Talk:Christianity and astrology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

This is not OR. Many books on astrology will confirm this. I hope that page is not deleted. Please discuss first if you have any strong objections to it. SmokeyTheCat 09:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to cite some sources though, so for the time being I've tagged the article as unreferenced and OR. At first I was considering sending this to AfD because at present it does appear to be entirely original research ("original research" doesn't necessarily mean it is your original research), but I can see a case for this becoming a worthwhile article about the compatibility of religion and astrology. I would be wary of basing every claim made on writings in astrology books; there needs to be balance with writings from theologians, biblical historians, etc. (even a fairly perfunctory search on Google Books[1] turns up some interesting material that can be considered reliable sources). ~Matticus TC 09:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information Matticus. When please does "original research" become unoriginal enough to be worthy of inclusion? I will try and find a link or two to give the article more credibility. Thanks for not deleting it immediately.SmokeyTheCat 15:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not always a strictly black-and-white thing so is open to debate, and the merits of each source should be looked at individually. "Reliable sources" are described in more detail at WP:RS - a book or paper by a published, respected theologian, historian, sociologist, etc. makes for good reference material. Astrology books as references could be problematic as I can see editors potentially labelling any modern work that promotes astrology as compatible with Christianity as pushing their (the author's) own agenda or being a "fringe theory", but this can be tackled by writing the article carefully (instead of just writing "These four zodiac signs correspond to the four gospels" as a raw fact, say "In Bloggs and Smith's paper they suggest that these four zodiac signs...", and if possible provide several sources to support the statement or even other sources that dispute it).
If you look at Wikipedia's article about Astrology, in the external links section there are several good references covering the relationships between religion and astrology, and the Google Books search I mentioned before also seems to turn up some good reference material (take a look at these sections in Hellenism, Judaism, Christianity: Essays on Their Interaction and The First Christian Histories for starters). If you base the article on these and other reliable sources, you should be able to put together a good, balanced article that I'm sure no serious Wikipedia contributor could object to.
Anyway, that's just to get you started. I doubt I will be contributing much to the article directly because I'm not all that au fait with astrology, but I do know my way around Wikipedia's policies and citiation conventions, so if you have any questions you are welcome to drop me a message on my talk page and I'll try to lend a hand. ~Matticus TC 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Header

Header needs a complete rewrite.

I especially object to saying "astrology receives only fringe support from modern society". Something like a third (or two thirds, I forget the exact number) of londoners believe in astrology. PyroGamer 16:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • PyroGamer: Okay, granted those are certainly non-sourced statements in the header. But introductory paragraphs don't often use references in such places. The thing to remember, which is often ignored on the Wikipedia, is that there are words in blue... links to other articles. I believe the debate over what astrology is belongs on the talk page for astrology in this case. After all, there are some good references in the astrology article (6 and 7) which are typical of the hostility of the scientific community against astrology. The header only describes this as being a common, mundane eye-opened view of reality in our society: it is widely called pseudoscience, like it or not, POV or not, newspaper articles or not. And so... why repeat here the references in the astrology article? Go there. It is the first link! Astrology seems to be the issue with you, not the Christianity part.
  • Furthermore, some of these "unsourced statements" are directly related to the content which follows from the Catholic Encyclopedia. So obviously by the turn of the twentieth century, astrology had been through a few cycles of popularity and scientific attack. The important part of this article is not SCIENCE vs. astrology.... it should be RELIGION vs. astrology. You should make your focus that aspect, research it, and report on it here. (Or, rather, make it RELIGION plus astrology, with your documentation to support that.) Will you please ignore me? 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This needs a whole bunch of work

Below is pasted what used to be under the heading, "Astrology within the Bible" in the article. I yanked it out.

  1. This stuff is not within the Bible.
  2. If those links are supposed to be references, they need to be made into references so it fits with the normal method used in wikipedia. However, those links do not seem to be scholarly, but they may work if they aren't blatantly commercial.
  3. What I feel is lacking is how to jump from a discussion on the magi, who are astrologers, to discussing the Zodiac signs of the writers. That is a major gear switch... there is no similarity to the rest of the article. I am not sure what the zodiac symbols of the books or writers has to do with this, but I am not saying it can't fit in.
  4. Further, this entire section needs work done in linking, grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and an entire rewrite.
  5. The POV must be tainted, because it makes no sense. What an Ox or Aquarius has to do with the Bible is not explained even half-heartedly. The links provided discuss Mark as a man and Matthew as a lion and are of what I consider poor quality because they didn't explain much.

This is a mess, so I have removed it to this place. Please work on it, research and write it better, and connect it with the main article if you can -- just do better than the current transition word "Also" that forces the reader to engulf quite a dramatic change in POV and cohesion with four letters and no help from even one cross-reference to a wiki article, picture, or category. I like to saw logs! 08:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also from the earliest times the four evangelists of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have had symbols associated with them: Matthew is a Man; Mark a Lion; Luke an Ox and John an Eagle. These correspond to the four 'winds' of Aquarius ( a man carrying water ), Leo, Taurus and Scorpio with an eagle replacing the biblically unpopular scorpion. (The constellation of the Eagle is close to that of the Scorpion in the sky.)[2][3] Furthermore - intentional or otherwise - the Gospels are full of astrological symbols; There a virgin (Virgo); many fishes (Pisces); two of the disciples are twins (Gemini); the sacrificial goat (Capricorn, Jesus's own sign given Christmas day); Cancer, the sideways-walking traitor of Judas etc.
This shows what I am on about. http://catholic-resources.org/Art/Evangelists_Symbols.htm

Fairly uncontroversial. Would anyone object if I added this bit back into the article?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, did yo notice that the above link doesn't use the word "astrology" in it, nor does it seem to talk about astrology at all. You remember the name of the article? You seem to be looking at symbology and not astrology. You might need to come up with some sources and rethink and rewrite. Bad idea otherwise. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What we need

This article has needed this for awhile... the counterpoint to the "positive" portrayal of magi... things in the Bible which are against astrology. The Book of Revelation is said to use astrological terms. There are numerous astrological allusions in the OT which could be included, too. There is also Abraham, whom the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions was the inventor of astronomy. There are also some quasi-Christian organizations which use astrology in certain ways. I like to saw logs! 08:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)