questions for reflection...

here is a really awesome quote:
These days an income is something you can't live without--or within.
- Tom Wilson


for some reason, i find it easier to reflect within the padded walls of this little blogger box, as opposed to the hard, cold and complicated boarders of a word document. I think it might be because i know that no one reads this (except maybe chris), therefore there are no expectations. With the other i guess i always think that i will have to turn it in, or something... i dunno.
i have to answer these questions in order to become an inquirer with the church, so that i can be approved by my congregation, and the the presbytery and then the national church so that i may be allowed to become a minister. its really a ridiculous process... i forsee lots of ridiculous red tape, essays and hard questions in my future. rar. some days i wish i was a dragon so i could burn it all up and start over.
ok. so, the questions thats got me spinning right now, keep in mind these people are expecting "insightful reflection" not "scarcastic satire" or any kind of whit... they are middle aged, protestant white people, so any kind of modern humor will be lost on them anyways... i dont get this phenomon at all, but whatever. older people dont even TRY to get younger people.
so i have got to "describe myself as a person" HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU DO THAT?
what do they mean by that? more appropriately -> what do they want to hear?
WTF!!!
i hate these things, people really should consult me before they make really stupid application questions. i mean at least ask an interesting question, to which the answer would have reflect the appropriate themes and general information. *GOSH*
i certianly couldnt tell them what im really like, or i would get revoked for sure. like totally. dude.

dictionary.com says:
per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human.
2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the
self.
3. The living body of a human.
4. Physique and general appearance.

it says some other stuff, but it wasnt applicable at this time.

the US attorneys website says this about a person:
1048 Definition -- "Person"

The term "person" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(6) to mean any individual person as well as natural and legal entities. It specifically includes United States and state agents. According to the legislative history, "(o)nly the governmental units themselves are excluded." S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 90 (1968).

the legal encyclopedia says:

Person

In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.

A corporation is a "person" for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and due process of law.

Foreign governments otherwise eligible to sue in United States courts are "persons" entitled to institute a suit for treble damages for alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq.).

Illegitimate children are "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The phrase interested person refers to heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries, and any others having a property right in, or a claim against, a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward, or protected person. It also refers to personal representatives and to fiduciaries.


it pisses me off because its just so vague... i could write like infinity pages about myself as a person, because lets face it, out of everything i know "me" is the thing i know the most about, and i would never be finished because the information is being constantly updated... its really a pretty stupid situation in which i currently find myself.

WIKIPEDIA has a long ass entry about what constitutes a person... im absolutely not cutting and pasting it though.

the philosophical dictionary says:
person

An individual capable of moral agency. Although the details of their theories of human nature differ widely, Descartes, Locke, Kant, and Strawson all accepted a functional description of the person that includes both mental and physical features: the attribution of responsibility to a moral agent requires both the ability to choose and an ability to act on that choice.

i couldnt find a religious definition, which is just silly.

grrrrr...

i mean as a person, do they mean, describe yourself as a human? describe your personality? are you sane? describe your sense of your own humanity? describe your limits or your talents? describe your emotional aptitude? describe your attitude? do you understand your mortality?

describe me as a person? am i even a person? according to the sources ive found today, i might qualify. which is good i guess. cant be an inquirer if im not a person.

im just going to take a bunch of internet quizes and maybe they will tell me what i am like as a person. there. i solved it.