Sort' of Skeptical of Astrology....

Unless one has made a thorough study of any complex system (such as, say, the different theories, approaches and practices involved in psychotherapy, for example) one will become confused by the often conflicting and more superficial literature regarding that system. One must understand the historical development of such a complex issue, the philosophical underpinnings, and then the principles involved in the subject, and then also what differences exist in actual, practical applications of those principles. Taking a historically complex issue such as combustion, out of the general contextual framework of astrological thought and practice, without having a prior understanding of the principles involved with that subject, can result only in confusion when the poorly informed person is flooded with various answers to such a question.
As in the study of any complex, massive subject (like astrology) one must make a substantial effort to wade through and evaluate the literature, and then to test what they have absorbed, through experiment and subsequent experience.

SniperBomber328 said:

Didn't know where to post this, except I thought here, since Skepticism is a controversial issue, I think.

Anyways, I was reading a few articles like 2 days ago about Astrology for Skeptics, and it got me thinking about a few things. Like for say, I know Skeptics questions how it's possible for the movements of the Celestial Bodies, and how they could possibly affect us here on Earth, which I found to be a constant question and answer (Q&A) on many of these articles.

I read this one article that got me really thinking (Sorry if I cannot provide a link, I don't really remember what the article was called.), about the significance of Astrology, and the truth behind it. Too me, it seemed to make a lot of sense, and actually managed to touch a few sensitive points about my questioning of Astrology.

What really didn't help was the amount of Contradictments and Debates astrologers have among themselves, more specifically speaking Sidereal, Modern, and Traditional Astrology.

Not to mention the amount of Contradictions Astrology has on itself like for example; Most of the Astrology definitons of the planets are based on the Greek's (or Roman's)Mythology, which to say like Venus is the Goddess of Beauty, therefore Venus, in Astrology, rules Beauty. But the question is, when does Ruler of the Arts come in?
Last I checked, in Mythology, Venus, or Aphrodite (In Greek), had nothing to do with the Arts. In fact that was the 9 Muse's realm.
I should know, since I love both Roman and Greek Mythology so much, I practically read so many of the definitions of the Gods and Goddesses of both Greek and Roman Mythology, and so many books based on these.

Another thing would be the Jupiter and Pluto, Uranus and Neptune idea. Pluto in Astrology is associated with Death as I can see Hades was the ruler of that domain. But when did Sex Drive, or even the Occult matters come in? I sort' of understand the Money from others matter, as Des ruled the Riches.
What's even more weird is how Uranus could rule electricity, if Jupiter (Zeus) was the God of Lighting and the Thunderbolts. Seems to me that the only reason Uranus was associated with Electricity was to fill in tne gap for the Age of Aquarius thing?!
And last of these, how in the world can Neptune rule Imagination, and Illusions?!!!
He is the God of the Sea for peek's sake. Don't even get me started on the Sun, Moon, Saturn, and Mars (Although I can still agree with this one along with Mercury), Celestial Bodies.

Now that, this Planet things is out of the way, the next issue of mines is the Signs thing. Most of these descrpitions (From what Iv'e learned), apparentley came from the Myths themselves....Did they?
So then if they did, when did the Signs lose their originality and descrpition?
I don't know much of the past of Astrology, but it seems to me that Astrology isn't what it used to be?

Last (for now, what I can remember and explain), is how much Astrology can Contradict itself, over and over again.
Which this is based on personal experiences of determinations and casting of my own chart.
First I figure out how, for some odd reason, the Cadent houses of 9 and 3 aren't as bad as the houses of 6 and 12. What's even more funny is how a Succedent House like the 8th House is more debilitated than the Cadent Houses, based on William Lilly's Planet Debilitation System. When previously I had learned that the Succedent Houses are more important than say, the Cadent Houses.

Another thing would be the Combustion and Conjunctions Systems, which brings back what I had said of how Modern and Traditional Astrologers debate over this. Not too long ago I had asked a question of how the descriptions of the Conjunctions and Combustions
could be 180 Degrees different in their descrpitons, or interpretations. All I got from this was people posting their different Systems they use for Orbs and such, and vague answers for why this is. Nothing short from the truth to answer my, what I think, simple question. Why? Because I think no one really had an accurate, or well thought out answers to begin with.

I realize people many have practiced Astrology for many years, and for it, may either feel strongly towards defending it, or Bias towards it. But I am only speaking from what I have noticed, and thus' am not ridiculing, judging, or under-mining Astrology. These are my honest opinions on Astrology, and the reasons, why I feel a sort' of Skepticism towards it.

So I ask, if you are going to post some defensive answer for this, just let it be civilized, and moderate. Not something like personal beliefs, opinions, Etc. As all it'll sum up too is an agrument of some sort, and thus' cause the moderators to close this thread. Which I want to avoid, due to the fact that I actually want to hear people comments over this.

If I have missed any issues please let me know, since my Memory isn't so good right now. For now, until I can remember the other questions I had, this all I have to question the Skepticism I have in regards to Astrology.

Sorry of there is any misspellings, grammer issues, or hard-to-undrestand statements, I will try to correct them as soon as possible, from when they are first brought up.

Click to expand...

You got the right attitude...the right questions...and you're on the right track.
I've got a number of threads that cover a lot of what you're asking.
Too busy to take the time to address your post item by item...look up as many of my threads as you can...that'll give you a big step along this path you've chosen...you'll hear a lot of cries from those that defend Lily and his ilk...be not dismayed...I'm not saying I've got all the answers...or that all my 'answers' are correct [of those that I claim to be "answers'] but, I do question what is accepted and adhered to that is obviously contradictory to and by other accepted and adhered to, principles/techniques/ interpretations of Astrology...and I'm pretty sure everything I've, so far, claimed to have, either, rectified of 'Traditional Practice", introduced as a new, or revived from antiquity from tangible material sources or from what I deduced from studies of 'Traditional beliefs' and then claim to have rectified and have cited ref. and gave evidence or explanation of to be as true an 'answer' as you'll presently find...or, that as the most truthful or logical answer...or understanding.
btw. Aries rules electrical fire...thus it is Mars' domain...Uranus is the higher octave of Mercury and should be understood as associated with Virgo and Gemini. Virgo is the sign of 'Earth below the Earth'...Gemini as "Air on the Earth'...you'll find this explanation in a thread of mine called..."A Runic explanation of the Zodiac"...where-in I explain why there is another triplicity...[which I don't claim to invent or have discovered, but rather deduced, from years of study and thinking which was later pointed out to me that was Runic knowledge in part or whole] ...This other 'Triplicity is, quite simply stated as, "Above the Earth", "On the Earth" and "Below the Earth"...in which I point out the obvious and true understanding of the hierarchy and symbology of the Planets, Signs, and Elements of the Zodiac. As to Aries and Electrical Fire [lightning] it is "Fire above the Earth".
what your 'Traditionalists' like to claim is having knowledge from unquestionable, irreproachable, time honorable and revered classical and renowned 'classical' astrologers... thinkers.
In truth they were like any other scientist from the 'Dark Ages' that were trying to understand a very ancient forgotten knowledge of which they had little of, or any, reference material to study.
As I am ever saying to such 'Trads'...I would no more trust medieval astrology than I would medieval Medicine, Physics or Astronomy."
...git it on....

---------------------

Dr Farr is right. At one time, astrology was taught to the best and brightest as an advanced university subject. It is not an easy subject.

The vast majority of people today do just fine without it - if they don't like astrology or don't believe it works, then they should pay no attention to it.

I can answer one of your questions, but it will only lead to more questions, but I'll leave it to you to look for the answers or not. In the classical and medieval world, people believed the universe was a living thing. In the modern world, most people see the universe as a mechanism, certainly not as 'alive' in any recognisable sense.

Modern astrology defines planets based on myths about planetary gods, traditional doesn't. The descriptions of signs as having a kind of 'personality' didn't come about until the early 1900s.

If you really want to understand why this stuff is how it is, and all the things that happened to start it, continue it, turn it upside down, kill it, reinvent it, and whatnot, you're going to have to delve into some serious history. But don't put it down to the ancients being stupid. They weren't. Their paradigm was radically different to ours. That's not a sign of idiocy.

If you don't want to study it, that's fine, too. But I think it's important that astrologers be extremely sceptical people. If we aren't - well, I'm sure you've read sun-sign columns and heard sincere newage-ists propounding sincerely on how thinking happy thoughts will let you have anything your heart desires. And worse.

---------------------

I don't personally use the outer planets, Chiron, or asteroids in astrology because they cast no light (they cannot be seen by the naked eye, and that gets into a whole philosophical and theological discussion you can read about elsewhere in many books). Lots of people do use the outer planets.

I don't dismiss that there are some modern astrological methods that produce good result, and many that produce bad result. Not that traditional astrology hasn't had its share of charlatans. During the spring of 1524, there was a triple conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in a water sign. This gave Roman astrologers, especially, the dubious distinction of being the world's first purveyors of pulp fiction with all their 'end of the world' pamphlets. Though in fairness, the professionals pretty much stayed out of it. Still, the damage was done. It's not so different today.

But despite there being modern astrological methods that work, there are only so many hours in a day! Besides, the philosophical underpinnings of modern astrology, such as they are, hold no particular appeal for me.

To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a modern astrologer describe the first quarter moon as sanguine, the full moon as choleric, the third quarter as melancholic, and the fourth quarter as phlegmatic, but perhaps I've missed something. And Venus is seldom called the patroness of war, but in some configurations, that's exactly what she is - traditionally. Or that she joys in 5 and is the natural ruler of both that house and the 12th.

I have no idea (well, some, mostly involving Freud) about how sex ended up as an 8th house matter, and if that's true, where would one find bankruptcy?

I also don't know why moderns attribute lightning to Jupiter when it's always been ruled by Mars, or why when the 'new planets' were discovered, they simply took a lot of the rulerships traditionally held by Saturn and Mars, and a couple from Mercury and reassigned them.

In other words, I'm not seeing all the same stuff where you are seeing all the same stuff. Lilly was an early modern, by the way. Not that he didn't have a lot to say that was important, and CA2 is invaluable for the worked chart examples, but by his day, astrology was pretty much into its tarnished Silver Age, soon to be pretty much killed by the confluence of politics and religion, and when it was awakened a couple of hundred years later, the beast was well-nigh unrecognisable.

Not an easy subject. Nobody, not me, not anyone on this board, certainly not anyone out there in the real world would fault you for walking away from it. Astrologers don't proselytise, or if they do, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. I've yet to see anyone change their mind, really change it, because the other person was louder.

SniperBomber328 said:

I know you said that what you would say would raise a lot of questions, but that is why I created this thread in the first place. Too get to the bottom of these questions, and figure out why Astrology contradicts itself so much!

Click to expand...

You don't strike me as stupid, not at all. But if you think a thread on this or any other board can even come close to answering the kinds of questions you're asking, you're very much mistaken.

That's research, books written by people with respectable letters after their names chronicling history, philosophy, religion, mathematics, biology, and more, learning how to read and make sense of ancient and medieval texts, which is a skill sadly lacking in today's world, preferably picking up Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, or Latin; if you know none of them at least get one, more reading, more research, and a whole lot of thought.

Because if you don't understand the world astrology came out of, you're never going to understand astrology, at least as it was practised traditionally, or maybe more importantly - why it was practised. Perhaps it does take a special kind of lunatic to involve him or herself in that type of study. Who knows?

SniperBomber328 said:

Didn't know where to post this, except I thought here, since Skepticism is a controversial issue, I think.

Click to expand...

Sometimes theory of inferences work. It is mathematical model. People visit astrologer and astrologer might say:

- Right now you are going through worst time for relationship. You'll lose friends and become lonely. You are yourself responsible.

- Or sometimes an astrologer might say, next year in Feb you are likely to be aggressive, take fights, meet accidents.

Usually astrologer uses various techniques (not limited to planetary positions only) while telling future or past. For many people, it starts happening the way predicted, they start having faith in it. Then steps of corrective measure starts - various sort of astrological assistance.

Being skeptical: As an example. people without there birth information or inaccurate birth information do have reasons to be skeptical about natal reading.

The art is in continual flux,Some stay with what they know works,Some experiment with the new ideas,Some are not very competent,some are charlatans.
The same as science,astrology is continuing to develop,The 3 outer planets are part of the flux due to the changing level of consciousness in humanity.
Dont listen to skepticism of scientists as they are incompetent as astrologers and cannot apply their techniques to astrology,same as astrologers dont normally know zilch about science and their opinions on such matters are immaterial.
If you want to prove astrology to yourself im sorry to say youll have to study it for a long time,the opinions of others should not be yours as they will remain opinions.If you want knowledge it will only come from your own work,hopefully you have the tools to understand,but not everyone can be a scientist or astrologer

---------------------

Often, finding where the different approaches agree on something, will provide a good basis for understanding and personal experimentation.

For example, in the Conjunct/Combust thread responses, we find a variation in outlook: Modernists don't consider combustion, Traditionalists (and also Vedic astrology) do, but then there is variation among them relative to orbs and even to the potential influence of combustion. But there was an answer to your question that all the approaches agree upon: in my response I essentially stated that no, conjunction with the Sun does not always mean combustion: I pointed out that conjunction by latitude-now called Parallel of declination-of a planet with the Sun does not necessarily involve combustion. Now all Western and Vedic astrologers accept the Parallel of declination (Modernists and Traditionalist accept this, and, using a different word, so does Vedic astrology) So everyone agrees that Parallel of declination of a planet with the Sun (conjunct in latitude) does not necessarily involve "combustion" (for thosee who believe in combustion) This answer to your question does NOT involve contradictory opinions or teachings, from any astrological approach (Modernist, Traditionalist or even Vedic) This is one of many examples where the divergent astrological approaches all agree on the same thing; perhaps this is a route of investigation for you to follow, although as a pre-requisite to do this, you must make a wide study of the different approaches, so that you can compare them and find those points upon which all are agreed...

---------------------

The answer is simple: its the same as why different schools of medicine disagree (conventional vs homeopathic vs herbal vs ayurvedic vs Chinese), why different schools of psychology/psychotherapy disagree and contradict each other, why different approaches to economics disagree and have many contradictions, and the list goes on and on: its because in all non-mechanical, complex subjects different researches, different people, discover differing insights, differing aspects of a fundamental truth-but each wrongly believing that these ASPECTS of the fundamental truth ARE in fact, that truth! And in a practical field (rather than a theoretical one) this is further complicated by people developing some technique that works well and reliably, and then trying to pass that technique off-not as simply a good way to do something-but rather as "THE truth", and extrapolating theories or doctrines out from there-when in fact what they have discovered is just a technique that works well-rather than being a discovery of some universal "reality": this has happened many times in the history (world-wide history) of astrology, and has produced a great deal of the contradictions found among the varying astrological doctrines and practices founded upon them...

---------------------

So you want to start at the roots, where all (still available) authorities had the same outlook. If you are looking at our Western astrology, then you would obtain the books listed below, taken from the first couple of centuries AD when Greco/Roman astrology had a unified outlook:
-Manilius "Astronomica"
-Ptolemy's "Tertrabiblos" (best as Porphyry's comments and translation, a good new edition is at astro-america.com)
-Vettius Valens collected works (the anthology)
-Firmicus Maternus "Matheosis"
-Paulus Alexandrianus "Late Classical Astrology" (Greenbaum edition)
...and Robert Hand's "Whole Sign House" booklet

These are all original sources, free from later interpolations (such as the available work of Dorotheus of Sidon-which has many later Pahlavi and Arabic translator interpolations), these works being of the earliest times of Western astrology (as we know of it today(; there are books about these books and authors, but here is the straight, original stiff; later books (into the 5th century) started to deviate from these earlier sources, adding to them or deleting from them (such as Rhetorius works in the 600's AD) so if you want the ORIGINAL Western astrology (arising during the hermetic period throughout the first AD centuries of the Greco/Roman world), these are them...

Dr Farr, I like Rob Hand's book, too, but it needs to be reworked in a number of areas - scholarship has come some way in the twenty years or so since it was published. But there's still a lot of good information in it.

I'd throw in Antiochus of Athens for definitions, Hephastio of Thebes, the Liber Hermetis (there are some fascinating hints at astrotheology in there, as there are in the bible and a lot of Egyptian sacred writings, some of which ended up in the bible, too) if you can come by them - if you can't but want to, write to me, we'll see what we can do.

In philosophy/science, at the very least, Aristotle's On Generation and Corruption, as this is where the elements as used by traditional astrology come from, though modern astrology rejects them because Carl Jung misunderstood Aristotle (and no, nobody mistook them for literal physical elements, even back in the day). Much more of Aristotle, Plato, and the neo-Platonists all fit into the scheme, too, as well as many earlier philosophers like Pythagoras. As does the bible. What Christians call the Old Testament, though you can find a sort-of decent (it never really works because biblical Hebrew is almost entirely verb-driven and Greek, Latin, English are all noun-driven languages) translation of the Tanach over at chabad.org - probably the best one out there but it's still pretty bad.

Fun fact: Succot, or the festival of tabernacles, was taken from pagan agricultural holidays, that's pretty much certain. Amongst the other things it still celebrates are the seven shepherds without whom divine revelation would have been impossible. Want to guess their names?

All the ceasars were said to be born with the Sun on the MC, and there are all kinds of interesting ways astrology was used as political propaganda by the Romans - lots of others, too, but you'll find a good amount of material in that period.

The NT I can't speak to because I'm not a scholar of Christianity, though the church fathers, all the way back to Origen, had some interesting views on the subject. For good or for ill, Christianity did a lot to shape astrology - including the small matter that free will didn't become a given until it was proclaimed by church fiat, because if we didn't have it, then Christianity became a theological disaster. Which is, perhaps, why Muslims, Jews, and Pagans seldom had the same problems with astrology that Christians did, though both Judaism and Islam had to be pretty careful about the wording to keep astrology within a monotheistic framework - not always successfully, I might add, but enough so it's workable, and at least during Islam's Age of Reason one was not persecuted as a heretic for being an astrologer.

A side trip into Babylonian sidereal and synodic periods and goal years wouldn't go amiss, either. The first thing astrologers had to learn how to predict was where the planets were going to be in future and it's pretty mind-bendy stuff. The first course I took in traditional astrology began with that, Aristotle, and the differing attitudes of the monotheist religions in the middle east, and later in the west towards astrology. It's not a bad starting place for a survey.

Let's not forget the alchemists and magicians, since it was always astrology-alchemy-magic, and they had a profound influence as well - all of them on each other.

Much, nearly all, really, of what we have from the Greeks we have only because of the Persians - they were the ones who reintroduced Greek philosophy and science to the west. Astrology was the first subject to be translated into Latin, as it was the most important, and that was a key factor in the Golden Age of Spain.

Even if you go no further with history (and you should go a lot further with history), at least read James Holden's History of Horoscopic Astrology - it's only about 400 pages, but at least it gives you the who/what/when and some of the why. The English Civil War was a watershed period that sounded the final death knell for astrology, and that deserves some study, too.

And after you've got a decent understanding of the Greeks and other early astrologers, start reading the Persians. They count, too, towards what became western predictive astrology, though it's more properly middle eastern.

The early Latin writers, up to about 1300, and some of the later ones also deserve reading - you'll see a change starting in the late 1400s and early 1500s where horary starts to drop out of the picture, as well as elections.

In many ways, more than you could probably imagine at this point, astrology is intimately entwined with nearly every facet of history.

One of the biggest contributions to astrology's downfall? The Protestant Reformation. Because it made time into something secular instead of keeping it as something sacred. And that paved the way for the whole modern, materialist, utilitarian, dead universe paradigm we have going now. I sometimes giggle at scientific debunkers who insist that everything's connected, but say astrology is rubbish.

It's fascinating, truly. But it's a huge subject. Much as you try to narrow it down, it keeps expanding on you! All this, as well as mathematics (largely developed by astrologers), and what we currently refer to as astronomy were what people studied at university when they studied astrology. I don't include medicine in this, as I think it's important to realise that astrology is a subject unto itself, albeit for a doctor to practise mediicine without a solid knowledge of astrology was almost unheard of. There were a couple of brilliant exceptions to the rule, like Avicenna, but they were exceptions. Oh yes, and back with the Greeks, read Galen while you're at it, he was the one who further developed the theories of temperaments and humours.

And you wonder why people came up with different ideas about astrology or emphasised different facets of it? Given the role it played in human life, the sheer span and scope of it, the interruptions, the advances, the setbacks, the politics, the cultures...you get the idea, and Dr Farr explained that pretty well.

Apologies for being so bloody pompous! But the more you read, the more encompassing it becomes, and that leads to something else, and something else, and something else again...you get the idea. And maybe you understand why I said your questions simply can't be answered in a forum post or ten.

SniperBomber328 said:

Didn't know where to post this, except I thought here, since Skepticism is a controversial issue, I think.

Anyways, I was reading a few articles like 2 days ago about Astrology for Skeptics, and it got me thinking about a few things. Like for say, I know Skeptics questions how it's possible for the movements of the Celestial Bodies, and how they could possibly affect us here on Earth, which I found to be a constant question and answer (Q&A) on many of these articles.

Click to expand...

Here's a good read:

Nelson, John H. "Planetary Position Effect on Short Wave Signal Quality." Electrical Engineering 71, no. 5 ((May 1952): 421-24.


——. "Shortwave Radio Propagation Correlation with Planetary Positions." RCA Review 12 (March 1951): 26-34.

"The same heliocentric angular relationships of 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees were used and dates when any two or more planets were separated by one of these angles were recorded.

Investigation quickly showed there was positive correlation between these planetary angles and transatlantic short-wave signal variations. Radio signals showed a tendency to become degraded within a day or two of planetary configurations of the type being studied.

Considerable study was devoted to the most severe degradations and led to the discovery that when three or more planets held a "multiple of 90 degrees" arrangement among themselves, the correlation was more pronounced. These arrangements were called "multiple configurations" and exist when two planets are a 0 degree with each other and a third planet is 90 degrees or 180 degrees away from them. Also, a multiple exists when two planets are separated by 180 degrees with a third planet 90 degrees from each.

Many of the multiples are completed in a the space of a few hours, being accompanied by sharp severe signal degradation. At other times, the multiple may take several days to pass, being accompanied by generally erratic conditions during the period. The time needed to complete the multiple depends on the relative speeds between the three or more planets involved. These multiples show correlation for plus and minus about 5 degrees from the exact arrangements previously mentioned.

Jupiter and Saturn, the largest planets in the solar system are the most important. Due to their great size and slow motion, they can exercise the predominating influence on the sun for prolonged periods of time or quiet conditions.

Therefore, when Jupiter and Saturn are spaced near any multiple of 90 degrees we should find the most degraded years, with a high percentage of the radio disturbances severe. and therefore establish an over-all standard of disturbed

The records indicate that when Jupiter and Saturn were spaced by a multiple of 60 degrees, radio signals were of better quality than when spaced by multiples of 90 degrees. "[Emphasis mine]

Sorry to rain all over your parade with excerpts from a peer-reviewed scientific professional engineering journal, because that would like inject science into the discussion.

The Planets studied in this article were Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The articles says their research showed that when those planets were in "hard aspects" that is, conjunctions, squares and oppositions, there was interference in the electromagnetic spectrum, but when in "soft aspects," that is trines and sextiles, the electromagnetic spectrum was enhanced, and radio signals were of "better quality."

Note that in very general terms, trines and sextiles are Benefic aspects and conjunctions, squares and oppositions are Malefic aspects.

Are you affected by electromagnetic waves? No? Really? Then why do doctors send patients for an MRI diagnostic test?

MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, is a diagnostic method where the body or body parts are bombarded with electromagnetic radiation which forces the cells in all organs in the body, including muscles, bone and skin tissue to align in a singular direction, and then are imaged.

The type of electromagnetic radiation is in the area of microwaves and short wave radio. Those of you who have been in an MRI machine know that it is very noisy, and it gets very warm. It's the electromagnetic waves that generate the heat.

So, you're not affected by electromagnetic waves? Wrong answer.

Does astrology know how people are affected exactly? No, but Traditional astrologers know that certain placements and aspects can result in "falling sickness," or what you would call epilepsy. That's believed to be caused by an electrical or electro-chemical imbalance in the brain, but they really aren't sure, because science knows practically nothing about the brain in comparison to what could be known in the end. Certain other placements and aspects can result in schizophrenia, which science knows little about, other than the fact that some schizophrenics (but not all) have brain lesions (which are known from MRI scans). And Traditional astrology can identify phrenetics, and frenzies, and severe depression.

It is not simply a "leap of faith" to believe in Traditional astrology. There is supporting evidence, in the form of peer-reviewed scientific engineering journals like the one I quote from.

Maybe one day there will be a scientific explanation, but that day will never come until knowledge of the brain is increased 1000-fold and even more knowledge is learned about the electromagnetic spectrum. For those who don't know, starting on the left side of the electromagnetic spectrum are long waves (like FM radio), then short waves (like AM and HAM radio, and the UHF and VHF areas -- television and certain military and civilian communications especially for aircraft) and cell-phones and cordless phones and then microwaves like radar and your microwave oven, then Infrared, then all of your colors that you see, and then Ultra-Violet and then we get into the nasty things, the x-rays and gamma rays.

Your skeptic's knowledge of astrology almost equals his knowledge of astronomy, which is apparently zero.

SniperBomber328 said:

What really didn't help was the amount of Contradictments and Debates astrologers have among themselves, more specifically speaking Sidereal, Modern, and Traditional Astrology.

Click to expand...

If by Sidereal you mean Vedic, there is no problem there between Vedic and Traditional astrologers. They are two similar, yet different systems, which are actually complimentary, coming to the same conclusions by different means. You'll also notice the Vedic and Traditional astrologers get along well here, probably because they recognize the systems are different yet complimentary, sort of like comparing strawberries and kiwis.

As far as Traditional and Modern astrology, Traditional has been around for 7,000 years, while Modern has been around for 100 or so years and is constantly changing. It's a matter of practicality. A Traditional astrologer delineating the 2nd House will tell you your level of wealth, how you'll achieve that wealth, what period in your life you'll achieve it, and whether you'll keep it, squander or fritter the wealth away, or lose most or all of it in one fell swoop. A Modern astrologer will only tell you how you "feel" about wealth. If you're over 18 years and don't know how you "feel" about wealth, then I'd say you're so far gone that you're beyond the help of astrology (or anything else for that matter).

SniperBomber328 said:

Most of the Astrology definitons of the planets are based on the Greek's (or Roman's)Mythology, which to say like Venus is the Goddess of Beauty, therefore Venus, in Astrology, rules Beauty. But the question is, when does Ruler of the Arts come in?

Last I checked, in Mythology, Venus, or Aphrodite (In Greek), had nothing to do with the Arts. In fact that was the 9 Muse's realm.
I should know, since I love both Roman and Greek Mythology so much, I practically read so many of the definitions of the Gods and Goddesses of both Greek and Roman Mythology, and so many books based on these.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Modern astrology might associate things with mythology, but Traditional astrology does not. Surely you can find at least one reference that says Venus has the qualities of the Greek/Roman goddess of the same name, right?

Wasn't Ptolemy a Greek? What does he say? Nothing. He talks of the natures of the Planets. Mars is Hot & Dry, while Saturn is Cold & Dry. Do things in nature thrive in such environments? Sure, some plants and animals have adapted to deserts and to the Antarctic, Arctic and Tundra regions, but not many, and certainly not the majority.

Saturn and Mars are Malefics not because, um, the "gods" are malign, but rather because their natures are the antithesis of life.

Jupiter and Venus are Benefics because they are Hot & Moist and Cold & Moist, but not overbearingly so. They are beneficial to life. Where is there the most life on Earth? Jungles and Tropical Rain Forests (Hot & Moist) and in Temperate Climates like Europe and North America (Cold & Moist).

The Moon, Sun and Mercury, well their natures change, the Moon depending on the Quarter, the Sun on the Seasons and Mercury by whichever Planet it's joined with (if any).

You want to know where the Ruler of Arts comes in? Here, I'll quote Bonatti:

"And because Venus is the planet of delight and joy..."

Bonatii doesn't mention "beauty" and neither do Sacredos, Abu Ma'shar or al-Qabisi whom he quotes.

Abu Ma'shar: "Venus however is benevolent, cold and moist, phlegmatic, moderate, put over women and mothers, waters and riverbanks and younger brothers, clean, showing necklaces of gold and silver and musical instruments and pleasures and joys."

Actually, al-Qabisi does mention "beauty":

"And of assets, what is sought on account of beauty, as are the ornaments of women, and their clothing, and pearls and paintings. And of masteries, what pertains to ornamentation."

Your skeptic doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

SniperBomber328 said:

Another thing would be the Jupiter and Pluto, Uranus and Neptune idea. Pluto in Astrology is associated with Death as I can see Hades was the ruler of that domain. But when did Sex Drive, or even the Occult matters come in? I sort' of understand the Money from others matter, as Des ruled the Riches.

What's even more weird is how Uranus could rule electricity, if Jupiter (Zeus) was the God of Lighting and the Thunderbolts. Seems to me that the only reason Uranus was associated with Electricity was to fill in tne gap for the Age of Aquarius thing?!

And last of these, how in the world can Neptune rule Imagination, and Illusions?!!!

He is the God of the Sea for peek's sake. Don't even get me started on the Sun, Moon, Saturn, and Mars (Although I can still agree with this one along with Mercury), Celestial Bodies.

Click to expand...

These arguments are centered on Modern Astrology. I couldn't agree with you more and have pointed that out in a number of posts.

The Inferior and Superior Planets are what they are because they were carefully observed for 5,000 before the Greeks and Romans got involved in Astrology. The Sumerians started recording events on clay tablets in their pictographic language. Whenever the Tigris or Euphrates flooded, whenever there were severe storms, good crop yields, bad crop yields, when a king ascended to the throne, when wars and conflicts happened, when people died etc. Then they started recorded celestial positions when people were born, and followed those people throughout their lives noting when they married, gave birth, what their jobs were etc.

When the Akkadian civilization rises, you already have 2,000 years worth of data, and the Akkadians continue recording events, plus they copy and translate the Sumerian data into their language (Akkadian), which had supplanted Sumerian and become a universal language. Then Sumer is destroyed, but Akkad continues on, and now the Amorites and others, like the forerunners of the Assyrians start recording events, except now they're also recording in Aramaic which became the lingua franca for the whole of the Middle East for 2,000 years (and a little longer).

So we've been observing and recording information about those Planets for 7,000 years.

How long have we known Pluto? 70 years. There's no possible way to amass enough data about Pluto to even think about assigning Pluto a Sign for Rulership, Exaltation, Detriment and Fall. And if you notice, no one as of yet has had the audacity to assign Exaltation or Fall to Pluto (or Neptune).

The skepticism and criticism of Modern Astrology with respect to Uranus, Neptune and Pluto is certainly valid.

What Modern Astrologers did is paint them into mythology. Someone found a body orbiting at great distance and named it Pluto. Then Modern Astrologers said, "You will behave exactly like the mythological god Pluto or else!"

And they said the same about Uranus and Neptune, except after only a few decades of observation, the "or else" part has manifested itself, because those three Planets don't behave the way they "ought" to behave.

And now Modern Astrology is in total disarray, and you have Moderns like Lee Lehman and others saying, "Uranus? Fixed Air? Are you out of your freaking mind? and they are backing away from the whole rulership thing for the Outers and ignoring the imposed definitions based on mythology, because there is no astrological basis for it.

When the scientific study was done, Neptun was sextile Pluto, but it didn't have any effect on Earth's EM spectrum. Too bad, so sad.

Do the Outers affect people? I don't see evidence of that. As I said, I treat them as Fixed Stars and with great reluctance because of the number of people who don't understand squares in spite of my best efforts to explain them, I'll mention that Sun square Uranus in certain Signs and Houses has resulted in death, but never Sun square Pluto.

There's a lot of evidence the Outers affect the Masses of People, like Generations, and I even put up a thread on that, but that only proves they behave as Fixed Stars and not Planets.

I've done a lot of research on Pluto in Capricorn and Cancer, and I can tell you that it has an economic impact globally, but only on those countries that have Capricorn/Cancer on the 2nd/8th House Cusps. I have data on every Pluto Capricorn Ingress going back to the late 1200's which is the last period where data exists, and then the data picks up again during the middle stages of the Roman Empire, where Pluto in Capricorn resulted in the issuing of Edicts on price controls, and other economic actions.

That would also prove that Pluto functions more like a Fixed Star than a Planet. So overall, I'd say it's a valid criticism, but it only applies to Modern astrology, not Traditional or Vedic astrology, since they don't use the Outers.

SniperBomber328 said:

Now that, this Planet things is out of the way, the next issue of mines is the Signs thing. Most of these descrpitions (From what Iv'e learned), apparentley came from the Myths themselves....Did they?

So then if they did, when did the Signs lose their originality and descrpition?

Click to expand...

That would be yet one more criticism that applies to Modern astrology, but not Traditional or Vedic.

Modern astrology has silliness like this:

Libra Keywords
- Diplomatic
- Graceful
- Peaceful
- Idealistic
- Hospitable
- Superficial
- Vain
- Indecisive
- Unreliable

Traditional and Vedic astrology have nothing like that. For us, Signs are what they are because of their relationship to one another, and because of their ascension times and their natures. "Mythology" only plays a role insomuch as Aquarius is both a Human Sign (because it is the water-bearer) and a Violent Sign (because it is ruled by Saturn).
However, that is not proof those descriptions are based on mythology.

SniperBomber328 said:

Last (for now, what I can remember and explain), is how much Astrology can Contradict itself, over and over again.
Which this is based on personal experiences of determinations and casting of my own chart.
First I figure out how, for some odd reason, the Cadent houses of 9 and 3 aren't as bad as the houses of 6 and 12. What's even more funny is how a Succedent House like the 8th House is more debilitated than the Cadent Houses, based on William Lilly's Planet Debilitation System. When previously I had learned that the Succedent Houses are more important than say, the Cadent Houses.

Click to expand...

There's no contradiction. The 3rd and 9th House aspect the Ascendant by sextile and trine respectively. The 8th House does not aspect the Ascendant. It is inconjunct. That's also why the 6th and 12th House are "bad" because they are also inconjunct and don't aspect the Ascendant.

SniperBomber328 said:

Another thing would be the Combustion and Conjunctions Systems, which brings back what I had said of how Modern and Traditional Astrologers debate over this. Not too long ago I had asked a question of how the descriptions of the Conjunctions and Combustions could be 180 Degrees different in their descrpitons, or interpretations. All I got from this was people posting their different Systems they use for Orbs and such, and vague answers for why this is. Nothing short from the truth to answer my, what I think, simple question. Why? Because I think no one really had an accurate, or well thought out answers to begin with.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the question, but conjunctions can be good, bad or neutral. The primary factor is Reception, and a secondary factor is Planetary Friendship. If one Planet receives the other, that is good, and if they are Planetary Friends, that's even better. If neither Planet receives the other, and they are Friends, then it's largely neutral. If they are Enemies it's bad, and if one is in Fall/Detriment it's even worse.

A Planet that is Under Beams or Combust is powerless. Why? Can you see Mercury Combust? No, not even with a powerful telescope. Why? Because the Sun's light outshines Mercury and hides it, and that's true for all Planets that are Combust/Under Beams. A Combust Planet cannot make aspects, because it does not reflect any light, because the Sun's light, the Sun's rays, the Sun's energy, whatever you want to call it, over-powers the Planet. That would be another way of looking at it. There is a point where a Planet and the Sun are so closely joined that they become One. That is Cazimi. A Cazimi Planet is very powerful, because it is One with the Sun.

Both Mercury and Moon are Malefics when Under Beams/Combust, and that also applies to the Moon when the Moon is in opposition to the Sun. Don't get me wrong. A Combust Moon is very very useful for certain things but like Ibn Ezra says, "Those who know and understand will remain silent."

It also makes a huge difference if a Planet or the Sun is applying or separating to and from Combustion, especially in Horary and Mundane Astrology.

Lily explains that, although perhaps not very well, and Lily is hard to read anyway because of the archaic English vernacular.

I've explained all that before in great detail in a number of posts, but this forum is not really conducive to "teaching" and it's hostile to Traditional astrology, so sorry about your luck.

SniperBomber328 said:

So I ask, if you are going to post some defensive answer for this, just let it be civilized, and moderate. Not something like personal beliefs, opinions, Etc.

Click to expand...

Here's a quote from Ptolemy on that:

In the first place, the science demands the greatest study and a constant attention to a multitude of different points; and as all persons who are but imperfectly practiced in it must necessarily commit frequent mistakes, it has been supposed that even such events as have been truly predicted have taken place by chance only, and not from any operative cause in nature. But it should be remembered that these mistakes arise, not from any deficiency or want of power in the science itself, but from the incompetence of unqualified persons who pretend to exercise it.

With respect to this...

And, besides this, the majority of the persons who set themselves up as professors of this science, avail themselves of its name and credit for the sake of passing off some other mode of divination; by that means defrauding the ignorant, and pretending to foretell many things which from their nature cannot possibly be foreknown; and consequently affording opportunities to more intelligent people to impugn the value even of such predictions as can rationally be made.

...it deserves a comment. There's a lot of that on this forum. There's 7,000 years of Traditional astrology and nowhere do you see any mention of karma, past-lives, reincarnation, crystals, demons, spirits or any other general silliness. So if you see that, run, run away as fast as you can, because those people are doing exactly what Ptolemy warns against, and that is using astrology as vehicle to corrupt others with their ridiculous misguided beliefs.

Sugar

In my opinion you have nothing to apologize for; your post in this thread is perfectly fine, and AW stands for the right of people to express their beliefs relative to their understanding of astrology...

------------------