Religion and Belief, etc.

Mystical; magical; most fantastical

Your Q Score is: 12

The Q score ideally should be as small as possible, indicating maximum agreement among elements. However, even a tiny Q score may not mean optimal functioning, since all four elements may in fact be relatively undeveloped.

Your Primary Mythical Creature

Air Types

The main strength of the Air types is intellect. The second element indicates the most probable focus for this intellectual activity.
PegasusAir and Earth

Astrologically associated with Libra and the Seventh House
Pegasus types are theorists who aim to achieve in reality what they conceive with the mind. They are perfectionists who strive to produce order from what they regard as the chaos around them. They detest disorder and ugliness and have a particular flair for creating beautiful surroundings in which to live. They can be highly original and possibly eccentric. They are curious and open-minded but will require convincing evidence to back up ideas. They show exceptional organizational ability. Although they are among the least outgoing of the types they are very concerned with promoting social harmony. Their ability to be objective and impartial makes them popular as fair-minded arbiters of disputes. They are extremely independent and can seem emotionally distant.

Your Shadow Creature

Fire Types

All the Fire types have problems relating to anger and aggression. The weakest element indicates the main focus of these problems.
Wyvern Fire and Water

This shadow is both insensitive and hypersensitive. They are unsociable, emotionally illiterate, and mean-minded. Relations with others are characterized by conflict and calculated reprisals. Passive aggression is used to full effect. These types seem to dislike other people. They are plagued by powerful emotional undercurrents and they blame their discomfort on others. They appear cold; their emotional expression, when it is given vent, seems immature. They exhibit a sense of entitlement and do not think that they should have to earn what they get. They are poorly motivated and prone to bitterness. The biggest obstacle of weak Water is to overcome insensitivity and alienation; the biggest obstacle of weak Fire is to overcome anger and aggression. Quiz

Outrage! Gay man hosts contemporary Christian music show for youths

I am shocked and awe shucks’d by Azariah Southworth’s dishonoring of the gay stereotype; gays are supposed to have good taste in music. Mr. Southworth, how dare you! I’m glaring at you, sir.

The Native American Horoscope: The Salmon

Earth: a time to mature.
Birthdate: 22.7.-21.8.
Direction: south
Wind: south wind totem: mouse
Animal Totem: salmon
Plant Totem: raspberry
Mineral Totem: carnelian
Polarity Totem: otter
Colour: red
Personality: enthusiasm, self-confident, pride, full of energy
Music: Fis
Clan: hawk-clan(fire) function: to do
Emotion: intensive, passionate
Intention: rule
Character: demanding
Positive: creativity, magnanimity, generosity
Negative: arrogance, intolerance, despotic, dogmatic
Libido: insatiable
Good Supplement: owl, falcon
Goal: rule
unconcious desire: stability in feelings
has to develope: abiltiy to judge, emotional stability, tolerance
has to avoid: boast, arrogance, indifference
Life: to find a certain goal
Time: best day: Saturday best time of the day: between 11 am and 1 pm between 11 pm and 1 am

Celtic Zodiac

I don’t feel like formatting this. My birthday is July 29th, which is relevant for the “lesser tree influences” section.


Nothing Says Jesus’ Love Like This

Why should I become Christian?

When asked if I know anything about Jesus, I asked back how specific I should be in saying what I do know, and was told this, “did ya (sic) know that he died for your sins and if you dont (sic) ecept (super sictastically sic) him as your savior youll (sic) go to hell.” Very sicy girl.

So, this woman, girl, whatever her age, seems all so willing to accept and promote what most sane people would describe as extortion. That makes me wonder. Are fundamentalist Christian women into public humiliation?

Amen . . . tosplapyoubitch! And she blushes.

How I pretend to think: Gay marriage and guns examples

What I try to let guide my views on public issues are the following.

My sincerity of interest.

My sincerity of empathy.

Comparison of consequences.

Individual rights.




The merits of others’ contentions.

So, because I see no reason to fear them, don’t believe any religion has the privilege of owning the definition of the inherently social institution of marriage, I see no rational reason to fear gays or be against them marrying, and feel no aversion to it, therefor, gays should be allowed to get married, the state should recognize it, and those opposed should be ashamed for absurdly thinking they own something so intrinsically natural as marriage, and admit to being paranoid.

Rant: I don’t care what your religion says

Stop invoking it against people. I know many will base their views on religion, but great is the sin of annoying my admittedly arrogant self, and invoking religion in a debate annoys me greatly.

If you oppose gay marriage/adoption; right to choose abortion; guns, etc., tell me why you have reasoned these things wrong, do not insult rational minds with an invocation of your religion as if it is our master. It is not. “God” says so is not a reason. And tradition for tradition’s sake is hardly better. I am on the liberal side of the examples given, conservative on guns, for I be so enlightened, but I will not discount the possibility of arguments against them to the point of suppression, but I am making it known that when someone speaks against gay marriage, guns, and so on, and the best they can do is say Jesus, Allah, whomever said so, it really starts to piss me off. Have a better argument.

Because I believe the right of the individual to defend himself against inteded harm, and because I believe guns to be an objective means of defense, noting the variation of circumstances, I see a person’s right to use one to effect his defense as superior to the right of a bystander against bodily harm against a more hypothetical or indirect threat. Put most simply and bluntly, I have the right to defend myself with one if I see it as necessary, even if I endanger others.

On Secularists

I wrote this a few years ago in one of my former blogs (now existing in a kind of indefinite limbo), and am giving it here as a courtesy to Cheryl from Fredericksburg. It’s near to a topic she brought up at Alan Colmes’ Liberal Land: What our basis for morality would, or could, be without religion. As with most things I say, try not to hold the thoughts too strongly against me, as I could think differently now, even worse, if you don’t like what I’ve said. Also, my grammar, as usual, sucks raw eggs. So, Cheryl, this is for you.

On Secularists

Well, I am not going strongly into the religion and state separation debate, nor shall I at this time try to define what it is to establish, or respect an establishment, of religion by a state. I also will not go deeply into the similarities and differences between secularists, so far as it is a philosophy and ideology, and the opinions of conservatives, liberals, et al. But, on the subject of human reasoning, its value and why it is important that it supersede religious doctrine, at least in when creating legislation and enforcing law and order, I think, supposing the following is accurate (at least enough), there is a kind of irony.

Religions are often developed slowly, formed from the minds of several people, and from the indirect influence of even more of them. The mores of societies past, perhaps present, evolve and devolve the religious’ messages. Generally, religions are conservative in their progress, sometimes totally conservative, hence there is no progress in some, most, or all areas. But, while the development of a religion might not be democratic, and their creators, being men and not gods (presumably), might not always be the most brilliant and qualified of persons, religions are often accepted by the masses. That brings the question of whether or not those that follow religion are being unreasonable, thinking without enough of their rational left hemisphere. I cannot say. Others can debate what is rational, but what I can say is that there is an irony in the idea that human reasoning would be superior to the “archaic, draconian, flawed tenets, et cetera,” of religion, when so many humans (it is from our collective ideas that we form our societies of reason) accept religion. I am not sure how much difference in societies there would be. And that might be the agenda here, if I can be forgiven for sounding conspiratorial, that it is less about the reasoning of people than the goals of the philosophical secularists. If societies do not change significantly by the absence of religions in state matters and beyond (to wherever) the effort to limit its influence would have been a failure. It would then appear that people and many parts of religions were in agreement, and that human rational thought was never as miniscule in the religious as some might think.





  1. Better that you cite the specific parts you disagree with. Unless you agree with nothing of what I’ve said, then I’d just be repeating myself with more elaboration, which might not persuade you anyway.

  2. hi
    I do not agree with what you wrote really….
    please explain further a bit more for me 😀


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: