I’m going to stay away from this Article because it’s very important that I don’t attempt to find evidence for my beliefs. In the sphere of “where does the preponderance of evidence lead me?” I’ll end up an atheist any day of the week, and my goal is not to find emperical truth but to become a believer in something coherent and spiritual, and without doing too much damage to my psyche. It’s a balancing act.
Those are angels balancing on a pinhead.
A probable straw man argument in and of itself but it nevertheless conveys my concerns about delving in too literally. Historical claims about the accuracy of astrological stuff in the Bible make me anxious because I have to pretend that my brain isnt throwing up flags like “but it was written after the astrological event.” So the literalist historical interpretations tend to derail me.
Does that seem in conflict with how I loved discussing astrology with the Catholics? Its true they were talking about historical accuracy but I was noting a story in Mathew I’ve never paid close enough attention to which went like this: “astrologers came looking for a Jewish messiah, having seen an astrological event which the locals on herrods staff hadn’t even noticed.” So I was like, ah, the writer is saying that non Jewish pagans showed up, following their intuitions and on the basis of some old prophesy probably, says the Christian writer (not sure who wrote Mathew, though people know), about a king of the Jews. They followed their intuition and showed up like “we saw a thing and we are here to see what it means.” That’s how I felt in that class because I’d found value in astrology and was like a stranger in a strange land saying, tell me what’s up.
In historical sense, if I wrote a gospel, I’d certainly be sure to pepper it with astrogical And Old Testament prophecy to make sure everybody knew the significance of Christ, whether or not I was inspired by god or my own desire to influence toward my beliefs. Just like when I talk about my star chart in the context of about 30% of it and ignore the rest. It’s beneficial for helping me or others understand what’s true about me.
So it doesn’t destroy claims of faith necessarily but too much apologetics or historical literalism is basically evidence for myself that I’m barking up the wrong tree. I wanna bark up a tree that has like, schrodinger squirrels in it.