Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1, Interesting) 771

Note that I said 'leaned socialist', not 'was a card carrying Socialist'.

You keep using the word "socialist." I do not think it means what you think it means. "Socialism," like I stated earlier, is an economic regime under which the means of production are owned by the government. It exists independently of the political system in place in a given country. You can have socialist countries in which there is great personal freedom (i.e., most countries in Europe), or you can have socialist countries in which there is little personal freedom (the old USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.)

Jesus certainly DID advocate a certain social order and priorities from the individual level on up. That social order is more closely fit by some variety of socialist philosophy (not necessarily Socialist, just socialist) than by free market capitalism.

But again, Jesus never advocated that the means of production be owned by the government. Ergo, he could not have been a socialist. On the other hand, Jesus did teach that one should have a certain degree of economic independence. His teachings in The Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard illustrate this.

You can bet he would not have taken money from the people and given it to the money changers like our government did (under both Republican and Democratic leadership no less).

You're missing the point of Jesus beating up the money changers and expelling them from the Temple. He did this because He felt that a house of worship was no place to conduct business.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton