Originally posted by FabianFnas 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.
I 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.
Of course most (all?) Christians would challenge that but it's beyond the scope of this thread for them to do so.
Originally posted by Agerg 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.
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 densities.
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.
Originally posted by rwingett 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.
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?
Originally posted by josephw [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]
Decentralized communities are an ideal, whether they be agricultural or not.
Originally posted by josephw I agree, but just how autonomous?
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.
Originally posted by rwingett 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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by rwingett 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.
I 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.
Originally posted by rwingett 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.
You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't try to impose it upon me.
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?
Originally posted by josephw It is idiotic for one to think they can force another to believe against their will.
Then 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?
Why oh why? I don't get it!
People just don't want to believe anything against their will!
If We all lived like Jesus...
17 Jul '10 07:593 edits
Back to Top