Laugh Out Loud! Consistently wrong on every single point and now you are channeling Monty Python's Black Knight. Hilarious!
Physical things are conceptual; this universes' physical nature can apparently be described using mathematics. Some qualitative phenomena such as color, pain, emotion etc. are produced by physical (and thus essentially mathematical) interactions. Although it wouldn't make sense to say that physical things etc. are identical to mathematics, I think that they are both two aspects of the same thing: information. Conceptual. It might be better to read the works of a man much smarter than me, Christopher Langan, and his CTMU, as he calls it. Morality is the result of evolutionary social instinctual developments. There is no "greater purpose" behind moral intentions. That does however definitely not mean that I want to live in a society where people do not respect others. Although, what's a "crime" differs from one person to the next. There is no self-contradiction in the statement "I would kill a child for a few rocks of crack", even though such a thing would be detestable. Can you spot a self-contradiction there? There is certainly a self contradiction in any untrue mathematical statement. Or, there is not enough information to determine a statement that claims to be true, one or the other. Thus, lack of self-containment and self-contradiction are inherent in mathematics. They are also the only two ways that anything can be objectively false. What does it mean for something to be "purely" subjective as opposed to "partly" subjective? A statement must either be subjective or objective.
There is a good reason not to label someone with a word when the word has more than one sense. How the word is interpreted depends upon the perception not so much of the one using but the one receiving it. "Socialist" is a transient thing, and we are talking about God's word, supposedly the context of Jesus (as God's "word"), for God's word to be labeled a "socialist" would demand a constant state of social reform due to evolution. Yes we are in a constant state of evolution, but for the reason stated the label cannot be used without giving credence to senses of the word that oppose all free will to adapt to and fulfill the effects of evolution. Consider first that the words "just" and "equitable" are debatable, before reading the following, and consider the rise of man as if evolution has never stopped. As previously stated, Jesus "could only be one [socialist] now when We the People decide and always have the right to decide" admits God's word could be socialist, as we evolve, but simply because there is a sense of the word that might deprive Homo superior of rights--to their natural gifts due to "a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor" [1913 Webster] enslaving the Homo superior race to perpetual dominion under a Socialist scheme for the benefit of Homo sapiens--the term "socialist" cannot be used. Since Obama's socialism is stated, "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," and that potentially enslaves evolution or God's word, and since evolution is not naturally enslaved due to the Republican form of the universe (light speed limitations), therefore, God's word (uh, Jesus) was not a socialist. It is simply love for the inferior creatures that God's word supported, and charity, not enslavement of the superior. Whether or not there could be in the future such an easy distinction or branch such as between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens, arriving geographically, can you deny it could happen? And if Jesus was a socialist of the bent of Obama, "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," would not Homo superior be offended and feel his natural rights are violated with "a congregation working toward ECONOMIC PARITY?" To Homo superior social and economic justice and the achievement of becoming a spacefaring race might demand greater wealth retention, should their be a geographic concentration before self awareness might demand a "We the Homo superior's consent of the governed State," to take advantage of full potential, which would not be possible with economic parity. Certainly the inferior could demand gene therapy, and prodigious breeding...Mein Führer I Can Walk... ***** A person could say they are an anarchist, and the guy hearing it beats the crap out of him until he screams, "Police, rape, fire," and then you spend all day trying to explain how the brute was not an anarchist to people who see that the brute was an anarchist and the victim was not. You can claim you have no chief but if you call for aid, from among other anarchists, against a brute you call for someone to lead the brute. You could expect the anarchist to use reason with the brute, but that in and of itself is expecting the anarchist who comes to your aid to have a head of reason that motivates them to risk their own life. You could turn the other cheek, and not believe in any government except reason somehow finding natural rights. But, you soon learn that the barbarian does not care about reason. Then you start to see the centurion as a good man, with authority over men, with authority over him, and if you want to have a cheek to turn for minor offenses you must hire him. ***** You can say, "God's kingdom is not of this world," and supposedly claim anarchy exists because each person derives their rights from that God, each is a headman, or they each have natural rights, and then claim the Socialist is the same as an Anarchist, because the Anarchist uses Social reform to regain their rights to be a headman all unto himself. You can claim "free will" does not admit of government, but to have free will requires enough people to believe in your free will to defend it. To adequately defend your free will requires education, martial discipline, industry, and government. You could better label Jesus "stupid," if he rejected all authority. ***** Lawlessness, or a social scheme or reform supporting free will or anarchy simply must have some government to defend it when it cannot convince everyone that all the little demigods deserve such freedom. Anarchy is "free will" but sustaining it requires government.
Jesus is an allegorical myth that depicts astronomical procession and the winter equinox, his mother Mary was a depiction of Virgo the Virgin, the story was adapted from the Egyptian story of Horus and Set... and is one of literally hundreds of similar stories of a man being born of a virgin who had 12 disciples (the 12 constellations), was crucified and rose again after 3 days of being dead. This concept of Christianity is what it has always been, a tool of the masters to keep you in line. So...no...he wasn't a socialist... but, if the embodiment of an omniscient and unconditionally loving entity did exist 'm sure he would support a social standard of providing well-being and welfare for all...
No. I'm not a stupid person, so I don't believe Jesus was an anarchist. He was not political. Period.
Matt. 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
No, because socialism requires the state to coercively impose taxation or some other form of wealth transferrence from the individual in order to appropriate it. Jesus did not support forcibly taking something from someone and giving it to another (Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet). He did, however, advocate the need to pay taxes and debts if you owed them.
