Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Socialism doesn’t die. It just goes to school.
Education matters, and the doctrine we teach the young today will be the practice of tomorrow. And so, it makes little sense that Europe, a continent that needs to get its economy going as much as anyone, is teaching its children that free markets are evil, evil, evil.
Just as schools teach a historical narrative, they also pass on “truths” about capitalism, the welfare state, and other economic principles that a society considers self-evident. In both France and Germany, for instance, schools have helped ingrain a serious aversion to capitalism. In one 2005 poll, just 36 percent of French citizens said they supported the free-enterprise system, the only one of 22 countries polled that showed minority support for this cornerstone of global commerce. In Germany, meanwhile, support for socialist ideals is running at all-time highs-47 percent in 2007 versus 36 percent in 1991.
The scary thing is, so many teachers and educators – at all levels – in the U.S. might agree with so much of this stuff.
back to top77 Comments to “Socialism doesn’t die. It just goes to school.”
WOW!
And this is where our liberal/leftists want to take us. This is where the Democrats want to take us.
I have to read “this stuff” more closely, but thank you for posting this!
Report comment to moderator
Great article, Harrison, thanks.
Yet isn’t there also a challenge here? The real insight of our post-modern period is that all presentations have a perspective that often and conveniently serves an elite. Every time we think about values or interpretations in our schools (and we must), we have to engage some philosophy, advance some perspective.
One part of education is the realization that we have these perspectives, these spectacles, and that we then learn how to (self) critique.
The pro-classical economics perspective of a US school book thus, is as likely in need of critique as the anti-globalist viewpoint of a French book.
Report comment to moderator
What future is this preparing Europe for? Who could take advantage of this type of mindset? What type of political system would this look like?
Report comment to moderator
While here in America we are being ingrained that socialism and communism are evil.
We should keep are eyes and minds open to the good and bad off each system. While capitalism has its benefits. It can also be a harsh reality for the individuals on the low end of the totem pole, especially if those above them don’t care much.
Report comment to moderator
While here in America we are being ingrained that socialism and communism are evil.
Where is that happening? I’d like to send my kids there.
Report comment to moderator
The deep anti-market bias that French and Germans continue to teach . . .
Whatever the weather, if it’s Saturday morning and you’re German, you’re within a few kilometers of a town with an outdoor market. Week in and week out, dozens of merchants set up canvas booths on the pavement in front of the Rathaus. Throughout the morning, thousands of Germans buy their food, flowers and craft objects and sign petitions against tyranny and capitalism. About one in the afternoon, the markets are shut down by the iron fist of the law, perhaps due to deep anti-market bias. Germans go home to wonderful meals or ride around the countryside madly on 10-speed bikes, or in late-mode Mercedes and Porsches, or go up to their rooms to study utility functions, indifference analysis, and the Kaldor-Hicks approach to welfare economics, which have done such obvious damage to their way of life.
Report comment to moderator
Free economies always outperform socialistic economies and provide a solid base for a decent and reasonable safety net for the worthy poor. However, free economies, also, create people with substantial wealth, which always engenders great moralism and envy on the part of those without such wealth.
Though even in our country many educators follow the pieties of the left, most of our people are sensible on economic issues. When it comes to favorability Americans are about 80% positive toward corporations, as opposed to 20% positive toward the Congress.
In the next few years prepare for an orgy of hand wringing anti-capitalism from the left, as it is becoming increasingly clear that we are on course for a major and possibly long-lasting recession with a lot of economic pain to be weathered.
Report comment to moderator
stubob,
Thank you. Your comment proves my point.
Obviously, you think socialism and communism are evils to be avoided.
Apparently you are ignorant of the the Red Scare, McCarthy, and the House of Un-American Activities.
Anti-communism has been and continues to be a driving force in American politics. The fear is that socialism leads to either communism or totalitarianism (as Churchill suggested).
Report comment to moderator
. . . we are on course for a major and possibly long-lasting recession with a lot of economic pain . . .
Which certainly can be mitigated by timely application of targeted stimulus, as long understood by modern neoclassical economics.
Report comment to moderator
Theo — What does your point have to do with the justified events of fifty years ago?
Really, you said “While here in America we are being ingrained that socialism and communism are evil.” I’m still wondering where that’s happening. I agree that they’re “evils to be avoided” but, in a time when every single major presidential candidate is pushing some kind of “universal health care,” in a time when candidates get asked questions like “what are you going to do for farmers? (laborers? homeowners? minorities? — fill in the blank)” and none answers “leave you alone to sort out your problems,” it isn’t clear to me that anti-socialism is holding sway.
So, where is this indoctrination you deride happening?
Report comment to moderator
Imagine that . . . and we thought the infestation of our schools and universities by the hard left was just coincidence? There is and has been a plan on the table here for quite some time. It’s about time someone noticed.
The plan is to get to the kids while they’re young, ignorant in the ways of the world, and impressionable. Teach them what is good for the “State,” forsaking individual liberty, while ignoring the real truth of history which shows socialism and communism a dismal failure at every turn. If necessary, don’t be afraid to lie to the kids because they won’t know and their parents, who might know, will be so busy earning tax money with their two incomes they won’t have the time, nor the energy, to care. If they do, we’ll be running the schools, writing the text books, planning the curriculum, opining from the mountain tops, printing the news and controlling the electronic media anyway. With all that in place, we can control any situation that arises and eventually “change the world.” And from one generation comes the next.
It’s all very Biblical. Consider: Proverbs 22:6 and Psalm 71:17-18 changing “God” to “State” (the god of socialists and communists).
And from that next generation they’ll still have enough storm troopers willing to day trip to NH to register, vote for Hillary, and confound the pollsters—among other things.
Report comment to moderator
Funny, the apostles practiced a form of communism. They didn’t see it as evil. Seems that we are indoctrinated that greed is the only way for mankind to prosper. Capitalism relies upon greed as a motivating force. God doesn’t see it that way.
Acts 4
31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
1 Timothy
7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Seems very Biblical to me.
Report comment to moderator
Theo — Where in those texts does the state take people’s wealth and redistribute it? Those texts have nothing at all to do with socialism. On the other hand, voluntary charity is quite a Biblical proposition.
But, you’re pretty sure that “we’re being ingrained that socialism and communism are evil.”
For the third time, I’m asking you where that’s happening.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob – I attended grade school, middle school, high school and two colleges in the state of Virginia. At each stop, I learned socialism and communism were evil.
I don’t know where you live, but if they aren’t teaching that, maybe you should move.
Of course, Victoria and other anti-Southerners will cringe because they also taught us that the Civil War wasn’t not a civil war and was not about freeing the slaves.
I guess most education systems are failing US students on another topic as well…
Report comment to moderator
“Stubob – I attended grade school . . . At each stop, I learned socialism and communism were evil.”
So it really was “See Dick hate evil communists.” I knew I had that right when I read it to the class.
The only thing even remotely associated with the validity of world political systems taught in our grade school was learning to “Duck and Cover” after seeing the flash—a worthless exercise, but one that did make us think we had a chance to save ourselves. Oh, the indoctrination we suffered.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob,
Socialism and communism are clearly seen as evil forces in America. Your very attitude confirms this. I have always been taught that they were evil and i am sure you were to. I am not going to argue over this one. Clearly you are blind to your own prejudice. Communism is taught clearly in the Bible. If performed with a pure heart, it can be effective.
“voluntary charity is quite a Biblical proposition.” Tell that to Ananias and Sapphira.
Acts 5
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
Apparently his failure to fully invest himself in communism got him killed. He withheld partly, in order to make a profit, and was struck down for it. I guess his greed got the better of him.
Report comment to moderator
There is no way to kill it when whack jobs still love it to death after it fails and fails and fails. You can fix many things in this world but stupid isn’t one of them.
Sadly, as time goes on and the US becomes more socialistic, it becomes apparent to many that it is easier to have the rest of America support you instead of working. Eventually these people outnumber those that work. Today over 40% of Americans pay no taxes and live off the rest who work.
But the onerous progressive tax system makes the bottom 75% of Americans pay little taxes either. 75% of Americans pay less than 15% of the taxes paid.
Once the socialists outnumber those that do, then the don’ts control the elections and continue to soak the 25% of American doers for everything they can. It’s take from the rich and give to the poor. That is all I have heard from the left for the past 30 years. Once they get the ability to overcome a presidential veto and control filibusters in the senate, then they will once again, as they did for 50 years strait, put the screws to Americans that make life and jobs available to everyone else.
The last time this happened the top tax rate was 90% (When Kennedy took office) but was still 70% after Kennedy’s tax cuts. They will keep raising taxes on the top 25% until it won’t be worth it for them to carry the freight for everyone else.
Report comment to moderator
Stephen Biddle of the Heritage Foundation explains that the surge is correlated with the decline in violence but not related to it in a cause and effect way, which means that the US will not be able to obtain a peace dividend from the surge. If the surge had killed or “defeated” the enemy and thus stopped the conflict at the source, then we could end the surge. But that’s not what happened. The US now cooperates with and pays the very insurgents who were trying to kill our soldiers a year ago. We have gone from search and destroy to baksheesh. Like Saddam, we are buying loyalty and reinforcing local factions. Unfortunately, that’s not a recipe for nation building within a foreseeable time framework, and the misleadingly-named “surge” will be a very long-term occupation. No political benchmarks are in sight. The “surge” is not a strategy for leaving, but for staying a long, long time to come.
Report comment to moderator
LLAMA: . . . whack jobs still love it . . .
Curious. Posters may refer to others by the vulgar term for masturbation, but not by the vulgar term for coitus. Apparently, the more derogatory you are, the safer you are from the scepter. Goody!!
Report comment to moderator
llama,
Communism and socialism are not to blame. Greed and sloth are destroying society. If these were eliminated, it wouldn’t matter so much what political system was being used.
People who aren’t working cost America a significant amount of our budget.
Retired Individuals
$586.1 billion (20%) – Social Security
$394.5 billion (14%) – Medicare
Welfare recipients
$367.0 billion (13%) – Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (10%) – Medicaid and other health related
While we can’t eliminate the cost of retired individuals (and this will increase). We can decrease the amount of welfare. This will require education, training, and punishments for sloth. People who do not contribute to society because of laziness or greed should be penalized. No society should allow parasites to prosper.
This is true in communism, capitalism, or socialism.
Report comment to moderator
Theo — Your exegesis is lacking. Note the contextualizing verse: “Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
This, in addition to verse 4, which you cited, demonstrates that the lie was the sin, not the lack of communism.
My attitude confirms nothing about how communism and socialism are seen in America. I don’t hear the “socialism is evil” drumbeat. Perhaps it’s drowned out by the trumpets bleating “Viva Castro!” or the “Health Care for All” pipe organ.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob,
You figure God killed the husband and wife because they lied about not donating all of their money to the church. They only donated a portion of the money they received from selling the land instead of the whole portion.
The Apostles were practicing a form of communism. Ananias and his wife were going to join but only donated a portion, lying about the remainder. They were therefore struckdown by God.
It was the greed that they were struck for.
Does God normally kill people who only donate a portion of their property and lie about the other portion? How exactly does God’s communism work then in your mind? Must be different than God’s capitalism.
Report comment to moderator
Theo — Do you ever answer questions?
Report comment to moderator
Trying to twist communism into Scripture does work, it just isn’t there. Throwing socialism into the mix, which is basically giving people things they haven’t worked for, isn’t there either . . . Paul makes it very clear in Scripture below.
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
2 Thessalonians 3 10-12
Report comment to moderator
It should read ‘doesn’t’ not does.
Trying to twist communism into Scripture doesn’t work, it just isn’t there.
Report comment to moderator
“The Apostles were practicing a form of communism.”
Small problem Theo . . . the Apostles were not the governing authorities representing the Romans or the chief priests and elders who lead the Jews politically. There was no coercion, force of law, or threat of prison should the members of the church not participate. The Apostles were just guys teaching charity through the Holy Spirit and demonstrating how a Christian community should behave. Contributions were purely voluntary brought about by contrite hearts and the leading of the Holy Spirit within each individual.
All of this is antithetical to communist forcing compliance or socialist compelling through dictum—in any form.
If you have difficulty understanding your translation perhaps this will help. It’s from J. B. Phillips — The New Testament in Modern English:
“But Peter said to him, ‘Ananias, why has Satan so filled your mind that you could cheat the Holy Spirit and keep back for yourself part of the price of the land? Before the land was sold it was yours, and after the sale the disposal of the price you received was entirely in your hands, wasn’t it? Then whatever made you think of such a thing as this? You have not lied to men, but to God!’ ”
Ananias lied to God in his heart by trying to make the Church think he’d given everything, as others had, when he had not. He did this to make himself appear to other men as Godly as others, or more Holy than he in fact was, and that lie was sin. Sapphira did the same and it was for that sin they were punished.
The fact that men will die for their sins is repeated throughout the Bible:
1 Kings 16:18 “So he died, because of the sins he had committed”
2 Kings 14:6 “each is to die for his own sins.”
Jeremiah 31:30 “everyone will die for his own sin”
Ezekiel 3:19 “he will die for his sin”
Ezekiel 18: 4 “the soul who sins is the one who will die”
John 8:21 “and you will die in your sin”
Again, God is consistent and any finding of communist or socialist principle within in the Word is simply error no matter how many times you wish to repeat it.
Report comment to moderator
I have been into enough homes in this country to know that one of the greatest problems America is facing today is that laundry is piling up totally out of control in our homes, crippling our freedom to move and breathe and live well. We face a laundry crisis hurting Americans very close to home–infact, in their homes. You wouldn’t believe how much laundry is just not getting done in our country. Where is the candidate with the guts to introduce a universal laundry care plan? Clearly, millions of Americans cannot deal with this crisis on their own.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria nailed it. Man, reading Theo’s comment, it makes you wonder like Peter did at Ananias.
“Why are you doing this?”
I guess Llama sums it up above. Ya can’t fix stupid.
Report comment to moderator
In 1980, I attended a family reunion in Germany. Because my aunt and her husband were 65, they were allowed to travel TOGETHER to West Germany from the East. (If they stayed, no great loss and the East didn’t have to take care of the old people. Prior to attaining that age, you couldn’t leave the country together.) During that reunion, my aunt received a letter from my cousin in the East. She was overjoyed that they finally got new tires for their car — they’d been on a list for years. (Let’s remember that here in the USA in 1980, I was able to go to any number of tire stores and purchase from a variety of products.) My mother and I took my aunt and uncle to Munich on a day trip (my aunt was too afraid to stay overnight, something about the Stasi (police) but that’s a long story), and we purchased items for them from those outdoor stands mentioned in a post as well as stores. We purchased deoderant, toothpaste, soap — the list is endless! — and one other thing: buttons for my uncle’s coat. He had a coat with a front placket that hid the buttons. A neighbor — a woman — had LOANED them the buttons off her raincoat so his coat would look right and not be embarrassed, and the placket hid the fact that they were ladies’ buttons. Virtually all my clothes and shoes went home with them to the East for my cousin. At one lunchtime when my aunt and uncle saw a platter of meats that the aunt we were all staying with put on the table, they were shocked. They hadn’t seen that much meat at one time since the war — literally. My East German aunt had an education, she was a pharmacist, so she wasn’t “poor” and “needy” by choice. What I’ve written is the tip of the iceberg.
So, when you brilliant scholars spew forth all your nonsense about how great communism is, how great socialism is, this poster doesn’t believe you. The best thing I can say to you is that you are incredibly naive. And just so you know, the relatives in Germany aren’t as happy as you think.
Report comment to moderator
“The mathematician Igor Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliantly argued book entitled Socialism; this is a penetrating historical analysis demonstrating that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.”
– Alexander Solshenitsyn
The Commencement Address at Harvard: June 8, 1978
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy,
Whack jobs have nothing to do with masturbation but for some reason you think it does.
Whack jobs know who they are, and everyone else knows who they are, I don’t have to point them out individually or personally.
Report comment to moderator
Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Report comment to moderator
Nice story, NJLAWYER. My visit to East Berlin in the summer of ‘76 left me with a recurring nightmare of being arrested. There’s something about police dogs in your train compartment, soldiers on every corner, and the fences everywhere. I went to the box office of Bertol Brecht’s theater to get tickets. A woman said the performance was sold out . . . but wait, luckily, she found one for me. That night, the play was the story of a rebellious young man who finds obstacles to romance and scorns government bureaucrats. He meets an ancient old party leader, an almost forgotten Falstaff, who renews the disillusioned youth’s faith in the party. Except for a half-row of somber teens, I was the only person in the audience.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
A nice story but the article was condemning the present German welfare state and its education system which was inherited from the West German government not the east. State totalitarianism doesn’t work but Kenyesian economics does.
Interesting that the article calls Germany and France education system and economies a philosophy of failure yet they never define failure. Compare the US to France and Germany in any human social index or stat such as infant mortality, life expectancy, security, crime, etc. With these comparisions in mind, the philosophy of failure doesn’t seem to be to bad.
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy, I’m glad you just had nightmares. My aunt was not so lucky. On two different occasions, years apart, two of her co-workers escaped to the West, and the Stasi were convinced that she knew more about it than she did. I have met people who suffered from mental illness, but this woman suffered from fear. She jumped when a cousin filled up a coffee cup too fast. She refused to go into the basement of the house for an extra bottle of soda. She did not feel safe anywhere.
Those who think there is merit to communism and socialism never get out of their theory boxes. It’s just an intellectual exercise for them. One thing our Founders understood was that given the opportunity, given the nature of the human beast, if the government had too much power, the people would lose their freedom. Too much government control is bad. What I find so odd is that in the past few years here, it has been the liberals who object to the Patriot Act claiming a loss of privacy, but they’ll let the government take control via socialism without so much as a blink of an eye. They even vote for it!
Learn about socialism and communism all you want, but unless you really learn what it was like for the people who lived under it for decades on end, you are not educated.
As Llama says, “Ya can’t fix stupid.”
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Life expectancy in US is 77, same as in Denmark.
In Germany it is 78. France 80, Japan 82. Whoop de doo. Different diets too.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
The difference between social democracy and state totalitarian communism is the difference between Sweden and the Soviet Union. The difference between fascism and a neo-liberal state is the difference between Mussoloni’s Italy and the United States. Since most of us on the left speak of social democracy use the western European model to continue to use the totalitarian model is as useful as myself comparing Bush to Mussoloni or Hitler. It may make for great rhetoric but it has no logical basis.
Although your family has my sympathy you must also realize that the East German state was a totalitarian state which had no legitimate reason to exist which contributed to the paranoia and militarism of its leaders.
In opposing viewpoint, the Polish communist state received fairly good support except when it needed to raise basic commodity prices such as bread. When the state makes the mistake of assuming control of pricing, then overextends its responsibility. Bread riots break out, 1956, 1972, 1979 and throughout the 80s, and eventually the Polish Communist party gave in. Yet this did not spell the demise of the Polish Communist party as it is still the largest political party in Poland and since 1989 has spend a significant amount of time in power again. Most of my in-laws vote for the Social Democratic Party of the Left.
Report comment to moderator
There’s a generation of East Germans that came of age in the early 90’s and successfully entered the miracle economy. I’ve two East German friends living near Stuttgart. The man has an interest in a small company that sells software to the auto industry. The woman stayed home until her son went to school, then got help from the state getting a job as a school secretary. Although she too is an engineer, her English is poor. The point of all this is that they are prosperous socialists. Their parents all died in the East after short, hard lives. However, they imagine the US economy to be as harsh and inhumane.
Report comment to moderator
TRR
FRom a UN Report
Despite high levels of spending, some US health indicators are far below those that might
be anticipated on the basis of national wealth. Infant mortality trends are especially
troublesome. Since 2000, a half-century of sustained decline in infant death rates first
slowed and then reversed. The infant mortality rate for the U.S. is now higher than for
many other industrial countries. Malaysia – a country with one tenth of the U.S.’ average
income – has achieved the same infant mortality rate. And the Indian state of Kerala has
an infant death rate close to that of Washington D.
To call the German and French system a failure is to remove a speck out of your neighbour’s eye when ignoring the log in your own.
From wikipedia infant mortality rates
US 6.3 deaths per 1000
Cuba 5.1
Canada 4.8
GErmany 4.3
France 4.2
Sweden 3.2
Again the point of these stats is to ask What is the author’s definition of a philosophy of failure? Swedish social democracy seems quite successful
Report comment to moderator
NJL – 29
Words can’t begin to tell you how I felt as I read this post. Since I studied WW2 and know the aftermath, I could picture that platter brimming with food, you giving your clothes for your cousin. Bless your heart.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Look up Christian Communism in Wikipedia.
Stubob,
You are creating a strawman. You draw attention to the Roman state. The apostles were very clearly practicing communism. Whether or not it was supported by the Roman state is meaningless. I never asserted that it was. The apostles had their own socioeconomic system where followers sold their property and had all things in common. This is the very definition of communism.
Report comment to moderator
Theo
I don’t have to look up anything in Wikipedia. University’s don’t accept what they put out, why should I. I know what Communism is, I don’t need to look it up.
You obviously don’t understand the Scripture in Acts. There is nothing communistic about it.
Report comment to moderator
“The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was, that they were ambitious of being thought eminent disciples, when they were not true disciples. Hypocrites may deny themselves, may forego their worldly advantage in one instance, with a prospect of finding their account in something else. They were covetous of the wealth of the world, and distrustful of God and his providence. They thought they might serve both God and mammon. They thought to deceive the apostles. The Spirit of God in Peter discerned the principle of unbelief reigning in the heart of Ananias. But whatever Satan might suggest, he could not have filled the heart of Ananias with this wickedness had he not been consenting.
The falsehood was an attempt to deceive the Spirit of truth, who so manifestly spoke and acted by the apostles. The crime of Ananias was not his retaining part of the price of the land; he might have kept it all, had he pleased; but his endeavouring to impose upon the apostles with an awful lie, from a desire to make a vain show, joined with covetousness. But if we think to put a cheat upon God, we shall put a fatal cheat upon our own souls. How sad to see those relations who should quicken one another to that which is good, hardening one another in that which is evil! And this punishment was in reality mercy to vast numbers. It would cause strict self-examination, prayer, and dread of hypocrisy, covetousness, and vain-glory, and it should still do so. It would prevent the increase of false professors. Let us learn hence how hateful falsehood is to the God of truth, and not only shun a direct lie, but all advantages from the use of doubtful expressions, and double meaning in our speech.”
Matthew Henry
Report comment to moderator
Three types of government – which would you choose?
Definition:
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Definition:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Definition:
1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively
Report comment to moderator
Communism: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.
Acts 4:32 …neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
Socialism: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
Acts 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, …
Communism: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
Acts 4:35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Direct question.
Were the apostles practicing communism or socialism? yes or no.
I am not asking about Rome or Jerusalem or China or Greece or whatever. No straw men.
If I could trust everyone to pull their share I wouldn’t mind communism. Since I don’t trust others I prefer Capitalism.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – just an FYI: capitalism, socialism and communism are NOT types of government systems. They are types of economic systems.
Report comment to moderator
I realize many things HRW. I’m sorry, but the world is not the “perfect” place you think it to be. Get out of your schoolroom and deal with reality.
You mention Sweden. Start reading. As Swedes become less and less “Swedish,” with all the immigration they’ve allowed, life is not as “special” as you want us all to believe. Same in Norway. Times be changin’ there. France ran into trouble when it tried reform because people are so used to having all the perks that they don’t want to work; the same with the Germans. Maybe times aren’t bad enough — yet.
It is naive to think that when the going gets really tough, that the Swedish model you love so much can’t be corrupted into totalitarianism. Our own Constitution can be corrupted. Don’t say it can’t happen. Nasty regimes have been around throughout history. It’s human nature, and some of us here know that the devil never lets an opportunity to take advantage of that human nature go by.
What if the Muslims take over Holland? There are areas in the UK where non-Muslims literally fear to tread. The Germans are certainly afraid of them. We don’t have the violence in the streets that they have, and you don’t hear about what does on in these countries on a daily basis unless it’s really bad, like the riots in France. But it’s there. And sooner or later there will be a crackdown. When people look to the government to solve all their problems, which they do under communism and socialism, they can easily fall prey to a strong personality who makes promises he/she never intends to keep. (Remember, Hitler was duly elected.)
You have this fairy tale view of people in power. Hitler didn’t work alone! He had a lot of help. How did they win over the people? Here’s one way: the Weimar government had trouble providing food, and they would set up times when people were supposed to show up for their share. But they set up the schedule without having the food. The Nazis did the reverse. They got the food first, then set up the schedule, so it looked like they could provide. Things like that over time led people to believe that the Nazis would provide for them. Then the hammer came down.
We live in a dangerous, dangerous world today, and the only thing that can combat that evil is FREEDOM. Freedom to think, work — yes, work! — accomplish, etc. Last week I was reading at the Volokh Conspiracy, Jan. 4th I believe, and they posted about the death of a man named Olmsted. He had just died in Iraq. Last summer, he wrote something to be posted in the event of his death. I hope you can find it, and I hope you will read it. But here are three of his words: “Freedom isn’t free.”
You may object to the free-market system — but it’s free! And that’s the point! Our Founders were not in favor of too much government. History has proved them right.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Lester, capitalism, socialism and communism are economic systems — run by imperfect human beings who have their own agendas. If the agenda is not freedom — and it can’t be if you are taking from one to give to another, if you are telling people they can’t have something of their own — you have problems. Big problems.
Not a road I want to go down.
Report comment to moderator
I would think that communism would work best in small communities of closeknit like-minded individuals. People who understand the value of work and were interested in the welfare of others.
Any economic system (whether capitalism or communism or socialism) will struggle when individuals consume more than they produce. An economic system that fosters non-productive individuals must bear that weight among its other members. Capitalism forces each individual to bear his/her own weight regardless of the consequence. This is a strong antidote to non-productivity. It is also heartless in its extreme.
Clearly, the apostles practiced communism in the New testament with the early church members. Anyone who interprets different is twisting the Bible to match their own viewpoint rather than reading it with a clear understanding. The incident with Ananias shows what can happen when greed or sloth enters into communism. In Acts, God’s answer was to destroy Ananias and his wife, a harsh response to be sure. If America were to destroy liars, cheats, thieves, and those who sought to take advantage of the welfare system, however draconian, there would certainly be an increase in American productivity.
Report comment to moderator
#16, THEO GODWYN wrote; “‘voluntary charity is quite a Biblical proposition.’ Tell that to Ananias and Sapphira.”
THEO has missed the point of Ananias and Sapphira account. Others have pointed this out clearly and Theo has not owned up to his misunderstanding. Ananias and Sapphira chose to lie. They concocted a conspiracy of pretense between each other. That was voluntary and that was what incrred God’s wrath. They wanted the public credit for giving their all, while holding b ack.
You cannot play games like that with God.
Regarding voluntary charity, see 2 Corinthains 9:7 — “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
Did you catch; “NOT… under compulsion!”?
Report comment to moderator
We would be wise to also take to heart and mind the references shared by Victoria at #24. Thanks Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob made a pertinent point at #13 — namely that the biblical texts to which Theo has referred do not call for the state’s involvement at all in the free economic choices of the people.
I also appreciated ROND’s thoughts at #26, “There was no coercion, force of law, or threat of prison should the members of the church not participate.”
ROND added, “All of this is antithetical to communist forcing compliance or socialist compelling through dictum—in any form.”
Report comment to moderator
My point is that the Apostles practiced communism and therefore in some situations communism, itself, is not evil. Our society is trying to teach that communism is evil.
I realize that Ananias and his wife chose to lie. I realize that they were trying to cheat the system. I realize that they were entering into an economic system “communism” of their own free will. I realize that they had conspired against the system. I realize that they did not have good intentions in giving only part of their money from their home sales to the Apostles.
I also realize the the Apostles and early christians were practicing Communism amongst themselves.
This seems to be a fact that Stubob, Victoria, and others can’t seem to accept.
Report comment to moderator
A few points from Acts 2:45 and 4:32. In the first verse, one could conclude that all the believers sold all their possessions, all at one time, and then lived together in some kind of communal dwelling. This is clearly not the case. There was not one great sale, but an ongoing process, in which needs which arose were met by the sale of some property. People kept ownership of their goods, but sold goods from time to time to meet the needs of others.
Several things characterize the generosity of the early church here:
1] The sale of goods was voluntary.
2] The sale of goods took place spontaneously.
3] It seems that giving was done directly, from the giver to the one in need. There is no intermediary mentioned here, no “middle man”.
4] The emphasis falls on the church caring for its own people. They shared everything in common, and this is explained by the fact that when one was in need, another sold some possessions in order to meet the need. So the church was taking care of its own people.
In Acts 4:32, we see a very important detail. It was not that people gave up possession of all their goods, but that they gave up ownership of them. Their things still belonged to them; they had them in their possession, but they did not claim to own them. They regarded themselves as stewards of their possessions, and so they did not seek to hoard them. When someone was in need of their possessions (or the money from the sale of them), then they put that item up for sale and gave the money to meet the need.
While the Bible certainly doesn’t teach that every Christian should sell all of his or her possessions, it does teach that all that we have has been given by God, and that we are only stewards of it. We are to use what God has given as faithful stewards, and look out for the needs of others as well. THIS IS NOT COMMUNISM.
Report comment to moderator
I believe that the early Christians were not just demonstrating generosity, but even more so, they were also practicing unity. If a member of my family has a serious need, I will do everything possible to meet that need, if I can, and I do not think of myself as being generous for doing so. As Jesus says, “Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or, if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?” (Lk 11:11-12).
The response of this man to the request made of him is not necessarily the response of a generous man; it is the response of a father. Being a part of the family is what makes the difference. The early Church looked upon themselves as a family, and they lived like a family. So if one member of the ‘family’ had more than enough possessions and another member had less than enough, it was natural to share these possessions within the family. ‘Private property’ is viewed differently within the family than outside of it.
As Luke makes clear, ownership of property still remained, but the claim to ownership was given up. That is, one owned his possessions, but he gave up that ownership the moment it became evident another member of the family required them. It was a simple matter of sharing what you had with those who did not. AGAIN, THIS WAS VOLUNTARY – NOT COMMUNISM!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria provided some definitions for socialism and communism in 44.
The system that the Apostles used certainly fits these definitions.
Their economic system was clearly not pure capitalism. It also was not totalitarian communism as seen in the Soviet Union. Christians joined voluntarily. They sold their homes and belongings and gave the apostles the value. The apostles then divided it according to the needs of the different members. They shared all things and had all things in common. There was no personal property. The people were of one heart and one soul. Everyone looked after the welfare of their neighbors.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus,
Your reading does not agree completely with the text.
“neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” Property is considered communal and not private.
“as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” Those who owned land sold it and it was redistributed according to need.
It is clear by the story of Ananias that this was a very strict system. If willingly entered, it was to be entered fully and without reservation. Members were not to withhold any of their belongings. Ananias withheld with the intent to profit from the system. His greed was rewarded with death.
This was not an occasional voluntary donation type attitude. It was a community that was fully invested in the success of each member. It appears that many are trying to paint the church as a capitalistic society that voluntarily donates according to the needs of its members. It was not this way. Members were fully invested with all of their property and belongings. It was not an option to only provide part of your belongings.
Example of the correct way.
“Joses … Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”
Example of the wrong way.
“Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, kept back part of the price… and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”
Ananias and his wife conspired against God, seeking to cheat the other members by keeping some of their own property while receiving the full economic benefits of the communal society.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Lester, capitalism, socialism and communism are economic systems — run by imperfect human beings who have their own agendas. If the agenda is not freedom — and it can’t be if you are taking from one to give to another, if you are telling people they can’t have something of their own — you have problems. Big problems.
NJLawyer – my post had nothing to do with the capitalism vs. socialism vs. communism argument. Victoria had some quite snide remarks about my southern heritage and schooling in the past. I thought I’d let her know that in the south, we know that capitalism, socialism and communism are not forms of government. They are economic systems.
I’d think someone who can disparage my education had better get her ducks in a row, especially over something as simple as forms of government vice economic systems.
That said, I’ll take capitalism over any other economic system. With as little interference from the government as possible.
Report comment to moderator
excellent posts in 54 and 55, Tychicus, but I fear your efforts are wasted on Theo.
Perhaps because Theo and all his opponents are talking past each other?
For Theo, “communism” seems to denote voluntary collectivism, where each member of the community gives from his abundance toward others’ needs. Since each member has joined voluntarily (and presumably can leave the community at will), there is no coercion.
His several opponents are making the point that this bears little resemblance to communism as it has been practiced in modern times. Key to this is that there is little that is voluntary, certainly in totalitarian regimes, but also in socialism as practiced in glorious Sweden and others. The only way to opt out is to emigrate.
Report comment to moderator
You are right RR.
Neo-conservatives are so convinced that communism is evil that they can’t admit that the Apostles practiced a form of communism.
They also won’t admit that they have been taught that communism is evil.
I feel like my point is completely lost with everyone.
I am not talking Soviet Style Totalitarian Communism. It is communism nonetheless.
Report comment to moderator
The Apostles were practicing more than mere “voluntary collectivism” though. There is common ownership of all property and sharing of all resources. There was voluntary entering or exiting but there was certainly not partial entrance or exits. Members were either fully invested or they were not. This is seen in the case of Ananias.
Whatever the semantics that you choose, it fulfills the qualifications of communism and socialism.
Report comment to moderator
The condition of this church was that they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the word of GOD with boldness. That is not the case in the churches today. Only a few step up to preach and teach, and hold fast to the words of the LORD.
This did not last long. Carnality came into the church right away.
Remember these were Believers, they were not everyone in the country.
This lifestyle could only last a short time, BECAUSE of the spiritual condition of the CHURCH. It is pure nonsense to tell someone we could/should put this into effect today, we would have chaos. Why would that happen:
There must be the high spiritual level, and we don’t have that today. Everyone must come into a closer relationship to Jesus Christ.
We also must realize this was a CHURCH, not a country, city or small town. To call this communism in any form is not correct.
Within many churches the members do share. We went to a church in the northern part of our state, there was a family with 5 kids. They were a strong, wonderful family, they lost their home due to the father’s business, (which was not his fault) business was just bad. The church had moved the pastor and his family to another home. The church decided to move the house which the pastors family was no longer going to live in, and (if I remember correctly) they were GIVING it to this family. I believe this was the right thing to do. They had a huge food pantry as well. There were poor people, and those who were well off in this church, it was a good mix of everyone.
Report comment to moderator
Lester – 46
YOU WRITE:……..”Victoria – just an FYI: capitalism, socialism and communism are NOT types of government systems. They are types of economic systems.”
What do you think an economic system represents? Is it part of a country?
Does a country adopt an economic system?
Report comment to moderator
Lester, I love Southerners, especially the accent. I didn’t realize what you were trying to say. We are in agreement. A country has to function economically using some sort of principles. Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it accomplishes more than too much government interference.
What I don’t understand is why so many here are so against allowing a person to keep what they earn. Don’t they still make students read that old essay on Self-Reliance?
Report comment to moderator
Lester – 58
Lester, that isn’t true. Please give me the thread name, and post number where I have been rude to you, as to where you went to school or your southern heritage! I don’t agree with everything in the south, but that doesn’t mean you personally, certainly you can discern the difference.
I may not agree with you on certain things, but I don’t dislike southerner’s.
Report comment to moderator
Theo: The context in Acts is that the giving was voluntary and the goods were not simply evenly distributed but rather were given to meet needs as they arose.
In referring to “Christian communism”, it seems that you believe that Christians should support communism as the ideal social system. However, the Biblical context doesn’t allow for it. While there is some similarity to the idea of communism with a little ‘c’, the history of Communism reveals way too many differences. Where has Communism worked historically? How can you create a totally classless society with the reality of sin in the world?
It seems that instead of starting with the Biblical context and testing other ideas against it, you choose to start with communism as truth and then seek to apply the Bible. I have to ask: Do you really live out in your own life what you are advocating here?
Report comment to moderator
Stubob at #21: Theo — Your exegesis is lacking. Note the contextualizing verse: “Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
This, in addition to verse 4, which you cited, demonstrates that the lie was the sin, not the lack of communism.
Peter only asked that question of Sapphira, and it was after Ananias had already kicked it. With Ananias, Peter accused him of lying simply for presenting only part of the money, when no one had said anything about it being all.
The obvious expectation is that you had to give all of the money from a sale. To give any less was to lie, even if you said nothing.
It is communism in a way, although it sounds more like a protection racket to me.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg YOU WRITE:…….”It is communism in a way, although it sounds more like a protection racket to me.”
You are wrong on both statements. What you posted doesn’t make sense!
Report comment to moderator
How does it not make sense?
1. Ananias gave part of the money but not all. Peter said then that he was lying, without ever having asked him whether it was all. Therefore, giving any less than 100 percent was not good enough.
2. Ananias died.
Ergo: If someone didn’t give 100 percent to the group, they died. Protection money.
Peter did ask Sapphira if the donation was 100 percent of their proceeds, and she did lie. But that was after Ananias had already died without having made any such claim.
The purpose of giving the money was to share it around the group. The root word of communism also gives us “communal,” and “community.” It means to live as a group, not as individuals.
The earliest church practiced communism of a sort, in that they lived communally and shared among the group as they needed. And if you don’t think it was enforced, ask Ananias.
But my reference to a “protection racket” was tongue-in-cheek. Try having a bit of a sense of humor. It’s good for you.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG,
This is the problem with you Steveg, you make comments, and them you call them “tongue-in-cheek” – many do the same on this blog, they say WHATEVER THEY LIKE and then they say:
“just kidding” or
“it was just a joke” or
“it was meant as humor or sarcasm”
It doesn’t work anymore Steveg, the joke’s on YOU, …..
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: This is the problem with you Steveg, you make comments, and them you call them “tongue-in-cheek” –
Not true. This is the first and only time I have. I stand by everything I say, and if I do change my mind about something, I am adult enough to say I have done just that.
Even on this one, I stand by the basic point: The story of Ananias and Sapphira was intended to make clear to people that they better not hold anything back when they gave.
“Protection racket,” however, was a phrase I chose because the juxtaposition of mob lingo and a Bible story is humorous. Sorry you can’t see it.
Report comment to moderator
I see no humor in your last sentence Steveg, because there is none.
As I said “the jokes on YOU”
Report comment to moderator
#47
The Swedish model is constantly announced to be dieing by an overly optimistic press yet it has survived more or less since it was first enacted in post war Europe. Norway’s economic success and living standard has less to do with their economic model and more to do with the vast amounts of oil under their portion of the North Sea.
I’m not sure why you include immigration as a threat to an economic model. Perhaps mass immigration may threaten the host culture but the economic model can survive cultural changes.
Historians have attributed many rationales behind the appeal of Hitler, but generally a gov’t that made the trains run on time is a Mussoloni accomplishment. Several reasons cited include; bitterness at defeat, nationalism, “stab in the back” myth, the willingness of the industrial owners and the old Prussian aristocracy to bankroll him in the naive idea they could control him, the first use of modern media in generating a mass movement, etc.
And the economic failure that the Nazis proposed to relieve was the Great Depression spurned on by the failure of the capital markets and the international system. These are capitalist failures not socialist. One of the great appeals of the communist party in Germany, which competed with the Nazis for the working class vote, was the Soviet alternative which was engaged in mass industrialization movement at the very time the capitalist countries were closing their shops. However, the communist refusal to use anti-Semitism and nationalism in German elections probably lost them to many votes.
I don’t object to the free market as it does in fact work and work well. What I would like to see is a change in who benefits from the market as it is now designed. The market is after all carefully regulated. The question is not how much or how little regulation is needed but for whom will the regulation benefit.
Finally, I absorbed perhaps one lesson more than any other in my reformed education and that is the total depravity of man (perhaps because its the letter T in the TULIP acronym). I have no fairy tale idea of humanity and nor do I need to get out in the real world. One week in my shoes and you will soon realize that reality confronts me all day every day and to see one more child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is just one more reminder that humans are far from a fairy tale.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria continues to give examples that are nothing like the system represented in the Bible.
Tychicus,
You are wrong in assuming that I think Christians should support communism. I am simply arguing that Christianity can’t argue that communism is evil by itself since the Apostles practiced it quite openly. An economic system is not evil in itself. Neither is any particular form of government evil. God set up monarchies in the past as well. In the Bible has God ever set up a democracy?
Righteousness and goodness are independent of the economic system and the political system. Communism, socialism, monarchies, democracies, theocracies, capitalism, etx. can all be good or evil depending on the leaders and the citizens.
It seems that there is a desire to link a system as being good or evil when no such link exists.
The ideal utopian society would require a society that is not based on greed or selfishness but upon giving and sharing. There would need to be no poor and no one lacking of the basic necessities. This would be difficult in a pure capitalist system since there is no requirement or incentive to share wealth.
I have to agree though that until mankind can eradicate greed, laziness, and selfishness, communism can not be successful. Capitalism will always fail the lower class however and should eventually be replaced. Any successful system must reward productivity and punish a lack of it.
Report comment to moderator
Theo: I can agree with much of what you wrote in #74. It probably would have been helpful if you had actually defined what you mean by communism at the beginning of this thread. However, given our sin nature, you can’t simply set up a given economic and political system and expect it to be the “ideal utopian society” b/c that greed and selfishness will always be there. Mankind can’t and will never be able to eradicate greed, laziness, and selfishness – only God can, through Jesus Christ and His victory on the cross.
That’s why the closest picture you’re going to get of such an ideal society is the community of the early Church that we’ve already mentioned. In Acts 2 & 4 we learn that the church was meeting together daily in the temple and from house to house, and there was great accountability, there was an openness, there was an unbelievable transparency among the people. There was an unmistakable presence of God there b/c the people were there together with one mind, with one soul, and with one spirit, even to the point that they were taking their physical possessions, their houses and lands, and giving them to the apostles so that they in turn could distribute it among those who were needy. Those were voluntary actions which indicated the presence of God among His people – everything they had meant nothing to them when they experienced God’s presence in their midst. And the Lord added to the Church daily and there was tremendous influence in Jerusalem and it spread all throughout Israel and would ultimately extend to the furthest ends of the Roman Empire – because they were men and women of integrity who followed God’s ways.
Since the Acts 5 story of Ananias and Sapphira has been mentioned in this thread, I’ll just say that it stands in stark contrast to everything that we see in the Church in Acts 2 & 4. In fact, everything in the first four chapters of Acts is so positive, and then all of a sudden is this negative, and so God deals with it in an unusual way. According to Acts 5:2-4, the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was deceit, or the absence of integrity. They were living a lie, pretending to be something on the outside that they weren’t on the inside. In judging them the way that He did, God wanted the Church to know from the beginning what He thinks about a lack of integrity, what he thinks about deceit.
Jesus pointed out time and time again that the problem with people isn’t educational, political or monetary – it’s a problem of the heart. Jesus says that out of people’s hearts come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed. Basically, we are selfish. We are self-centered instead of God-centered. Jesus says that the solution to our problems involves a change of the human heart, and it can only happen through Him. And for a society that change has to happen individual by individual.
Report comment to moderator
The incident described in Acts 5 is reminiscent of the Old Testament and such stories as Uzzah trying to steady the Ark. God strikes down those that would disrupt the system and lead to disaster.
Jesus shows indignation in the temple over the issue of moneychangers but otherwise shows immense restraint over punishment of sin. He is entertained by sinners and calls those rejected by society into his service. He even tells the thief that they will be together in paradise. Jesus attitude and compassion towards sinners seems a striking dichotomy with the God of the Old testament who seems again revealed in Acts.
I realize that theologically, Christians see no difference in the attitudes and actions of the Father and Son but there does appear to be a separation. The Father seems to act based on justice while Jesus acts are tempered with more Mercy.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, both Testaments reveal a God who exhibits His chief attributes of holiness and love.
In the OT, God sent prophets to warn His people about coming judgment b/c of their sin. But the OT also brought a message of promise and hope [Is 53:4-6; Jer 31:8-9]. And consider the book of Hosea, which is a fantastic story of love and redemption. So the OT is not just about God’s wrath, but is full of accounts of a holy God lovingly calling His wayward children.
In the NT, there are many cases where Jesus looks at the religious hypocrites and basically says, “How will you escape being condemned to hell?” No one spoke more about hell in the Bible than Jesus. And the NT speaks about God’s coming judgment through the Judge [Jesus] who will bring justice to the earth.
These two attributes are not contradictory, but rather complement each other. God is absolutely just, yet unconditionally loving. The cross is the greatest example of that perfect compatibility.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!