Matthew 19:24, not quite what you meant but close enough, though of course not under the threat of violence, just eternal damnation.

I'm am not someone that studies scripture, but the verse can have different meanings. It doesn't say that the people should give there wealth away, but rather that it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a pauper. Possibly referring to an early verse in Matthew stating that the meek shall inherit the kingdom.

To me it says that the rich will have a harder time getting into Heaven. They can still do many acts of kindness that will grant them passage to Heaven.

Acts of kindness have nothing to do with getting into heaven. Nor do sins. We're all sinners. The only way to gain entrance to heaven is to confess that you're a sinner and ask Jesus to cleanse your spirit. And you have to actually believe He can do that, you can't just bullshit it.

The laws given in the Bible are not rules for how to get to heaven. They're rules for living on this planet.

Of course you are right that it can have many interpretations as many bible verses do, though to me it seems clear that a rich person isn't supposed to hoard his money while the poor suffer (see greed).

This is true. Greed is a sin, but it's no better or worse than any other sin. And God can forgive all sins. Regarding socialism, I don't think Jesus was a supporter of any find of -isms. He just taught wisdom and kindness, and politics had nothing to do with it.

First, what is the point of having sins if there is no backlash because you can just say sorry? (and yes i understand it has to be sincere) I've never understood that. Second, I do think you are right that he wasn't pushing socialism, though he always pushed help the poor, the needy, and the sick.

It is not our right to question the reasoning behind God's choices. All we can do is follow His word as it is given to us. If something isn't explained in the Bible it's because God knows we can live our lives without knowing it. Keep in mind, I'm not knocking science or any of the breakthroughs mankind has made without the Bible. All of the knowledge we've procured through other means is all well and good, but we could have survived without it.

Also, helping the poor, needy, and sick is a universal lesson that we should follow regardless of what economic system is in place. But we were endowed with a sense of integrity as well. In Genesis 3:19 God tells man "You shall eat by the sweat of your brow" meaning we will have to work for our food (and other needs).

To the first part I can't really respond to seeing as I don't believe in god.

And Isn't what Jesus says more important? At least that's what I hear from all my friends when I point out things they disagree with in the old testament. And for the economic system, I know most can cover taking care of the poor, needy, and sick, though for some reason conservatives would prefer to not help anyone in need (if not any then very few).

I know I branched off there a bit to get back to the comment that started this hope you don't mind, I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

Yes, Jesus' words do supersede the Old Testament. I apologize, now that I read my previous comment again, it seems ambiguous. Yes, we should help the poor, needy, etc. I agree with that. I just added that part about Genesis because it popped into my head as I was typing the comment and I have a terrible habit of typing out my thoughts as they enter my brain. But anyway, Jesus wasn't talking about a political system that would cater to the needy, but rather He was saying that we as individuals should cater to them. Like bring them food and clothing and stuff.

About conservatism, I don't entirely agree that they don't help anyone. I was listening to a campaign ad for Romney recently which stated that under his plan, welfare would be made available to those who work for it. And I like hearing that, because it shows that the government actually will be helpful but only to the people who earn their help. I know this doesn't really fit with my first paragraph, but truthfully, I think welfare and healthcare should only be offered to those in the work force (excluding those who are medically incapable of working). If you don't provide for this country then why should this country provide for you?

No problem, happens to everyone.

And if i'm thinking of the same thing you are, work requirements are still there to collect welfare, Romney either misunderstood one of Obama's proposals or lied about it. He was going on about how Obama is ending work requirements for welfare, though what Obama did he gave 5 specific states (cant remember which ones sorry) more flexibility, and that would only stay if they could get employment up in those states by 20% I think (might be wrong on the percentage). There are some other things in there but that's the general idea behind it.

I am not sure if that will make sense or not.

Ohh. Well I hope you're right, because while I prefer Romney to Obama, I feel like Obama is more likely to win. So I hope he doesn't cut the work requirement. If he did, I would probably quit my job and demand free money, just to make the democrats look stupid.

That I know i'm right for sure. Personally I dislike both of them, but I really don't like where the republican party has been going for the past few years, don't get me wrong the democrats are not awesome either.

I tried to avoid thinking about politics for a long time, but as I get older I just don't see any way around it.

There really is not a way to avoid it, unless you want to be a drone and just go "I VOTE DEMOCRAT BECAUSE I WAS RAISED DEMOCRAT" or "I VOTE REPUBLICAN BECAUSE I WAS RAISED REPUBLICAN". Those are the people that mess up the US.

Well there's nothing wrong with voting based on your upbringing IF you understand WHY you're voting that way. Like, I was raised republican, and I've always supported that side because that's how my dad has always been. But recently I've started looking at both sides, examining their arguments, and now I make decisions based on what I learn from observation. And that's why lately I've been more interested i politics than I've been in the past.

I was talking about the people who never even looked at the other side, for example the people who are yelling "Obama's gonna take my guns away!" when he has yet to even attempt to push anything doing with gun control.

Well, we'll see about that. I heard it's in talks, even if nothing new has been passed yet.

The most he would do is actual background checks, he wouldn't try to take away peoples guns.

Hmm. Okay then.