Leaderboard

My girlfriend Carroll and I are getting ready to take Mr. Murphy to the 24/7 vet, so that we can finally let him go to sleep. He has been a best friend to me for 11 years. <img>https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-n5LQOYH70_o/Suju1K5rkZI/AAAAAAAAAZg/q6fp8zLYqPM/s640/HPIM0162.JPG</img>

Some have suggested, lawyer type, that the Church not do civil marriages only religious marriages. I have encouraged those who have a long wait before the wedding to go out and get married after the engagement is settled, often about a month. They do not tell anyone, it is reported as such a stress reducer. Plus, if he dies, she gets widows pension here in Canada. So he is looking after her.

(((((Richard))))) I loved seeing pictures of Mr. Murphy. This is the toughest part of being a furbaby's parent, letting them go. Thank you for being there with him so he isn't scared. My thoughts are with you my friend. <3

Summary from Council for Equal Ordination at http://equalordination.com/george-knight-on-ordination/ Dr. George Knight, professor emeritus of church history at the SDA Theological Seminary, is a leading Seventh-day Adventist historian, author, and educator. He is considered to be the best-selling Adventist author in the past 30 years and is one of the most influential voices in the denomination. Dr. Knight explains: 1. Ordination is not a biblical concept (it is a post-biblical Catholic concept). 2. The laying on of hands is a biblical concept, but they received their “commission from God Himself, and the ceremony of the laying on of hands added no new grace or virtual qualification.” It was simply a human recognition that God had called the person. (AA, p. 161) 3. After Bible times, the Catholic church started to associate “ordination” with the laying on of hands. But they viewed ordination very differently. 4. The Protestant view is that “ordination” is merely a symbolic outward recognition of God’s calling (commissioning) of a person. 5. The Roman Catholic view is that “ordination” confers miraculous power upon a priest to transubstantiate bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and to remit sins. 6. A pastor’s work is only to preach God’s Word and love God’s people. (II Timothy 4:1, 5.) 7. Who decides who can be a pastor? Jesus gave spiritual gifts, including the gift of pastoring (and they are not based on gender). (Ephesians 4:8, 11-13) The Bible has examples of female prophets and preachers. 8. Only the Holy Spirit decides how to distribute the gifts of the Spirit. (I Cor. 12:4, 7, 11, 28) 9. The laying on of hands merely recognizes publicly what the Holy Spirit has already done. (AA p. 161) 10. The vote at the General Conference is not about whether women can be ministers. The GC already approved women in ministry in 1990, and the Bible has several examples of women in ministry. 11. Women suffered discrimination in the culture of the Bible times. They were treated like property. Those who argue that there were no female priests should also consider that there were no priests of other races. But Jesus created a new system where there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female – where all believers are one in Christ. (Gal. 3:28) 12. The “husband of one wife” passage was a limitation against fornication and polygamy, not an indication that only males can be ministers. Jesus and Paul were not married. 13. Ordination of women is a “problem” only if you have a Roman Catholic view of ordination as adding power. But ordination is merely a recognition what has already taken place in heaven, where God called the person. The opponents of women’s ordination are simply confused about what biblical ordination is. 14. The General Conference already approved women in ministry 25 years ago. Men and women ministers already have the laying on of hands. The only difference is that the men are called “ordained” and the women are called “commissioned.” It is merely a word game, because they do the exact same work, and the two terms mean the same thing. 15. God is the One who ordains a person to ministry. Human “ordination” does not change anything. It merely gives public recognition and a paper certificate. 16. Since ordination and commissioning are the same thing, and our male and female pastors already do the same work, there is no reason to discriminate between the terms “commissioned” and “ordained” on their certificates. 17. It is especially amazing that Adventists are having this debate, given the fact that the most influential clergy person in Adventist history was a woman. 18. The confusion and debate over “ordination” would dissolve if we get rid of a Catholic view of ordination and accept the biblical view. Dr. Knight delivered this sermon at the Medford, Oregon Seventh-day Adventist church on June 20, 2015. You will be blessed by this enlightening message, which corroborates what we have been saying here.

Back in 1956 when I finished my ministerial course in College - Emmanuel Missionary College - so many young men were tsking that coure in the United States with the Government paying for their education because they had served in the military. Therefore the conferences in the US were not able to emplay but a fraction of the graduates. A BA with a major in theology and a minor in history was the offical requirement at that time. One of my teachers said he could get me a job as a church school teacher in the Ohio or Indiana Conference. He advised me to take the job and then show a great interest in the local church. Then the Conference might consider me if there was a later opening in the ministry. Then I'd be hired as an apprentice working together with an experienced pastor/evangelist. If the conference would then see light in me working in the ministry, I might be assigned a district, and if I would there do a decent job I'd be considered for ordination. Traditionally ordination in the SDA church was not a transfer of magical powers, but a final acknowledgement that the person had passed several years of trial and testing, and during this period shown that this was his [her] right calling.

She is my biological sister. See: NOTE: Two photos involved, click on the arrow. http://www.modbee.com/news/article22808016.html

That's great, and so much better than a tattoo.

The socialism would work well if the people are not corrupt. The fallen human nature is corrupt and selfish. Just look at the a little kid after they come out of the womb, everything is "for me", "for myself", cry to get to get something for himself. Also look at the communist countries. They are supposed to take care of poor people. Do they really do that? Look at the poor congressmen or a senators. One they occupy the seat at the "House" they become rich. Have you seen a congressman or a senator who struggle to make ends meet in his daily life with his meager salary? Where do they get the money to live as they do. "Me first" just like a new born baby's behavior!

http://spectrummagazine.org/node/6882/

my folks got married in Las Vegas by a JP... a number of years ago it was determined that Clark County, Nevada, was never officially recognized, and that all of the marriages and divorces were technically void. But due to the enormous number of marriages and divorces there, it was decided to make the "official-ness" retroactive.. (I know, my thread contribution has nothing to do with the topic, but I thought it was interesting..)

Thank you Naomi. It is comforting to know that he had friends here. And so do I, have friends here. If someone could fix the pic I tried to post, I would really appreciate it. Or maybe i can figure it out...but not right now.

In Norway, ordinary income is taxed at a flat rate of 28%, with the first 36% of income not taxed and also another amount not taxed, so the personal income tax is closer to 20%, depending on income level, than to 70%. There is a 9% social security contribution. This is one problem with these discussions - people are told 'facts' and don't check them, so their perception of what 'socialism' means for individuals is skewed by false information.

Crime is a bit of a red herring in this discussion, I think. Societies are complex: was Norway low-crime because it was socialist or because it was ethnically homogeneous? Probably a little from column A and a little from column B. I've also seen people argue that it's because it was Lutheran. I'm pretty sure 70% taxes on individuals in Norway is not accurate, by the way: just checking into that. In Australia the top tax rate is just under 50%, but that doesn't mean Australians pay 50% of their income. That's a marginal rate only for very large incomes and only applying to some of that income. Even the wealthiest in Australia pay only about 30% income tax. I was interested, when I considered moving from Canada to the USA, to discover that my total tax burden would be comparable in either country, which rather invalidates the myths about Canada as a tax-and-spend liberal wasteland and the USA as a low-tax utopia.

I so agree, and have said we are trying to do things with females that was never done in the first century. this is NOT a theological issue, it is an ecclesiastical Issue. Those who want to remain under the control of what the Church in Rome instigated in the 3rd century should vote NO!

It will be sad to know that Murphy's dad no longer has Murphy. But it is not a decision that you made lightly. And when it is over, Murphy will no longer be afflicted You will have great memories and time will heal the broken heart

Does God have a standard to which we should strive to attain or not? I have always thought of the Church as a hospital for sinners (so they could get well), but has the Church become a convalescent center for the incurably ill?

Are we there yet? We would do well to Consider this warning: "The wants of the cause will continually increase as we near the close of time. Means is needed to give young men a short course of study in our schools, to prepare them for efficient work in the ministry and in different branches of the cause. We are not coming up to our privilege in this matter. All schools among us will soon be closed up. How much more might have been done had men obeyed the requirements of Christ in Christian beneficence! What an influence would this readiness to give all for Christ have had upon the world! It would have been one of the most convincing arguments in favor of the truth we profess to believe--an argument which the world could not misunderstand nor gainsay. The Lord would have distinguished us with His blessing even before the eyes of the world." {5T 156.2}

Thank you Gail

I am really going to miss him sorely. Some of you here may remember my loving companion. Everything has changed here so I can't even post pictures of him anymore the way I would like. Oh well

God gives us ample instructions as to how to find our natural identity. If obeyed, God's simple do's and don'ts will be a blessing that most will never experience.

I think this says it best: By beholding we will become changed. Whatever background one has, whatever struggles, our God is mighty to save. I hope in this everyday

God is Love. Be like God and the rest should take care of itself.

There are a lot of problems with talk therapies involved with exit ministries. I was closely associated with a couple of them while running my ministry during college. The big danger sign is when these therapies try to change the sexual orientation of the subject. They are successful with a few but that is likely because there are some homosexuals that have simply chosen the behavior. They were not born that way nor developed it due to childhood circumstances. That category of homosexual finds it much easier to leave the lifestyle. The APA has issued statements for physiologists treating patients seeking to change their orientation. The APA has suggested that when an individual's sexual orientation collides with their sexual orientation the subject can be encouraged to live a life of celibacy and frame it as a sacrifice to God. They do not encourage trying to change the person's orientation. The Catholic church is filled with individuals who are chosen a life of celibacy as a sacrifice for God and live happy and fulfilled lives. So talk therapy of itself is not bad or dangerous except when it promises a change in orientation. Those I was associated with would not promise orientation change. They would say that sometimes orientation change happens and sometimes it doesn't but it should never be the goal. The goal is learning to live as God plans for us.

Better to spend money on that, then spend money on prisons..

The children are turning into good tax paying citizens, rather than a drain on society.

please keep the gay threads down to 2-3 threads, Am not against it, it like every other topic should be focused. We had one guy who started so many threads, and changed existing ones over to stuff about the Jesuits.

I love it

I respect all of your comments. My ideal government probably leans more towards capitalism. Yes, I have expectations of what I expect from a strong national government: International relations, military, National Parks, Coast Guard, etc. However, I lean more towards Federal Government having less control in states affairs. Not to mention the Federal system having much less control over private enterprise; price fixing, etc. The money Whbae referenced would at least in part, dry up if there would be less reason for lobbyist to "buy" votes. Health Insurance, medical care cost would drastically reduce if there were less hands in the bucket. Human which is government is now taking over prescriptions under the guise of lowered cost. Which will be true until it is all in place then watch the cost increase! As for caring for those who cannot care for themselves, state and local controls would be in a much better position to help these people. From my observations there is no need for anyone in the USA to do without their basic needs. That is not saying that they can live the Ozzie & Harriet life, but have basic needs to allow them to live safely, with dignity. However, many refuse to deal with the system to receive help. When I first went into communism countries I was surprised at how the families lived in government owned apartments for several generations. Then I came home and after working in inter-cities I see the same thing in the US. Which begs to ask, when did we slip into a socialized society? I doubt that many grew up poorer than I. My family had their land and fought hard to keep it. We worked hard with limited equipment and funds. The government came in and passed laws concerning your crop production, then forced many dairy people out by forcing them to buy certificates to determine how much milk they could produce and sell. This cost many thousands of dollars. Then after a few years they declared the certificates to be nil and invalid. No monetary value! Praise be to DC! Today you see very few family farms, large corporate farms control our food supply. Back to our family, in spite of everything, we kept the land, and are very proud that no one in our family took money of any kind from the government, or no one went to jail or prison. They didn't want to be owned. Also, you went to a Doctor for a death certificate (okay thats an exaggeration but close). If the deadly "C" didn't kill them they lived to be 100 or close to it. Without Humana! I share this because these hardworking families were so independent because they had left everything they had when they escaped communism. As you can quickly ascertain my feelings are from a personal, emotional prospective. Three things my Daddy drilled into us are: 1: Absolute power corrupts absolutely 2. There is no tooth fairy, 3. If you take from anyone or anything, they own you! Sorry, this has not been well thought out ... just early morning thoughts ... blessings

1. Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone (though I'm far from convinced homosexual actions and orientations are sinful, still those throwing rocks might be better occupied looking in the mirror). 2. As a generalisation, women's sexuality is more fluid than men's. 3. There is a lot of evidence that these 'conversion' therapies lead mainly to two things: backsliding and suicide.

Well, the government is into the sale and preparation of food in a big way. For your reading pleasure, you might want to read the 2013 publication THE FOOD CODE. That is a document that exceeds 600 pages. It addresses many aspects of food preparation and sale, to include the preparation of food, in a home kitchen, for sale at a church function. NOTE: Before you go off on this one, read what it actually says. It probably does not say what you might think. Also, I have not read every page. But, what I have read does NOT seem to me to require that meat and pork to be served in hospitals. If you do want to read this document, you can access it at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/UCM374510.pdf Interesting and surprising to me, is the fact that there are a number of Internet websites that speculate on the a government that might want to force pork to be served to Islamics and Jews. None of these, with exceptions that I will mention, seem to be based upon fact. There seems to be some factual basis to the government of Norway, in 1914, but that is clearly not a modern situation and as it is 100 years old, the actual enforcement is not known. In any case, in my thinking, the most that can be said is that this was a recommendation as opposed to a requirement. There also may be a relationship to a Philadelphia hospital in 1917. Again, this is not a modern situation. And questions could be raised as to whether it was a recommendation and the extent to which it was enforced. There is some, suggestion that some of this may have occurred in around 1899 and the early 1900's. But that is interesting. E.G. in 1899 there was a hospital regulation that seems to have required that hospitalized patients be bathed a minimum of once a week. I came upon one website that discusses this at length. However, it was a satirical website that clearly was not factual. It was just poking fun. The issues of SDA hospitals serving meat are much more complex than that of any government regulation. To suggest that our New England Hospital's closure was in any way related to serving meat is simplistic and well beyond actual issues of overall management and other factors. But, that is something that I am not going to get into here and now. However, to expand upon this a bit. Any accredited hospital is expected to stock in its pharmacy the items that it will need to treat its hospitalized patients. On occasion, a physician will prescribe that a patient be given an alcoholic beverage, such as beer. Depending upon the type of a hospital, this may not be often. But, it does happen. To meet that requirement hospital pharmacies will likely stock beer. One should not take this situation, to suggest that all (or most) patients are offered drinks of beer.

Good and interesting question, joeb, thanks for asking. I think one of the issues is that people tend to think of it as a binary rather than a continuum: totalitarian communism as seen in China and the former Soviet Union or capitalism. The capitalism often imagined is laissez-faire, free market capitalism, but the system we actually see in the US at the moment is much more crony, robber baron capitalism with subsidies and other distortions of the free market. Obviously there is a large continuum of possible positions, including social democracies like Australia and Canada. They have more socialism - socialised healthcare, for example - than the US, but are not communist or even socialist countries over all. When we talk about making America 'more socialist', it's not saying it must become a centrally-managed totalitarian communist state. (It's arguable that such states are socialist in name only anyway, as a side comment.) It's looking at ways in which government can be involved - it is already involved in many ways - to make citizens' lives better. It is completely appropriate - in fact it is essential - for us to have disagreements about what we consider to be the optimal level of government involvement and activity, and which areas of life we consider government should be most involved in. Those on the (conservative and to some extent neoliberal, rather than libertarian) right typically want government to be involved in defense spending and to some extent the regulation of behaviour - sex lives and drug use and law enforcement in general. Those further to the left see a role for government in healthcare, welfare (support for the most vulnerable) and education. I acknowledge the point that human beings are imperfect and often selfish, and any system that does not take it into account is bound to fail. All systems are vulnerable to it: and some forms of capitalism seek to make a virtue of it. My view is that in a country where the most vulnerable are helped rather than punished, everyone is better off: this means that this form of socialism doesn't rely on altriusm, but on enlightened self-interest. It turns out that looking after others is the most pragmatic thing to do, as well as the kinder thing. Hope these somewhat scattered thoughts are at least interesting as part of a conversation.

In my opinion its very sad what politics does to people.

Thanks.

I like it! This might seem strange, but I can see a likeness between you from the back of the head :)

I unfortunitely don't have my books with me. They are still in storage in Massachusetts. In the back of the CJB there is a glossary section, I believe the word is in there. But not with that spelling. I just downloaded the Bible to my grandsons ipad and am going to look and see if I can find it. There is also a book written on Ruth that uses the word and there is a definition of it. So will get back to you when I find what I'm looking for. I could be wrong all together of what I'm thinking. Wont be the first or last time for sure.

The fears that people have come from a mixed bag. Some are without foundation. Some are not likely. Other are in a grey area and it is uncertain what will happen. It is clear that there is foundation for some issues. At the two extremes: 1) Commercial enterprises: My read on this is that commercial enterprises may continue to have problems. There is simply no basis in law for giving a business a religious exemption. However, The U.S. Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case seemed to say differently. So, even this in not locked in concrete. 2) The provision of sacramental services by clergy, who are not engaged in a business: The 1st Amendment to the Federal Constitution, with considerable case law to back up what I am saying, leads me to believe that clergy are never going to be forced into performing marriages that they do not want to perform. Possible, but not probable at this time. 1) Tax exemption for churches: In all honesty, I cannot rule this out. It is not probable, in the immediate future. But, I cannot say that it would never happen. However, so what? With our understanding of "end-time" events, we must expect that prior to the 2nd Advent, we as a denomination would lose any tax exemption and our members gifts would not receive an IRS charitable exemption. Do we as a denomination exist only as the government gives us a tax exemption?: Will such a loss put us out of business? I hope not. Forced to chose between employment of homosexuals and loss of tax exemptions: 1) Hospitals: SDA hospitals, in the U.S. do not now generally make adherence to SDA standards a criteria for employment. I do not see this as being a problem for our hospitals. However, some SDA hospitals do have employment in a very few positions as requiring adherence to SDA standards. This is not in every hospital. Perhaps this will need to change? In any case, I see JCAHO standards as being more important than any government rules related to tax exemption. At least now that is the case. 2) Educational Institutions: I see this as a mixed bag, with deciding factors being how the school is organized, run and the clients that it serves. Our schools already face some of this which is related to discrimination issues. There is a legal reason why every approved SDA school in the United States, publishes every year a statement as to its policy on discrimination. That already occurs. My comments are probably not what many would expect from me. But, the above is where I am. It is a mixed bag.

Exceeded my expectations..

Gayatthefootofcross said:The United States is a country that has a massive racism problem, a massive violence problem, a massive greed problem, a massive war problem and a massive injustice problem; and you think God's going to judge you because people are equal before the law? I totally disagree with you. Have you ever lived in other country? To the contrary, American people are most generous, giving, and friendly people I know. I lived in other country. If you find other country that you think is better than this USA I do not think any one will prohibit you from emigrating to that country.

Listen to minute 17:05 of the following link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abdel_luhPY I am not judging Ben Carson's motives but am concerned about " alternating" Sunday church attendance for the Sabbath. Also, in this day and age one can fly across the continental US in less than a day. With appropriate scheduling why would one need to "frequently" miss church on Sabbath ? Voting on Sabbath, once a term, when there is no alternative may take 30 minutes of your time. Is that the same as spending many hours and many Sabbaths immersed in politics. We know that God gets relatively little emphasis in political circles. It is easy to rationalize humanitarian deeds on Sabbath because Jesus healed on the Sabbath. However, farmers could also rationalize harvesting the field on Sabbath because a storm is coming. After all, farmers feed the hungry. My point is that is very easy to slip away from Sabbath observance and its purpose and rationalize doing so for the sake of humanitarian reasons. Then there is all of the necessary purchasing on the Sabbath. Taxis, tips, fuel, food, etc., etc.

Colporteur Kevin; I am concerned that Dr. Carson, as stated publically, said that he frequently misses church on Sabbath because of travel. Then he said that he alternates by attending a Sunday church. It is one thing to frequently miss church for any reason but to alternate by going to a Sunday keeping church where error is preached, is another. He said that he spends a lot of time in Sunday churches because he believes that the denomination is not so important as a relationship with Jesus. While that may be true, they both are important. It is not one or the other.

I have long believed we should be tolerant of homosexuals, just as we extend tolerance to people who use tobacco or alcohol and adulterers (all these can be forgiven--even the polygamy of Biblical patriarchs). We must still, of course, point homosexuals to the Scriptures which plainly show their behavior to be judged by God as sinful, and urge them to receive therapy for what is in fact an aberrant behavior. But what God cannot be tolerant of is a direct challenge to His authority, when people presume to redefine what marriage is, defying God's definition. If same-sex unions were called unions, or partnerships, or anything other than marriage, there would be no problem. But daring to defy God's authority in one of the two divine institutions God established in Eden, before the Fall of Mankind, can only lead to the significant removal of divine protection from our nation and from our world. Today's Supreme Court 5-4 split decision is the real and true beginning of the end for America. The troubles that will now come on America in the form of natural disasters and man-made disasters, will eventually lead people to be willing to enforce a Sunday Law, where everyone is required to go to church for "moral instruction" on Sunday. If you have ever wondered what would lead to America accepting a national Sunday Law, this is it. The End of Time has begun. And just watch--the gay community is going to be thrown under the bus, when it becomes convenient to blame them for the disasters that are about to befall America. The very people who now think it is so "righteous" to uphold the "human rights" to perversion, will turn on homosexuals and claim they are to blame for all the troubles, when really it is the fault of those who used the gay community in this way, to defy God's authority openly and directly and officially, which is all that Satan needed to claim the right to operate with much greater freedom to bring about his evil purposes.

No, don't hand out refreshment. Just send me money for the legal services that I have provided here. No, that would not violate the law. However, if any of you wish to send me such money, I will pledge to make a contribution to Stan for the expenses of running the website.

http://windowssecrets.com/wacky-web-week/canine-joyfully-breaks-household-rules/

We once had an Airdale who loved to sleep on the sofa when we were gone. but, the dog knew that we should not catch him there. So, soon we never did. But, we knew. So, we put mousetraps on the sofa when we left. The dog quickly learned to set them off and move them out of the way and then sleep on the sofa.

​: ) Hello Teresa, Isn't "permission" sometimes sought as an expression of love and respect? (I don't think it necessarily implies "rank" does it?) A parent can even seek the permission of a young child in order to do something. I would suggest that Jesus sought the Father's "permission" to give Himself as an offering -- not because the Father is superior to Him in any way, but as an acknowledgement of the love that existed between them.

"When God created Eve, He designed that she should possess neither inferiority nor superiority to the man, but that in all things she should be his equal." - 3 T 484. "Woman should fill the position which God originally designed for her, as her husband's equal." - AH 231.

D_Bishop: You and I actually agree on some points. You said that you did not think that he will last long. I question whether or not he will make it to the lConvention, and if he does, I do not think he will be the Republican candidate. But, I could be wrong. I also believe that it will be interesting. One of your comments that I believe is both interesting and well worth discussion is whether or not one can be a devout SDA and a candidate for President. You challenged me to think and my personal answer was that I probably could not do so. If you would like to discuss that, I suggest that you do so from your personal position, your understanding of the issues as they apply to you and what the challenges would be for you. However, if your were to approach it from the position that looked to be judgmental of Dr. Carson, I would have a real problem with that. This forum is not a place for that. I would also expect you so show a bit more knowledge. If you want to talk about his appearance at a book signing, at a minimum be aware of the book he actually signed and its content. If you want to talk about Sabbath observance, do so respectfully. So, you are not concerned as to whether or not I take your comments seriously. I did not expect you to be so concerned. Actually that was not the issue that I raised. The substance of my comment was to how your presented yourself when making your comments. You may be very well informed. Based on your knowledge you may be able to make reasoned comments that are worth considering. But, in my opinion, that is not how your presented yourself. In my opinion, you presented yourself in a manner in which you lacked information (ignorance) and therefore, I suggested that there would be people who would not take you seriously. I stand by that opinion. Of course, that would not be 100%. There would be those who would not see you in that manner. There might even be some who would see you as having great wisdom and knowledge. O.K. I simply suggested something different, with which you can clearly disagree. What you do with my comment is up to you and I do not have a problem with that. As to shutting your mouth and mind: You have got to be kidding. No one who knows me would ever suggest that I would think you should do such. Yes, in sections that I moderate, I set boundaries and when people cross those boundaries, I let them know. You have not crossed those boundaries. Disagreement with me is not one of those boundaries.

So, I can gather from your response: 1) You do not know the title and content of the book that he signed. 2) Your dismissal of its spiritual content indicates that you are not aware of the spiritual content of some of his writings. NOTE: I do doubt that he has written much on the Pope as the "Man of sin," Which some SDAs seem to want to do. 3) Your sarcasm (not there to discuss the SS Lesson) is evident. 3) In short, the above suggests to me that you should not be taken seriously in any comment that you might make about Dr. Carson. NOTE: I am not a supporter of him in his run to become the President of the United States. But, I do believe that he should be treated fairly and with integrity. That you appear to me, not to have done. .