The notion that Christianity and astrology can be conflated would require a series of posts because the literature on both is immense and the two camps never meet, it was a big thing in mediaeval times.
On another topic, a rightwinger might say that coercive policies which involve a govt taking what is rightfully a nest egg built up by a private citizen, according to agreed rules, on the whim of a bunch of leftists, to satisfy some constructed Narrative – is just communism, it comes to the same thing in the end – communitarianism, socialism, democratic socialism, whatever – same thing, proposed by the same sorts of people.
In that case, he is certainly conflating the intent of the world views – they all come down to dispossessing the individual for some common purpose.
The reason Christianity cannot be conflated with astrology is that the former is based on contrition, atonement and redemption, not to mention faith, hope and charity, whilst the latter is an attempt to explain the universe in terms of star and planetary systems as perceived from earth and that these carry weight in terms, for example, of people’s personalities and futures.
I, personally, have nothing to say on it, it seems to me something for God to sort out with the sensory apparatus He has, not something for me to pronounce on.
There are just two points I would make. First is that there are things which can be conflated in terms of their ultimate intent … and things which cannot … there are thrusts which are inimical to one another, their ultimate intent is destructive to the other.
The second question is how far necromancy, the philosopher’s stone, amulets and those things are related to astrology and how far not at all. Also, were the Magi astrologers? Because that notion is an attempt to eat at the foundation of the other.
Which brings me to what Andy wrote, slightly abridged here:
The commune-ism of Düül attracted me to some extent in my youth. The BM involvement put me off but that didn’t last long with the advent of Düül II. Then along came their album which name I shall not put here in case there are Latin speakers among us. It made me pause. At that time I was a Church-goer, my vicar told me not to be silly, he didn’t see it as blasphemous. The music is good, still good. I hear echoes of their sound in so much rock/pop even today.
In my sixth form there were the Tamla crowd, the reggae bwahs, the Elvis lovers, and the acid rockers. The latter group divided into various sub sects. I belonged to a sub sect of one. Although I did like Hawkwind. Only lately appreciating Syd Barrett and others, too many to mention. Zappa and Beefheart also formed a large part of my vinyl collection.
To enjoy music is to be moved emotionally. Rock lifts me. I cannot listen to The Strawbs’ Brave New World without being moved close to tears. Is that because I’m growing old?
I’d say the vicar was wrong in that, because it’s one thing living in a commune – some see it like an Israeli kibbutz with lots of happy, dispossessed people but I see it more as Di Caprio’s The Beach – it’s one thing that being your utopian world view, love everyone, hug trees, do good … and another thing entirely getting into what Taylor Swift has, let alone Zeppelin, Black Sabbath etc.
And that thing happens because of portals. I’ve quoted Poirot before on that in Death on the Nile when he advised Jacqueline not to open her heart to evil, because it would enter and make its home there. Ephesians 6:12 onwards is far more gung ho on the matter, far more reactive.
It comes down to what you make your god – money, sex, power, whatever and it needs no Christian to see that. One thing those more on the right, politically, agree is we refuse to let the State become our god – no way known. I know some people who won’t let family dictate to them.
So each of us is in this position of deciding, as adults, something now denied children because of the egregious leftist teachers and parents, and that is – who’s our god we’re in thrall to? And that’s a quite vital question for each person because it can lead to wellbeing or it can lead to self-destruction.
Amon Duul began as but then went far beyond the notion of commune and started directly attacking the trappings of Christianity or more precisely, Catholicism.
And my question is why? Why also, when Moses went away for awhile, did he come back and find them all Baal’s little devotees? Why did the commune in The Beach turn so pitiless and evil? Why did the kids in Lord of the Flies turn into what they did? There seem some blind people, even among my friends, who’d say w-e-e-e-l-l-l, it’s just human nature, innit? Oh my goodness – is it? You really think that? You think there is no external force using portals?
And why, in every case, does the one try to destroy the other, instead of coexisting? The word inimical comes into it over and over again. Why, once you start down the drugs and hedonism path, does it always end up the same? I saw a video yesterday on Tommy Morrison who went the same way and died young. He looked awful just before the end.
To me, it’s just stupid not to recognise an enemy, it’s like the Eloi hanging about singing kumbaya, waiting for the Morlocks to come and pick them off – it just sounds insane to me. It’s like most people in the country sitting around waiting to be picked off by the enemy pouring in, chanting the mantra that there is no problem … when there bloody well is.
Coming back to what Andy wrote – should we then not listen to Zeppelin or Amon Duul for the music? Does the devil have all the best tunes? The vicar said it was fine. Music is music.
Moving on, I saw an article about churches folding in the southern bible belt in the States and if they had stuck to the Word, those pews would no way be empty today.
I know someone, and i could lump in the character Hugh in the book too, who believes in God, is basically Christian, but quietly reserves the right not to get too deeply into Matthew Chapters 5 to 7 because the notion of fidelity and sticking to one woman, marrying her, doesn’t fit his lifestyle. How many so-called Christians reserve the right to waive certain parts which don’t suit?
Is there not a certain hypocrisy in that? That’s what happened with all the different offshoots of the leftist ideal, the Marxism. The whole idea of revisionism, because it doesn’t suit one’s plans, comes into those trying to bring down the Constitution in the States – live at this very moment.
To conclude, I think what I’m trying to get at here is that there is some thinking which is healthy and results in better knowledge and perspective but there is other thinking which opens portals and can only lead to a march through institutions which have served well and the alternative – meaning the destruction of those institutions – can only lead to chaos, lawlessness and misery as rule by Might once again asserts itself.
We come right back to Man for All Seasons again and Thomas More’s trust in the Law. By the way, should we even be looking at that play if it brings things into question?