Socialism - An Evil Concept
Socialism is one of the great evil concepts because it represents robbing from everyone (including the rich) and giving to the poor. I have never seen any valid justification of robbing from everyone (including the rich) to give to the poor.
So taxation = theft?
Socialism doesn't "rob from everyone to give to the poor". The fundamental principle is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That means that
everyone contributes that which they are able to contribute,
everyone receives that which they need.
Socialism has wide public appeal because there is a feeling that someone is going to get something for nothing, but wide public rejection with the reality that some will receive and everyone else has to pay.
Incorrect. It has a wide public appeal because the vast majority of wealth in the world is controlled by an incredibly small minority. There are billions of people in the world living in poverty. There are a few million people and corporations, if that, that have enough wealth to provide the food, clothing and shelter that all those people require. Why should billions struggle to even barely survive in extreme poverty so that a small number can live with such extreme wealth?
Under socialist policies it is not only some that receive - it is all. In my country we have a socialist health policy - that means that taxpayer funded health care is available to all. We have a socialist education policy - that means taxpayer funded education is available to all. Not just a few. All. All taxpayers contribute to this money. The nature of our taxation system, which includes a consumption tax (a Goods and Services Tax), means that everyone in our society is a taxpayer.
Your understanding of what socialism is is fundamentally flawed.
Socialist/Democrats want to imply the only way a person can become rich is by abusing the poor.
No they don't. People can become rich through hard work, through luck, through creativity and entrepreneurship. They can also become rich through exploitation. Socialists (and I'm not talking about Democrats here because, if it wasn't clear you had no idea what socialism is about, you have just confirmed it by suggesting that Democrats are socialists) are concerned about a disproportionate distribution of wealth which leaves people without the means to live, and they try to redress this balance.
Socialist/Democrats also define everyone as rich that is not poor.
I have no way of responding to this statement without understanding what you think socialists think "poor" means, but I think you will find socialists have a slightly more complex worldview than that.
There certainly are those that are poor because they have physical and mental limitations, but I believe most people that are poor, got to be poor because of their weakness for pornography, sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
This is simply ludicrous. Billions of people in the world are poor because of the structure of the global economy, not because of pornography or drugs or any other vice you can think of (unless being born into poverty is a vice for you). It is statements like this which demonstrate your complete disconnect from reality.
The concept of redistribution of wealth becomes just stealing unless there is a justification that everyone (including the rich) deserve to be robbed and the poor deserve to be given to.
I've already addressed this fundamentally flawed understanding of socialism/wealth redistribution.
Lots of people like the concept of Robin Hood who robbed from the evil rich and gave to the virtuous poor, but I worry that a lot was robbed and only a little ever got to the poor. I worry that the wealth redistribution (Socialism) of the Democrats really means robbing from the rich, stuffing their pockets, then if there is anything left, they give to the poor.
While your "robbing from the rich, giving to the poor" analogy is false, it has indeed often been the case that socialism has been hampered by corruption. All forms of human organisation have been hampered by corruption, however, including capitalism. One should always be wary of this, but it is no reason to abandon socialism altogether.
Giving to the poor is evil, if the money is used by the poor to continue to buy pornography, sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
When there are billions of people in the world that barely struggle to scrounge enough money to eat, clothe and shelter themselves, I don't think porn and drugs are really that much of a concern for the vast majority of the poor.
I'm not going to touch the rest of your "evil poor" nonsense.
The Bible advocates person charity. The Bible does not advocate Socialism.
The Bible advocates rendering to Caesar that which is due to Caesar. Is there any reason to believe that Caesar can't be a socialist?
The solution of the problem of both the rich, the poor an all those in between is not through Socialism, but rather by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.
Can you tell me how this will give food clothes and shelter to the billions of people in the world without them?
Socialism is feeding a person for a day, but Christianity is teaching a person how to fish.
Empty rhetoric. Christianity does not change the structures of the global economy which ensure that billions live in poverty with basically no chance of improving their lot.
Socialism does more harm than good
Baseless assertion with no evidence...
thus the people of America would be best served if the government would get out of all Socialistic (Entitlement) programs.
... leading to unjustified conclusion.
Clirus, you really don't understand the world you live in. Believing in Christ will do nothing to alleviate the systemic poverty of the world. You completely fail to understand the principles of socialism.
