| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Elroy Willis" |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2004 11:23:04 AM |
| Object: |
Age of Aquarius |
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
.
|
|
| User: "Jim Phillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
04 Jan 2004 07:03:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Elroy Willis wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
ellis@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@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.
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, 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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 01:30:16 PM |
|
|
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@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.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keera Ann Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 12:15:40 AM |
|
|
Jim Phillips <jphillip@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?
--
******* Keera in Norway ********
** Think big. Shrink to fit. ***
* http://home.online.no/~kafox *
thinkbig_shrinktofit @ yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Phillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 06:33:59 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keera Ann Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 11:47:03 AM |
|
|
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@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 in Norway ********
** Think big. Shrink to fit. ***
* http://home.online.no/~kafox *
thinkbig_shrinktofit @ yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Phillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 02:56:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keera Ann Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 03:30:17 PM |
|
|
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote:
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?
Uhm, did you see where I mentioned astronomers above?
--
******* Keera in Norway ********
** Think big. Shrink to fit. ***
* http://home.online.no/~kafox *
thinkbig_shrinktofit @ yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pedantus" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 06:09:36 PM |
|
|
"Keera Ann Fox" <see_sig_@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1g740s2.xxqc30ijwnwlN%see_sig_@yahoo.com.invalid...
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote:
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?
Uhm, did you see where I mentioned astronomers above?
Keera...:)
He's a bit synchronicity for you. I divided the 25,800 years of the
precession cycle by 12, which gives 2150 yrs per sign. I then subtract 2004
from 2150, this leaves 146 years. Now if Christ's fudged birth date was the
about beginning of the Age of Pisces, we'd have 146 years to wait for the
Age of Aquarius. But, I thought, what if the concept of was better pinned
to an earlier event, say some occurance in the consciousness of man at about
146 B.C.. I googled that date and quickly discovered that what had entered
man's consciousness that year was none other than the discovery of the
equinoctal point and the concept of precession itself...LOL. Thus Pedantus
Preposterous concludes that the Hippies were correct--this has been the
dawning of Aquarius, because the Age of Pisces began in 146 B.C., 2150 years
ago...:)
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus
--
******* Keera in Norway ********
** Think big. Shrink to fit. ***
* http://home.online.no/~kafox *
thinkbig_shrinktofit @ yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Phillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 04:40:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote:
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?
Uhm, did you see where I mentioned astronomers above?
But those boundaries weren't set until the early 1900's--what did
astrologers use before then? Also those boundaries aren't evenly spaced
(Pisces is a much larger constellation than Aries)--are these differences
in size important in an astrological sense?
--
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keera Ann Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
06 Jan 2004 11:23:19 AM |
|
|
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
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?
Uhm, did you see where I mentioned astronomers above?
But those boundaries weren't set until the early 1900's--what did
astrologers use before then?
Astrologers don't use constellations. Tropical astrology is
season-based. That's why, in tropical ("cyclical") astrology, 0 Aries
always corresponds to the first day of spring in the northern
hemisphere, AKA the vernal equinox.
I know that Vedic (Asian) astrology has other traditions and is a
sidereal astrology, i.e. fixes 0 Aries according to a point/star in the
heavens, rather than to a season. They also interpret the signs
differently than in tropical (western) astrology.
Also those boundaries aren't evenly spaced (Pisces is a much larger
constellation than Aries)--are these differences in size important in an
astrological sense?
No. Signs are not constellations. Just because they have the same names,
doesn't mean they are the same thing. Traditional astrological signs are
always 1/12 of a circle and do not depend on constellations for their
placement in time nor their size, since the astrological Zodiac is
symbolic. This is true even in sidereal astrology.
--
******* Keera in Norway ********
** Think big. Shrink to fit. ***
* http://home.online.no/~kafox *
thinkbig_shrinktofit @ yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keera Ann Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
04 Jan 2004 02:45:28 PM |
|
|
Jim Phillips <jphillip@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.
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 in Norway ********
** Think big. Shrink to fit. ***
* http://home.online.no/~kafox *
thinkbig_shrinktofit @ yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Phillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
04 Jan 2004 07:10:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Keera Ann Fox wrote:
Jim Phillips <jphillip@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, 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
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
03 Jan 2004 10:59:16 PM |
|
|
TCS wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:19:55 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
ellis@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@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.
<whisper>Pssst! Do no attract Kansan here!</whisper>
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "jfred" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
04 Jan 2004 09:42:44 AM |
|
|
Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote:
TCS wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:19:55 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
ellis@no.spam () wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@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.
<whisper>Pssst! Do no attract Kansan here!</whisper>
<whisper>Pssst! Isn't he busy obsessing over some leggy bimbo's
baby?</whisper>
--
jfred~*~*~*~*~*~Habent Abdenda Omnes Praeter Me ac Simiam Meam~*~*~*~*~
~You can sent email to me if you change the 3 zeros to lower case "o"s~
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
How's YOUR linewrap? If using OE, you need http://flash.to/oe-quotefix/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cujo" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
03 Jan 2004 02:27:40 PM |
|
|
() wrote in news:1073160983.83667@localhost.localdomain:
In article <1r7evvgoefgul6hqg3rvljmv73o4875nbq@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elo@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.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 09:27:31 AM |
|
|
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.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 10:18:00 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@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.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 10:32:48 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@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.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 01:04:28 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@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.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
05 Jan 2004 03:01:09 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@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.
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.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
06 Jan 2004 08:17:48 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
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.
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.
I hadn't even thought of that. I thought the astronomical age was at
least some accurate as far as measuring some large scale of time, but
it looks like even that idea is pretty much meaningless.
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've never heard an actual "mechanism" for astrology that makes
scientific sense. There was some hoopla a while back when all the
planets lined up, and some of the astrologers were saying it was gonna
cause tidal waves and earthquakes, and after it came to pass, nothing
extraordinary happened at all.
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.
Of course, just like Voodoo.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
06 Jan 2004 10:53:59 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
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.
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.
I hadn't even thought of that. I thought the astronomical age was at
least some accurate as far as measuring some large scale of time, but
it looks like even that idea is pretty much meaningless.
*Astronomical* age, yes. *Astrological* age, no. Again, we are 70 years in to an 80 year
period where there is no astrological age; sunrise on the spring equinox occurs in NO
sign of the zodiac, and it won't be until 2013 before it rises in Aquarius. If you want
an astronomical age, think of the time in about 5000 years when Alpha Cephei will be the
north star. Personally, I think it is far more significant. :-P
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Phillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
06 Jan 2004 12:12:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Elroy Willis wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
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.
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.
I hadn't even thought of that. I thought the astronomical age
As one of the unofficial astronomers on alt.astrology I have to make
it clear that astronomers do *not* refer to an "Age Of Aquarius" or any
other constellation-based time period.
snip
--
Jim Phillips, jphillip at bcpl dot net
"I was expelled from cooking school, and it left a bad taste in my
mouth." -- G. Carlin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
03 Jan 2004 12:12:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:23:04 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@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?
---
ROT-13 on Email to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
19 Dec 2004 01:26:05 PM |
|
|
In article <10qvgt48m9g3f47@corp.supernews.com>,
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote:
Gen.1:14
So?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
31 Dec 2004 07:00:32 PM |
|
|
In article <10tbkvem4lgaca4@corp.supernews.com>,
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote:
What does it say that God created the heavens for ?
God didn't say anything; the Bible is the work of men and
isn't even self-consistent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
31 Dec 2004 08:18:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <10tbkvem4lgaca4@corp.supernews.com>,
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote:
What does it say that God created the heavens for ?
God didn't say anything; the Bible is the work of men and
isn't even self-consistent.
Really? Care to prove it?
Regards,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
31 Dec 2004 08:45:45 PM |
|
|
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CLnBd.36845$nP1.14047@twister.socal.rr.com...
ellis@no.spam wrote:
In article <10tbkvem4lgaca4@corp.supernews.com>,
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote:
What does it say that God created the heavens for ?
God didn't say anything; the Bible is the work of men and
isn't even self-consistent.
Really? Care to prove it?
Really? Care to prove your god exists? - And REAL evidence, not that
nonsense you've already posted.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
01 Jan 2005 05:50:08 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:45:45 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CLnBd.36845$nP1.14047@twister.socal.rr.com...
ellis@no.spam wrote:
In article <10tbkvem4lgaca4@corp.supernews.com>,
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote:
What does it say that God created the heavens for ?
God didn't say anything; the Bible is the work of men and
isn't even self-consistent.
Really? Care to prove it?
Really? Care to prove your god exists? - And REAL evidence, not that
nonsense you've already posted.
That is asking for the impossible. You know as well as I that "Dr."
Gastrich never finished high school.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
01 Jan 2005 07:23:08 AM |
|
|
"Jos Flachs" <"wcruise"@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
news:0ruct01or795rav2fchpb1flp77d55pqc4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:45:45 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CLnBd.36845$nP1.14047@twister.socal.rr.com...
ellis@no.spam wrote:
In article <10tbkvem4lgaca4@corp.supernews.com>,
Glenn \(Christian Mystic\) <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote:
What does it say that God created the heavens for ?
God didn't say anything; the Bible is the work of men and
isn't even self-consistent.
Really? Care to prove it?
Really? Care to prove your god exists? - And REAL evidence, not that
nonsense you've already posted.
That is asking for the impossible. You know as well as I that "Dr."
Gastrich never finished high school.
Oh well, hope springs eternal ;)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
