Age of Aquarius
Elroy Willis
Note: This is crossposted to alt.astrology and alt.bible. I'm not
attempting to start a flame war, but rather to start up a rational
discussion on the "Age of Aquarius" and how it relates to the Bible
and astrology.
I just finished reading "The DaVinci Code" and am doing some research
on one of the ideas brought up in the book, namely that of some new
"Age of Aquarius," and what will mark its exact beginning.
Anyone who has done a fair amount of reading about Jesus will have
certainly run across claims that he was supposed to be some marker for
the beginning of the age of Pisces, what with the fish symbolisms and
all that were used by the first Christians and the Jesus fishes on
cars today.
So, I started web-surfing, reading different sites from modern
astrologers, trying to get an idea of what they think might mark some
actual "beginning" of the "Age of Aquarius," and the results were
interesting in many ways.
Much of it seems to include "end of the world" type ideas, with wars
and earthquakes and stuff that you read about in the Bible, from what
I've seen so far. Those are present in all times throughout history,
so seeing them around you is no indication of anything "new" at least
in my opinion. History repeats itself, so it's said...
From:
http://raphaelonline.com/Aquarius.htm
"In no way is this new age the end of the world or a final time of any
sort, except in regard to the end of this present day Earth
civilization."
I wonder what this guy means by "end of this present day Earth
civilization." Probably some WWIII, or armageddon or doomsday
situation?
Reading on...
"Much mischief and evil is connected with this change, especially in
respect to religions, and the use of new scientific discoveries and
advancements. These will increase and continue until the end of this
present day civilization, which will come by way of World War III."
Yep, WWIII. Another doomsayer. I wonder if doomsaying is parcel
and part of all astrologers beliefs? I don't know for sure...
From:
http://www.paranormality.com/age_of_aquarius.shtml
"Age of Aquarius : The Age of Aquarius can mean the end of an era,
(age of Pisces) and the beginning of another. Many feel the Age of
Aquarius heralds the coming of the "end of times" as written in the
Bible, others feel it is the dawning of the "new world order".
Whatever it means it is still mysterious, and opinions differ widely
in the Astrology community."
This is starting out a little better... It's recognized that opinions
differ widely among astrologers as to when some "exact beginning"
of the "Age of Aquarius" began, or will begin.
"Thus, the spring equinox has been occurring in Pisces for the past
several thousand years and will begin to occur in the constellation
Aquarius in the near future. This is the background for current
speculations about the so-called Age of Aquarius. The phenomenon of
the precession of equinoxes also means that the spring equinox
occurred in the sign Aries during the Hellenistic period (the period
of Ptolemy), in Taurus several thousand years prior to the Hellenistic
period, and so forth backward through the zodiac."
[...]
Although I don't personally believe in astrology, or at least the
astrological idea that the position of constellations or planets can
affect people's personalities and futures, I do accept the above as an
objective fact which can be proven true through research. The
"wobble" of the earth causes the constellation seen on the
spring equinox (or any other time actually) to slowly change over
time.
"Thus, attention is called to the negative Piscean tendency to adopt
an attitude of blind faith, and to the positive Aquarian tendency to
adopt a more empirical attitude."
I'm all for people giving up blind faith, and even astrology, and
moving on to some new age of reason where people think more
empirically and logically, tossing out superstition and those who sell
it along the way.
It wouldn't bother me a bit to see the RCC and other religious
organizations go down the tubes, as well as the astrologers who
make money off of other people by "selling" them some charts or
horoscopes. Same for the fake faith healers, and the phoney psychics
out there. Wouldn't bother me to see them all go away, just like Miss
Cleo seems to have gone away, at least around here.
On to another page...
From:
http://www.lightforthelastdays.co.uk/docs/cults_occult/aquarius.html
"The Daily Mail (29/12/97 - 2/1/98) featured a series of articles by
astrologer Jonathan Cainer, who claims that 'the Age of Aquarius is
truly dawning.' The articles paint a rosy view of the future in
contrast with 'gloomy visions' that the 20th century would end 'in
chaos and collapse'. Cainer believes the 20th Century has 'run out of
steam' and we are now about to create 'a world based on enlightenment,
prosperity, freedom and tolerance.'"
Kinda weird that "running out of steam" would lead to enlightenment,
but then I thought about getting old, and getting wiser in old age,
and moving slower...
"The "face of the man" is the ancient sign of Aquarius, the sign of
the man carrying the water-pot, to which Christ referred when He sent
His disciples into the city, saying: "Behold, when ye are entered into
the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water;
follow him into the house where he entereth in." (St. Luke, XXII, 10.)
This is the zodiacal sign into which we are entering."
I find a problem with this idea, since if Jesus was supposed to be
ushering in the age of Pisces, why would he speak of some water
pitcher and the age of Aquarius?
It then dawned on me that if Jesus was actually an astrologer, and
was trying to martyr himself as the marker for the new age of Pisces,
then he might likely speak in some code to his disciples about
"bearing the cross" or "bearing the crossing over" into some new
astrological age. The part about the water pitcher could have been
a message to any future Christian astrologers who wanted to martyr
themselves as part of some "new age" marker.
[...]
'If the Age of Aquarius is upon us, what have we been living through
until now? The answer is the Age of Pisces. For just as the turning of
the earth has its yearly seasons, it traces, as it travels through the
sky, a much broader cyclic pattern... The Egyptians knew all about
this. So did the Greeks. They called it a 'great year' and they
subdivided it into 12 'great months', each named after a different
Zodiac sign. Each 'great month' lasts roughly 2,160 years. The last,
Pisces, had just begun when Christ was born in Bethlehem. It's
interesting to speculate that it may be no coincidence that the early
Christians used a fish as a symbol of their faith.'"
What I'm interested in is what kind of symbol the people who believe
the "Age of Aquarius" is upon us will use, or are using right now.
Any examples that anyone wants to present?
For Pisces, it was a fish, and for Aquarius, it's supposed to be a
water pitcher or water bearer? Since fish live in water, is there a
connection there?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
raven1
wrote:
>Note: This is crossposted to alt.astrology and alt.bible. I'm not
>attempting to start a flame war, but rather to start up a rational
>discussion on the "Age of Aquarius" and how it relates to the Bible
>and astrology.
Err, Elroy, how can we have a rational discussion on inherently
irrational topics?
---
ROT-13 on Email to reply.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Note: This is crossposted to alt.astrology and alt.bible. I'm not
>> attempting to start a flame war, but rather to start up a rational
>> discussion on the "Age of Aquarius" and how it relates to the Bible
>> and astrology.
> Err, Elroy, how can we have a rational discussion on inherently
> irrational topics?
By each of us refraining from personal insults and trying to keep
things civil. I've started out that way in this thread, and who
chooses to follow me in a rational thread, without any name-calling
or mud-slinging involved, hopefully, will get some good reading and
information from it.
I realize it's probably too much to ask or hope for, but for myself, I
promise to remain civil in my replies in this particular thread that
I started. If I falter from that promise, anyone is free to call me a
liar or hypocrite. That's that best I can do, since I can't control
other people's behaviour.
Keera Ann Fox
> What I'm interested in is what kind of symbol the people who believe
> the "Age of Aquarius" is upon us will use, or are using right now.
Computers. Specifically the microchip.
> Any examples that anyone wants to present?
>
> For Pisces, it was a fish, and for Aquarius, it's supposed to be a
> water pitcher or water bearer? Since fish live in water, is there a
> connection there?
Trans-Atlantic cable, connecting computers. Fish swim over it.
--
******* Keera in Norway ********
** Think big. Shrink to fit. ***
* http://home.online.no/~kafox *
thinkbig_shrinktofit @ yahoo.com
TCS
>Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> What I'm interested in is what kind of symbol the people who believe
>> the "Age of Aquarius" is upon us will use, or are using right now.
>Computers. Specifically the microchip.
Sure. Fish. Computers. I can't imagine thinking about one without
thinking about the other. Does your computer smell like a bait shop?
>> Any examples that anyone wants to present?
>>
>> For Pisces, it was a fish, and for Aquarius, it's supposed to be a
>> water pitcher or water bearer? Since fish live in water, is there a
>> connection there?
>Trans-Atlantic cable, connecting computers. Fish swim over it.
Fish also swim over whale shit. Actually the age of aquarius is really about
whale shit!
Your reasoning reminds me very much of a monty python skit.
What also floats in water? very small rocks!
Keera Ann Fox
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:45:23 +0100, Keera Ann Fox
><see_...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >> What I'm interested in is what kind of symbol the people who believe
> >> the "Age of Aquarius" is upon us will use, or are using right now.
>
> >Computers. Specifically the microchip.
> Sure. Fish. Computers. I can't imagine thinking about one without
> thinking about the other.
Nobody can: <http://www.macaquarium.com/macaquarium.htm>
> Does your computer smell like a bait shop?
>
> >> Any examples that anyone wants to present?
> >>
> >> For Pisces, it was a fish, and for Aquarius, it's supposed to be a
> >> water pitcher or water bearer? Since fish live in water, is there a
> >> connection there?
>
> >Trans-Atlantic cable, connecting computers. Fish swim over it.
>
> Fish also swim over whale shit. Actually the age of aquarius is really about
> whale shit!
>
> Your reasoning reminds me very much of a monty python skit.
Good! For a moment there I thought you were taking all of this
seriously.
> What also floats in water? very small rocks!
And dustmite shit floats in air. Neat, huh.
raven1
That means if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood!
Elroy Willis
> Keera Ann Fox <see_...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> What I'm interested in is what kind of symbol the people who believe
>>> the "Age of Aquarius" is upon us will use, or are using right now.
>> Computers. Specifically the microchip.
> Sure. Fish. Computers. I can't imagine thinking about one without
> thinking about the other. Does your computer smell like a bait shop?
The silicon in my computer chips comes from sand on the beach,
or from some artificial sand similar to beach sand, iirc. The ancient
fish climbed out of the ancient waters, onto to the sand-covered
beaches, and eventually evolved into amphibians, and then into
reptiles, and then into mammals, and then into people who can melt
the sand on the beaches where their ancestors came from...
>>> Any examples that anyone wants to present?
>>> For Pisces, it was a fish, and for Aquarius, it's supposed to be a
>>> water pitcher or water bearer? Since fish live in water, is there a
>>> connection there?
>> Trans-Atlantic cable, connecting computers. Fish swim over it.
I find the "water bearer" and pitcher argument pretty flimsy, but I'm
willing to listen to some other opinions on the matter.
> Fish also swim over whale shit. Actually the age of aquarius is really about
> whale shit!
You're going overboard now.. Try to restrain yourself... The
"astrological ages" are a fact, not some make-believe thing.
The people who talk about such ages and when and where they
start or end is what we're talking about here, and is the main focus
of this thread.
> Your reasoning reminds me very much of a monty python skit.
Why?
I've started out honestly here, not trying to make fun of any of the
beliefs, but just trying to understand them and talk about them and
their origins.
> What also floats in water? very small rocks!
Huh?
Elroy Willis
> TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
>> Keera Ann Fox <see_...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>> What I'm interested in is what kind of symbol the people who believe
>>>> the "Age of Aquarius" is upon us will use, or are using right now.
>>> Computers. Specifically the microchip.
>> Sure. Fish. Computers. I can't imagine thinking about one without
>> thinking about the other. Does your computer smell like a bait shop?
>>>> Any examples that anyone wants to present?
>>>> For Pisces, it was a fish, and for Aquarius, it's supposed to be a
>>>> water pitcher or water bearer? Since fish live in water, is there a
>>>> connection there?
>>> Trans-Atlantic cable, connecting computers. Fish swim over it.
>> Fish also swim over whale shit. Actually the age of aquarius is really about
>> whale shit!
I don't think so. Try to refrain from such jokes if you can... I'm
trying to keep this thread free from joking as much as possible.
>> Your reasoning reminds me very much of a monty python skit.
>> What also floats in water? very small rocks!
> That means if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood!
<glances up and realizes what a pattern-matching-mess it is>
Off to the lake to do some fishing and drinking a few beers, wondering
if anyone has managed to create an "aquarius" beer, and how much
water it would contain vs. how much alcohol...
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Note: This is crossposted to alt.astrology and alt.bible. I'm not
>> attempting to start a flame war, but rather to start up a rational
>> discussion on the "Age of Aquarius" and how it relates to the Bible
>> and astrology.
> So you like show tunes?
Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep this
thread free from flames and hostility. I guess it's up to those who
choose to participate to carry on my initial attitude...
I notice you added alt.astrology.scam to the newsgroup list.
Why did you do that? Or was it someone else who did it?
Christopher A. Lee
>In article <j66evvsu0q4s8fupa...@4ax.com>,
>Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>Try to refrain from such jokes if you can... I'm
>>trying to keep this thread free from joking as much as possible.
>
>As they say on Usenet: request denied
My cousin's dog is called Aquarius. His age is 6.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Try to refrain from such jokes if you can... I'm
>> trying to keep this thread free from joking as much as possible.
> As they say on Usenet: request denied
Yeah, I noticed you added alt.usenet.kooks, which I just removed.
Like I said, I tried to start a civil thread, and if others aren't
willing to keep it that way, that's up to them.
Elroy Willis
> el...@no.spam () wrote:
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> Try to refrain from such jokes if you can... I'm
>>> trying to keep this thread free from joking as much as possible.
>> As they say on Usenet: request denied
> My cousin's dog is called Aquarius. His age is 6.
Why are you making jokes already? Is there something you don't
understand?
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> whined:
>>> So you like show tunes?
>> Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep
>> this thread free from flames and hostility.
> So the world should refrain from laughing at you? ROFLMAO! You
> bring up a silly topic; you get laughed at. That's the way it
> works.
Which part of the topic do you think is silly?
Keera Ann Fox
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > el...@no.spam () wrote:
> >> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Try to refrain from such jokes if you can... I'm
> >>> trying to keep this thread free from joking as much as possible.
>
> >> As they say on Usenet: request denied
>
> > My cousin's dog is called Aquarius. His age is 6.
>
> Why are you making jokes already? Is there something you don't
> understand?
Oh, there's plenty we understand, like why take an arbritary age
seriously? Folks aren't even sure when the Age of Aquarius ends. I've
heard so many dates. The one I've worked out is over 300 years off. If
I'm reincarnated then, I'll deal with it then.
Cujo
> In article <1r7evvgoefgul6hqg...@4ax.com>,
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> whined:
>
>>>So you like show tunes?
>
>>Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep
>>this thread free from flames and hostility.
>
> So the world should refrain from laughing at you? ROFLMAO! You
> bring up a silly topic; you get laughed at. That's the way it
> works.
To be fair, the topic doesn't even have to be silly. Most will turn into
one soon enough.
<Beavis>
Hey Butthead! Age of Aquarium? Was that Marilyn McCoo like a hot chick
or what? She made that Halle Berry babe look like a boy.
(heh-heh, heh-heh)
</Beavis>
<Butthead>
She was like in a magazine once. I saw her picture. I, like, ruined it.
It was cool. (uh-huh, uh-huh)
</Butthead>
Quod erat demonstratum.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann. Meow.
"The more you spam me, the less spam I get" -Edmond Wollmann, once again
focusing with laserlike precision and crystal clarity.
Libertarius
Elroy Willis wrote:
> Note: This is crossposted to alt.astrology and alt.bible. I'm not
> attempting to start a flame war, but rather to start up a rational
> discussion on the "Age of Aquarius" and how it relates to the Bible
> and astrology.
>
> I just finished reading "The DaVinci Code" and am doing some research
> on one of the ideas brought up in the book, namely that of some new
> "Age of Aquarius," and what will mark its exact beginning.
>
> Anyone who has done a fair amount of reading about Jesus will have
> certainly run across claims that he was supposed to be some marker for
> the beginning of the age of Pisces, what with the fish symbolisms and
> all that were used by the first Christians and the Jesus fishes on
> cars today.
===>Yeah, there is definitely something "piscine" about the whole Christ
mythology. -- L.
TCS
>el...@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> whined:
>>>> So you like show tunes?
>>> Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep
>>> this thread free from flames and hostility.
>> So the world should refrain from laughing at you? ROFLMAO! You
>> bring up a silly topic; you get laughed at. That's the way it
>> works.
>Which part of the topic do you think is silly?
The whole stupid thing. It is like trying to take seriously somebody who
believes in numerology.
mb
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:378evvccd9fjjt7kn...@4ax.com...
Yebbut, what sort of dog is he? Dog years or real years?
Fred Stone
> Note: This is crossposted to alt.astrology and alt.bible. I'm not
> attempting to start a flame war, but rather to start up a rational
> discussion on the "Age of Aquarius" and how it relates to the Bible
> and astrology.
>
> I just finished reading "The DaVinci Code" and am doing some research
> on one of the ideas brought up in the book, namely that of some new
> "Age of Aquarius," and what will mark its exact beginning.
>
http://www.revealer.com/greatyear.htm
Some astronomy, some astrology. Technically, it would be when the Sun
rises in Aquarius on the first day of spring. I can't seem to find
anybody who has worked out the math.
http://www.accessnewage.com/articles/astro/ageaq1.htm
This guy has three different "calculations" (none of them from
astronomical ephemerides) for the start of the Age of Aquarius, so then
he throws up his hands and says it feels like it to him.
Look for "precession of the equinoxes".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Edmond Wollmann
0966353269
"... Perspective
The earliest known horoscope (meaning "celestial time-view") was
discovered to be approximately 4400 years old,* found in ancient
Babylonia (when *I* use the term horoscope, it is used as a "time
view" of astronomical positions that are then interpreted, traditional
astrologers use Horoscope to mean a chart with an ascendant). Our days
are named after planets. The seven days of the week are one quarter of
the Moon's cycle, a month one lunar cycle, one quarter of Earth's
orbit represents each season. Celestial symbology and mythology gave
birth to our current conception of a civilized society. The connection
was so powerful that to be separated from the cosmos or stars spawned
the word dis- aster.
About 2000 years ago Jesus the Christ was born, which set a powerful
tone for religious changes, the church and Christianity in general.
The precession of the equinox by the coincidence of the equator and
the plane of the ecliptic (the zodiac) allows for a regression through
the astrological signs at a rate of approximately 30 degrees or one
sign of the zodiac every 2000 years. Christ was born during the
dawning of the age of Pisces, symbolically representing the savior,
sacrifice, sorrow and physical suffering as an effect of the physical
focus of material reality, and it's toll from the illusion of duality
and the limitations of physical focus. The sign Pisces is symbolized
by two fish swimming in opposite directions. Modern day Christians
display little magnetic fish on the back of their automobile as their
symbol of their religion-and yet are vehement in their belief that
astrology is satanic. Fundamentalists fight the scientific view for
prominence in the educational system and texts on the issue of
creation vs evolution (two fish swimming in opposite directions).
The three "wise men" (Magi Greek from Persian meaning diviner or
astrologers, Magi, plural form of Magus, magician, originally priests
of Mithra)) followed the stars (or horoscope) because of their
recognition of the uniqueness of astrological configurations. We don't
need much science to recognize that you cannot follow an astronomical
object (such as Hale-Bopp Comet) and be lead to somewhere on the
globe. Yet this explanation is more widely accepted than the
astrological one! This is because organized religion is analytically
the science of following. "For religious devotion is a collective
phenomenon that does not depend on individual endowment."(CG Jung) It
is more than likely a defense psychologically against religious
(spiritual) experience. "O ye of little faith" was intended to
generate the idea that every individual "was as powerful as they need
to be to create whatever they desire to create in their reality,
without having to hurt themselves or anyone else in order to create
it." This is the concept of self-empowerment. "I am the way, the
truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father, but by me" as a
model of behavior not who to praise, glorify, or follow. "All that is"
or God, is all one thing.
Science on the other hand separates nature from man, Deus ex machina,
(deity separate from the machine) a perspective adopted as a
bi-product of extreme focus, and an effect of commercialism and the
technological/territorial perspective. This delusion of grandeur has
created the infinite number of substances "known to cause Cancer in
laboratory animals", and other fallacies of inductive reasoning, that
have created a medical industry nightmare, an out of control insurance
industry based on statistics, a rapidly decreasing ozone layer, the
illusion of using propulsion for space travel, etc., etc.. Yes it has
given us many wonderful devices, that have led us away from the awe
inspiring sight of a starlit night. And away from the re-cognition
that we are a part of it.
DNA patterns follow astrological patterns, the initial template.
The Age of Aquarius has dawned. No longer do we need to worship or
follow saviors or dicta. Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness). Aeons ago Uranus was
brushed by the dark body Nemesis, counterpart of our Sun and was
tipped on it's axis. This reflected the aspect of consciousness that
was sacrificed to the unconscious as an effect of focus (Saturn) and
hence the direct line to the creator was severed. We have played the
game of forgetting and limitation to it's end. Time for the second
coming. Which will happen within each individual.
The glyph of Aquarius reflects the electricity and sensation of
waking up to the avant garde (advanced group or forward guard)
recognition that we create our reality 100% even when we use 90% to
create the illusion that we only have the remaining 10%. And that by
the recognition of the validity of the individuality of each and every
individual is the way to "a new world order". Taking full
responsibility for one's reality creations=absolute freedom. The
astrologer will serve as that forward guard.
*Traditional astrologers believe that a "Horoscope" is only a chart
with a rising sign calculation."
Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message news:<18pdvv4d8oc2ev0kv...@4ax.com>...
Edmond Wollmann
bodies outside the earth on what is known as the equitorial "bulge" of
the Earth. The diameter is 27 miles more than the polar diameter. The
attraction is caused principally by the sun and moon that upon this
excess at the bulge attempts to bring the Earth's equator into the
plane of the ecliptic instead of the present angle of 23-1/2 Degrees
from the plane. The qyroscopic effect of the Earth's rotation has the
effect of resisting this pull and producing the compromise of the
precession. As a result the poles then trace this circle against the
backdrop of stars at about 47 degrees in diameter and then the
equinoxes-the crossing of the planes of the equator and the
ecliptic-then move westward, 45-50 seconds of arc a year-which when
calculated comes to 25,800 years for a complete circle or precession
through the signs. This precession was discovered by Hipparchus about
150 B.C.E.. Mathematically the expression is thus 50" .2564 + 0".0002
t per year, where t is the number of years after 1900. This precession
corresponds to the proposed periods well including the legend of
Atlantis which would have appeared to have been in the Age of Leo
12,900 (approx) that we are now experiencing the polarity of in this
present age as we approach 2150-the reaping (Aquarius is the
externalized version of Leo) of our creative power and its use or
misuse.
Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message news:<18pdvv4d8oc2ev0kv...@4ax.com>...
Fishes swimming in opposite directions.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://www.e-wollmann.com/Pleiadian1/
Edmond Wollmann
> Any examples that anyone wants to present?
> For Pisces, it was a fish, and for Aquarius, it's supposed to be a
> water pitcher or water bearer? Since fish live in water, is there a
> connection there?
Picses is the sign of two fish swimming in opposite directions.
I explain the Age of Aquarius with Neptune now transiting Aquarius;
David Mayhead wrote:
> The passage of Neptune into Aquarius on 28 January 1998 has attracted
> much debate amongst astrologers including Jonathan Cainer a respected
> professional writing for the Daily Mail a UK National newspaper. He
> asserts that the "Age of Aquarius" is coming.
Neptune's transits and natal position reflect where we need to
dissolve the rigid and self centered focus from being oriented around
ego. Neptune in Capricorn dissolved many boundaries of status and
material gain etc. Our system has been forever changed by the
recognition that -for example the stock market is really maintained by
nothing more than belief-since a realistic appraisal would crash it
into oblivion based on "facts."
Neptune in Aquarius will dissolve the boundaries ego has constructed
relative to a recognition of our personal creative interaction with
one another and how we give love. This is being played out to some
degree here on the usenet groups. It has been said that certain
persons are kooks-one of the things that dissolves boundaries is
compassion and empathy. We see "kooks" everyday sitting or standing by
the stoplights (at least here in La Jolla) who for one reason or
another cannot believe in their own creative force to create the
reality they prefer-hence they beg for food or work etc. (some of
course are scammers)-but if these persons are "kooks" what would a
person be who torments them and taunts them?
Our compassion needs evolving along with reason-the age of Aquarius
will be the age when reason and intuition merge and blend into one
knowing consciousness.
> To paraphrase his
> interpretation of events in 1998 he forecasts crises in world
> economics and weather but attaches the "innovation and inventiveness"
> of Aquarius to a "happy ending".
Innovation" is simply the conscious minds waking up to the recognition
of the unlimited creative power of the whole self, and that we have a
choice in the creation of our reality.
> The recent problems in the Japanese
> and Korean economies, and extreme weather conditions in certain parts
> of the world are, in his opinion, samples of what we can expect in
> 1998.
"Problems" are the effect of the belief in separation and the
resistance to growth in a direction DIFFERENT from expectations.
Aquarius has much to do with EXPECTATIONS and our "goals" or "hopes"
are often just unrealistic expectations.
> Mr Cainer is a Sagittarian optimist and observes mankind
> pulling itself up by its bootlaces and sounding the cavalry charge in
> the nick of time.
There will always be those who welcome developmental tension and
change and grow and experience no "turmoil" (like myself") despite
what others "believe" they are experiencing-these will be the persons
who have allowed EXPECTATIONS to dissolve and allow whatever is there
to be there for a reason-KNOWING it is the product of their creative
force and therefore ALLOW it to be innovative- a new way to experience
an "old" idea.
> What does the passage of Neptune into Aquarius mean and can it be
> emphasized in the simplistic manner described by Mr Cainer or is this
> yet another example of astrological marketing and hype?
Resistance to growth and judgments are what cause pain and
suffering-and as always, there will be some who grow and change and
some who stay "stuck" in the old paradigm. There is no "thats the way
it will be for everyone" because each and every individual LIVES ON A
DIFFERENT EARTH. The one we see is the one we believe is the "real"
one. Therefore as always it will be an outer marker so to speak
(Neptune's transit) of the changing consciousness toward creatorhood
interactions and appreciation of each others uniqueness-but each will
create their version of what it "is".
> Mr Cainer
> seems to imply that Neptune in Aquarius will somehow provide the
> answers
Planets and things outside the self reflect our consciousness because
our consciousness is not IN our body-but our body is IN and moves
through our consciousness (the very reason that astrology "works" to
begin with). They do not "provide" anything but a reflection of what
we have en mass decided to collectively create as the "collective
consciousness" issue at this timing.
> to a brighter tomorrow and yet all my knowledge of astrology
> implies that Neptune is deep, hidden and illusionary.
Integration is the key to any "brighter tomorrow"-that is functioning
and ACTING like a INTEGRAL whole being knowing that we are as powerful
as we need to be to create whatever we desire to create in our
reality-Neptune's transit of Aquarius will allow us-or those inclined
and willing-to dissolve the judgments of "worth" and possessions as
being a determinant of "creative force or resourcefulness"-and that
love is truly recognizing the unlimited co-creative ability of beings
to create preference through this understanding.
> Aquarius
> involves collective global issues, and the combination, with Uranus
> thrown in for good measure, seems to indicate that humanity is in
> danger of being "found out" rather than finding expedient solutions to
> its myriad problems.
SPIRIT needs incorporating into our "resource base".
> In my opinion economic and climatic changes are
> just symptoms of much more deep seated problems facing the human race
> and the message of Neptune may expose more of the symptoms without
> ever hinting at the causes.
Climactic changes like ALL external changes are the effect of the
change in consciousness of those who create it -US.
> The Uranus influence indicates a
> surprising or shocking outcome,
Surprising and shocking things are only that way to those who resist
waking up to the infinite power of their own creatorhood...
> whilst Aquarius is about action for
> its own sake rather than for the "good" of all. Our history of
> understanding the worse excesses of human nature does not suggest any
> interest in dealing with "real" problems, be it poverty, environment,
> religion, culture, political or economic power. We must face up to the
> simple fact that with "real" intent these problems would have been
> eliminated long ago, and I would suggest that we are currently at a
> spiritual low in the cycle rather than at the high the "New Age"
> marketeers would have us believe.
Yes, by eliminating our "shells" of defense as seen here by these
so-called skeptics-removing ourselves from the true sources of issues
by labeling, and creating "images" of what we FEAR things are rather
than directly confronting and dealing with the ISSUES we have.
> Neptune in Aquarius may challenge our trusts and beliefs, and Uranus
> may see much innovation and tampering in the panic following each
> crises faced but is the real problem our lack of spiritual depth
> exposed when Neptune moves into Pisces and all our activity is seen to
> add up to a deficit of the same problems we started with - poverty,
> environment, culture, political and economic power? An analogy of
> Neptune in Aquarius is discovering that the distance between the Sun
> and Earth is 93 million miles, with Neptune in Pisces saying "Nice
> assumption but it could just as easily be a distance of 1 widget!".
> The intrinsic spiritual value of ancient stories of prophets is that
> it is not important to be alive but it is important what you do whilst
> you are alive. Time after time planets return to Pisces to drum home
> this message, and time after time we miss the point. The true
> challenge facing mankind now is the same as it was at the beginning of
> this millennium - what are we really here for? It will take a gigantic
> leap of spiritual faith to get off the bandwagon we are currently
> driving hell for leather in the dark, stand still for a while,
> discover exactly where we are and find out where we went wrong, and I
> do not believe that time is yet here. The bandwagon is still gathering
> speed, the darkness is still closing in, and Neptune in Aquarius may
> just contain the gut rending crash we all fear most. Maybe we will
> learn from the accident and work on increasing true spiritual values
> and maybe we will not.
It is simply the time to wake up-and dream the dream you prefer to
dream.
> The "New Age" syndrome seeks to convert laudable spiritual values into
> methods for obtaining personal life style enhancement, be it
> "success", "wealth", "better personal relationships" or whatever. To
> be a "better person" first requires someone to outline what a "better
> person" is, and that needs someone to define what we are really here
> for.
Better is a subjective value judgment-but a more integral or acting
from KNOWINGNESS and empowerment will definitely be the
issue-especially in February and March of 98 when we start to real-ize
the vastness of our "world" by including space and beyond.
We need to be able to transform this "shell" defensive response to
issues and deal with the heart of our creatorhood.
> The prophets of the past seem to have delivered at least part of
> that definition and I do not recall "success, wealth or better
> personal relationships" figuring anywhere. Is Neptune in Aquarius
> about to hijack our "New Age" sophistication and expose it for what it
> is? Global warming has received much focus but is countered by those
> who suggest it is a cyclical change that has happened before. In
> reality our fragile economic structure could not cope with the changes
> we would have to make to eliminate harmful pollution anyway and we are
> relying on Nature to help us out. Is Neptune in Aquarius about to
> demonstrate that it is not only global warming that threatens our
> economic "gods"? Is Neptune in Aquarius about to begin the
> destruction of our twentieth century economic and political dynasties
> returning the issue of survival of the species and our planet to the
> top of our agenda?
It is the return of the grail-nature INTENDS the grail-that we and our
world are one-we must integrate the native American spiritual growth
and the European industrial intellectual growth into ONE COHERENT
KNOWING MENTALITY THAT ACTS FROM
CONVICTION-TRUST-UNDERSTANDING-TRUTH-INSPIRATION WITH FULL ACCEPTANCE
AND DISMISSAL OF EXPECTATIONS. That THE TRUTH is the composition of
ALL truths-this is the return of the Christ consciousness-that I and
the father are one in the same-INTEGRAL is the message from all time
and history.
> We have seen stupendous scientific "advance" in the past few hundred
> years with technology in transport, computers and genetics receiving
> focus in the past few decades. Is Neptune in Aquarius about to
> demonstrate our ignorance in tampering with the fundamentals of life -
> communication, movement and reproduction? We all want a better life
> but I do not believe we are in touch with "quality". Our focus seems
> intent on speed and quantity, on marketing mediocrity as exceptional.
> Is Neptune in Aquarius ready to slow us down, reduce our greed and
> restore the gift of real talent?
PHYSICS WILL CONFIRM METAPHYSICS and a return to source for those who
can see.
> The last time Neptune visited Aquarius Victorian Britain was in a
> technological revolution but for most people that amounted to
> exploitation and inadequate living conditions. The wealthy increased
> their power over the poor and it was a long time before relief came.
> Is Neptune in Aquarius this time about to swing the balance the other
> way, or are we in for another repetition of the dismissive attitude of
> the wealthy for the poor? Is it time for the poor to stop chasing the
> "rainbow" and redefine their quality of life? Is that the real meaning
> of the Age of Aquarius?
The EQUALITY AND VALIDITY OF ALL BEINGS WITHIN THE "ALL THAT IS"
CO-CREATING AND LIVING AS ONE.
Tis up to each and every one in this the transformational age-but
transformation is NOT the product of mediocrity-as always it will
require boldness, strength and conviction acting from trust. Before
kingdoms can change-MEN must change.
> Andrew David
> "To be with someone is not important but to be with someone important
> is."
We deserve happiness, abundance and ecstasy JUST BECAUSE WE EXIST.
We don't need any other reasons. Here lies your truth.
"Sail away, sail away, sail away, Carry me on the waves to the lands
I've never seen, carry me on the waves to the lands I've never been-we
can sigh and say goodbye (sail away, sail away, sail away) we can see
it, we can see it." Enya "Orinoco Flow (Sail Away)"
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
Cujo
news:321a0f3b.04010...@posting.google.com:
> From My book: "The Integrated Astrological Guide", Preface, ISBN
> 0966353269
You mean that piece of shit filled with plagiarism, kooky ideas and bad
grammar? That thing doesn't even sell on fucking Amazon! Even with all the
phony sockpuppet reviews Edmo posted.
> "... Perspective
Like you have any, asshole?
[flush screed from a worst-seller]
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann. Meow.
"Interesting that you abuser/junkies think that because you clutter
up a bunch of newsgroups with harassment and off topic spin doctoring
that this has some affect on me as a chewtoy." - Ed the chewtoy.
Hypatia Kosh
> on one of the ideas brought up in the book, namely that of some new
> "Age of Aquarius," and what will mark its exact beginning.
>
> Anyone who has done a fair amount of reading about Jesus will have
> certainly run across claims that he was supposed to be some marker for
> the beginning of the age of Pisces, what with the fish symbolisms and
> all that were used by the first Christians and the Jesus fishes on
> cars today.
When the moon is in the Seventh House
and Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars
This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
I have no idea, but I would be curious about anything the astrology
kooks have to say about it. I'll probably be disappointed, though. In
my experience, most "secret" knowledge has not been worth having.
Physics was a lot more satisfying.
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Hail Hypatia, Queen of Supercilliousness!"
-- Sisko2374, 7/25/2002
Wally Anglesea™ >
wrote:
>el...@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> whined:
>
>>>> So you like show tunes?
>
>>> Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep
>>> this thread free from flames and hostility.
>
>> So the world should refrain from laughing at you? ROFLMAO! You
>> bring up a silly topic; you get laughed at. That's the way it
>> works.
>
>Which part of the topic do you think is silly?
You use a work of fiction (DaVinci Code) as a basis for fact. That's
silly in spades
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
Olrik
<whisper>Pssst! Do no attract Kansan here!</whisper>
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Keera Ann Fox
> The Bible has a lot of silliness too. But one sensible thing it
> does say is to avoid astro-scammers.
Could you please tell me where the bible says to avoid astrologers? I
can only find where it says to avoid the advice of people who consult
the dead.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> el...@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> whined:
>>>>> So you like show tunes?
>>>> Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep
>>>> this thread free from flames and hostility.
>>> So the world should refrain from laughing at you? ROFLMAO! You
>>> bring up a silly topic; you get laughed at. That's the way it
>>> works.
>> Which part of the topic do you think is silly?
> You use a work of fiction (DaVinci Code) as a basis for fact. That's
> silly in spades
The precession of the equinox is a fact, not fiction.
Elroy Willis
Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you can't
try to learn a little about it. There's nothing silly about the
precession of the equinox. It's one of the largest visible ways to
measure the passage of time.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> I just finished reading "The DaVinci Code" and am doing some research
>> on one of the ideas brought up in the book, namely that of some new
>> "Age of Aquarius," and what will mark its exact beginning.
> The age of Aquarius will start when the sun is in Aquarius when
> spring equinox happens. Right now the sun is in Pisces at
> equinox. It will cross into Aquarius in around 300 years from
> now.
It's the "dawning of the age" that seems to create so much
disagreement among astrologers, from what I can tell.
> It will not affect astrology, because astrologers still think this
> is the Age of Aries.
I noticed some of 'em add in the newly discovered planets in
their charts. Seems that would've rendered all those ancient
horoscopes wrong to me.
> Besides, in 2300, nobody will believe in silly superstitions like astrology
> anyhow.
Wanna bet? It's survived for ~5000 years, so another 300 probably
won't make any difference, imo. Of course, if some of the astrologers
predictions are correct, then the Age of Aquarius will render
astrology meaningless, given they claim it will be an age where
superstition is cast aside in favor of more scientific beliefs.
> The Bible has a lot of silliness too. But one sensible thing it
> does say is to avoid astro-scammers.
Actually there are several verses which support astrology. The
Essenes were into astrology, iirc, and several reputable historians
believe Jesus was an Essene, if he really existed at all.
> There was no name-calling or mud-slinging involved in the creation
> of this poast, even though the situation involves a lot of idiots
> and charlatans. Hope you're happy!
Thank you.
Elroy Willis
> see_...@yahoo.com.invalid (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>> digger <b...@example.com> wrote:
>>> The Bible has a lot of silliness too. But one sensible thing it
>>> does say is to avoid astro-scammers.
>> Could you please tell me where the bible says to avoid astrologers? I
>> can only find where it says to avoid the advice of people who consult
>> the dead.
> Astrologers come under the general category of diviners, wizards,
> soothsayers, etc. They are only specifically mentioned in Daniel,
> when it happened that all the astrologers 1000 times over in
> Babylon had failed yet again, in interpreting the dream of King
> Nebachudnezzar.
> Leviticus 19:31
> Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after
> wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
> Deuteronomy 18:10-14
> 10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his
> son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth
> divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
> 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a
> wizard, or a necromancer.
> 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the
> LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth
> drive them out from before thee.
> 13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.
> 14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto
> observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD
> thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.
> Ezekiel 13:6-7
> 6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD
> saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others
> to hope that they would confirm the word.
> 7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying
> divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith it; albeit I have not
> spoken?
I guess many modern Jews are gonna incur the wrath of YHWH since
there are plenty of Jewish people who believe in astrology. A Google
search on "jewish astrology" turns up all kinds of links.
Elroy Willis
> Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
> great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness).
I thought Uranus was only recently discovered in 1731. Are you
claiming it was actually visible with the naked eye back in ancient
times? What ruled Aquarius before Uranus was discovered?
Jim Phillips
> Wally Anglesea™ wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> el...@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
> >>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> whined:
>
> >>>>> So you like show tunes?
>
> >>>> Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep
> >>>> this thread free from flames and hostility.
>
> >>> So the world should refrain from laughing at you? ROFLMAO! You
> >>> bring up a silly topic; you get laughed at. That's the way it
> >>> works.
>
> >> Which part of the topic do you think is silly?
>
> > You use a work of fiction (DaVinci Code) as a basis for fact. That's
> > silly in spades
>
> The precession of the equinox is a fact, not fiction.
The fact that precession exists (never mind that most astrologers
ignore its effects) does not in any way alter the fact that you are using a
work of fiction as a basis for fact. Yes, that is silly.
--
Jim Phillips, jphillip at bcpl dot net
"Road rage, air rage: Why should I be forced to divide my rage into separate
categories? To me, it's just one big, all-around everyday rage. I don't
have time for fine distinctions. I'm busy screaming at people." G. Carlin
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> el...@no.spam () wrote:
>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>>> Try to refrain from such jokes if you can... I'm
>>>>> trying to keep this thread free from joking as much as possible.
>>>> As they say on Usenet: request denied
>> > My cousin's dog is called Aquarius. His age is 6.
>> Why are you making jokes already? Is there something you don't
>> understand?
> Oh, there's plenty we understand, like why take an arbritary age
> seriously? Folks aren't even sure when the Age of Aquarius ends.
You mean begins, don't you? I guess the same applies to the end,
so never mind...
> I've heard so many dates. The one I've worked out is over 300 years off.
> If I'm reincarnated then, I'll deal with it then.
What if you can't remember it then?
Jim Phillips
> TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> el...@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
> >>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> whined:
>
> >>>>> So you like show tunes?
>
> >>>> Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep
> >>>> this thread free from flames and hostility.
>
> >>> So the world should refrain from laughing at you? ROFLMAO! You
> >>> bring up a silly topic; you get laughed at. That's the way it
> >>> works.
>
> >> Which part of the topic do you think is silly?
>
> > The whole stupid thing. It is like trying to take seriously somebody who
> > believes in numerology.
>
> Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you can't
> try to learn a little about it.
Learning something about a subject and taking it seriously are 2
different things.
> There's nothing silly about the precession of the equinox.
There is something silly about taking a work of fiction like "The
DaVinci Code" seriously (sadly, it appears too many people are doing so).
> It's one of the largest visible ways to measure the passage of time.
Not really; the Sun and Moon are the largest visible ways to
measure the passage of time. Precession is actually difficult to measure
without good measurements over centuries of time.
And astrology ignores its effect anyway. If you are born under a
certain astrological sign, the Sun was *not* in the constellation that
corresponds to your sign at the time of your birth.
Elroy Willis
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Wally Anglesea™ wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>> el...@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> whined:
>>>>>>> So you like show tunes?
>>>>>> Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep
>>>>>> this thread free from flames and hostility.
>>>>> So the world should refrain from laughing at you? ROFLMAO! You
>>>>> bring up a silly topic; you get laughed at. That's the way it
>>>>> works.
>>>> Which part of the topic do you think is silly?
>>> You use a work of fiction (DaVinci Code) as a basis for fact. That's
>>> silly in spades
>> The precession of the equinox is a fact, not fiction.
> The fact that precession exists (never mind that most astrologers
> ignore its effects) does not in any way alter the fact that you are using a
> work of fiction as a basis for fact. Yes, that is silly.
Sounds like you haven't read the book to me. Although the overall
novel is fiction, it's filled with little tidbits of trivia which are
actual true facts, according to the author. There are several facts
about the planet Venus mentioned that I'm in the process of verifying.
It's supposed to be a fact that Venus traces a pentagram in the sky
over an 8-year period, but I haven't been able to verify this yet. It
was also mentioned that this 8-year-period is why the ancient Olympics
were held every eight years. It's little factoids like that that I'm
in the process of verifying.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>> el...@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> whined:
>>>>>>> So you like show tunes?
>>>>>> Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep
>>>>>> this thread free from flames and hostility.
>>>>> So the world should refrain from laughing at you? ROFLMAO! You
>>>>> bring up a silly topic; you get laughed at. That's the way it
>>>>> works.
>>>> Which part of the topic do you think is silly?
>>> The whole stupid thing. It is like trying to take seriously somebody who
>>> believes in numerology.
>> Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you can't
>> try to learn a little about it.
> Learning something about a subject and taking it seriously are 2
> different things.
>> There's nothing silly about the precession of the equinox.
> There is something silly about taking a work of fiction like "The
> DaVinci Code" seriously (sadly, it appears too many people are doing so).
I never said I take the "whole book" seriously. In fact, I think it
had a pretty lousy ending, but inside the fictional story are
actual facts that people can check out, like I'm doing right now.
>> It's one of the largest visible ways to measure the passage of time.
> Not really; the Sun and Moon are the largest visible ways to
> measure the passage of time. Precession is actually difficult to measure
> without good measurements over centuries of time.
I wasn't talking about the largest visible object in the sky, but
rather one of the largest "time periods," if you can see the
difference.
> And astrology ignores its effect anyway. If you are born under a
> certain astrological sign, the Sun was *not* in the constellation that
> corresponds to your sign at the time of your birth.
I won't argue against that. I don't personally even believe in
astrology. Maybe you thought I did, I dunno. I'm trying to talk
about actual facts here, like the precession of the equinox, and
the measurement of time and time periods.
John Iser
Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
<696gvv0lf594ak5tf...@4ax.com>:
>Wally Anglesea™ wrote in alt.atheism
[snip]
>> You use a work of fiction (DaVinci Code) as a basis for fact. That's
>> silly in spades
>
Wally, are you channelling Rod Speed now? (: (Rod, AKA the Rodbot, is
an Australian Usenet kook who uses the catchphrase "in spades" - among
many others... <1658avs16mkttdunn...@4ax.com>)
>The precession of the equinox is a fact, not fiction.
True, but the astrological symbolism of the signs of the Zodiac and
the planets was all made up, by humans, a long time ago. And in more
or less the same manner as the religious mythology that we in
alt.atheism refuse to take seriously.
The precession of the equinoxes itself raises problems for
astrologers. As I pointed out in t.o a few years ago:
<35602ff6...@news.ozemail.com.au>
"In the West, astrologers use the tropical zodiac (referenced from the
First Point of Aries), while in India they use the sidereal one
(referenced from the location of the constellations in the sky). The
upshot is that, due to the precession of the equinoxes, Indian
astrology is one sign off cf Western. If you are, say, a Gemini in the
tropical system, then you will be a Taurus according to the Indians."
--
John Iser a.a #379
"Man running thru the grass outside, says he wants to take up serpents
Says he will drink the deadly thing, and it will not hurt him"
- Lucinda Williams, 2 Kool 2 Be 4-gotten (Mark 16:18)
TCS
It's numerology using astrological symbols. It's absolute hogwash.
Elroy Willis
It's a scientific fact that the earth wobbles and that the polar star
and background constellations change over time. What people make
of that fact is up to them.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Sounds like you haven't read the book to me.
> Were you hoping for a bedtime story? ;-)
Have you read it?
Elroy Willis
> [alt.usenet.kooks flung]
And alt.astrology.scam added? Or did someone besides you
add it first?
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>> Wally Anglesea™ wrote in alt.atheism
>>> You use a work of fiction (DaVinci Code) as a basis for fact. That's
>>> silly in spades
> Wally, are you channelling Rod Speed now? (: (Rod, AKA the Rodbot, is
> an Australian Usenet kook who uses the catchphrase "in spades" - among
> many others... <1658avs16mkttdunn...@4ax.com>)
>> The precession of the equinox is a fact, not fiction.
> True, but the astrological symbolism of the signs of the Zodiac and
> the planets was all made up, by humans, a long time ago.
I've never disputed that fact either.
> And in more or less the same manner as the religious mythology that we
> in alt.atheism refuse to take seriously.
Sure, but unless you understand the basis for some of the astrological
ideas and symbolisms, you're dealing with less than a full deck of
information. You don't have to actually believe in astrology in order
to try to understand it, at least imo.
> The precession of the equinoxes itself raises problems for
> astrologers. As I pointed out in t.o a few years ago:
> <35602ff6...@news.ozemail.com.au>
> "In the West, astrologers use the tropical zodiac (referenced from the
> First Point of Aries), while in India they use the sidereal one
> (referenced from the location of the constellations in the sky). The
> upshot is that, due to the precession of the equinoxes, Indian
> astrology is one sign off cf Western. If you are, say, a Gemini in the
> tropical system, then you will be a Taurus according to the Indians."
I don't disagree with any of that. All I ever wanted to discuss was
the actual *fact* of the precession of the equinox. What different
cultures and religions or cults made or make of it is up to them.
I was also curious about any new symbols used by people who profess
some special belief in the new age of aquarius, and what symbols or
idols they're using. It doesn't matter if I believe in such things or
not, other people do, and finding out what they're using as symbols
can lead to a better understanding of their actual beliefs, imo.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> d0...@petitm0rte.net (jfred) wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>> Sounds like you haven't read the book to me.
>>> Were you hoping for a bedtime story? ;-)
>> Have you read it?
> Nope. Are you still trying to find someone to read it to you?
Nope. I finished it a few days ago.
TCS
>TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>>> el...@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> whined:
>>>>>>>> So you like show tunes?
>>>>>>> Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep
>>>>>>> this thread free from flames and hostility.
>>>>>> So the world should refrain from laughing at you? ROFLMAO! You
>>>>>> bring up a silly topic; you get laughed at. That's the way it
>>>>>> works.
>>>>> Which part of the topic do you think is silly?
>>>> The whole stupid thing. It is like trying to take seriously somebody who
>>>> believes in numerology.
>>> Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you can't
>>> try to learn a little about it. There's nothing silly about the
>>> precession of the equinox. It's one of the largest visible ways to
>>> measure the passage of time.
>> It's numerology using astrological symbols. It's absolute hogwash.
>It's a scientific fact that the earth wobbles and that the polar star
>and background constellations change over time. What people make
>of that fact is up to them.
That has nothing to do with assigning ages to astrological symbols.
Cujo
d0...@petitm0rte.net:
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>> d0...@petitm0rte.net (jfred) wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> > Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >> d0...@petitm0rte.net (jfred) wrote in alt.atheism
>> >>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Sounds like you haven't read the book to me.
>>
>> >>> Were you hoping for a bedtime story? ;-)
>>
>> >> Have you read it?
>>
>> > Nope. Are you still trying to find someone to read it to you?
>>
>> Nope. I finished it a few days ago.
>
> Can you kids playing along at home weigh in here? Is it just me or did
> that just fly right over Elroy's head?
All hail the jfred bitch! May she have a home on a hill with lots of
money after she gets out of business!
Now knock it off, SHITBALL!
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann. Meow.
"I DEMAND ACTION AND I DEMAND IT NOW!!!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME????? I
WANT THIS CRIMINAL IN JAIL. NOW." --Ed Wollmann, in one of his deluded
trances wherein he fancies himself some powerful dictator instead of the
dust-farting pipsqueak he actually is.
Keera Ann Fox
> see_...@yahoo.com.invalid (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
> >>> el...@no.spam () wrote:
> >>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Try to refrain from such jokes if you can... I'm
> >>>>> trying to keep this thread free from joking as much as possible.
>
> >>>> As they say on Usenet: request denied
>
> >> > My cousin's dog is called Aquarius. His age is 6.
>
> >> Why are you making jokes already? Is there something you don't
> >> understand?
>
> > Oh, there's plenty we understand, like why take an arbritary age
> > seriously? Folks aren't even sure when the Age of Aquarius ends.
>
> You mean begins, don't you?
I did.
> I guess the same applies to the end, so never mind...
:-)
> > I've heard so many dates. The one I've worked out is over 300 years off.
> > If I'm reincarnated then, I'll deal with it then.
>
> What if you can't remember it then?
Won't matter. I'm sure there will be folks around who will tell me about
it. There may even be a prophet born who will represent it! I can be a
disciple!
Keera Ann Fox
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Elroy Willis wrote:
> >> The precession of the equinox is a fact, not fiction.
>
> > The fact that precession exists (never mind that most astrologers
> > ignore its effects) does not in any way alter the fact that you are using a
> > work of fiction as a basis for fact. Yes, that is silly.
Most good works of fiction are based on fact. The writer has to do his
research. In fact, I read the book, and very little the author presented
there as fact, was unheard of for me. Most can be easily verified, too.
Spoiler warning!
If you haven't read the book and want to, do not continue reading.
The idea that Jesus didn't die but married Mary Magdalene and had
children and that finding his descendants is the true "hunt for the Holy
Grail", has been the subject of several documentaries on The Discovery
Channel.
> Sounds like you haven't read the book to me. Although the overall
> novel is fiction, it's filled with little tidbits of trivia which are
> actual true facts, according to the author. There are several facts
> about the planet Venus mentioned that I'm in the process of verifying.
> It's supposed to be a fact that Venus traces a pentagram in the sky
> over an 8-year period,
4-year period. I've read the book.
> but I haven't been able to verify this yet. It
> was also mentioned that this 8-year-period is why the ancient Olympics
> were held every eight years.
Every _four_ years. Like it has been for a long time and still is:
Summer olympics are held every four years; winter olympics likewise.
> It's little factoids like that that I'm
> in the process of verifying.
Or little errors. Have fun verifying that 8-year cycle!
Keera Ann Fox
> Precession is actually difficult to measure
> without good measurements over centuries of time.
> And astrology ignores its effect anyway.
Tropical astrology does, because it's season-based. Sidereal astrology
doesn't.
> If you are born under a
> certain astrological sign, the Sun was *not* in the constellation that
> corresponds to your sign at the time of your birth.
In tropical astrology. Sidereal astrology tries to match signs with
constellations.
Keera Ann Fox
> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
> > great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness).
>
> I thought Uranus was only recently discovered in 1731. Are you
> claiming it was actually visible with the naked eye back in ancient
> times?
Uranus is visible to someone with exceptional vision and under good
conditions, yes.
> What ruled Aquarius before Uranus was discovered?
Saturn. And Saturn still rules Aquarius if you do your astrology right.
Keera Ann Fox
> > > Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > >> d0...@petitm0rte.net (jfred) wrote in alt.atheism
> > >>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> Sounds like you haven't read the book to me.
> >
> > >>> Were you hoping for a bedtime story? ;-)
> >
> > >> Have you read it?
> >
> Can you kids playing along at home weigh in here? Is it just me or did
> that just fly right over Elroy's head?
It did. And too bad. It was such a nice example of fun things to do
without commas.
Keera Ann Fox
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:34:59 GMT, in alt.astrology, digger
> <b...@example.com> wrote:
>
> >Deuteronomy 18:10-14
> >10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his
> >son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth
> >divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
>
> Observer of times... = Astrologer
>
>
> >14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto
> >observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD
> >thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.
>
> observers of times =astrologer
Thanks to Bob and Digger. I was wondering, y'see.
But it does depend on the translation, too. The Good News Bible gives
this for Deuteronomy 18:10-11:
"10 Don't sarcrifice your children iin the fires on your altars; and
don't let your people practise divination or look for omens or use
spells
11 or charms, and don't let them consult the spirits of the dead."
Pedantus
"Bob Officer" <bobmunge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:oosgvvo9ukmakc9ha...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:34:59 GMT, in alt.astrology, digger
> <b...@example.com> wrote:
>
> >Deuteronomy 18:10-14
> >10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his
> >son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth
> >divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
>
> Observer of times... = Astrologer
>
>
> >14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto
> >observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD
> >thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.
>
> observers of times =astrologer
Yeah...and just to be inconsistant, here is how the throne of god is
arranged:
6Before the throne there was[5] a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the
midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full
of eyes in front and in back. 7The first living creature was like a lion,
the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face
like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle. 8The
four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and
within. And they do not rest day or night, saying:
"Holy, holy, holy,[6]
Lord God Almighty,
Who was and is and is to come!"
Being that Christianity had to compete with the long established
traditions of astrology, the Revelations of John (90 A.D.?) borrowed from
Ezekiel (born about 615 B.C) the image of god's throne in the center of the
Zodiac.....:) That "and is to come" sure sounds like an astrological
prediction to me...LOL
>
>
> --
> Aktohdi
Pious Pedantus
TCS
>In article <fuegvvot8rnf9jor2...@4ax.com>,
>Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>It's a scientific fact that the earth wobbles and that the polar star
>>and background constellations change over time.
>So what?
Obviously they cause each other. Just like me belching the other day and an
earthquake slamming iran. Don't you know that correlation is causation?
Edmond Wollmann
> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
> > Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
> > great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness).
> I thought Uranus was only recently discovered in 1731. Are you
> claiming it was actually visible with the naked eye back in ancient
> times? What ruled Aquarius before Uranus was discovered?
Saturn. As our consciousness expands, so does the discovery of bodies
to reflect that expansion.
Aries=the identity or idea
Taurus=the support by the universe of that idea or identity
Gemini=the dissemination of the identity and its support structures or
values.
Cancer=the establishment of the idea or identity-the concretization of
the belief projection at Aries and one. The first interaction with a
projected form of the self. The first "challenge" to the belief
definitions at one.
Leo=the creative extensions of the self in the form of love giving, or
created forms as an extension of the self at Aries. The "worth" of the
sense of identity establishment in Cancer.
Virgo=The practical application or worth of the extension just given
and analytical discernment in pragmatic terms in preparation for the
reaping of the shadow versions of self in Libra and 7.
Libra=All forms of projected versions of the self-whether it is a
version of a lover in relationship or an event being "reaped". Aspects
of the consciousness defined at Aries and 1 NOT consciously cognized.
SCORPIO=the transformation (or emotional wrangling such as jealousy
and spite etc from not transforming) of perspective that occurs as the
E-MOTION or energy motion of beliefs defined at one CLASH with the
projected versions of the self and others values in 8. FEELINGS are
REACTIONS to BELIEFS-therefore the emotional intensity reflected in
Scorpio is the effect of PERSONA constructs that need to be let go and
re-cognized so that a broader view of the world and life CAN take
place in 9 and Sagittarius. See? So it is the petty (usually) aspects
of
beliefs or needs that seek to reinforce ego that are in need of
transcendence. Power struggles=Pluto and Scorpio.
Sagittarius=the interactions of diversity (in 3 and Gemini) that now
coalesce into CONCEPTS or group thoughts-thats all religions are and
laws are-group beliefs.
Capricorn=the externalized versions of the sense of identity
establishment and beliefs at 4 and Cancer-now in their physical
VERSION (the astrological equivalent of reflective "proof" that we
create our reality UTTERLY). If it aint in 4 it aint in 10.
Aquarius=is the e-motional (water bearer) interaction and effect
through co-created activity given "out" in 5 and Leo. (which
follows=alien interactions).
Picses=the resultant distributive effect of our ability to balance and
discern through perspective and critical thinking in 6-the truth seen
or higher self seen in 9, is "felt" in 12 or Picses. The DISSOLUTION
of the whole idea of an ego and identity and the recognition that WE
ARE ALL THAT IS, through the perpective alteration that we are the
reality we thought we existed within. If ego and artificial persona
constructs are NOT transcended and dissolved the body or mind MAY as
an effect of a dis-eased person. MUTABLE and flexible full surrender
to the all in recognition of our blending with it.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
Jim Phillips
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Elroy Willis wrote:
> >> Wally Anglesea™ wrote in alt.atheism
> >>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>>> el...@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
> >>>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> whined:
>
> >>>>>>> So you like show tunes?
>
> >>>>>> Like I said, once and twice, and now again... I want to keep
> >>>>>> this thread free from flames and hostility.
>
> >>>>> So the world should refrain from laughing at you? ROFLMAO! You
> >>>>> bring up a silly topic; you get laughed at. That's the way it
> >>>>> works.
>
> >>>> Which part of the topic do you think is silly?
>
> >>> You use a work of fiction (DaVinci Code) as a basis for fact. That's
> >>> silly in spades
>
> >> The precession of the equinox is a fact, not fiction.
>
> > The fact that precession exists (never mind that most astrologers
> > ignore its effects) does not in any way alter the fact that you are using a
> > work of fiction as a basis for fact. Yes, that is silly.
>
> Sounds like you haven't read the book to me.
I'm currently reading "Ripples Of Battle" by Victor Davis Hanson.
I've enjoyed his previous works: Carnage & Culture, The Soul Of Battle (the
best non-fiction I've read in decades), The Western Way Of War.
So when does the DaVinci Code author think the Age Of Aquarius
begins? Does he have a list of sources at the end?
> Although the overall
> novel is fiction, it's filled with little tidbits of trivia which are
> actual true facts, according to the author.
Ah, okay. Thought you were just another woo-woo. ;)
> There are several facts
> about the planet Venus mentioned that I'm in the process of verifying.
> It's supposed to be a fact that Venus traces a pentagram in the sky
> over an 8-year period, but I haven't been able to verify this yet.
I've been an amateur astronomer for decades and I've never heard
that one (although it may be the kind of thing that occurs on astrologic
charts).
> It
> was also mentioned that this 8-year-period is why the ancient Olympics
> were held every eight years.
I'm quite certain that the Greek Olympics were held every 4 years,
and I'm equally certain they werenot held in honor of the Greek goddess of
love (Aphrodite aka Venus).
> It's little factoids like that that I'm
> in the process of verifying.
Glad to hear it.
Jim Phillips
If the author claimed the "Age Of Aquarius" is happening now, he
didn't do his homework (at least astronomically). As has already been
noted, the vernal equinox won't be in Aquarius for another 3,000 years.
> >> It's one of the largest visible ways to measure the passage of time.
>
> > Not really; the Sun and Moon are the largest visible ways to
> > measure the passage of time. Precession is actually difficult to measure
> > without good measurements over centuries of time.
>
> I wasn't talking about the largest visible object in the sky, but
> rather one of the largest "time periods," if you can see the
> difference.
I can see the difference, but I know of many other things that are
on a vastly greater scale. Galactic rotation, for example, occurs over a
period of 225 million years, so technically it's observable.
It's really a question of how accurately you can measure things.
Naked-eye observations will reveal precession over a period of centuries
(how many depends on how accurate you measure things), since the location of
the Sun with respect to the background stars at key times of the year will
change (Age Of Aquarius and all that). Nowadays we can measure the
precession of the equinoxes every year.
> > And astrology ignores its effect anyway. If you are born under a
> > certain astrological sign, the Sun was *not* in the constellation that
> > corresponds to your sign at the time of your birth.
>
> I won't argue against that. I don't personally even believe in
> astrology. Maybe you thought I did, I dunno. I'm trying to talk
> about actual facts here, like the precession of the equinox, and
> the measurement of time and time periods.
I don't believe the precession was noticed until the Middle Ages,
or even the Rennaissance. The Arabs may have noticed it (they probably had
info going back a thousand or more years from the Greeks). I have no idea
if the Chinese or Mesoamericans noticed, but either culture would have been
in a position to do so. The question might be would these cultures have
allowed for the possibility that the position of the Sun can change over
centuries/millenia.
Jim Phillips
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> > Precession is actually difficult to measure
> > without good measurements over centuries of time.
> > And astrology ignores its effect anyway.
>
> Tropical astrology does, because it's season-based. Sidereal astrology
> doesn't.
Oops, thanks--I sometimes forget that there's more than one kind of
astrological woo-woo out there. ;)
Jim Phillips
So what's to discuss?
Jim Phillips
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> > Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
> >
> > > Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
> > > great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness).
> >
> > I thought Uranus was only recently discovered in 1731. Are you
> > claiming it was actually visible with the naked eye back in ancient
> > times?
>
> Uranus is visible to someone with exceptional vision and under good
> conditions, yes.
The big problem with actually identifying it as a planet is that
there are several thousand stars that are brighter than it is and it
doesn't move very fast (84 year orbit). Uranus was noted by at least 19
different observers before it was actually "discovered" (I've never heard of
a serious claim that the ancients noticed Uranus' existence as a "wandering
star").
Along a similar vein, Galileo spotted Neptune while observing
Jupiter's moons. This was noticed when someone looked at Galileo's sketches
and couldn't find a star where he had sketched Neptune's position.
> > What ruled Aquarius before Uranus was discovered?
>
> Saturn. And Saturn still rules Aquarius if you do your astrology right.
Cool, an astrological holy war! ;)
Edmond Wollmann
> digger <b...@example.com> wrote:
> > The Bible has a lot of silliness too. But one sensible thing it
> > does say is to avoid astro-scammers.
> Could you please tell me where the bible says to avoid astrologers? I
> can only find where it says to avoid the advice of people who consult
> the dead.
It doesn't, as a matter of fact, astrologers, astrology, and Zodiacs
are all over the bible and religion. Remember, the powers of the times
were in Babylon, Rome, and Greece--all heavily dedicated to astrology.
Astrology in those days was a GIVEN, not a "scam."
"And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate
the day from the night; and let them be for _SIGNS_ and for seasons
and for days and for years, and let them be lights in the dome of the
sky to give light upon the Earth.....God made two great lights, the
greater light to rule the day (the sun), and the lesser light to rule
the night (the moon)--and the stars." Genesis; 14-17, Holy Bible, New
Revised Standard Version, this writer's emphasis on signs.
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/christian.htm
http://www.e-wollmann.com/6a1.htm
http://www.e-wollmann.com/Pleiadian1/
In the Bible God speaks to Job in Job 38:31;
Can thou bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades, or loose the bands
(control) of Orion?
Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season or can you guide
Arcturus with his sons?
Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their
rule on earth?
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://www.e-wollmann.com/Pleiadian1/
TCS
>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:33:22 -0000, in alt.astrology, el...@no.spam ()
>wrote:
>>In article <fuegvvot8rnf9jor2...@4ax.com>,
>>Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It's a scientific fact that the earth wobbles and that the polar star
>>>and background constellations change over time.
>>
>>So what?
>Did the massive ice caps during the ice age change or effect the
>precession?
No, it was a star 15,000 light years away with the gravatational force
a trillionth trillionth billionth of a nat that tossed the earth on it's axis.
Edmond Wollmann
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
> > > Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
> > > great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness).
> > I thought Uranus was only recently discovered in 1731. Are you
> > claiming it was actually visible with the naked eye back in ancient
> > times?
> Uranus is visible to someone with exceptional vision and under good
> conditions, yes.
> > What ruled Aquarius before Uranus was discovered?
> Saturn. And Saturn still rules Aquarius if you do your astrology right.
It's not really a matter of right and wrong. Traditional astrologers
(mostly who engage in Horary and such) believe that the ancients had
some special reasons that were tried and true for using rulerships
such as Saturn ruling Aquarius and Jupiter ruling Pisces. This is
because Horary is as close to magic as astrology gets, and when we
deal in specificity rules become extremely important.
In reality however, it is more likely that they were just "best
guesstimates" of rulership because the other planets had not been
discovered and the rulership seemed most "compatible" or logical, and
that forcing these types of rulerships were because they ran out of
planets. We now know with modern psychology that specificity of
identity functioning is more closely aligned with the ego and
personality traits and that (in astrological psychology) the outer
planets describe more unconscious and collective consciousness issues,
hence, duality in rulership is LESS likely the further out in orbit we
move in planetary position, and correspondingly the more deeply into
the unconscious aspects of identity descriptions as well.
Remember Keera, the ancients also believed things such as the planets
moving on giant spheres and such, which modern astronomy and other
sciences have dispelled as myth also. So although the ancients had
some good insights into astrological mechanics, they also had some
terribly innaccurate ones as well.
And trying to make Aquarius fit the dogmatic and rigid structures of
Saturn is in my "Uranian type" of christ consciousness world, terribly
inaccurate.
But in those days, the limits of awareness co-incided with the limits
of the solar system.
Uranus breaks the limits that Saturn imposes, and Chiron is the
healing transition that makes that break palatable. Hence, it is
DESTRUCTURIZING of dogma that the Christ and Buddha bring to the
world, which the followers at the lower level (Saturn) then
restructurize and ritualize that vaporizes the meaning that was their
original intent.
He that has ears, let him hear.
Uranus!
THE DECLARATION
OF
INDEPENDENCE
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4,1776
"WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils
are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and
such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former
Systems of Government." Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Keera Ann Fox
> If the author claimed the "Age Of Aquarius" is happening now, he
> didn't do his homework (at least astronomically). As has already been
> noted, the vernal equinox won't be in Aquarius for another 3,000 years.
Ehm.... 300 years, yes?
Keera Ann Fox
> Keera Ann Fox <see_...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > jfred <d0...@petitm0rte.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > > > >> d0...@petitm0rte.net (jfred) wrote in alt.atheism
> > > > >>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Sounds like you haven't read the book to me.
> > > >
> > > > >>> Were you hoping for a bedtime story? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > >> Have you read it?
> > > >
> > > Can you kids playing along at home weigh in here? Is it just me or did
> > > that just fly right over Elroy's head?
> >
> > It did. And too bad. It was such a nice example of fun things to do
> > without commas.
>
> That's what I thought, but maybe I'm a grammar dork. ;)
Heh. I know who you hang with, so maybe it's not entirely your fault.
Keera Ann Fox
Keera Ann Fox
> In article <1g723xt.10wo50k14sc6diN%see_...@yahoo.com.invalid>,
> Keera Ann Fox <see_...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >The idea that Jesus didn't die but married Mary Magdalene and had
> >children and that finding his descendants is the true "hunt for the Holy
> >Grail", has been the subject of several documentaries on The Discovery
> >Channel.
>
> Another example showing Discovery will buy anything.
You mean programs? Or ideas?
I didn't say Discovery Channel is pro or con. But it has explored the
topic on several occassions, so it's not like the idea presented in "The
DaVinci Code" exists in a vacuum. Which was, like, you know, my point.
Cujo
> see_...@yahoo.com.invalid (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in message
> news:<1g724cf.q06e3ze2l3seN%see_...@yahoo.com.invalid>...
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>> > Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> > > Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
>> > > great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness).
>
>> > I thought Uranus was only recently discovered in 1731. Are you
>> > claiming it was actually visible with the naked eye back in ancient
>> > times?
>
>> Uranus is visible to someone with exceptional vision and under good
>> conditions, yes.
>
>> > What ruled Aquarius before Uranus was discovered?
>
>> Saturn. And Saturn still rules Aquarius if you do your astrology
>> right.
>
> It's not really a matter of right and wrong.
Really? Then a sociopathic scumbag like yourself must like that! But I
sort of doubt that's the case. I'd say you were about to babble some
nonsense and this is your way of running away from providing any evidence
of your claims.
> Traditional astrologers
> (mostly who engage in Horary and such) believe that the ancients had
> some special reasons that were tried and true for using rulerships
> such as Saturn ruling Aquarius and Jupiter ruling Pisces. This is
> because Horary is as close to magic as astrology gets, and when we
> deal in specificity rules become extremely important.
Ah! So it's your opinion? I'm really glad to have a convicted criminal
and irresponsible killer of passengers to lecture me about it. Thats
assuming that this isn't plagiarized, of course. Given that you've proven
your lack of ethics many times here and this is too coherent and it has a
comma in the proper place makes me wonder who the fuck you ripped this
off from.
> In reality however, it is more likely that they were just "best
> guesstimates" of rulership because the other planets had not been
> discovered and the rulership seemed most "compatible" or logical, and
> that forcing these types of rulerships were because they ran out of
> planets.
"Ran out of planets"? This is rich! I never run out of planets, I buy
them at the same store you buy those aliens at.
> We now know with modern psychology
You know little of psychology. Post your grades from SDSU and it'll be
easy enough to prove.
> that specificity of
> identity functioning is more closely aligned with the ego and
> personality traits and that (in astrological psychology) the outer
> planets describe more unconscious and collective consciousness issues,
> hence, duality in rulership is LESS likely the further out in orbit we
> move in planetary position, and correspondingly the more deeply into
> the unconscious aspects of identity descriptions as well.
What a load of shit. Ed, you made up some nonsense and claim it belongs
to "astrological psychology"? I have to wonder why someone with your
expertise isn't teaching at Kepler instead of still not graduating from
even a pathetic sham that the college represents.
> Remember Keera, the ancients also believed things such as the planets
> moving on giant spheres and such, which modern astronomy and other
> sciences have dispelled as myth also. So although the ancients had
> some good insights into astrological mechanics, they also had some
> terribly innaccurate ones as well.
You mean like the crappy book you self-published?
> And trying to make Aquarius fit the dogmatic and rigid structures of
> Saturn is in my "Uranian type" of christ consciousness world, terribly
> inaccurate.
> But in those days, the limits of awareness co-incided with the limits
> of the solar system.
I guess I'll have to defer to your expertise. After all, who am I to
doubt someone who was an astrologer 100 times in Babylon?
> Uranus breaks the limits that Saturn imposes, and Chiron is the
> healing transition that makes that break palatable. Hence, it is
> DESTRUCTURIZING of dogma that the Christ and Buddha bring to the
> world, which the followers at the lower level (Saturn) then
> restructurize and ritualize that vaporizes the meaning that was their
> original intent.
> He that has ears, let him hear.
He that hast voices in his head, let him be the Uberkook!
> Uranus!
<Karnak>
Where is the location of Wollmann's head?
</Karnak>
[screed snipped]
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann. Meow.
"You have trouble dealing with reality I see. You are one sick puppy."
- Edmond Wollkook shattering Irony Meters worldwide.
Jim Phillips
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:33:22 -0000, in alt.astrology, el...@no.spam ()
> wrote:
>
> >In article <fuegvvot8rnf9jor2...@4ax.com>,
> >Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> >>It's a scientific fact that the earth wobbles and that the polar star
> >>and background constellations change over time.
> >
> >So what?
>
> Did the massive ice caps during the ice age change or effect the
> precession?
Not really; the Himalayas, for example, weigh much more than the
weight of the Ice Age icecaps.
Jim Phillips
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> > If the author claimed the "Age Of Aquarius" is happening now, he
> > didn't do his homework (at least astronomically). As has already been
> > noted, the vernal equinox won't be in Aquarius for another 3,000 years.
>
> Ehm.... 300 years, yes?
That's what I get for not checking my numbers. I went to Starry
Night, found the Vernal Equinox, and fast-forwarded. By 2625 the vernal
equinox will cross the boundary between Pisces (where it is) and Aquarius.
It will stay in Aquarius until about 4325 AD (on January 25, 4325 the
first-quarter moon will be in Aquarius--Starry Night is ***so*** cool! :).
Of course, this is using the astronomical boundaries for the
constellations; your 300 year number may be correct if the astrological
boundaries aren't the same (a real possibility, since the boundaries I
used were set up about a century ago).
--
Jim Phillips, jphillip at bcpl dot net
"I hope nobody asks me to show them the ropes; I have no idea where they
are. Maybe I could pull some strings and find out." -- G. Carlin
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>> The precession of the equinox is a fact, not fiction.
>>> The fact that precession exists (never mind that most astrologers
>>> ignore its effects) does not in any way alter the fact that you are using a
>>> work of fiction as a basis for fact. Yes, that is silly.
> Most good works of fiction are based on fact. The writer has to do his
> research. In fact, I read the book, and very little the author presented
> there as fact, was unheard of for me. Most can be easily verified, too.
> Spoiler warning!
> If you haven't read the book and want to, do not continue reading.
> The idea that Jesus didn't die but married Mary Magdalene and had
> children and that finding his descendants is the true "hunt for the Holy
> Grail", has been the subject of several documentaries on The Discovery
> Channel.
Yeah. I'm pretty skeptical about that part of it, but then I don't
believe Jesus came back from the dead either. Furthermore, from
what I've read and heard about Jewish tradition, rabbis are actually
encouraged to marry and have kids, so it would be highly unusual for
Jesus to have been single and have no children, unless perhaps he
was gay, as some people have suggested.
>> Sounds like you haven't read the book to me. Although the overall
>> novel is fiction, it's filled with little tidbits of trivia which are
>> actual true facts, according to the author. There are several facts
>> about the planet Venus mentioned that I'm in the process of verifying.
>> It's supposed to be a fact that Venus traces a pentagram in the sky
>> over an 8-year period,
> 4-year period. I've read the book.
8-year. I still have the book right here. Look on pages 36-37 if
you still have it and don't believe me.
>> but I haven't been able to verify this yet. It
>> was also mentioned that this 8-year-period is why the ancient Olympics
>> were held every eight years.
> Every _four_ years. Like it has been for a long time and still is:
> Summer olympics are held every four years; winter olympics likewise.
It was supposedly every 8 years back in ancient Greece, and we
now use 1/2 cycles of Venus, so the book says. I don't know at what
point people started using 1/2 cycles, and I'm still skeptical about
that part of it.
I've verified the idea that Venus can be said to trace a pentagram
over 8 years, (see below), but I haven't verified that ancient Greeks
used to hold the olympics every 8 years instead of every 4 years like
we do today.
>> It's little factoids like that that I'm
>> in the process of verifying.
> Or little errors. Have fun verifying that 8-year cycle!
http://www.keplerstern.com/Play_of__movements/body_play_of__movements.html
"It has been known for a long time – possibly by the Babylonians –
that the relation of the movements of the planets Venus and Earth is
geometrically structured by the number five. If we plot the movement
of Venus from a geocentric view continually we obtain a fivefold loop
figure. If we connect the subsequent positions of conjunction of the
both planets by lines this leads to a nearly exact pentagram. As shown
in Fig. 2.1 one pentacle which forms in an 8-year period is turned
only by 2.4 degrees compared to the preceding one."
http://www.geocities.com/syzygywjp/Venus.html
"The Maya and Middle Eastern civilizations were aware of the cycles
and both measured an eight-year cycle of Venus."
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/7770/pentagram.html
"The Sun Venus Pentagram
When plotted from the surface of earth over an eight year period the
Superior conjunctions of the Sun and Venus form a five pointed star or
Pentagram each conjunction is 72 degrees
apart. This unusual Geometrical shape occurs perfectly naturally in
the heavens and was a sign of sanctitiy to the Ancients. The
importance of the Sun/Venus conjunction as an Initatory
trigger is mentioned in a wide range of Holy Books. The first half of
the Alchemical formula Solve et Coagula is a direct reference to the
Holy Pentagram for the sun is the Latin Sol and Ve is Venus."
I dunno if that last part is suggesting that the word "solve" is
actually derived from a combination of "sol" + "ve" or not, or whether
it is just in the case of some alchemical formula. Sol/Solis seems to
be the Latin name for the sun, and Veneris is the Latin for Venus,
but it seems odd to connect them together in that way. Hmm...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Elroy Willis
> <el...@no.spam> wrote:
>> Keera Ann Fox <see_...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> The idea that Jesus didn't die but married Mary Magdalene and had
>>> children and that finding his descendants is the true "hunt for the Holy
>>> Grail", has been the subject of several documentaries on The Discovery
>>> Channel.
>> Another example showing Discovery will buy anything.
> You mean programs? Or ideas?
> I didn't say Discovery Channel is pro or con. But it has explored the
> topic on several occassions, so it's not like the idea presented in "The
> DaVinci Code" exists in a vacuum. Which was, like, you know, my point.
Which group is ellis@nospam posting from, do you know?
Someone keeps adding alt.usenet.kooks to the newsgroup list and
I remove it whenever I see it, so perhaps it's the ellis character
that keeps adding it in? I know it's not me, is it you?
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Sure, but unless you understand the basis for some of the astrological
>> ideas and symbolisms, you're dealing with less than a full deck of
>> information.
> One can deal with the results and they say that astrology is
> a silly superstition for children like you.
As I've said before, I don't believe in astrology. My interest is in
astronomy and actual verifiable observations and measurements.
The "gravity waves" or whatever astrologers claim the planets do to
affect people's lives, are just as much a joke to me as they
apparently are to you.
It seems to be you who keeps adding groups like the following:
alt.astrology.scam,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fuck.the.skull.of.jesus
Perhaps it's you who's the kook, and you don't realize it yet?
Elroy Willis
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Elroy Willis wrote:
>> John Iser <right...@cha.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>>>> Wally Anglesea wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>> You use a work of fiction (DaVinci Code) as a basis for fact. That's
>>>>> silly in spades
To the contrary, I use a work of fiction to read about certain ideas,
then go off and try to verify them through outside corroboration.
Something that people who consider the Bible as non-fiction should
think about doing, imo. Maybe if they thought of it as fiction
instead, they might look at it differently. Even though the DaVinci
Code is a work of fiction, it contains all kinds of supposed "facts"
that people can investigate on their own.
>>> Wally, are you channelling Rod Speed now? (: (Rod, AKA the Rodbot, is
>>> an Australian Usenet kook who uses the catchphrase "in spades" - among
>>> many others... <1658avs16mkttdunn...@4ax.com>)
>>>> The precession of the equinox is a fact, not fiction.
>>> True, but the astrological symbolism of the signs of the Zodiac and
>>> the planets was all made up, by humans, a long time ago.
I've always wondered who was the first person to convince everyone
else that the constellation of Cancer really is supposed to look like
a Crab, and the same for the other constellations. The Big Dipper
looks like a soup ladle, so it makes sense to me, but I cannot seem
to picture a bear when I look at it.
>> I've never disputed that fact either.
>>> And in more or less the same manner as the religious mythology that we
>>> in alt.atheism refuse to take seriously.
>> Sure, but unless you understand the basis for some of the astrological
>> ideas and symbolisms, you're dealing with less than a full deck of
>> information. You don't have to actually believe in astrology in order
>> to try to understand it, at least imo.
>>> The precession of the equinoxes itself raises problems for
>>> astrologers. As I pointed out in t.o a few years ago:
>>> <35602ff6...@news.ozemail.com.au>
>>> "In the West, astrologers use the tropical zodiac (referenced from the
>>> First Point of Aries), while in India they use the sidereal one
>>> (referenced from the location of the constellations in the sky). The
>>> upshot is that, due to the precession of the equinoxes, Indian
>>> astrology is one sign off cf Western. If you are, say, a Gemini in the
>>> tropical system, then you will be a Taurus according to the Indians."
>> I don't disagree with any of that. All I ever wanted to discuss was
>> the actual *fact* of the precession of the equinox.
> So what's to discuss?
I think it's reasonable to assume that much of the fishy stuff about
Jesus is related to the age of pisces. Not because I personally
believe in astrology, but because other people do, and because they
did so more often in the past, when astrology and superstition were
even more rampant than they are now.
I don't know about you, but I can actually picture some fervent
astrologer willing to become a martyr to try to mark some "exact"
beginning age of pisces on purpose, like what Jesus was supposed to
have done, willingly, being killed by the Romans, or Jews, or whoever
you wanna blame his death on. Assuming such a scenario might
be true, I was wondering if someone, or some group, might actually
be willing or planning on trying to create some sort of specific
marker which future people will look back and say "Yep, they were
trying to mark the new age of aquarius for sure..."
Anyway, that's something to discuss. Like I said, I've been reading
some different astrology sites, seeing what the current astrologers
are talking about, trying to see if perhaps some of them are so
fervent that they might actually try to instigate some "end of times"
movement.
That was one of the points mentioned in DaVinci code. If some
group of people actually held secret documents which would disprove
the divinity of Jesus, when would they choose to use such information?
The book suggests that they might try to use it around the start of a
new millennium, but that didn't happen, so when might they choose to
use it?
Dan Brown didn't state personally that he thought some age of aquarius
has actually begun, from what I could tell. He just brought up the
idea or point that some people believe in such things and others can
observe their actions and try to figure out what they might have in
mind...
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Which part of the topic do you think is silly?
> The set of all of it.
Then drop out of this thread and quit adding groups like
alt.astrology.scam and alt.usenet.kooks to the list.
Piss off, iow!
John Iser
<fb1e5579.04010...@posting.google.com>:
[snip]
> This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
> The age of Aquarius
> Aquarius! Aquarius!
>
>Sorry, couldn't help myself.
>
I was in high school (in Australia) when Hair originally came out. Our
version of it went "this is the dawning of the Age Of A Hairy Arse..."
--
John Iser a.a #379
"Man running thru the grass outside, says he wants to take up serpents
Says he will drink the deadly thing, and it will not hurt him"
- Lucinda Williams, 2 Kool 2 Be 4-gotten (Mark 16:18)
John Iser
>John Iser <right...@cha.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> [alt.usenet.kooks flung]
>
>And alt.astrology.scam added? Or did someone besides you
>add it first?
>
Someone else; el...@no.spam () AFAICT. (He also added AUK.) Though I
second the emotion, which is why I didn't fling it too. (:
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
[snip]
>>> The precession of the equinox is a fact, not fiction.
>
>> True, but the astrological symbolism of the signs of the Zodiac and
>> the planets was all made up, by humans, a long time ago.
>
>I've never disputed that fact either.
>
>> And in more or less the same manner as the religious mythology that we
>> in alt.atheism refuse to take seriously.
>
>Sure, but unless you understand the basis for some of the astrological
>ideas and symbolisms, you're dealing with less than a full deck of
>information. You don't have to actually believe in astrology in order
>to try to understand it, at least imo.
>
Of course. I was an astrology fan in my younger days (late 1970s), so
I understand the symbolism while no longer trusting its ability to
explain things.
The most important thing to realise about astrology is that its
central maxim, "as above, so below" is the wrong way around. It's
about projecting human emotions and activity onto the planets,
constellations and so on.
But despite that, I still have a soft spot for the imagery and
metaphors that it uses. Rather than rehash all of it here, you could
have a brief glance at this site:
http://www.zaalberg.freeserve.co.uk/astro/astrology_primer.html
Especially the 'Quick Reference Guide' at the bottom. Of the signs in
question, it says
"Aquarius - The Water Carrier
Rebellious and independent, sometimes seems distant but usually
involved in good causes, often eccentric. Ruling planet: Uranus /
Saturn", and
"Pisces - The Fish [sic; it should read 'The Fishes']
Sensitive and gentle, often rather mystical or psychic and easily
hurt. Ruling planet: Neptune / Jupiter"
>> The precession of the equinoxes itself raises problems for
>> astrologers. As I pointed out in t.o a few years ago:
>> <35602ff6...@news.ozemail.com.au>
>
>> "In the West, astrologers use the tropical zodiac (referenced from the
>> First Point of Aries), while in India they use the sidereal one
>> (referenced from the location of the constellations in the sky). The
>> upshot is that, due to the precession of the equinoxes, Indian
>> astrology is one sign off cf Western. If you are, say, a Gemini in the
>> tropical system, then you will be a Taurus according to the Indians."
>
>I don't disagree with any of that. All I ever wanted to discuss was
>the actual *fact* of the precession of the equinox. What different
>cultures and religions or cults made or make of it is up to them.
>
At its baldest, the precession of the equinoxes just tells us that the
Earth wobbles like a top, very slowly, as it spins. And this is a very
minor influence on us compared to the Earth's daily rotation and
annual revolution around the Sun.
>I was also curious about any new symbols used by people who profess
>some special belief in the new age of aquarius, and what symbols or
>idols they're using. It doesn't matter if I believe in such things or
>not, other people do, and finding out what they're using as symbols
>can lead to a better understanding of their actual beliefs, imo.
Aquarius (an Air sign, concerned with the intellect) is associated
with science and technology, esp. anything electronic, and Pisces (a
Water sign, deals more in emotions) with mysticism and religion. So
the transition from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius would
mean people relying less on faith and more on reason (as symbolised by
the scientific approach).
Which is more or less how things have panned out over the past few
hundred years. But again: the Age of Pisces/Aquarius transition works
better as an ex post facto metaphor for this than as an explanation of
it. I doubt if we could find any astrologers working, say, before the
invention of the printing press who predicted that this would happen.
Elroy Willis
> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
>>>> Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
>>>> great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness).
>>> I thought Uranus was only recently discovered in 1731. Are you
>>> claiming it was actually visible with the naked eye back in ancient
>>> times?
>> Uranus is visible to someone with exceptional vision and under good
>> conditions, yes.
> The big problem with actually identifying it as a planet is that
> there are several thousand stars that are brighter than it is and it
> doesn't move very fast (84 year orbit). Uranus was noted by at least 19
> different observers before it was actually "discovered" (I've never heard of
> a serious claim that the ancients noticed Uranus' existence as a "wandering
> star").
I'm also interested in that claim. Does it also apply to Neptune and
Pluto as well? Granted the night skies were probably a lot clearer
back in ancient times, but is it reasonable to believe that certain
people had eagle-like vision and could spot such far away planets as
Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto? I dunno... I remain skeptical on that
idea for now...
> Along a similar vein,
That was an etymological pun, right?
> Galileo spotted Neptune while observing Jupiter's moons. This was
> noticed when someone looked at Galileo's sketches and couldn't find
> a star where he had sketched Neptune's position.
Hmm... I hadn't heard about that before.
>>> What ruled Aquarius before Uranus was discovered?
>> Saturn. And Saturn still rules Aquarius if you do your astrology right.
> Cool, an astrological holy war! ;)
When does Saturn rule Aquarius? Only on certain days?
I've been trying to tie the Jewish Sabbath with the planet Saturn
and the clues are everywhere. Saturnday is the same as Sabbath
day, imo. Note also that the Jewish "Festival of the Sun" occurs
every 28 years, which is the time they recorded as being the time it
takes the planet Saturn to go around the Sun.
Elroy Willis
<snip>
> Uranus breaks the limits that Saturn imposes, and Chiron is the
> healing transition that makes that break palatable. Hence, it is
> DESTRUCTURIZING of dogma that the Christ and Buddha bring to the
> world, which the followers at the lower level (Saturn) then
> restructurize and ritualize that vaporizes the meaning that was their
> original intent.
> He that has ears, let him hear.
> Uranus!
Down with Uranus, Up with Neptune!
Pluto isn't really a planet according to some people, so we can
rule it out. Since Neptune is further out than Uranus, and we're
supposed to be coming into the Age of Aquarius, and Aquarius means
water or aqua, I'd say we're in good shape, since Neptune is the god
of the sea.
The planet gods have it all figured out, and everything is going
according to the big plan of the "et's" or "elohim." Yes siree!
Gregory Gadow
of the precession of the equinoxes, the "sign" at the sunrise horizon on
the day of the Spring Equinox appears lower and lower. Every 72 years or
so, we slip backwards one degree, going through all 12 signs in about
26,000 years.
About 60 BCE, we moved from the "Age of Aries" to the "Age of Pisces."
(Sorry, astrology buffs. Aries hasn't been the sign of spring in
millennia.) At the moment, we are technically in no age, as the sunrise of
the spring equinox occurs between the Pisces and Aquarius as it has done
for almost 70 years. The astronomical beginning of the "Age of Aquarius"
won't be until the spring equinox of 2013. Oddly enough, though, the Mayan
calendar ends (supposedly with the end of the world) in September of 2012.
The only link between the "Age of Pisces" and the "Age of Aquarius" is the
coincidental fact that ancient Greeks named two consecutive
constellations.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
>>> great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness).
>> I thought Uranus was only recently discovered in 1731. Are you
>> claiming it was actually visible with the naked eye back in ancient
>> times? What ruled Aquarius before Uranus was discovered?
> Saturn.
Because it was thought to be the "furthest out" or "Most High" at the
time? I see the "furthest out observed object" and the "ruling over
some constellation by that object" as two entirely different subjects.
I don't know if it's just a coincidence or not, but if you look at
Jewish menorahs, they've changed over time.
Josephus mentions that the 7-branched menorah was representative
of the sun and the moon and five visible planets at the time, or the
"seven heavenly objects," so to speak. The center of it was the sun,
called Shamash, which was an ancient sun god who was supposed to
have given some laws to Hamurabbi.
I wonder if Ham was a Rabbi who lived in Ur and believed in astrology,
like Abraham did, but that's probably a wild idea or topic or freak
linguistic coincidence best left for another thread..
It's interesting that the menorah grew to 9 branches, don't you
think? I have an idea of why, aside from the fictional story of the
magic oil in some Jewish temple, but I don't know whether anyone
would take it seriously, or just scoff at it.
What would you do if you discovered two new planets and had
to re-write some currently-existing mythology about some "highest up"
planetary objects?
> As our consciousness expands, so does the discovery of bodies
> to reflect that expansion.
This is where we part ways I suppose. I don't believe that the
constellations or planets or charts of them can influence people's
lives, unless people actually believe in those things, and tailor
their lives after them, trying to imitate something that someone else
told them they're supposed to be like because of the position of
one or more "heavenly objects."
Elroy Willis
> In the Bible God speaks to Job in Job 38:31;
> Can thou bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades, or loose the bands
> (control) of Orion?
> Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season or can you guide
> Arcturus with his sons?
> Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their
> rule on earth?
Job 25:5-6 is a good example of ancient Sun worship, imo.
"If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his
eyes..."
When the sun comes out, does not the moon get less bright,
and the stars disappear or become "impute"?
Ra Ra, Amen-Ra.
Elroy Willis
> I suggest you contact a rabbinical authority to bring your poorly
> translated English version to line WRT what the Hebrew text says.
The internet is full of Jewish astrology sites. Don't try to pretend
that all Jewish people scoff at astrology. From what I've read, the
12 tribes of Israel are actually related to the zodiac constellations,
and there are plenty of Jewish people willing to back up that idea.
Even Christians who back up the idea can be found.
Elroy Willis
> In the 60's, the phrase actually had an astronomical significance. Because
> of the precession of the equinoxes, the "sign" at the sunrise horizon on
> the day of the Spring Equinox appears lower and lower. Every 72 years or
> so, we slip backwards one degree, going through all 12 signs in about
> 26,000 years.
> About 60 BCE, we moved from the "Age of Aries" to the "Age of Pisces."
> (Sorry, astrology buffs. Aries hasn't been the sign of spring in
> millennia.) At the moment, we are technically in no age, as the sunrise of
> the spring equinox occurs between the Pisces and Aquarius as it has done
> for almost 70 years. The astronomical beginning of the "Age of Aquarius"
> won't be until the spring equinox of 2013. Oddly enough, though, the Mayan
> calendar ends (supposedly with the end of the world) in September of 2012.
> The only link between the "Age of Pisces" and the "Age of Aquarius" is the
> coincidental fact that ancient Greeks named two consecutive
> constellations.
And the "dawning of some new age" is the basis for all kinds of
astrological hooey. I think some people thought I really believed in
astrology when I started this thread.
Gregory Gadow
I've never believed astrology; the very fact that the signs do not match the
actual astronomy and hasn't for millennia kind of spoiled it.
Keera Ann Fox
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>
> > Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> >
> > > If the author claimed the "Age Of Aquarius" is happening now, he
> > > didn't do his homework (at least astronomically). As has already been
> > > noted, the vernal equinox won't be in Aquarius for another 3,000 years.
> >
> > Ehm.... 300 years, yes?
>
> That's what I get for not checking my numbers. I went to Starry
> Night, found the Vernal Equinox, and fast-forwarded. By 2625 the vernal
> equinox will cross the boundary between Pisces (where it is) and Aquarius.
That late, huh?
> It will stay in Aquarius until about 4325 AD (on January 25, 4325 the
> first-quarter moon will be in Aquarius--Starry Night is ***so*** cool! :).
> Of course, this is using the astronomical boundaries for the
> constellations; your 300 year number may be correct if the astrological
> boundaries aren't the same (a real possibility, since the boundaries I
> used were set up about a century ago).
My 300 (actually, 300-400) is a ballpark figure based on my own
calculations (though I've seen a similar figure elsewhere). It does
depend on who's doing the calculating and based on what constellation
boundaries. Astrology doesn't set boundaries for constellations or
calculate planetary positions. We leave that stuff up to the
astronomers.
Keera Ann Fox
> Which group is ellis@nospam posting from, do you know?
>
> Someone keeps adding alt.usenet.kooks to the newsgroup list and
> I remove it whenever I see it, so perhaps it's the ellis character
> that keeps adding it in? I know it's not me, is it you?
Ellis and I are regulars of alt.astrology. I don't keep track of the
other groups cross-posted to in this thread, so I don't really notice
when they appear or disappear.
Keera Ann Fox
> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
> >> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
>
> >>> Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
> >>> great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness).
>
> >> I thought Uranus was only recently discovered in 1731. Are you
> >> claiming it was actually visible with the naked eye back in ancient
> >> times? What ruled Aquarius before Uranus was discovered?
>
> > Saturn.
>
> Because it was thought to be the "furthest out" or "Most High" at the
> time? I see the "furthest out observed object" and the "ruling over
> some constellation by that object" as two entirely different subjects.
You want me to teach you astrology?
Saturn rules Capricorn and Aquarius.
Jupiter rules Sagittarius and Pisces.
Mars rules Scorpio and Aries.
Venus rules Libra and Taurus.
Mercury rules Virgo and Gemini.
Sun rules Leo, Moon rules Cancer.
Whip out a picture of the circle of the zodiac and see if you don't see
the pattern.
> It's interesting that the menorah grew to 9 branches, don't you
> think?
Like they had a psychic vision of the astronomical future? Hard to tell.
The Dogon (sp?) people of Africa have always known Sirius is a double
star, a fact we can't verify without a telescope. I sometimes think
humanity once knew a lot more than it knows now.
Keera Ann Fox
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> >> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >>> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
>
> >>>> Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
> >>>> great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness).
>
> >>> I thought Uranus was only recently discovered in 1731. Are you
> >>> claiming it was actually visible with the naked eye back in ancient
> >>> times?
>
> >> Uranus is visible to someone with exceptional vision and under good
> >> conditions, yes.
>
> > The big problem with actually identifying it as a planet is that
> > there are several thousand stars that are brighter than it is and it
> > doesn't move very fast (84 year orbit). Uranus was noted by at least 19
> > different observers before it was actually "discovered" (I've never heard of
> > a serious claim that the ancients noticed Uranus' existence as a "wandering
> > star").
>
> I'm also interested in that claim. Does it also apply to Neptune and
> Pluto as well? Granted the night skies were probably a lot clearer
> back in ancient times, but is it reasonable to believe that certain
> people had eagle-like vision and could spot such far away planets as
> Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto? I dunno... I remain skeptical on that
> idea for now...
Neptune and Pluto are not visible to the naked eye.
> >>> What ruled Aquarius before Uranus was discovered?
>
> >> Saturn. And Saturn still rules Aquarius if you do your astrology right.
>
> > Cool, an astrological holy war! ;)
>
> When does Saturn rule Aquarius? Only on certain days?
It rules, period. In astrology, planetary rulerships are not limited by
time.
> I've been trying to tie the Jewish Sabbath with the planet Saturn
> and the clues are everywhere. Saturnday is the same as Sabbath
> day, imo. Note also that the Jewish "Festival of the Sun" occurs
> every 28 years, which is the time they recorded as being the time it
> takes the planet Saturn to go around the Sun.
So the planets have a regular (like clockwork! wow!) motion and people
noticed... 'K.
Uh, were you going somewhere with this?
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>>>> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
>>>>> Aquarius is ruled by the planet Uranus, the
>>>>> great awakener (Buddha and Christ consciousness).
>>>> I thought Uranus was only recently discovered in 1731. Are you
>>>> claiming it was actually visible with the naked eye back in ancient
>>>> times? What ruled Aquarius before Uranus was discovered?
>>> Saturn.
>> Because it was thought to be the "furthest out" or "Most High" at the
>> time? I see the "furthest out observed object" and the "ruling over
>> some constellation by that object" as two entirely different subjects.
> You want me to teach you astrology?
Like I said, I can understand people arguing about which object is
"further out," because I realize not everyone stares at the sky every
night looking for new astronomical objects. Spotting a new object,
especially one way out there is pretty rare. I'm having a hard time
believing somebody could spot Uranus with the naked eye, but I
haven't ruled it out yet. Which ancient astrological charts actually
include the planet we now call Uranus in the astrological
calculations?
> Saturn rules Capricorn and Aquarius.
> Jupiter rules Sagittarius and Pisces.
> Mars rules Scorpio and Aries.
> Venus rules Libra and Taurus.
> Mercury rules Virgo and Gemini.
> Sun rules Leo, Moon rules Cancer.
Those "rulings" mean nothing to me. I don't take things that
far, or believe that the position of some far away planet in the
background of some constellation has anything to do with my
personality or anything else besides being some kind of measure
of time or pattern in time.
> Whip out a picture of the circle of the zodiac and see if you don't see
> the pattern.
Oh, there are patterns everywhere. Whether they can be used to
predict anything other than the pattern itself or some season or
measure of time is what's in question, at least in my opinion. I
don't personally believe such patterns affect people's lives in the
way many astrologers claim they do.
>> It's interesting that the menorah grew to 9 branches, don't you
>> think?
> Like they had a psychic vision of the astronomical future?
No, that they changed it after the fact, assuming as some people
have been saying that Uranus and Neptune might be visible with the
naked eye. I admit it's probably a far-fetched idea, but I have read
many articles which claim that the original 7-branch menorah is a
representation of the solar system and the 7 heavenly objects observed
back then.
> Hard to tell. The Dogon (sp?) people of Africa have always known Sirius
> is a double star, a fact we can't verify without a telescope. I sometimes think
> humanity once knew a lot more than it knows now.
I think they spent a lot more time staring up into the sky than most
people do today, that's for sure.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> Which group is ellis@nospam posting from, do you know?
>> Someone keeps adding alt.usenet.kooks to the newsgroup list and
>> I remove it whenever I see it, so perhaps it's the ellis character
>> that keeps adding it in? I know it's not me, is it you?
> Ellis and I are regulars of alt.astrology. I don't keep track of the
> other groups cross-posted to in this thread, so I don't really notice
> when they appear or disappear.
I guess you're not as observant as I am.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>> TCS <The-Central...@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>>> Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you can't
>>>> try to learn a little about it. There's nothing silly about the
>>>> precession of the equinox. It's one of the largest visible ways to
>>>> measure the passage of time.
>>> It's numerology using astrological symbols. It's absolute hogwash.
>> It's a scientific fact that the earth wobbles and that the polar star
>> and background constellations change over time. What people make
>> of that fact is up to them.
> That has nothing to do with assigning ages to astrological symbols.
Sure it does. What symbols do you suggest instead?
A bunch of numbers, one after the other?
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> In the 60's, the phrase actually had an astronomical significance. Because
>>> of the precession of the equinoxes, the "sign" at the sunrise horizon on
>>> the day of the Spring Equinox appears lower and lower. Every 72 years or
>>> so, we slip backwards one degree, going through all 12 signs in about
>>> 26,000 years.
>>> About 60 BCE, we moved from the "Age of Aries" to the "Age of Pisces."
>>> (Sorry, astrology buffs. Aries hasn't been the sign of spring in
>>> millennia.) At the moment, we are technically in no age, as the sunrise of
>>> the spring equinox occurs between the Pisces and Aquarius as it has done
>>> for almost 70 years. The astronomical beginning of the "Age of Aquarius"
>>> won't be until the spring equinox of 2013. Oddly enough, though, the Mayan
>>> calendar ends (supposedly with the end of the world) in September of 2012.
>>> The only link between the "Age of Pisces" and the "Age of Aquarius" is the
>>> coincidental fact that ancient Greeks named two consecutive
>>> constellations.
>> And the "dawning of some new age" is the basis for all kinds of
>> astrological hooey. I think some people thought I really believed in
>> astrology when I started this thread.
> I've never believed astrology; the very fact that the signs do not match the
> actual astronomy and hasn't for millennia kind of spoiled it.
I haven't ever really believed it either, kinda the same as with
religion. I like to try to understand the different symbolisms
involved, even though I don't believe in such things, just as a way
to back up my pov if someone accuses me of rejecting those things
because I don't know enough about them.
Gregory Gadow
> Josephus mentions that the 7-branched menorah was representative
> of the sun and the moon and five visible planets at the time, or the
> "seven heavenly objects," so to speak.
The number seven has a far more immediate astronomical significance: each
of the four phases of the moon lasts for about seven days. Shards of
mammoth bone have been found with four sets of seven hash marks,
presumably calendars used by early humans.
> The center of it was the sun,
> called Shamash, which was an ancient sun god who was supposed to
> have given some laws to Hamurabbi.
Jewish beliefs and practices share a common heritage with other Semitic
cultures, which includes the Sumerians and Babylonians. Case in point: the
Jewish calendar has a month named Tammuz, which occurs in summer (mid
June, usually.) Tammuz was a Middle Eastern fertility god, celebrated at
the summer solstice. An association between Babylonian astrology and
Jewish belief would not be too big of a stretch.
> I wonder if Ham was a Rabbi who lived in Ur and believed in astrology,
> like Abraham did, but that's probably a wild idea or topic or freak
> linguistic coincidence best left for another thread..
>
> It's interesting that the menorah grew to 9 branches, don't you
> think? I have an idea of why, aside from the fictional story of the
> magic oil in some Jewish temple, but I don't know whether anyone
> would take it seriously, or just scoff at it.
The seven-branch candlestick is an ancient symbol in Judaism. The
nine-branch does not seem to have made an appearance until after the
Maccabean revolt, so its ties to the observance of Hanukkah seem secure.
On the other hand, it could very well have been adopted out of the fusion
of Jewish symbols and Greek symbolism (the Maccabean revolt was against
the Seleucid Empire, a remnant of Alexander's domain.)
Dan Baldwin
> Astrology in those days was a GIVEN, not a "scam."
And then one day came people like Edmo to change all that ...
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
"I have always thought that the reason Dinosaurs were so big is because
of the dramatic difference in gravitational strength between that time
period and now" -Edmo the paleontologist
"Christ was just an enlightened person, not unlike me." -Edmo the humble
"I am an authority, and I do not force my views on others like you do."
-Edmo, enemy of Irony Meters all over Usenet
"It's not Latin, clueless wannabe tryhard." -Fucknozzle Junior
discussing the phrase 'Illegimati non carborundum'(sic)
Hail the un-alive
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>> John Iser <right...@cha.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> And in more or less the same manner as the religious mythology that we
>>> in alt.atheism refuse to take seriously.
>> Sure, but unless you understand the basis for some of the astrological
>> ideas and symbolisms, you're dealing with less than a full deck of
>> information. You don't have to actually believe in astrology in order
>> to try to understand it, at least imo.
> Of course. I was an astrology fan in my younger days (late 1970s), so
> I understand the symbolism while no longer trusting its ability to
> explain things.
> The most important thing to realise about astrology is that its
> central maxim, "as above, so below" is the wrong way around. It's
> about projecting human emotions and activity onto the planets,
> constellations and so on.
It's understandable that people made a connection to the appearance
of certain heavenly objects which marked the beginning or end of
certain seasons or seasonal occurrences, like the flooding of the Nile
being associated with the rising of Sirius. I agree that people got
things the "wrong way around" since the actual rising of Sirius
doesn't actually cause the Nile to rise, it's just a coincidental
occurrence, at least in my opinion.
I wouldn't even say there's any influence at all, except
observationally speaking and as some visible measure of the
passage of long periods of time.
>> I was also curious about any new symbols used by people who profess
>> some special belief in the new age of aquarius, and what symbols or
>> idols they're using. It doesn't matter if I believe in such things or
>> not, other people do, and finding out what they're using as symbols
>> can lead to a better understanding of their actual beliefs, imo.
> Aquarius (an Air sign, concerned with the intellect) is associated
> with science and technology, esp. anything electronic, and Pisces (a
> Water sign, deals more in emotions) with mysticism and religion. So
> the transition from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius would
> mean people relying less on faith and more on reason (as symbolised by
> the scientific approach).
Although I like the idea of people relying less on faith and more on
reason, I don't see any actual connection to the planets or any
constellations. I don't see how they could have any affect on
people's personalities as many astrologers seem to claim.
> Which is more or less how things have panned out over the past few
> hundred years.
They panned out that way a few thousand years ago, until the
many religious groups started on their book-burning campaigns.
I would have to say though, that once some stagnators of progress
like many churches seem to be, are stamped out, or die from lack
of interest, then it will certainly be a good thing, imo.
> But again: the Age of Pisces/Aquarius transition works
> better as an ex post facto metaphor for this than as an explanation of
> it. I doubt if we could find any astrologers working, say, before the
> invention of the printing press who predicted that this would happen.
I agree, especially with the ex post facto thing. Hindsight is always
20/20 or 100%, especially in the eyes of a prophet with a reputation
to protect.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>>> Not really; the Sun and Moon are the largest visible ways to
>>> measure the passage of time. Precession is actually difficult to measure
>>> without good measurements over centuries of time.
>> I wasn't talking about the largest visible object in the sky, but
>> rather one of the largest "time periods," if you can see the
>> difference.
> I can see the difference, but I know of many other things that are
> on a vastly greater scale. Galactic rotation, for example, occurs over a
> period of 225 million years, so technically it's observable.
By people with the naked eye in ancient history? Try to put yourself
in their place and try to imagine what they might use instead.
> It's really a question of how accurately you can measure things.
> Naked-eye observations will reveal precession over a period of centuries
> (how many depends on how accurate you measure things), since the location of
> the Sun with respect to the background stars at key times of the year will
> change (Age Of Aquarius and all that). Nowadays we can measure the
> precession of the equinoxes every year.
Yes, but the ancient people didn't have telescopes like we do. You
even suggest that the Sun be used with respect to the background
stars, which I assume you mean some recognizable star pattern.
>> > And astrology ignores its effect anyway. If you are born under a
>> > certain astrological sign, the Sun was *not* in the constellation that
>> > corresponds to your sign at the time of your birth.
>> I won't argue against that. I don't personally even believe in
>> astrology. Maybe you thought I did, I dunno. I'm trying to talk
>> about actual facts here, like the precession of the equinox, and
>> the measurement of time and time periods.
> I don't believe the precession was noticed until the Middle Ages,
> or even the Rennaissance.
I've read several articles which say that the Egyptians were aware of
it at the time they build the pyramids.
> The Arabs may have noticed it (they probably had info going back a
> thousand or more years from the Greeks). I have no idea if the Chinese
> or Mesoamericans noticed, but either culture would have been
> in a position to do so. The question might be would these cultures have
> allowed for the possibility that the position of the Sun can change over
> centuries/millenia.
I guess it probably all started when people started recording the
positions and noticed things were slowly changing over time. The
average observer probably wouldn't notice such small changes in
their lifetimes.
Edmond Wollmann
> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in alt.atheism
> > In the Bible God speaks to Job in Job 38:31;
> > Can thou bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades, or loose the bands
> > (control) of Orion?
> > Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season or can you guide
> > Arcturus with his sons?
> > Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their
> > rule on earth?
> Job 25:5-6 is a good example of ancient Sun worship, imo.
> "If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his
> eyes..."
> When the sun comes out, does not the moon get less bright,
> and the stars disappear or become "impute"?
> Ra Ra, Amen-Ra.
Actually, Europe has plenty of evidence religion/astrology blending,
it is primarily in the US that people are ignorant of the connection
between the two.
http://www.e-wollmann.com/gallery7.htm
http://www.e-wollmann.com/pleiadian1/
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://www.e-wollmann.com/pleiadian1/
Jim Phillips
> Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> >
> > > Jim Phillips <jphi...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the author claimed the "Age Of Aquarius" is happening now, he
> > > > didn't do his homework (at least astronomically). As has already been
> > > > noted, the vernal equinox won't be in Aquarius for another 3,000 years.
> > >
> > > Ehm.... 300 years, yes?
> >
> > That's what I get for not checking my numbers. I went to Starry
> > Night, found the Vernal Equinox, and fast-forwarded. By 2625 the vernal
> > equinox will cross the boundary between Pisces (where it is) and Aquarius.
>
> That late, huh?
That's when it's going to happen (it was fun watching the vernal
equinox move as you skip centuries).
> > It will stay in Aquarius until about 4325 AD (on January 25, 4325 the
> > first-quarter moon will be in Aquarius--Starry Night is ***so*** cool! :).
> > Of course, this is using the astronomical boundaries for the
> > constellations; your 300 year number may be correct if the astrological
> > boundaries aren't the same (a real possibility, since the boundaries I
> > used were set up about a century ago).
>
> My 300 (actually, 300-400) is a ballpark figure based on my own
> calculations (though I've seen a similar figure elsewhere). It does
> depend on who's doing the calculating and based on what constellation
> boundaries. Astrology doesn't set boundaries for constellations or
> calculate planetary positions. We leave that stuff up to the
> astronomers.
If astrology doesn't set boundaries for constellations, how can you
tell whether a planet is in a particular constellation?
--
Jim Phillips, jphillip at bcpl dot net
"I hope nobody asks me to show them the ropes; I have no idea where they
are. Maybe I could pull some strings and find out." -- G. Carlin
Gregory Gadow
Religion, at least, doesn't pretend to be a science based on *observed* fact, (and
not merely observable fact.) The constellation of Virgo is 9 times longer than the
constellation of Scorpio; the sun is "in" Virgo for 45 days and only for a week in
Scorpio, but both are given equal time. Aside from the fact that the traditional
dates are off by more than a month and a half. Not to mention the fact that the
planets (not counting Pluto's eccentric orbit) pass through *other* constellations
outside of the zodiac, including Cetus, Corvus, Crater, Hydra, Ophiuchus, Orion,
Pegasus, Scutum and Sextans, a total of 21 (if you use the accepted international
astronomical boundaries.) See http://www.griffithobs.org/IPSRealConst.html
> I like to try to understand the different symbolisms
> involved, even though I don't believe in such things, just as a way
> to back up my pov if someone accuses me of rejecting those things
> because I don't know enough about them.
That is a different reason. Whether or not *you* believe in such symbols, they do
have power for those who do believe in them.