Hi Tom,

Perhaps I did get a little carried away on the theology! I was all ready to roll on to the various arguments to support a Theodicy. I dont want to stray even further but there is one point here I feel I must respond to.

In today's world, with it s narcissism and sense of entitlement, this might be true, but it is a "killer argument" based on a flimsy premise, that somehow people are entitled to a perfect world with perfect comfort and only an old meanie would deprive us of that and since God can't be a meanie He doesn't exist. It's not too persuasive.

I do think many sincere , reflective people are troubled by this issue. Its quite unreasonable to categorise all the people concerned by this issue as narcissistic or pollyannas. Try telling that to a Mother who has lost her baby in the Chinese Earthquake or Burmese Cyclone. Search your heart here...what would you say as the Priest to parents of a young child dying of Leukemia?

Christian theologians such as Irenaeus writing in the second century AD developed the so called 'freewill defence' in regards human or 'moral evil'. They pointed out that a world with no possibility for moral evil would be a world with no freewill either. The focus was the potential for growth the existence of evil creates. Although this defence seems seriously stretched when we get children gassed in death camps or murdered in Rwanda. The God of the Old Testament seems to have been willing to regularly intervene in human affairs with far less provocation than the above.

Even if one sticks with the 'freewill defence' the problem is that this argument really doesnt hold water when we get to 'natural evil' through things like Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Tsunami, diseases etc. Human beings have little or no freewill to excercise in such matters. Why does a just, loving God allow such suffering to occur? Surely if he is an omnipotent being he could have designed a world where such needless pain and suffering never occur? Moreover, why doesnt he intervene to prevent or at least lessen such suffering when it does occur?

I am not suggesting these realities necessarily refute monotheism. Christianity and Islam seem to have rolled on very well despite them. However, the reality of natural evil and the inevitable suffering caused by it does present very difficult issues for any person of faith to deal with. They cannot be lightly written off as you suggest.

Moreover, intense human suffering is a daily reality not a premise. The premises come from people of faith seeking to explain it. Several theologians accept there is real difficulty forming a rational defence to this argument so to call it 'flimsy' is not really accurate. Of course many might argue as with belief in God it is an issue of faith not reason. Take a look at the book 'The Puzzle of Evil' by the British Philosopher of religion Peter Vardy to see the problems this issue causes those advocating an omnipotent, loving creator God. The Anglican theologian John Stott has stated "the fact of suffering undoubtedly constitutes the single greatest challenge to the Christian faith."

Theologically the difficulty arises because many people insist on a God with the following five qualities:

1 A single God exists who created the universe from nothing
2 This God continues to be interested in his creation
3 God is good
4 Good is omnipotent
5 God does not wish suffering to take place

The problem was set out by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341 BCE? 270 BCE):

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

Two thousand years later the Scottish philosopher David Hume was still raising this issue in very similar terms:

Why is there misery in the world? Not by chance, surely. From some cause then. Is it the intention of the deity? But he is perfectly benevolent. Is it contrary to his intention? But he is almighty. Nothing can shake the solidity of this reasoning. So short so clear so decisive?

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

I suppose the the reason I think views on predestination are central to this astrological discussion we are having here is that many of us tend to see astrological issues of freewill vs determinism in very modern, western centred ways. Whether we call ourselves traditional or psychological most Euro-American astrologers inherently have a bias towards a freewill perspective. However, the cultures in which many of the major traditional authorities we rely on operated in were far more inclined to a determinist viewpoint.

Mark

I?m enjoying the theological discussion, but just want to interrupt with some comments about the astrological philosophy of subsumption.

Mark:

Tom's comments seem reflective of the most popularly accepted view on such issues today. The Theosophical school of astrology often presented this issue as related to a hierarchy of karma with national charts being representative of collective karma and sometimes outweighing individual destiny.

This is a very ancient view and is the reason why, for example, early Babylonian astrologers dealt with the concerns of the nation by reference to the chart of the ruler.

I am currently preparing a review of Meira Epstein?s new translation of Ezra?s 12th century Book of Nativities and Revolutions, and thought it appropriate to extract some of my notes that relate to the importance of this 'hierarchy of charts'. Ezra dwells on the issue of the fate of the individual within that of the collective at the start of his work, and it is obviously a significant introduction to what follows. In fact Ezra?s reasoning offers a highly condensed representation of Ptolemaic doctrine ? note, for example, that in the Tetrabiblos, the second book on mundane astrology is placed before the third book of nativities. The reason is that the fate of the individual can only be truly understood by comparison, or in relation to the collective of which it is a part. When we undertake natal work without this prior consideration we are only working with a fragment of the relevant information, which offers the same argument for why a natal interpretation can be subject to error that we find with elections that are not referred to the natal chart.

As well as considering the astrological influences upon the national collective, we also need to consider individual birth charts within the constraints of tribal or family limitations. In that way the signature of, let?s say ?rising in rank?, is appropriately judged to mean rising to a better professional position than would be expected given the family background or social status of the parents. Ezra says, for example, that the son of a servant might rise to become a merchant, whilst the same indication in the chart of the son of a minister could indicate a rise to become the king.

At a slight tangent, but I think it is related and highly relevant to this discussion, both Ptolemy?s and Ezra?s work propose the idea that physical characteristics (such as height, colouring etc) are judged in connection to the established features of the collective. It is silly to think that we can pick up a chart of an unknown individual, without any knowledge of gender or culture, and from this provide a detailed and reliable physical profile. We need to know these conditions to provide the appropriate context. Although I now see this is implicit in Ptolemy?s work, Ezra?s is also clearer in emphasising the importance of comparison to parental features in judging physical features from natal charts. In talking about signs of long ascension on the ascendant, for example, Ezra doesn?t simply say that this indicates the native will be tall, as most astrologers do, but that ?the native will be taller than his parents? (Epstein, p.15). This obviously makes a great deal of sense.

And it is the same principle with the fate of the individual within a mass disaster. No individual can escape the effects of a national disaster because every member of that society is to some extent touched and affected by it, and this creates the limitations within which success and failure is defined. During times of national prosperity there will always be people who feel that ?compared to other members of their society ? their material circumstances are very unfortunate; but even the poorest members of a wealthy society are perceived as fortunate by comparison to the general public of a truly impoverished society. Even during times of mass death, some are blessed with more merciful deaths than others, whilst some members of society are able to escape the devastation of grief more than others, and a small proportion will inevitably prosper from the event in the long run.

I think that there are two main obstacles to astrologers being able to effectively recognise and forewarn of these events. The first is the breath of vision and wide scale attention that it requires ? as Tom suggested, who of us has the time to keep looking for something that we don?t know is going to happen? The second is that most astrologers are very poorly equipped to judge death in individual horoscopes anyway. Isaac argued that in the 300 cases he studied there was not even one single case that failed according to his methods, and I can believe that is true (at least in principle, without seeing his work). The signature of death does not have to be connected to a naturally malefic planet, and it certainly doesn?t have to involve Uranus which, let?s remember, was not even known about until recently. Until astrologers start thinking beyond that kind of 'obvious' signature then it will probably be a case of 'the less we say, the better'

Hi Deb,

Hope you enjoyed UAC

I look forward to receiving my copy of Ibn Ezra's 'Book of Nativities' soon and I am sure your review will assist my understanding of it.

Just as a point of clarification I think I did make it clear later(?) I accepted Tom's point that a hierarchy of charts was the correct traditional approach. On its own the section you have quoted gives the impression I only accept that as a modern view linked to Theosophy. That is certainly not the case as it would fly in the face of the tradition.

However, I was not aware this idea of a hierarchy of charts had a traditional name. Thanks!

As a good example of the medieval approach to such issues here is an article by Ben Dykes on the Tsunami of 2004.

http://www.bendykes.com/articles/tsunami.htm

Isaac argued that in the 300 cases he studied there was not even one single case that failed according to his methods, and I can believe that is true (at least in principle, without seeing his work).

Nonetheless, it would be very useful to know what methodology Isaac is relying on for such a definitive statement. He has told us he is using Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions and Topocentric House system but beyond that it is not clear what 'signatures' he is relying on.

Would you mind sharing a little more on your method Isaac?

Hi Mark,

Sorry if I made a bad edit on your comment. It never crossed my mind that anyone would doubt your knowledge, so I didn?t give much thought to that. I just used the comment as a handy hook to hang a few remarks on.

UAC was great thanks, and as soon as I can find some spare time I hope to write a short account of some of my experiences. In fact I?ve been meaning to do this for the past week, but the combination of internet connection problems, backed up emails and commitments, recovery from altitude-sickness (Denver is the ?mile high? city) and good old fashioned jet lag, keeps getting in the way. At the conference itself I felt so spaced out that I barely slept, so once I got back into my own bed I slept like a baby for days. I?m away again next week, this time for a family holiday, but fingers crossed that I can post a UAC report and contribute to some of the recent forum posts in the next day or two, whilst my brain appears to be functioning.

Hi Deb,

Glad you had a good time even if it was a bit disorientating. I guess its a lot to take with the travel, altitude and so many astrologers in one place. Plus as a speaker you need to stay reasonably lucid!

I didnt mean to sound petulant. Your edit was fine. If anything I was frustrated that particular paragraph of my post was so vague and sloppy on this crucial point. I got rather side tracked into other issues as you might have noticed.....

Thanks for clarfiying more on the traditional perspective. John Frawley seems good at highlighting this idea of a hierarchy of charts in his writing starting with horary building up to mundane.

Still even the idea of a chart hierarchy leaves us with a philosophical minefield in terms freewill vs determinism. It will be interesting to see what Ibn Ezra has to say on this and much else.

Hi there thought I'd post since I'd guess there is further scope for earthquake or storm damage over the next 24 hours specifically looking in GMT. over the early hours of tomorrow morning up to breakfast time here in the UK.

I'm looking at the Fixed sign lunar transit across the Mars aspects to Jupiter Uranus and Neptune. This relates to the Chinese quake planetary picture

However there is a big difference in scale highlighted by there being no latitude component. Ie the Chinese quake shared a factor with many historical mega quakes in that there were alignments by astronomical latitude ie Bodily Conjunctions. this seems to create BIG quakes. This was highlighted even more by the nodal alignment , so earth and moon were in alignment with a series of latitude conjunctions too. Since the Chinese quake the planetary picture has weakened too in scope for damage so I see the possibility of immediate future events as being a weaker continuation of events of the recent past (sometimes its hard to differentiate big storms from quakes in my experience hence the ambivilence).

Following the same logical structure there is further scope mid month around Full Moon, when Mars itself completes its oppositions and quincunxes to Jupiter Neptune and Uranus. Then the planetary squares to Uranus from Sun/Merc/Venus make for a difficult picture too.

thought I'd share my musings because I didn't before the Chinese quake although I had noticed the combination of opposition and quincunxes at the time and thought there was potential but made no statement because of the difficulty of deciding on the location factor . Without location earthquake predictions are not predictions at all. So in that light, this post is not really a prediction either, rather a note to watch events to see how they unfold over the next 24 hours in the light of recent happenings.

mike c

An interesting debate, I thought I would share my musing on predictions when I was looking at this subject a few years back.

Firstly, Mike Coop, is you think there is an earthquake due and you are not convinced this where this will occur, I would count 'the when' as a prediction.

There seems to be different ways of making such a prediction, firstly an analysis of a country's chart and the alternative mundane considerations, which if I understand Mike's approach is what he has addressed in his posting. Making a prediction of when has validity, the issue of where is a second consideration. I'd be satisfied if astrologers were predicting when and not where with some accuarcy.

Earthquakes occur all over the world at very regular intervals, at different magnitudes. My question is are we predicting an earthquake, as this appears fairly straightforward due the quantity of recorded 'quakes on the Geological Surveys website. Are we predicting certain size quakes, if so what size. Lastly are we predicting human catastrophy by quakes (regardless of the magnitude), or by other means such as flood or volcano, even man made events such as war.

Earthquakes occur all over the world at very regular intervals, at different magnitudes. My question is are we predicting an earthquake, as this appears fairly straightforward due the quantity of recorded 'quakes on the Geological Surveys website.

hi those sorts of questions were why I purposely left vagueness in my post re earthquakes today. I didn't even look closely enough at timing. Ie I thought there was the possibility that an earthquake of moderate magnitude would coincide with the lunar translation from Jupiter to Neptune. In fact one earthquake of magnitude 5 (China )corresxponded within minutes to the Jupiter transit and one of 6.1 to the Neptune contact (Greece).

However as you point out there are obviously earthquake daily. So in my own ongoing occasional research I concentrate on planetary pictures in event charts and try to identify things that always hold true in every chart with a view to using that predictively.

Also I'm trying to avoid the pseudo science approach and instead using the nature of prospective event charts to judge the scope for damage. As you point out the key is predicting events of consequence to humanity.

However, anyone who has studied earthquakes probably understands that such studies always invoive a kind of "disaster fatigue" Its all so sad that it is very hard to keep up such studies long term

regards
mike c

Tom said
"In today's world, with it s narcissism and sense of entitlement, this might be true, but it is a "killer argument" based on a flimsy premise, that somehow people are entitled to a perfect world with perfect comfort and only an old meanie would deprive us of that and since God can't be a meanie He doesn't exist. It's not too persuasive."

Granny replies,
the only 2 hardcore Aethiests I know are both Vietnam Verterans who decided god did not exist after walking out of the oshau valley, 9 of 10 soldiers who walked into that valley did NOT come out alive. I find your statement to be inaccurate. A reverse revellation (theological term for this judgement) is no less intense nor valid, whether it agrees with your philosophy or no. Condescension does not make your arguement valid.

Possibly this thread ought to be redirected back to the astrology.

AS a second point of disagreement, why decide on taking up a course of hierarchy of charts until you have seen enough charts to show a necessity of such? i fyou havn't looked at any charts, how can you decide that the charts in question do NOT show an indication of a significant event? I say until you know otherwise why make any assumptions?

Possibly the correct answer is, "I dont know, I dont have enough data to answer that question" as I have only heard opinion on it and not solid data. (aside from the holocaust example which was an example of one, and needs to be expanded upon)

My opinion is, that I would suspect that if you looked at the charts of the people who were in that region, a major event would show in their individual charts, whether it lead to death or not. One thing I've learned about births over the years is that they are not occuring every so many minutes apart, they come in clumps and lumps. A maternity ward can be silent for a week and then fill up in the matter of one night in a large city, ergo, no! someone is NOT necessarily born every minute, etc. there is a method to the madness and I would expect to see it in the charts of the people in the region.

Granny

Mike, thanks for the response. I thought I should acknowledge the Greece earthquake last night with the recording of two deaths.

Any more event charts that show a potential for damage?

I have been giving this subject more thought. It occurs to me that the assertion that mass tragedies are always reflected in the birth charts of victims can be put to the test. In particular in countries where accurate birth times are recorded. In United Kingdom this only occurs in Scotland but in continental Europe this happens in several countries.

One example that comes to mind from my own country is the so called Dunblane massacre of 1996 where 16 young children were murdered in a primary school in Dunblane in Scotland by a lone gunman called Thomas Watt Hamilton. The incident gained international attention at the time. It had a major impact on British society leading the government to introduce the most restrictive laws on hand guns in the world.

As this happened in Scotland we have fairly easy access to the birth data of the murderer and all his victims. I accept this is not a natural event like a cyclone or earthquake but I assume those arguing the birth chart reveals death in all instances would still suggest this would be in the birth chart? The scale of this tragedy is also smaller in scope which may change the dynamics.


Is there anyone out there willing and capable enough to try to demonstrate this can all be demonstrated in the natal charts of the Dunblane victims? I am willing to try and dig up the birth data if anyone is up for the challenge. I should state though I am not offering to provide this just for idle astrological curiosity but for someone serious about demonstrating a signature in the chart for early death.

If anyone wants to take this challenge up I think they should be able to put forward the clear signature(s) they predict for such an early death before receiving the data. As astrologers are all excellent at 20/20 hindsight. That proves nothing in my view.

Anyone up for the challenge?

I read an article by Ken Gillman's years ago (can't remember the conclusion there), where he examined the children's charts who were involved in the Dunblane massacre:

www.considerations-mag.com/articles.htm