I can't really see how imprisonment by a government is qualitatively worse than damnation to the fiery pits of hell for all eternity.Disingenuous argument.
I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation. What Jesus is saying is that is you give up your possessions, give the money to the poor and follow him you will be rewarded with eternal salivation. He did not say that is the only way to end up in heaven.
This is where I disagree. Much like "things fall to the ground" is an oversimplification of gravity (and as such, is not "gravity"), "there is no private property" is an oversimplification of socialism (and as such, is not "socialism"). If your understanding of socialism can be summed up as "there is no private property", then I can see how you could come to such a conclusion. However, that's not an accurate or complete characterization of what's generally understood to constitute socialism.
Can you have socialism with ownership of the means of production? Please give me your definition of socialism that does not include the means of production being controlled by the people. Gravity being inverse square to the distance is just as fundamental part of the definition of gravity as the means of production being owned by the collective is to socialism.
Not really, any more than the idea that police should enforce laws or that courts should adjudicate trials are socialist concepts. By your reasoning, anything beyond anarchy is a socialist concept. That's not what most people mean when they talk about socialism. The idea that land owners should give more to their workers less [sic] they revolt is more rational self-interest than anything else.
The threat of violence either through the government or mob riots to demand "a fair share" is socialism. Negotiating wages is not socialism, unionizing and refusing to work until demands are met is not socialism. There are many avenues that can be taken without the threat of violence to get "a fair share". The use of violence implies that the workers are entitled to the profits beyond what they originally agreed to, and they are simply taking what is theirs.
However, we've established that the people footing the bill aren't working hard, they're merely owning capital.
We have not established that, you would need to show that the owner is not working, which has not been done. There are many other things that have to be done on a farm besides picking fruit.
Nobody needs to "work hard" except to satisfy the owners of capital, not to meet the cost of maintaining society.
That how a business works, you have to make more money then you are putting in other wise you lose money and go out of business and then nobody is working. Do you think all business should lose money?
that rewarding lazy behavior and creating more lazy people doesn't negatively impact those who "work hard" nor does it necessarily have any adverse effect on society as a whole.
It does when you have safety nets. Someone has to pay for those benefits. When you have more people receiving them you need more money to pay for them, since the contributor base is shrinking because you have more lazy people the larger burden will fall on the rest of the people working.