Most people don't have fully developed and integrated theological philosophies, even folks who are very smart and well educated. Most have difficulty defining exactly where the lessor important things can be found in scripture and how the scripture defines their beliefs. Were I to ever visit with Dr. Ben and the subject of medicine enter our discussion, I would be intensely focused on his thoughts. I would rest assured that he would give me the best possible information he had gained in years of practice.

On the other hand, were the discussion to move into the realm of religion, - no, hold that for a minute - lets say the discussion moved into discussing the merits of gun ownership and the second amendment, I would feel very well positioned in accepting a lead in our talks and I would expect that he would accept that. I know I hold a much greater understanding of the issue and could impart a lot of information that, based on his comments, he does not have.

Now back to religion, there are just a very few questions a person must be able to correctly answer to be identified as a Christian. The basic theme of salvation and the relationship between God and man pretty well sums up the minimum. That takes care of the rifle range equivalent of point the gun at the target and pull the trigger until the gun goes boom. I think Dr. Ben "gets" that much of it. But were I to ask him about the advantage of "fast or slow" rifling pitch for a particular type of shooting, I suspect I'd just get a blank expression in return.

Dr. Ben is not a theologian and "if" I were to ask him about the "hypostatic union of Christ" I suspect I'd get the same blank expression. While it is important on one level, it's just not going to exceed the noise level in the lives of most Christians today. BUT to a theologian it's a very crucially important aspect involving Christ's humanity and Godhood.

So my point is that while Dr. Ben may lay his belief in some "obligation" at the feet of his faith, it's real roots may be found more in the collectivist teachings of his culture - the culture he has fought his entire life BTW.

Another possible source of his confused statement may lay in his professional credo. The most basic goal of any person working in medicine to help others. No matter to whom he may attribute his drive for success in medicine, the drive to helps others comes first. Finding examples of good people helping others in the bible, it's too easy to say that this is where the drive comes from, but that is not a developed doctrinal statement. Not any more so than a soldier saying he was guided into his profession by reading of Jesus telling Peter to go buy a sward.

Certainly we must evaluate all his positions on the important thing we are dealing with and his faith will be a part of that. I just urge than we examine his positions based on his words and actions, not on what we may think we know of his religion. A lot of false data is mixed in with what most people think they know about religion.

Dr. Carson is the man! You can parse every sentence, phrase and word and read them into his statements all you want, but he is the best non-politician politician we have on "our side." His words aren't polished and gone over like a professional's, and he's never been a political figure so he may say things in a certain way that makes word-pickers nervous. But, he is intelligent, he uses reason, he's not a lawyer, and he understands the basic principles of America and its exceptionalism. To date, he is in my mind, an exceptional candidate for any political office he might choose up to and including president. I'm sick of the squirmy rhetoric of lawyers, on any side of any issue. He may be inexperienced in politics, but he is intelligent, he has courage and a self confidence that virtually jumps right out at you. He came to our attention without the slightest intention of running for any office, yet his voice and ideals have been inspirational.

My last comments on Ben Carson a couple weeks ago:
"I kind of like his answer. It’s reasoned. Why can’t both sides sit down and discuss their fears? He expressed what his personal views are toward assault weapons, but perhaps after learning more about the issue he will acknowledge that his views would have to take a back-seat to what people want or perhaps his views will evolve. I trust him to take the right steps.”

He just demonstrated he is capable of evolving his opinion quickly. That’s fantastic! I think he is a viable candidate for President. But before we go that route he needs to stop talking about the issues that are only part of the dog and pony show, like gay rights, and the war on women. Republicans continually allow themselves to get sucked into that vortex. Carson needs to give us some sense of his interest or knowledge of global concerns and foreign policies.Republicans need to learn how to drive the conversation.
Carson gets the gun issue. Good job.

Worried???? Because Dr. Carson is "so
caring"? I'd be worried if he WASN'T "so
caring".

Wiggle room indeed OA. "Carson had suggested that he would not want a crazy person to have a chance to get a semiautomatic rifle in high-density urban areas, while not having a problem with someone living alone in the countryside with those guns."
No one I know wants a crazy person to get a semiautomatic rifle period" Why only in an urban area? How does he define "crazy"? What does living alone in the countryside mean? Is his definition the same as mine?

I like him. He is not perfect, but far superior to what we now are suffering. He will not likely be a candidate for high office. He is not high in the polls relative to other potential candidates, but he is said to have some influence on minorities that would otherwise tend to discount any contrary message aside from what our POTUS is disseminating.

nod nod nod

That last paragraph, had you said it earlier without all the other stuff, would've been a perfect response. I'll ignore the rest for the purpose of staying on topic and pretending I haven't been attacked, and say thank you.
Thank you...I agree he has some work to do to win us over in the gun area. I actually like him a lot. I read his book and watched the movie Gifted Hands. I respect him for what he has accomplished and for speaking out at the prayer breakfast. (Don't hammer me for saying 'prayer'.)

and, on the wiki page for Ben Carson here is what I said before: his philosophy is rooted in obligation not in owning himself which can lead easily to losses of liberty based on that concept "obligation." and where does he get his philosophy of "obligation?"
"...adding that the Bible "says we have an obligation to love our fellow man as ourselves...."
I understand that Christianity does not preclude liberty loving individuals. However, In Dr. Carson's case, I want to know what else he thinks I have an obligation to do or give up.

You were the one who brought religion into the discussion. You know, that whole "brothers keeper thing" and "Brother's keeper crap" and "He's very religious... just sayin" - it seems that your problem is much more about this than anything else. That coupled with a complete misunderstanding of the scriptural references you are quoting tends to indicate the real, underlying issue.

As for the racial references, their called analogies.

As for his unfamiluararity with guns and the issues that surround them, I'm happy he's making some attempt to grasp the problem. I think he has a very long way to go before he can win over this pro-gun segment of the right wing of the party. He knows it's a weakness and I suspect that we'll hear more about his views in the months to come.

LS has been enthusiastic about Dr. Carson. The discussion is about gun control. Racism? No, I do not see that, emotional, NO she specifically brought up follow his reasoning. Dr. Carson is very religious. He is also quite outspoken against Marxism. So....where might his thinking on gun control originate? It is not unreasonable to make a brother's keeper connection. Christianity is a philosophy as well as a belief. If I make policy statements and I have said I am an Objectivist, it is reasonable and logical to assume my policy thinking aligns with my philosophy of life. Whether I am correct in how I apply it is another thing. This is not about LS, this is about Dr. Carson's political and policy viewpoints on important matters. Conjecturing how he may come down on other policies and Rights is germaine

He said himself that he didn't think semi autos belonged in highly populated areas because they could be stolen. I'm not assuming anything. He said it. (He has since back tracked a bit, but that's what my comments were about... "I know best so you city folk shouldn't have guns." big brother ish thinking.) And why is race being brought into this? And I have yet to get emotional... Are we even in the same conversation thread?? Unkind? Where?!

I know black people who think all white people are racist - does THAT make them right??? Does that mean that all black people think that all white people are racist?? Come on LS. Use logic and reason. You're making emotional arguments based on what you THINK somebody MIGHT do. You know that's illogical, unreasonable and very unkind.

Not by force, or threat, or manipulations of guilt. Only with reason and logic. "Think and follow it to a logical conclusion."

Don't we, as objectivists, ever attempt to tell others about objectivism? Isn't that a least part of what Ayn Rand was trying to do with AS? A is A - don't we also share the gospel of objectivism among the collectivist?

But we were talking about Carson.... and he is. Just makin' a point....a connection in his thinking. I wasn't bashing him..relax. (I know many religious people who absolutely think they have the right to interfere with others because they know best. They think it's their obligation to save others from themselves... You don't know anyone like that? As for Marx...easy to manipulate some with words that hit home with their belief system.)

Yes. Wiggle room? Worthy of further attention.

After Cain had murdered his brother Abel, God asked him where his brother was. Cain answered, “I know not; am I my brother's keeper?”

The above extract from Gen. is very plain that Cain is asking God if "He" is his brothers keeper. God does not respond that Cain "is" his brothers keeper. Only "thou knowest" which Cain certainly did since he had killed him.

So please explain the false narrative that proclaims, based on this passage, that I as a Christian am responsible for my brother, who chooses another path?

I would offer that my responsibility to him is no greater than that which is owed to any other thinking, rational member of society. That being to take a reasonable amount of time to explain their error. Such as I'm doing now.

Military backgrounds should start to make an appearance on the political scene as well.

Lol. Well 'caring' is a notable quality for a doctor.

star, what is your interpretation of the passage?