| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Elroy Willis" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2004 08:09:41 AM |
| Object: |
Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
While googling around, I found the following web page:
From:
http://starsandcoffee.christian-astronomers.org/zodiac.shtml
"If you were born between the 1st and 15th of December then your star
sign is not Sagittarius as you thought, but Ophiuchus. Ophiuchus is
the thirteenth constellation through which the sun passes, and isn't
included on astrological calendars!"
====
I dunno if the above is true or not, but I kept on reading the page
to see what else it had to say. The page talks about the precession
of the equinox and how invalid astrology actually is since the
constellation change over time, so I was agreeing along with the
writer for the most part. Then...
The setup for the bombshell:
"Predictions and forecasts are common - the weather, the deficit, the
stockmarket. They are often wrong - and so we get rained on, taxed
more, and lose money. Most horoscopes would class as predictions.
Prophecies relate to specific events in the future. Many people are
aware of the prophecies of Nostradamus - but his statements can
normally only be interpreted in hindsight after the event, and are
open to several interpretations. They are also subject to unscrupulous
invention. (For more see the World Trade Centre terrorism)"
Here's the bombshell -- get ready...
"By contrast, Bible prophecy has been shown to be true, with a 100%
track record. For instance prophecy about the resurrection of Jesus
Christ 2000 years ago is validated by evidence that would be upheld in
a court of law. (For more info see Five Proofs of the Resurrection)"
Boy oh boy, it's like the floodgates of logic get closed down or
clogged up at that point. Or blown up by a bomb...
What's just as sad is the following from the same page:
"The ways that the Thirteen Signs of the Zodiac symbolise Jesus are .
1. Virgo the Virgin - Jesus had a supernatural birth
2. Libra the Scales - Jesus gave his life in exchange for ours
3. Scorpio the Scorpion - Jesus died by crucifixion
4. Ophiuchus the Serpent-bearer - Jesus supernaturally rose back to
life
5. Sagittarius the Archer - Jesus reached the mark - he was perfect
6. Capricorn the Goat - Jesus is a scapegoat for our wrongs
7. Aquarius the Water-bearer - Jesus is "living water" for our
spiritual thirst
8. Pisces the Fishes - Jesus provides our needs
9. Aries the Ram - Jesus takes our place
10. Taurus the Bull - Jesus warns that all of us will be judged and
found wanting
11. Gemini the Twins - Jesus offers us the opportunity to choose him
or reject him
12. Cancer the Crab - our personal trust in Jesus is what rescues
our soul
13. Leo the Lion - Jesus is King and conqueror"
====
Although the author seems to go to great lengths to discount
and debunk astrology, he/she then goes on to tell how Jesus
relates to the 12 or 13 constellations, with some of the associations
being quite inventive to say the least...
I guess this is another good example of one belief system trying to
discredit or supplant or overpower another, by using the symbology of
the previous system at the same time?
I will mention #6 up above, to get the ball rolling here, and let
anyone else who cares to pick apart any of the others join in the
fray...
It was Barabbas who was the scapegoat in the Jesus story,
since in Judaism, the scapegoat was actually set free to carry
away the sins of the tribe, off into the desert...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
14 Jun 2004 12:16:20 PM |
|
|
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
<snip>
Why was Aires picked as some starting point, since the whole
zodiac is a circle, and is supposed to mean "circle of animals"
according to what I've read so far?
Since no circle has a beginning or an end, you have to just pick
a point to start.
So why was Aires picked as a start? Do you pick it personally,
or do you pick what someone else decided to pick 2000 years
ago as a start, and follow their pick?
I'll let an astronomer answer.
A Jewish astronomer, a Christian astronomer, an Egyptian astronomer,
or an Arab or Persian astronomer, or a Greek or Roman astronomer?
Which one of the above would you pick, and why? How did you
decide which ancient astrological beliefs to claim as your own, or
choose to keep up the belief in? By taking some creed, perhaps?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Lawler" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
15 Jun 2004 01:17:47 AM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:11qrc0dpcu8pb2c7f9gvm36a3lshv9ejc8@4ax.com...
ka.fox@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
ka.fox@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
<snip>
Why was Aires picked as some starting point, since the whole
zodiac is a circle, and is supposed to mean "circle of animals"
according to what I've read so far?
Since no circle has a beginning or an end, you have to just pick
a point to start.
So why was Aires picked as a start? Do you pick it personally,
or do you pick what someone else decided to pick 2000 years
ago as a start, and follow their pick?
I'll let an astronomer answer.
A Jewish astronomer, a Christian astronomer, an Egyptian astronomer,
or an Arab or Persian astronomer, or a Greek or Roman astronomer?
Which one of the above would you pick, and why? How did you
decide which ancient astrological beliefs to claim as your own, or
choose to keep up the belief in? By taking some creed, perhaps?
Hi Elroy,
Perhaps you have heard of the celestial coordinate system used by
astronomers. Right Ascention and Declination? As you learned in geography
class, the Earth is tilted on its own axis at 23.5°. The angle between the
equator line and the ecliptic is 23.5 degrees. This point used to be in
Aries long ago, but is in Pisces at the moment. After another few centuries,
it will be in Aquarius (also referred to as "the Age of Aquarius"). This
point is important, for it is the dot where zero degree declination and zero
hour Right Ascension cross each other (refer to a map of Pisces). Anyway,
for historical reasons astronomers still call this the "first point of
Aries."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Julie" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
15 Jun 2004 09:05:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 06:17:47 GMT, "Paul Lawler"
<stargazer@kilolaniDOT.net> wrote:
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:11qrc0dpcu8pb2c7f9gvm36a3lshv9ejc8@4ax.com...
ka.fox@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
ka.fox@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
<snip>
Why was Aires picked as some starting point, since the whole
zodiac is a circle, and is supposed to mean "circle of animals"
according to what I've read so far?
Since no circle has a beginning or an end, you have to just pick
a point to start.
So why was Aires picked as a start? Do you pick it personally,
or do you pick what someone else decided to pick 2000 years
ago as a start, and follow their pick?
I'll let an astronomer answer.
A Jewish astronomer, a Christian astronomer, an Egyptian astronomer,
or an Arab or Persian astronomer, or a Greek or Roman astronomer?
Which one of the above would you pick, and why? How did you
decide which ancient astrological beliefs to claim as your own, or
choose to keep up the belief in? By taking some creed, perhaps?
Hi Elroy,
Perhaps you have heard of the celestial coordinate system used by
astronomers. Right Ascention and Declination? As you learned in geography
class, the Earth is tilted on its own axis at 23.5°. The angle between the
equator line and the ecliptic is 23.5 degrees. This point used to be in
Aries long ago, but is in Pisces at the moment. After another few centuries,
it will be in Aquarius (also referred to as "the Age of Aquarius"). This
point is important, for it is the dot where zero degree declination and zero
hour Right Ascension cross each other (refer to a map of Pisces). Anyway,
for historical reasons astronomers still call this the "first point of
Aries."
Thank you for this explanation!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
15 Jun 2004 10:21:05 AM |
|
|
Paul Lawler <stargazer@kilolaniDOT.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Hi Elroy,
Perhaps you have heard of the celestial coordinate system used by
astronomers. Right Ascention and Declination? As you learned in
geography class, the Earth is tilted on its own axis at 23.5°.
The angle between the equator line and the ecliptic is 23.5 degrees.
This point used to be in Aries long ago, but is in Pisces at the moment.
After another few centuries, it will be in Aquarius (also referred to as
"the Age of Aquarius"). This point is important, for it is the dot where zero
degree declination and zero hour Right Ascension cross each other
(refer to a map of Pisces). Anyway, for historical reasons astronomers
still call this the "first point of Aries."
Which specific historical reasons? To protect the cosmic view of some
specific person or set of writings?
I've read several different books and links which suggest the
idea that Gemini, or the twins, actually refers to Adam and Eve. Why
not start the cosmic clock or calendar with Gemini instead of Aires?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
17 Jun 2004 10:02:05 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
news:943uc0dtmfgral1nvn9ot0krbcml8mv49i@4ax.com:
Paul Lawler <stargazer@kilolaniDOT.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Hi Elroy,
Perhaps you have heard of the celestial coordinate system used by
astronomers. Right Ascention and Declination? As you learned in
geography class, the Earth is tilted on its own axis at 23.5°.
The angle between the equator line and the ecliptic is 23.5 degrees.
This point used to be in Aries long ago, but is in Pisces at the
moment. After another few centuries, it will be in Aquarius (also
referred to as "the Age of Aquarius"). This point is important, for
it is the dot where zero degree declination and zero hour Right
Ascension cross each other (refer to a map of Pisces). Anyway, for
historical reasons astronomers still call this the "first point of
Aries."
Which specific historical reasons? To protect the cosmic view of some
specific person or set of writings?
I've read several different books and links which suggest the
idea that Gemini, or the twins, actually refers to Adam and Eve. Why
not start the cosmic clock or calendar with Gemini instead of Aires?
Hi Elroy,
There are two obvious great circles on "the globe of the sky" that the
ancients knew about. One is defined by the path of the Sun across the
sky, which is known as the ecliptic. The other is the celestial equator
which is defined by the earths rotation (the ancients would have seen
this as the rotation of the stars around the Earth). These two circles
cross each other at two points (one point is called the Vernal Equinox
and the other is called the Autumnal equinox). These are the points in
the sky where the Sun crosses the celestial equator from South to North
and North to South respectively. One of these points (the Vernal equinox)
was arbitrarily chosen as the origin (0, 0) of celestial coordinates. It
happenned that in Ptolemy's time this point happenned to be in the
constellation known as Aries. If you look up Ptolemy and Almagest on
google you will find lots of historical stuff.
By the way. The reason that the Celestial equator and the ecliptic don't
coincide is because the Earth's rotational axis is tilted at about 23.5
deg from the normal to its' orbital plane.
Believe it or not, Ptolemy's coordinate system is still used to this day
and it means that if you specify the coordinates of a particular star,
the coordinates are only valid for that particular date. Star catalogs
will list the RA and DEC of the star but aslo specify the epoch e.g 1950
or 2000. You then have to apply a precession formula to get the
coordinates for today. That is because the (0,0) point is slowing moving
along the celestial equator (precession). Fortunately computer
planetarium programs used for sky mapping and telescope control apply the
precession correction automatically (the more modern ones also correct
for proper motion if that information is available in the catalogue).
LK.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keera Ann Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
14 Jun 2004 12:51:53 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
ka.fox@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
ka.fox@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
<snip>
Why was Aires picked as some starting point, since the whole
zodiac is a circle, and is supposed to mean "circle of animals"
according to what I've read so far?
Since no circle has a beginning or an end, you have to just pick
a point to start.
So why was Aires picked as a start? Do you pick it personally,
or do you pick what someone else decided to pick 2000 years
ago as a start, and follow their pick?
I'll let an astronomer answer.
A Jewish astronomer, a Christian astronomer, an Egyptian astronomer,
or an Arab or Persian astronomer, or a Greek or Roman astronomer?
Which one of the above would you pick, and why? How did you
decide which ancient astrological beliefs to claim as your own, or
choose to keep up the belief in? By taking some creed, perhaps?
The 0 Aries point is an astronomical one, not just an astrological one.
--
****** Keera in Norway ******
* Think big. Shrink to fit. *
http://home.online.no/~kafox/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
15 Jun 2004 10:29:32 AM |
|
|
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote in alt.atheism
The 0 Aries point is an astronomical one, not just an astrological one.
Why not pick Taurus as a starting point? Do you think there were no
people capable of recording the actual visual observation of Taurus
or "El Torro" rising during the spring equinox, 5000 or so years ago?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beep" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
14 Jun 2004 10:22:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:48:43 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>
wrote:
ka.fox@online.no (Keera Ann Fox) wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
<snip>
Why was Aires picked as some starting point, since the whole
zodiac is a circle, and is supposed to mean "circle of animals"
according to what I've read so far?
Since no circle has a beginning or an end, you have to just pick
a point to start.
So why was Aires picked as a start? Do you pick it personally,
or do you pick what someone else decided to pick 2000 years
ago as a start, and follow their pick?
Cos no one wants to have to fight with an Aries who is ***** at
not being FIRST any more ;)
--
email address: beep at west dot net
Rheumatic Disease info: http://www.sblupus.org
blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/beepbeep/
Peak Oil: http://www.livejournal.com/community/peak_oil
ίλλώ
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Julie" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
15 Jun 2004 09:05:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:14:07 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>
wrote:
Julie <jb@juno.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Mike Painter <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Mike Painter <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Considering the precession of the equinox, the constellation that
appears on the horizon during each spring equinox changes over time.
It is now somewhere closer to Aquarius than it is to Pisces, correct?
It's somewhere around 6 deg of Pisces, retrograding at 1 degree per
72 years. So, yes, the below is correct (except that it's spelled "aries"
<g>)
And before it was in Pisces, it was in Aires, correct? And before
that, it was Taurus, correct?
I'm not sure where I got this but if you were born on a date that says
you are an Aries, in fact for most people they were born with the sun
"in" Gemini.
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!
Wrong!
I would expect you scientific-types to at least have more respect for
the facts than a woo-woo...
A woo woo? :)
That's how some folks who are interested in/believe in astrology refer
to themselves on alt.astrology. I guess it is an "in" term.
The facts seem to indicate that when astrologers claim that a person
is born under the influence of some specific sign, they're using
out-dated and invalid astronomical maps or charts which
aren't really based on physical observations that anyone who
believes in astrology can verify for themselves, by stepping into
their backyards and verifying their horoscopes with their own two
eyes.
Once again - western astrology's determination of the signs is based
on where the sun is placed at the SPRING EQUINOX. That point is 00
ARIES (note the spelling).
If your birthday falls in the first 2/3 of a tropical astrology sign,
the sun was actually in the *previous* constellation (if you are
considering the constellational boundaries to be even 30 degrees
around the ecliptic).
Tropical astrology signs use the spring equinox to determine 0 deg of
Aries. IIRC, astronomers do, too (could be wrong on that... I'm sure
that someone here will set me straight if I am!)
Sidereal astrologers (both western and hindu) use an "ayanamsa" to
determine where the sun is against the background of the equal, 30
degree, constellations. there are many different values for the
ayanamsa.
<sneck incorrect chart>
Why was Aires
ARIES.
(Sorry, this Virgo is in red pencil mode tonight)
picked as some starting point, since the whole
zodiac is a circle, and is supposed to mean "circle of animals"
according to what I've read so far?
Other posters have answered that more clearly than I can..
:)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matey not_a_real_address@no_spam" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
17 Jun 2004 06:25:11 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:ncnkc0p2edaorr9s0kh66co3vhfi14a1e3@4ax.com...
Mike Painter <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism
[SNIP]
I didn't start this thread to slam astrology as such, but was
interested in how many Christians have some new type of quasi
astrology/astronomy mixture that they believe in which
relates to Jesus somehow.
Most people around here have seen Jesus fish on cars or
as a symbol of Christianity, and it's no secret that some of the
earliest Christians used the fish as some kind of special symbol,
so it seems logical to me to tie Jesus to the constellation of Pisces.
Might be a bad tie, but I don't think so...
The fish was a symbol based upon the Greek work Icthus. This sign was used
by early Christians as a way to identify themselves whilst avoiding
persecution. The word Icthus in the original greek formed an acrostic based
on "Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour" or words to that effect. No relation to
Pisces!
[SNIP]
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
17 Jun 2004 07:30:54 PM |
|
|
Matey <not_a_real_address@no_spam> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Mike Painter <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism
I didn't start this thread to slam astrology as such, but was
interested in how many Christians have some new type of quasi
astrology/astronomy mixture that they believe in which
relates to Jesus somehow.
Most people around here have seen Jesus fish on cars or
as a symbol of Christianity, and it's no secret that some of the
earliest Christians used the fish as some kind of special symbol,
so it seems logical to me to tie Jesus to the constellation of Pisces.
Might be a bad tie, but I don't think so...
The fish was a symbol based upon the Greek work Icthus. This sign
was used by early Christians as a way to identify themselves whilst
avoiding persecution.
Why didn't they use a cross instead? I've read that the cross wasn't
even used as a popular Christian symbol until at least the mid 300's
or so..
The word Icthus in the original greek formed an acrostic based
on "Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour" or words to that
effect. No relation to Pisces!
That would form JCSOGS, and I'm not sure if that's even pronounceable
in any languages...
Have you read the Gospel of Phillip?
From:
http://www.trincoll.edu/zines/othervoi/issue13/gospel.shtml
"They hoped to trick him by asking, "Rabbi, what does God think is
the most important aspect of our lives?"
Jesus drew a fish in the sand with a stick but gave no answer. The
Sanhedrians asked again and Jesus replied by asking, "What do you
think it is?"
One of the Sanhedrians replied, "Alcoholic beverages for everyone."
Jesus did not dignify this foolish remark with an answer." Still yet
another listed better parking spaces for their carts, increased health
care, and having restaurants opened on the Sabbath. But Christ ignored
this foolishness as well. Still yet another suggested that the Romans
should stop forcing social societies to allow both males and females,
Jews and Gentiles. But Christ only responded in a parable."
As for the first answer, how could anyone think a fish is a symbol
for alcoholic beverages for everyone? It's no wonder Jesus didn't
dignify that foolish remark, don't you think?
Better parking spaces for their carts? What's this?
The origin of the Jesus fish on car bumpers?
When exactly was the Gospel of Phillip supposed to have been
written, anyway? Does anyone know for sure?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
17 Jun 2004 07:50:30 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
news:dce4d0todhe6oihvmmj7eldid854e59e4r@4ax.com:
Matey <not_a_real_address@no_spam> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Mike Painter <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism
I didn't start this thread to slam astrology as such, but was
interested in how many Christians have some new type of quasi
astrology/astronomy mixture that they believe in which
relates to Jesus somehow.
Most people around here have seen Jesus fish on cars or
as a symbol of Christianity, and it's no secret that some of the
earliest Christians used the fish as some kind of special symbol,
so it seems logical to me to tie Jesus to the constellation of
Pisces.
Might be a bad tie, but I don't think so...
The fish was a symbol based upon the Greek work Icthus. This sign
was used by early Christians as a way to identify themselves whilst
avoiding persecution.
Why didn't they use a cross instead? I've read that the cross wasn't
even used as a popular Christian symbol until at least the mid 300's
or so..
The word Icthus in the original greek formed an acrostic based
on "Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour" or words to that
effect. No relation to Pisces!
That would form JCSOGS, and I'm not sure if that's even pronounceable
in any languages...
The acronym works in Greek, not English.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
17 Jun 2004 09:14:14 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns950BD407BD944fstone69@207.69.154.201...
<snip>
The acronym works in Greek, not English.
Sure. next you'll be telling us that Jesus didn't speak English as he does
in the one true version of the bible, the KJV.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
17 Jun 2004 08:00:37 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Matey <not_a_real_address@no_spam> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Mike Painter <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism
I didn't start this thread to slam astrology as such, but was
interested in how many Christians have some new type of quasi
astrology/astronomy mixture that they believe in which
relates to Jesus somehow.
Most people around here have seen Jesus fish on cars or
as a symbol of Christianity, and it's no secret that some of the
earliest Christians used the fish as some kind of special symbol,
so it seems logical to me to tie Jesus to the constellation of
Pisces. Might be a bad tie, but I don't think so...
The fish was a symbol based upon the Greek work Icthus. This sign
was used by early Christians as a way to identify themselves whilst
avoiding persecution.
Why didn't they use a cross instead? I've read that the cross wasn't
even used as a popular Christian symbol until at least the mid 300's
or so..
The word Icthus in the original greek formed an acrostic based
on "Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour" or words to that
effect. No relation to Pisces!
That would form JCSOGS, and I'm not sure if that's even pronounceable
in any languages...
The acronym works in Greek, not English.
What about in Aramaic or Latin?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
18 Jun 2004 08:38:06 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
news:nui4d0pkhj68veco4lpvf7hheik5fgsk1s@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Matey <not_a_real_address@no_spam> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Mike Painter <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in alt.atheism
I didn't start this thread to slam astrology as such, but was
interested in how many Christians have some new type of quasi
astrology/astronomy mixture that they believe in which
relates to Jesus somehow.
Most people around here have seen Jesus fish on cars or
as a symbol of Christianity, and it's no secret that some of the
earliest Christians used the fish as some kind of special symbol,
so it seems logical to me to tie Jesus to the constellation of
Pisces. Might be a bad tie, but I don't think so...
The fish was a symbol based upon the Greek work Icthus. This sign
was used by early Christians as a way to identify themselves whilst
avoiding persecution.
Why didn't they use a cross instead? I've read that the cross
wasn't even used as a popular Christian symbol until at least the
mid 300's or so..
The word Icthus in the original greek formed an acrostic based
on "Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour" or words to that
effect. No relation to Pisces!
That would form JCSOGS, and I'm not sure if that's even
pronounceable in any languages...
The acronym works in Greek, not English.
What about in Aramaic or Latin?
I don't know.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
18 Jun 2004 11:35:07 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
The acronym works in Greek, not English.
What about in Aramaic or Latin?
I don't know.
Some quotes from the following:
http://www.thenewagesite.com/jjdewey/articles/astrology/2.php
"It is also of great interest that Jesus himself was associated with
the fish. The phrase "Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour" in the
Greek reads Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter. The capital letters from
this phrase spells ICHTHUS which is the Greek word for "fish." Because
of persecution a Christian would secretly communicate his belief in
Christ with another Christian by merely drawing or making the sign of
the fish."
What were the circumstances where this secret sign was used?
"Thus the evolution of the Christian tradition from making the sign of
the fish to the sign of the cross was merely a simplification of the
sign of the fish in Pisces. Around 800 AD the Church of Rome began to
distance itself from astrology and to drop the connection of the
Christian church, or Jesus, with Pisces, or even the fish, and only
kept the sign of the cross."
Doesn't the RCC say to eat fish on Fridays, or did at one time?
I have to say that while I don't personally believe in astrology, I
don't find it unlikely or even unbelievable that such a change
in symbolisms actually took place in history. Astrology was even
more prevalent and influential back then than it is now, from
what I can tell.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
18 Jun 2004 12:51:30 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
news:3l86d0tj5j1bbosaufrugc4mpa52grl4rn@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
The acronym works in Greek, not English.
What about in Aramaic or Latin?
I don't know.
Some quotes from the following:
http://www.thenewagesite.com/jjdewey/articles/astrology/2.php
"It is also of great interest that Jesus himself was associated with
the fish. The phrase "Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour" in the
Greek reads Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter. The capital letters from
this phrase spells ICHTHUS which is the Greek word for "fish." Because
of persecution a Christian would secretly communicate his belief in
Christ with another Christian by merely drawing or making the sign of
the fish."
What were the circumstances where this secret sign was used?
Quite a bit of Christian art of the period and later includes the fish
sign, which could also be there to indicate Christianity for illiterate
viewers.
"Thus the evolution of the Christian tradition from making the sign of
the fish to the sign of the cross was merely a simplification of the
sign of the fish in Pisces. Around 800 AD the Church of Rome began to
distance itself from astrology and to drop the connection of the
Christian church, or Jesus, with Pisces, or even the fish, and only
kept the sign of the cross."
Doesn't the RCC say to eat fish on Fridays, or did at one time?
That was supposed to be a sacrifice or "fast" to not eat red meat on
Friday. Some Catholics give up "meat" for Lent, and then they pig out on
fish and seafood. A number of restaurants around town had "Lenten
specials" with plenty of lobster, crab, all kinds of fish, etc.
I have to say that while I don't personally believe in astrology, I
don't find it unlikely or even unbelievable that such a change
in symbolisms actually took place in history. Astrology was even
more prevalent and influential back then than it is now, from
what I can tell.
Symbols change and mutate all the time. Different cultures interact and
exchange symbols, use them as parodies, all of that. Look at Ozzy
Osbourne's use of Christian and occult symbols.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
19 Jun 2004 02:07:30 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
I have to say that while I don't personally believe in astrology, I
don't find it unlikely or even unbelievable that such a change
in symbolisms actually took place in history. Astrology was even
more prevalent and influential back then than it is now, from
what I can tell.
Symbols change and mutate all the time. Different cultures interact
and exchange symbols, use them as parodies, all of that. Look at Ozzy
Osbourne's use of Christian and occult symbols.
Yes, one generation may see a particular sign as good, and
the next generation sees the same sign as evil...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
19 Jun 2004 02:13:21 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
news:jq69d098gunujao22ht40j7jjavan85luj@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
I have to say that while I don't personally believe in astrology, I
don't find it unlikely or even unbelievable that such a change
in symbolisms actually took place in history. Astrology was even
more prevalent and influential back then than it is now, from
what I can tell.
Symbols change and mutate all the time. Different cultures interact
and exchange symbols, use them as parodies, all of that. Look at Ozzy
Osbourne's use of Christian and occult symbols.
Yes, one generation may see a particular sign as good, and
the next generation sees the same sign as evil...
Not evil so much as something to make fun of.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
19 Jun 2004 02:53:19 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
I have to say that while I don't personally believe in astrology, I
don't find it unlikely or even unbelievable that such a change
in symbolisms actually took place in history. Astrology was even
more prevalent and influential back then than it is now, from
what I can tell.
Symbols change and mutate all the time. Different cultures interact
and exchange symbols, use them as parodies, all of that. Look at Ozzy
Osbourne's use of Christian and occult symbols.
Yes, one generation may see a particular sign as good, and
the next generation sees the same sign as evil...
Not evil so much as something to make fun of.
I've been doing some reading lately about iconoclasm and the
desire to stamp out symbolic icons, and it's quite interesting so far.
I wonder if part of the reason that the iconoclasts wanted/want to
stamp out symbols is because the symbols show the true
origin or history of the current beliefs?
Taking away the cherished symbols or icons of a people isn't a very
good idea in the short run, but in the long run, maybe it's a good
thing, according to one line of thought... In the mean time, the
symbols are still used, mangled or changed into one new form or
another...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
19 Jun 2004 03:07:18 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
news:tc99d0potj5b0e8udf0lnshaccn8o5lkoo@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
I have to say that while I don't personally believe in astrology,
I don't find it unlikely or even unbelievable that such a change
in symbolisms actually took place in history. Astrology was even
more prevalent and influential back then than it is now, from
what I can tell.
Symbols change and mutate all the time. Different cultures interact
and exchange symbols, use them as parodies, all of that. Look at
Ozzy Osbourne's use of Christian and occult symbols.
Yes, one generation may see a particular sign as good, and
the next generation sees the same sign as evil...
Not evil so much as something to make fun of.
I've been doing some reading lately about iconoclasm and the
desire to stamp out symbolic icons, and it's quite interesting so far.
I wonder if part of the reason that the iconoclasts wanted/want to
stamp out symbols is because the symbols show the true
origin or history of the current beliefs?
Taking away the cherished symbols or icons of a people isn't a very
good idea in the short run, but in the long run, maybe it's a good
thing, according to one line of thought... In the mean time, the
symbols are still used, mangled or changed into one new form or
another...
The iconoclasts were also politically motivated, as many heretics were.
Their challenge to church authority was more of a problem than their
variant beliefs.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
19 Jun 2004 04:09:43 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
I have to say that while I don't personally believe in astrology,
I don't find it unlikely or even unbelievable that such a change
in symbolisms actually took place in history. Astrology was even
more prevalent and influential back then than it is now, from
what I can tell.
Symbols change and mutate all the time. Different cultures interact
and exchange symbols, use them as parodies, all of that. Look at
Ozzy Osbourne's use of Christian and occult symbols.
Yes, one generation may see a particular sign as good, and
the next generation sees the same sign as evil...
Not evil so much as something to make fun of.
Or to defeat, and move on to the next generation, somehow.
I've been doing some reading lately about iconoclasm and the
desire to stamp out symbolic icons, and it's quite interesting so far.
I wonder if part of the reason that the iconoclasts wanted/want to
stamp out symbols is because the symbols show the true
origin or history of the current beliefs?
Taking away the cherished symbols or icons of a people isn't a very
good idea in the short run, but in the long run, maybe it's a good
thing, according to one line of thought... In the mean time, the
symbols are still used, mangled or changed into one new form or
another...
The iconoclasts were also politically motivated, as many heretics were.
Their challenge to church authority was more of a problem than their
variant beliefs.
Yet still, when people claim some new "territory" they tend to
want to "plant a flag" in the new land, claiming it as their own.
On our own american flag are a bunch of stars, which goes directly
against the law or prohibition that the god of the Jews and Muslims
and Christians said is a bad idea.
"Do not make an idol with images of things in heaven or earth
and worship it as a god or pledge allegiance to it..."
Even though I don't believe the Bible is the actual words and stories
of some actual creator of the universe, I have to agree with the idea
that pledging allegiance to some particular flag and being willing to
"die for the flag" no matter what, is a bad idea, in general...
Maybe you think differently?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Lawler" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
19 Jun 2004 05:47:12 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:76d9d0p0kbg48dks1cu5v62b73maid3e7i@4ax.com...
Even though I don't believe the Bible is the actual words and stories
of some actual creator of the universe, I have to agree with the idea
that pledging allegiance to some particular flag and being willing to
"die for the flag" no matter what, is a bad idea, in general...
Of course one doesn't die for the "flag," but rather for the idea/ideals
which the flag represents. Are there ideals worth dying for? I would answer
yes, but I'm sure there are many who disagree.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
20 Jun 2004 08:51:08 AM |
|
|
Paul Lawler <stargazer@kilolaniDOT.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Even though I don't believe the Bible is the actual words and stories
of some actual creator of the universe, I have to agree with the idea
that pledging allegiance to some particular flag and being willing to
"die for the flag" no matter what, is a bad idea, in general...
Of course one doesn't die for the "flag," but rather for the idea/ideals
which the flag represents. Are there ideals worth dying for? I would
answer yes, but I'm sure there are many who disagree.
I'm pretty sure I'd die fighting for my home and to protect my
family and even help protect my neighbors from invaders in the
area, but I can't say the same for dying in some war overseas
which the president or government says is a war worth fighting in
the name of the flag or country or for the ideals which it stands
for.
We have spread ourselves out too thin as a country, imo. Way too
thin... Our own dollar doesn't even have a gold basis anymore, and
is based on people's trust in our country which is trillions of
dollars in debt and going further into debt each day...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
19 Jun 2004 04:44:30 PM |
|
|
***other groups removed***
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
news:76d9d0p0kbg48dks1cu5v62b73maid3e7i@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
I have to say that while I don't personally believe in
astrology, I don't find it unlikely or even unbelievable that
such a change in symbolisms actually took place in history.
Astrology was even more prevalent and influential back then than
it is now, from what I can tell.
Symbols change and mutate all the time. Different cultures
interact and exchange symbols, use them as parodies, all of that.
Look at Ozzy Osbourne's use of Christian and occult symbols.
Yes, one generation may see a particular sign as good, and
the next generation sees the same sign as evil...
Not evil so much as something to make fun of.
Or to defeat, and move on to the next generation, somehow.
I've been doing some reading lately about iconoclasm and the
desire to stamp out symbolic icons, and it's quite interesting so
far.
I wonder if part of the reason that the iconoclasts wanted/want to
stamp out symbols is because the symbols show the true
origin or history of the current beliefs?
Taking away the cherished symbols or icons of a people isn't a very
good idea in the short run, but in the long run, maybe it's a good
thing, according to one line of thought... In the mean time, the
symbols are still used, mangled or changed into one new form or
another...
The iconoclasts were also politically motivated, as many heretics
were. Their challenge to church authority was more of a problem than
their variant beliefs.
Yet still, when people claim some new "territory" they tend to
want to "plant a flag" in the new land, claiming it as their own.
On our own american flag are a bunch of stars, which goes directly
against the law or prohibition that the god of the Jews and Muslims
and Christians said is a bad idea.
"Do not make an idol with images of things in heaven or earth
and worship it as a god or pledge allegiance to it..."
Even though I don't believe the Bible is the actual words and stories
of some actual creator of the universe, I have to agree with the idea
that pledging allegiance to some particular flag and being willing to
"die for the flag" no matter what, is a bad idea, in general...
Maybe you think differently?
When they talked about worshiping an idol as a god they mean that almost
literally. The idol *was* the god, as opposed to the flag which is
intentionally symbolic in nature.
"... and to the country for which it stands..." would have been foreign
to the ancient concept of idol worship.
Besides their disagreement with the church authorities, the iconoclasts
were concerned that people were worshiping their icons *instead* of God,
rather than the iconic concept of the image being a sort of inspiration
*toward* God.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
20 Jun 2004 09:11:47 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Even though I don't believe the Bible is the actual words and stories
of some actual creator of the universe, I have to agree with the idea
that pledging allegiance to some particular flag and being willing to
"die for the flag" no matter what, is a bad idea, in general...
Maybe you think differently?
When they talked about worshiping an idol as a god they mean that
almost literally. The idol *was* the god, as opposed to the flag which is
intentionally symbolic in nature.
"... and to the country for which it stands..." would have been foreign
to the ancient concept of idol worship.
Not if the idols were considered talismans or amulets, eh?
If each person carried around a talisman or amulet with the symbol of
their tribe, then it was supposed to bring good luck during war, and
ward off bad luck at other times as well.
Besides their disagreement with the church authorities, the iconoclasts
were concerned that people were worshiping their icons *instead* of God,
rather than the iconic concept of the image being a sort of inspiration
*toward* God.
Who do you consider the biggest iconoclasts in history?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
20 Jun 2004 09:50:41 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
news:b39bd0d9trrr1li2s2em93b1ugmtrulg64@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Even though I don't believe the Bible is the actual words and
stories of some actual creator of the universe, I have to agree with
the idea that pledging allegiance to some particular flag and being
willing to "die for the flag" no matter what, is a bad idea, in
general...
Maybe you think differently?
When they talked about worshiping an idol as a god they mean that
almost literally. The idol *was* the god, as opposed to the flag
which is intentionally symbolic in nature.
"... and to the country for which it stands..." would have been
foreign to the ancient concept of idol worship.
Not if the idols were considered talismans or amulets, eh?
Yes, the talisman or amulet was an invocation of the god in order to
make his power available to the wearer (or maybe *through* the wearer).
If each person carried around a talisman or amulet with the symbol of
their tribe, then it was supposed to bring good luck during war, and
ward off bad luck at other times as well.
You're reading it in somewhat modern terms, as a symbol that represents
the tribe rather than as an object that invokes the presence of the
power that unites the tribe.
Besides their disagreement with the church authorities, the
iconoclasts were concerned that people were worshiping their icons
*instead* of God, rather than the iconic concept of the image being a
sort of inspiration *toward* God.
Who do you consider the biggest iconoclasts in history?
I haven't really thought about it in those terms. Every generation makes
its own break with the past, and we've accelerated the process so much
in modern times.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
21 Jun 2004 08:20:29 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
news:q1mdd0h4igvbsbf83kmmoutrshpn1s93p4@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
When they talked about worshiping an idol as a god they mean that
almost literally. The idol *was* the god, as opposed to the flag
which is intentionally symbolic in nature.
"... and to the country for which it stands..." would have been
foreign to the ancient concept of idol worship.
Not if the idols were considered talismans or amulets, eh?
Yes, the talisman or amulet was an invocation of the god in order to
make his power available to the wearer (or maybe *through* the
wearer).
If everyone wore the same amulet, then the power would be imagined by
the wearers or carriers to be multiplied if they gathered together for
some common cause, don't you think? Or were ancient amulet wearers
selfish when it came to the power they thought their amulets gave
them?
The high priest or shaman would have to go to great lengths to procure
the right materials and then perform the proper ritual preparation of
his own amulets: they'd be very rare and expensive things.
And the linkage with the god was usually considered to be quite fragile.
Amulets and ritual idols had to be handled very carefully with all due
respect to the deity in question or the consequences could be disastrous
- ranging from simply "discharging" the amulet to destroying the user
and his entire village.
Of course those "high-power" devices couldn't be shared around, and so
they would also make "charms", to which a specifically designated
fraction of the power was conveyed by sympathetic magic into a much
simpler and cheaper device that could be sold or handed out to cult
members. Since the charms were made for specific purposes and only drew
on the god-power for that one purpose, the user might carry a whole
bunch of them around.
Orson Card makes interesting use of these ideas in his "Alvin" stories -
his African kind of magic works through amulets and charms. He defines
several different modes of magic - White people's magic works through
personal talents like an ability to dowse for water or to see a person's
fate or tell stories; it also includes "hexes" that operate as charms
for specific purposes. Red man's magic is more one of drawing power from
their natural surroundings. It is possible in his alternate world for
certain very talented individuals to learn all the kinds of magic.
If each person carried around a talisman or amulet with the symbol
of their tribe, then it was supposed to bring good luck during war,
and ward off bad luck at other times as well.
You're reading it in somewhat modern terms, as a symbol that
represents the tribe rather than as an object that invokes the
presence of the power that unites the tribe.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a single symbol or amulet. They can
be combined together to make a new flag, or a new amulet or piece of
jewelry or decoration of some kind which combines one or more
current symbols. Some of the pictures of ancient and modern day
kings and dictators and military leaders show that they wore all
kinds of decorations and symbols on their uniforms. Many of them
were actually superstitious in the wearing of those things, from what
I've read lately, and I think they saw those things as talismans and
amulets which gave them special powers or good luck.
Of course by that time the idea was that each particular item had or
invoked a particular function - good luck in hunting or sexual potency
or protection from a certain kind of weapon or disease and on and on...
Even the Catholic church got into the act with the Saints' medals which
persist even today.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
11 Jun 2004 08:02:15 PM |
|
|
Astrology is a load of crap, You can buy 20 different mags and they all say
different things. But what you believe in is your own choice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Astrology vs. Christianized Astronomy? |
11 Jun 2004 08:36:32 PM |
|
|
Lloyd Jones <@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Astrology is a load of crap, You can buy 20 different mags and they all say
different things. But what you believe in is your own choice
I don't believe in astrology. I have an interest in astronomy,
though, and consider them different things.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
