Joe Offer,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post of 10:08 p.m. last night. We agree that that the word "socialism" can, in certain contexts, refer to a voluntary sharing. More commonly, such an arrangement is, I believe, called a "commune" if the means of production are jointly owned, and simply called "sharing" or "charity" if the means of production remain in individual ownership. However, the poem which opens this thread, and many of the posts prior to mine, are not talking about establishing voluntary communes nor about giving to charity, but are rather talking about state socialism. I'm sure we are in agreement that state socialism does indeed involve "forcibly taking".

I also "can't buy the contention above that socialism is necessarily godless, by the way". I'm not sure who made that contention. I certainly said nothing of the kind

Bobert,

You said that socialism "is a system that tends to rewards everyone for hard work rather than just a few... So exactly what is wrong with that, Kent???" There is nothing wrong with that. How well socialism actually succeeds at rewarding everyone for hard work is, of course, a matter of debate. However, I did not address that issue, nor do I intend to address it.

My point is simple: "Whether Socialism is good, whether it is right, whether it is justifiable, whether it is the best system, does not affect this fact: Socialism is not what is referred to in Acts 4:23-35. Giving away other people's money is not charity.

Bill D.,

I believe you and Jesus and the right-wing parties and the left-wing parties and I are all in agreement that people should pay taxes and that governments "MUST make decisions that certain parties are not willing to make for themselves." Only the anarchists disagree.

Some people, however, seem to think that voting for a tax increase is an act of charity. Voting for a tax increase may be good and wise (or otherwise), but it is not an act of charity. Giving away other people's money is not charity.

Kent