None of my astrological friends supports the anti-astrological views of some people here

The League of super-astrological friends

yuzuru wrote:

None of my astrological friends supports the anti-astrological views of some people here

The League of super-astrological friends

Not really, they are very normal people with very clear minds, nothing "super" or "supernatural" as the powers that some ignorant people want to attribute to astrology.

Sonia

You are so funny, Soniah!


I hope you and your friends can create a regulation to help defend the standards of true scientific astrology!

soniah wrote:
It is hard to find a true astrologer nowadays, without standard professional accreditation everybody can call themselves "a professional astrologer" after read some obscure old astrological texts and do a few birth charts for friends, even there are many that have not idea at all of what truly astrology is and they never made a birth chart but buid up their business online, astrology scams are one of the most prevalent of the internet according to the FBI:

This is not far from truth, even if I'm not sure that Gauquelin is the litmus (how do you say in English?)

Maybe because in Italy we are skeptical about "experts" but I see many experts which are really very far from what I call expertise.

Not later that this morning I read a traditional astrologer quite known in the astrological world writing that Audrey Hepburn Venus

http://bit.ly/dlPdqU

invisible, retrograde, matutine, in detriment in Aries, below the horizon in a night chart was her passport for fortune and career.

And the same astrologer will sell his courses to poor students and will publish his books and write in his blog.

I agree that some rules, a quality check is necessary. Unfortunately it's not possible to trust honesty, because it seems it's not a common rule.

margherita

None of my astrological friends supports the anti-astrological views of some people here, in fact I think that there are some skeptics dressed up as "astrologers" here with an agenda behind, not to mention the business agenda of others.

Why are you seeking to undermine the professional integrity of astrologers contributing to this thread who disagree with your point of view (which is most of them)?

Bill wrote:
Why are you seeking to undermine the professional integrity of astrologers contributing to this thread who disagree with your point of view (which is most of them)?

But Sonia is not wrong in some points. A rule is needed. (how and which I don't know)

Because here the first one can rise and says his/her opinion and others should say nothing, like modern astrology.

In the case Audrey Hepburn Venus, which is an evident example for me- who studied with CieloeTerra- a matutine Venus (retrograde) hardly can signify profession because of the famous epycycle which Deborah Houlding considers so important too (I'm happy to see it is not so just for Cieloeterra), but the well known expert states the contrary and teaches this.
Well, Venus should be necessarily right or left around the Sun, so one of the versions is wrong.

Or like the recent case of Frawley' Saturn we discussed here a week ago.

I think there is a problem to find some foundation, some common ground, we cannot accept everything. In every case I'm not interested in repeating the experience I had with modern astrology.

margherita

soniah wrote: A professional regulation of Astrology is of paramount importance in this current times of so much astrological crap floating in the air, especially in yours...

I've heard this from several people over the years. It's always from modern and "scientific" minded astrologers.

I am traditional astrologer. I don't use any modern techniques. I even do astrological magic and make daily prayers to the planetary ruler of the day. My business and interest is to predict and help people using traditional techniques and thought systems.

Does this make me ineligible for these hypothetical astrological organizations?

I've deleted Sonia's last post (to which Mithra6 refers) as it seemed unnecessarily judgemental and intolerant of others' views. The thread will be locked for a couple of days to let people cool down, but Mithra has raised a question that deserves to be considered, and there have been a number of really interesting contributions to the thread up till this point, so it will be unlocked again shortly.
Garry

Those interested in Sonia's ideas can still read them here:

http://tiny.cc/9kvvt

where she re-appeared under a different name and nationality.

Juan

What can one say after that?

A throll is always a throll.

yuzuru wrote:What can one say after that?

A throll is always a throll.

Troll you mean?
But Ray Murphy,who replied to her seems to have hit on something.
As trologers with Moon in 10th house, Sun in Aquarius etc

''Is it not possible that a small group of well informed, experienced astrologers, who understand the scientific angles and have sensitivity to the cultural problems, could now work on creating a new definition ? one that allows for an astrologer to give a ?correct reading on the wrong chart? without necessarily making a mockery of what astrology claims to be, and which explains that all generic systems of astrology have inbuilt flaws but can still be useful as an integrated system.''


I think Deb nails it in the above.

However unless I'm missing something I think Juan and Bill are making a mockery of Astrology, and fail to see how they can't avoid doing so once you remove the religion/belief from it.