Re: VMs: Re: Traditional Astrology and the Flat Earth

[Pamela Richards <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Glenn

I'm sorry we are not coming any closer to agreement on
these points.  It is fascinating that two people who
both attempt to project themselves into history using
hands-on application of extant technical procedures
should come to such different conclusions.

Regardless of distances to planets calculated by
then-current astronomy throughout history, the
calculations for "a figure of the heavens" used in
astrology accounts for a spherical earth.  The
distance from Venus to the Earth is not applied in
drawing up an astrological chart.  Individual errors
in this calculation are not the subject of this
discussion.  

Have you ever tried to cast a chart yourself?

The Bible uses figures of speech that are derived
quite literally from the original languages.  "The
four corners of the earth" you are so fond of are the
four directions of the compass.  If you had much
experience in the art of interpretation, you would
understand how frequently this appropriation of
metaphor takes place between languages, and how great
an error it is to take it literally when it is meant
figuratively.  As for "all the kingdoms of the Earth",
we don't need a Mercatur projection to literally
spread out the world before Jesus when there is no
reason to suppose that angel of the status of Satan
(assuming that we subscribed to one) could not project
a vision of temporal omnipotence without the actual
optical effect.

Now please tell me that in your study you have not
found that farmers used astrology, historically. 
Perhaps farmers did not write many theses, but they
used the waxing and waning moon and other astrological
markers to plant their crops, nevertheless.  One of
the greatest reasons cited for an astrological
calendar, historically, is that so that farmers will
know when to plant.  Since therefore they planted
their crops according to astrology, farmers must have
been identical with the authority of the Church. . .
and must have rebelled against themselves in 1492. 
Surely someone took note of this event.  Please, where
is your evidence?

And what about those dependent upon their astrologer
physicians for diagnosis and treatment?  Did they
languish in their rebellion against the Church,
without aid for several hundred years until the
invention of the microscope?  I think not.  Physicians
continued to use astrology until at least 1700; and
the nascent technologies which were eventually to
replace astrology in the practice of medicine were so
unformed at that time, that most physicians practiced
a modified form of astrological medicine (roughly
based on the work of astrologers such as Galen and
Hippocrates, but minus the astrology) which was called
"humoral medicine", until at least the mid
nineteenth-century.

Since we are speaking of events and history, in my way
of thinking, the greatest event to lead to the demise
of astrology was Van Leewenhoek's use of the
microscope and subsequent discovery of bacteria,
free-living and parasitic microscopic prostists, sperm
cells, blood cells, ect., in 1673.

This was when the clamor on the part of scientists and
physicians for empericism began.  Or please correct me
if you can cite demands for empericism prior to this
time.

Between you and me, Glenn, I am not fond of Church and
all that it intends to purport, myself.  But to say
that everyone equated astrology with the "Church" is
to ignore that astrology was used for a variety of
purposes, many of which were even understood to be
opposed to the Church.  Bruno, who you have cited, is
one example.

I am sorry you have been having differences with list
members that have been taken personally on either
side.  Please observe that I have not resorted to the
use of demeaning epithets in referring to you or
anyone else.  I have requested evidence of your
claims.  I propose a challenge, not an insult.

Warmly,

Pam



--- GC <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Pamela,
> 
> I try to stay in touch, but with all the astrall
> travel I'm doing, well,
> it's time to cash in these frequent flyer miles so
> I'm not always at 'home'.
> :-)  I read my post the next day when it bounced
> back, and saw I did indeed
> miss the cusp of some of your arguments.  It happens
> more often than not on
> this list, so I beg your forgiveness.
> 
> > I think you, too have failed to grasp the cusp of
> my
> > argument.  It was not astrologers who were
> ignorant of
> > a round earth.  There are many calculations
> involved
> > in casting a chart.  They certainly do take into
> > account the spherical shape of the Earth, and have
> > since Ptolemy, no matter who read Arabic or Latin
> or
> > Greek when.  I have heard that mathematics is a
> > universal language, yes?  Wherever and whenever
> charts
> > are cast, these principles are applied.  An
> > "astrologer" not knowledgeable of such principles
> is
> > an astrologer who can't earn a living at his art
> and
> > is not worthy of the title.
> 
> I guess the problem I have in addressing any point
> made in this discussion
> is that we're talking about a very broad period of
> time between Ptolemy and
> Copernicus.  As example I bring up your point about
> the problem of gravity,
> that when and object fell, it fell in the same
> place.  I don't have to
> mention the work of Galileo in this regard, at a
> particular time.  The
> observation was interpreted differently by earlier
> generations, with one
> commentary prevailing for a period, and one
> refutation prevailing the next.
> Flux is the course of human history, and to broadly
> discuss the progression
> of an idea doesn't work.  That's why we mark history
> with singular or
> momentous events.  No one remembers that Robert
> Hooke first 'described' the
> effects of gravity, they only remember that Newton
> first described them
> mathematically.  Name the individual who filed a
> patent for the telephone
> only hours after Alexander Graham Bell?  We can't
> remember these events
> because they are not historical markers.  Who
> remembers that Nikola Tesla
> won a lawsuit that named him the inventor of radio,
> but who can't remember
> the name Marconi in connection with radio?  And who
> can remember that the
> initial attribution to the discovery of the Americas
> was given to Amerigo
> Vespucci, hence the maps that named the continent
> 'America', even after the
> honor was disputed by Columbus, who won the judgment
> that his discovery was
> made three weeks earlier than Vespucci?  These
> events are off the top of my
> head, but they suffice to demonstrate that accepted
> history is not exactly
> 'self correcting'.
> 
> > So where are the citations from practicing
> astrologers
> > who proclaimed that the world was flat?  I'm still
> > looking forward to those.
> 
> 'Practicing astrologers', that's a phrase very open
> to attack.  I am
> speaking of astronomers, not astrologers, a
> distinction that did not exist
> in the netherworld of the past.  Most of the works
> are post-1492, and I'd
> have to go back and find them.  The gist of these is
> not that the 'earth is
> flat', and I don't think I've ever read this as a
> statement by anybody that
> wrote on the subject.  I 'deduce' their belief from
> statements made in the
> works.  Something like this makes me suspicious that
> the 'math' in use is
> not trig:  Venus rises at the 6th hour, at a
> distance of 120,000 miles, and
> reaches its height at the 12th hour and 15 minutes,
> at a height of 235,000
> miles.  If the world were a 'globe', this dimension
> should not change.  Am I
> reading these statements wrong?  Are they talking
> about a distance from a
> single point, and not from the 'earth'?  I frankly
> don't know.  If the world
> were considered a globe, the distance from the
> horizon to the observer would
> be considered further than the distance overhead, so
> the measurements should
> reduce, not increase, as the object rose in the sky.
>  I do have one work in
> mind where the math is extremely questionable, and
> I'll try to dig it out of
> my archives.  As with anything in history, our
> historians tend to define the
> 'correct' documents and authors, and ignore the
> rest.
> 
> > Even the Bible (not a science textbook, after all)
> > does not speak of a flat earth, so I don't know
> why
> > you think Catholics were so excited about it.  Can
> you
> > list me some heretics burned at the stake for
> > believing the earth was spherical?
> 
> Heretics burned at the stake for disagreeing with
> the 'flat earth'
> philosophy?  No, they were generally burned for
> other offenses.  Take
> Giordano Bruno as example.  I have to disagree with
> you once more however,
> and submit that there are numerous significant
> biblical scriptures that
> pertain to the flatness of the earth that were used
> as arguments in medieval
> theories.  Among these, taken immediately from
>
http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm:
> 
> Isaiah 11:12
> And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and
> shall assemble the
> outcasts of Israel, and gather together the
> dispersed of Judah from the FOUR
> CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
> 
> Revelation 7:1
>  And after these things I saw four angels standing
> on FOUR CORNERS OF THE
> EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the
> wind should not blow on
> the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
> 
> Job 38:13
>  That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH,
> that the wicked might be
> shaken out of it? (KJV)
> 
> Jeremiah 16:19
>  LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge
> in the day of affliction,
> the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF
> THE EARTH, and shall say,
> Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and
> things wherein there is
> no profit. (KJV)
> 
> Daniel 4:11
>  The tree grew, and was strong, and the height
> thereof reached unto heaven,
> and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH:
> (KJV)
> 
> Matthew 4:8
>  Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding
> high mountain, and sheweth
> him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of
> them; (KJV)
> 
> This particular site has many more, and I sincerely
> appreciate their efforts
> in addressing this subject, as it has been one of
> the major arguments I've
> had over the years with my minister friends.  One of
> my debating points has
> always been that if the book were the work of God,
> he'd know the shape of
> the earth and not make these misleading statements. 
> The earth as a circle
> or a sphere has a vastly more mystical quality than
> an earth with corners.
> If these scriptures were God's design, he would have
> been more effective in
> emphasizing the mystical qualities of the circle, no
> beginning, no ending,
> etc.  Make your own judgment, but don't tell me that
> the scriptures do not
> offer any information that could be (and was)
> construed as proof-positive
> that the earth was flat.
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===


=====
"I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing, than to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list