at the top exist for themselves as a way of controlling the wealth.(not sure that says what I mean)
I'm curious rwingett, do you believe that decentralized agricultural communities are an ideal?[/b]
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by josephwIt is impossible for me to give an exact degree of autonomy that would be optimal. That would have to be derived through trial and error over time according to the circumstances of those involved. Certainly there would have to be some mechanism to coordinate activities between communities. But there is no reason to suppose that this activity couldn't be driven from the bottom-up, rather than being imposed from the top-down.
I agree, but just how autonomous?
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by rwingettMy thinking exactly.
It is impossible for me to give an exact degree of autonomy that would be optimal. That would have to be derived through trial and error over time according to the circumstances of those involved. Certainly there would have to be some mechanism to coordinate activities between communities. But there is no reason to suppose that this activity couldn't be driven from the bottom-up, rather than being imposed from the top-down.
Interesting ramifications. Logic and reason. In short supply.
I think you and I could live in peace as neighbors regardless of our personal spiritual perspectives and beliefs. In fact, I think it would enhance our mutual existence.
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by josephwYou can believe whatever you want as long as you don't try to impose it upon me.
My thinking exactly.
Interesting ramifications. Logic and reason. In short supply.
I think you and I could live in peace as neighbors regardless of our personal spiritual perspectives and beliefs. In fact, I think it would enhance our mutual existence.
But that raises the question of whether a 'Hutterite' approach would work with a culturally diverse population. Clearly part of the reason they succeed as well as they do is because they have a very homogenous population.
17 Jul 10
Originally posted by rwingettI don't think I ruled out the possibility of decentralised communities, nor do I see where I implied the need for top level leaders. My intention was to show that the example you gave might not scale up so well when we consider the entire earth's population behaving in a similar manner.
The Hutterite communities have maintained a general size and population density because they've traditionally been agricultural communities. With land prices going up and the profitability of agriculture going down, that has been changing. More Hutterite communities have been engaging in manufacturing, which could accommodate far greater population densitie ...[text shortened]... the ability of decentralized communities to cooperate in the solving of their own problems.
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by rwingettYou can believe whatever you want as long as you don't try to impose it upon me.
You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't try to impose it upon me.
But that raises the question of whether a 'Hutterite' approach would work with a culturally diverse population. Clearly part of the reason they succeed as well as they do is because they have a very homogenous population.
It is idiotic for one to think they can force another to believe against their will.
This brings up an interesting issue. How do we structure a society where we don't cause offence? By what standard(s) do we impose our collective will?
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by josephwThen why are religious people so eager to mission all over the world? Why are there so many christians out of the streets wanting me to believe in their ways? Why do mormons and JW culters try so hard to convert people in the doors?
It is idiotic for one to think they can force another to believe against their will.
Why oh why? I don't get it!
People just don't want to believe anything against their will!
19 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy do you think these threads get thrown off into tangents?
Why? It has been effectively implemented many times in the past.
Reread my statement carefully. "It is idiotic for one to think they can force another to believe against their will."
And now consider the context in which I made that statement.
It's no wonder we get nowhere around here! 🙁
I guess it was too much to hope for that maybe there was even the smallest measure of common ground. 😞