Natal Chart with Traditional Astrology

Begging to differ with the above.
Astrology is a process, different things happen to it at different times. Lilly is just one point in the time line. What's astrology like in time predating even Lilly? Surely this man did not conjure 100% of his thesis out of thin air. No, he followed something else and that something else follow something predating itself. This argument must be old... so I shell not extrapolate, and bore you.
So, the Three Magi were astrologers following the star to Christ's birthplace yet their skill was insufficient to divine God's will that He had to impart a clearer message to them through their dreams at one point, particularly pertaining to King Herod.
We see that even in biblical times, the study of the stars is imperfect, not advanced enough. God obviously knows this.

Canonical or not, one who truly seeks answers will open her mind to BOTH science and occult.
If you looked up "The Great Leap Forward" theory, we have scientists who claim humans took an un-explained evolutionary jump. Were the angelic Watchers behind this? You see one case where mythology explains science, the scientists being blind because they refuse to accept, or know of, mythological explanations. And occultists being blind as well because they scorn scientific knowledge.

"Science and religion are not antagonists. On the contrary, they are sisters. While science tries to learn more about the creation, religion tries to better understand the Creator. While through science man tries to harness the forces of nature around him, through religion he tries to harness the force of nature within him." ~ Wernher von Braun, creator of the V2 rocket and man who put man on the Moon

As an engineer too, I think this point hits home, with all I've read. And I'm seeing puzzles fit together despite people trying to convince me theology and science are like oil and water. A middle finger to one of Crowley's tarot cards, I should say.

I think canonical or not it would be profitable to gather all the pieces of the teachings, gnostic or not, to formulate a more complete picture, before making an uninformed decision. Remember that the Bible was put together by a man who decided what should be orthodox and which parts to exclude because they did not sit too well with his political agendas. And Man errs.

To reiterate, the only thing I can derive thus far from Enoch is true knowledge unravels itself to mankind as the time goes by, so much so that is was a great sin for the Watchers, bless them, to reveal to mankind too much at once. And they were sent to hell for the Deed.
Who is Alan Leo? Would he be a divinely-inspired agent sent by God to overwrite previous, flawed, interpretations of the truth, this so called "traditional astrology", and advance astrology another step? This move would make sense seeing the whole fiasco with the angelic Watchers happened when God made the mistake of sending angels to teach humankind. The Watchers copulated with human women, birthing the Nephilims, giants that walked the earth destroying and killing anything and anyone that got in their way, The Great Flood, Noah's Ark, almost all the world wiped out.
This time, God didn't send angels anymore, instead He sent inspiration through selective men and let our own spirits do the work.
Still at least God is wise enough to learn from history and not repeat mistakes.

Along with the plans to construct the Ark, Archangel Raphael added medical knowledge to the same book, so that humankind can be advanced enough to save themselves when illnesses/misfortunes strike. You may have heard of Christian fundamentals refusing treatments by medical professionals as they believe their lives/fates rest on the hands of God and His will and that modern medicine is "defying God's will". I say letting themselves die isn't God's will in the first place! Or Raphael wouldn't have handed Noah that medical book.
That goes for fundamentalists of traditional astrology as well, it couldn't have been different. Both holds too firmly to tradition, to plain derisiveness of modernity.
Humankind may be collectively wired to accept a truth when the spiritual parts of themselves, that the conscious self usually isn't aware of, recognize the random uttering of one modern astrologer. Or is it this astrologer's thesis synchronize with the divine laws and thus remain etch in humankind's memory for eternity?

Thank you for the longer explanation of your views, as with your first post I was not sure whether you were being serious or not and I was not much wiser with the second one.

I'm not going to debate the Book of Enoch - I chose my words carefully when I referred to it as non-canonical rather than not inspired by the divine. You are right that the decision of whether a text is canonical or not is a human one - though not by one man but by, in the first place, the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, and added to by various councils ever since. That they did not choose the Book of Enoch, is only evidence that most Christians (and also, though for different reasons most Jews) do not see the BooK of Enoch as of divine inspiration. Such a belief may indeed be erroneous, though for similar reasons, so could belief that it is of divine inspiration. My position is that I just don't know. I do know that only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church regards it as canonical, of all the significant branches of Christianity.

Yes I'm very aware of the argument of a 'great leap forward' and also the (seemingly) sudden switch from hunter gatherer lifestyle to an agricultural life style. However there's no necessary link to this with the Book of Enoch - you either believe there is, as an article of faith or you don't. I'm not in a position to know the divine's intentions.

Now turning to Astrology - I didn't say that Lilly was the perfection of Astrology. The original question was whether Lilly was the best place to start learning about the tradition of Astrology and ipso facto, the question ruled our reference to modern Astrology. I gave a variety of reasons as to why I thought it probably was the best place to start, though this should not be taken as meaning it's the best place to finish.

You clearly believe in a theory of human progress, and that is the norm of modern thinking, though that is not the only dominant belief that humans have held. The danger of this belief is that what comes next is by definition better which is just as much a dangerous and erroneous belief as the opposite view that things are deteriorating from a 'golden age'.

Modern Astrology is not the product of human development, it is largely the product of the works of Alan Leo and the theosophists, later revised somewhat by the beliefs of Jungian psychologists. Just because these came after Lilly, does not make them better. Indeed there's a lot of evidence to suggest that Leo and olthers had little depth knowledge of Astrology as it used to be. Now does that make the tradition 'right'? No it doesn't but it does suggest that it's at least learning and investigating the tradition in greater detail.

Again I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion of the relevance of the outer planets - much of the meaning of the outers was laid down by Leo and of course you're fully free to claim that Leo was divinely inspired. However it is possible to argue and indeed demonstrate that much of the meanings attributed to the two outer planets and the dwarf planet Pluto, were transferred from the pre-existing meanings of the classic 7. That is, the outers added no new meaning to Astrology, they merely shared the existing meanings over a wider base. Indeed at the extreme (and I mean at the extreme) it's possible to argue that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are not planets in an Astrologcial sense - Their definition as a 'planet' or 'dwarf planet' rests with the IAU (International Astronomical Union) which, as it name makes clear, is an Astronomical organisation, not an Astrological one. Astrological meaning is something different. Now Dave would and does, argue this and I'm not here claiming he and modern practice are in error - I'm simply saying that science does not explain everything and resting Astrological or other occult meanings on modern science is not necessarily good practice.

It is a brave person who insists that he or she is privy to the divine will - I cited Genesis because it is the most accepted version of the divine's will (by Christians, Jews and Muslims), though you will find similar origin myths (and I mean myth not as a fabrication but as a poetic explanation of reality) in other religions.

Genesis clearly says that God divided Night from Day, a fundamental distinction of Hellenistic Astrology. God set two lights in the sky to rule the Day and Night - again a fundamental of Hellenistic Astrology but ignored by the moderns. God also put lights in the sky - the stars, both fixed and wandering (planets) and it is a fundamental of traditional Astrology that light is what makes Astrology work. Now the outers are not 'lights in the firmament' and so it could be argued that they have no significance in creation - but obviously that can be hotly contended. Also of course, it can be hotly contended that Genesis is not to be taken literally - I certainly don't but I do take it as meaningful in it's own context. My point was that traditional Astrology takes the Genesis explanation (and similar explanations) seriously - modern Astrology does not.

You have perfect freedom to believe in your own channel to the divine but please recognise that the practice of traditional Astrology is not against divine will and that it actually might be helpful in putting the human condition in the context of divine purpose - at least for many, if not all Astrology students.

edited to add
Raphael, Seraphiel and Zadkiel, were all nineteenth century Astrologers, who used the angelic names as pseudonyms. - Robert Cross Smith was the first 'Raphael', Walter Gorn Old was Sepahriel and Richard James Morrison was Zadkiel. Whilst they are outstanding in terms of the nineteenth century but not in terms of the history of Astrology

Yes, for your question I am truly serious.
My cause of furthering modernity should be obvious!
It's not that I don't accept Lilly's teachings at all, but it is that I only respect their position as predecessors and revisions must be done in the light of newer findings.
Endorsement in Traditional Astrology would compromise and confuse say, my preferred use of dispositor charts, etc which uses the nine planets instead of the traditional seven.
One may argue, naturally, the link between The Great Leap Forward being explained by angelic intervention exists only in my mind, but science has always been made up of theories. Anyone is free to theorize. Most of the time that evidence is unearthed counter to a pre-conceived theory, said theory would be revised. Thus is a progressive way of Science.
And yes I too take the words of Genesis figuratively only, for it would describe the Creation of dinosaurs first if it did not. There has been other instances of the Bible foiled by Science, Darwinism is one such case, or vice versa being science foiled by the Bible, before.

I do not disagree with putting the Book of Enoch aside, however. Let's move on.

Now statistics have only solidified modern astrology's position, if you will have a look at this:
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/014471.html

It is found 'most' (sun)signs marry their own signs in the longest lasting unions. Gunter Sach used a very large sample size and would be positively convincing to the most hard-nosed skeptics of pseudoscience. Thus Alan Leo's thesis' resonance in the human souls and people realizing the truth in his words is synchronicity at its finest.

I'm interested in your point of view, and Dave's if he wishes to partake.

Kibeth said:

Now statistics have only solidified modern astrology's position, if you will have a look at this:
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/014471.html

It is found 'most' (sun)signs marry their own signs in the longest lasting unions. Gunter Sach used a very large sample size and would be positively convincing to the most hard-nosed skeptics of pseudoscience. Thus Alan Leo's thesis' resonance in the human souls and people realizing the truth in his words is synchronicity at its finest.

I'm interested in your point of view, and Dave's if he wishes to partake.

Click to expand...

Well I've only checked the statistics for females by sign - and as the data on divorce rates wasn't published in the thread, I just have to go on the original data quoted in the first page.

I used a two tail test with P=0.95 to see if there was any significantly high or low marriage rate by sign for females.

I found:

Aries: No statistical significance - signs could have been 'chosen' by random
Taurus: Gemini males are statistically higher than expected. Nothing below expected
Gemini: No statistical significance - signs could have been 'chosen' by random
Cancer: No statistical significance - signs could have been 'chosen' by random
Leo: No statistical significance - signs could have been 'chosen' by random
Virgo: No statistical significance - signs could have been 'chosen' by random
Libra: No statistical significance - signs could have been 'chosen' by random
Scorpio: No statistical significance - signs could have been 'chosen' by random
Sagittarius: No statistical significance - signs could have been 'chosen' by random
Capricorn: Gemini males are below what we would expect. Nothing above expectation
Aquarius: Sagittarius males above expectation - nothing below expectation
Pisces: Capricorn males above expectation - nothing below expectation

So out of 12 signs only four showed a non random result and one of these was statistically LESS than would be expected. Of the ones that were statistically higher - none of them were same sign. Of the three significant results one had a link by being an adjacent sign, the other two were sextiles.

Now I don't think these results actually solidify modern Astrology's position or confirm Leo. Furthermore there's no evidence that the males' birth signs were correctly identified. Indeed I suspect that the investigation used the 'horoscope' dates quoted in newspapers and magazines. These are NOT accurate, I know of many people who are wrongly classified by them (including me) because the ingresses vary from year to year and can be one or even two days different (by date).

I can look at the male data if you want, but I suspect that it will simply confirm the above conclusion.

Apart from the introductory sentence I agree witht the comment at the bottom of page 2 and as an Astrologer, I'm glad that such a simplistic explanation doesn't work. That's not a criticism of modern Astrology - I think most serious modern Astrologers would very much agree.

Thank you for giving it more analysis than I had hoped from you.

If I recall rightly there were not one but three sets of data posted somewhere which layout follows the one on the thread I have just shown.
Set 1) Highest no. of marriages between sign A female with all the other males
Set 2) Highest no. of divorce "" "" ""
Set 3) Longest lasting marriages "" "" ""

Set 3 was the one displayed on that thread, derived by a simple subtraction of Set 2 from Set 1, for logically the marriage figures would outnumber divorce figures. As I've noted in a previous post the same signs tend to form the most lasting unions.
For instance, Cancer females and Aries males have great instant attraction which causes high marriage rates (leading to high rank between the two in Set 1), however their conflicting psyches are unsuitable for handling each other for the long-term union so they break up with each other very often (leading to a high rank in Set 2). Subtract the two and the result is Set 3, 'Cancer female and Cancer male' pairing tops 'Cancer female and everybody else'. It happens to many other signs as well, Aries-Aries, Gemini-Gemini, etc. Granted there are instances like the Pisces female and Capricorn male lasting the longest, but all considered the chance of this configuration, in its totality, happening at random was calculated to be 1 out of *35,000. A landslide victory for Sun Sign astrology.

* This is one point I'd like to double-check, since I dug them all up from memory. The original pages were gone from the internet, and they just may be found if I sifted though Google's messy indexing all over again, which is unrewarding to do seeing I have my conclusions already.

So why can so many signs co-exist great with themselves, and why are there some who coexist best with another sign? There has been less brains in all of humanity trying to ponder this than I would like, and some of the most brilliant brains of astrology choose look backwards instead of to the future.

The Hermes in me is about done prattling now, I think.

Yes it's a pity that the third set - of lasting relationships has gone - I've just rechecked and I can't see it anywhere. However even if the list has same sign pairings at the top, it doesn't of itself prove that the result is not due to chance - that's why we conduct statistical tests of significance.

I would very much like to see the research design for this study and how it was conducted, so if you come across more please let me know.

However I can only go on the data presented in the thread at the moment and that shows no relationship, other than what one would expect by chance.

I also have to re-iterate that Modern Astrology doesn't base long term relationships on Sun sign - though newspaper and magazine columns might. You read the modern authors on synastry and you'll find that not one of them takes Sun sign as a major factor

PS Assuming that the findings were as you said, do you know of any further studies that tried to replicate the investigation? One result that has not been replicated is not enough to base a theory on, from a scientific point of view.

PPS you might read the articles at :

http://www.astrology-and-science.com/s-crit2.htm

which show fundamental flaws in Sachs methods. So when it comes down to it, it seems that Sachs got it wrong.

However he did marry Brigitte Bardot, so at least he got one thing right! Sadly he committed suicide earlier this year, it seems he may have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and decided that he could not face the inevitable mental decline.