posted February 07, 2006 06:45 PM            

As far as someone I'm dating, I ask the sign within the first few hours of knowing them, so if they want to think me a freak I'll let them right off the bat.

You know what's interesting, though, is what I've found at work lately. I've gotten a Sag and an Aries curiosity piqued as far as Astrology. They think I'm a little weird for asking their birthday, but once they say it I tell them their sign and let them know that I'm into Astrology. I guess the natural reaction is to ask what I know about that sign, so I tell them. Then they start to realize how it all seems to fit and they want to know more. The Sag even went to astro.com by himself to see what it had to say. So don't think that it's TOO weird. You may just fascinate someone.

posted February 07, 2006 07:34 PM              

In our family (extended family that is) we all know our birth times so I have the whole lot kind of sussed.

With friends, I've just asked out of curiosity. This is easier on actual birthdays because you can reasonably ask: "so what time of day were you actually born?" without arousing too much suspicion (if you want to avoid looking like an astro nut )

posted February 08, 2006 11:09 AM              

Ex:
"I was born at 9:43 at night...I think that's why I'm a night person."
"Oh! I was born at like 6:10 in the morning...and I do get up pretty early, come to think of it..."
For some reason many people throw in their exact birthtime, not just a round-a-bout guess.

posted February 08, 2006 01:40 PM            

Its kind of a moral/ethical dilemma for me, as well. I get around it,most of the time, by telling myself that, if I were to wait to judge all things according to my immediate experience of them, then, astrology, and any intuitive and/or intellectual means of trying to aquire foreknowledge of ourselves, eachother, and our world, would be useless to me. I'd have to live by blind faith, and agree to be as helpless as any ignoramous, closing my eyes, ears, and mouth to the slightest foreshadow of trouble. Maybe this is a spiritual ideal to be sought, after all, but I am no holy fool, to rush in where angels fear to tread.

I dont particularly like the idea of pre-concieving notions about people, good or bad, but, life is short, and the pitfalls are many. I dont like writing people off, or giving them two strikes to begin with, but, lets face it, I'm not here to take ridiculous chances based on my open-mindedness about every tom, dick, and harriet, and I dont think I should be expected (or expect myself) to do so. I think, rather, that, the extent to which I am considering involving myself with another person, entitles me to pursue knowledge (even a knowledge of probabilities) concerning them.

Hi SweetCappie,

I dont expect you to read this,
but your last post brought up some thoughts,
and I directed them (ostensibly) to you.

I dont believe everyone has freewill, and, if I did, I think that would just make it easier to judge them. I could then hold them ultimately responsible for, let's say, the amount of warmth or coldness, or wisdom or ignorance they possess and exude. As it is, I think there are natural and necessary REASONS for why we are (or choose to be) certain things, and the reason I cannot consciously judge someone, is because I believe that they acted in accordance with universal law. I do not think a warm heart can fail to give warmth, or a cold heart chills. Likewise, I dont think a man can act ignorantly in an area in which he possesses wisdom, nor can a man act wisely in an area in which he is ignorant. Having given it some consideration, it does not strike me as a reasonable proposition, however popular the belief in it may be. Hence, I reject the notion of free will, not by choice, but, for a definite reason; because it does not make sense to me. Reason makes sense to me. If free will is a reality, it is a reality which can only be intuited, and not supported by use of the intellect.

I think all things are ordained by God, so to speak. I think there is a hierarchy of wills in the spiritual universe, and, to the extent that we are operating from the level of our personal egos, we are not at the summit. To imagine that I have free will would be, as I understand it, to imagine that I am omnipotent and omniscient, otherwise, wouldn't my behavior be determined by the level of knowledge and power I possess? So, it seems reasonable to conclude that, if we are to believe in free will, we ought to believe that we, as individuals, are all omniscient and omnipotent beings. This may be the intuitive reality, but, as I have said, it is not intellectually supported.

I do not deny that, at some very real level, I am one with the Infinite Will, but, as I percieve it, this would suggest that my will is determined by God's, not that my will determines the will of God. I think that observance of the former is what was once called humility, while observance of the latter is what was once called hubris.

I think there have been individuals who attained a level of self-mastery that allowed them to transcend themselves (and I think its almost certain that this potential would be strongly highlighted in the birthchart!), and become direct channels for the higher will of God. In a sense, they were then able to direct the will of God, but, only because they were united with God in Spirit, and, so, their purposes were not divergent from that will. So, while, on a certain level, I think it makes sense to say that we are all gods, there is no difference, etc., on another level, I think that someone like Jesus or Buddha had a right to claim authority, and to identify themselves with the power of the one and only truly free and divine will, while, someone like myself, if I claimed free will, would be "taking the lord's name in vain," because I would be making myself one with God, on the physical level of manifestation, while I am only really one with God (at this point in my karmic evolution) on a deeper, spiritual level.

On the other hand, we come to the question of co-creation. What is, and what appears to be, may be closer than we know (or, only as close as we know -- hmm...). Perhaps, by repeating to ourselves, words like "I have free will," or, "I am united with the power and wisdom of God," we can manfiest this as a reality in our lives. Perhaps, simply by affirming such things to ourselves and eachother, we can tap into and access a divine level of wisdom and power. But, I dont think this is a short-cut on the path of karmic evolution; I think it implies that much development has gone before, in order to get us to the point where we are willing to let go of what appears to be, and begin to create what is (or what will be) by the application of our imaginations/wills. To conclude that everyone is capable of doing the same, simply because we ourselves, or someone we know or heard about, can do it, without having been prepared by karma/destiny/fate, seems illogical to me. "Can a man reap what he has not sown?" Again, this is not to say that it is not intuitive. It may be true, but it is unsupported by the nature of appearances, and any inferences we can make about that nature based on the application of logic alone.

posted February 08, 2006 02:43 PM              

Heart-Shaped Cross: Interesting debate. I wasn't thinking of the term "free-will" as in how you stated it. I guess I should've thought of a different term to use. What I meant by the term free-will is human beings have the ABILITY to make their own decisions. In this lifetime we have many choices to make (where to work, what to wear, who to call, etc), whether fate or something else is shaping those choices is something I rather not debate because it is all very subjective to one's beliefs.

posted February 08, 2006 11:04 PM            

Noreenz,
How did I not think of going to the county courthouse? Wow, that's such an obvious thing cause almost everyone I know was born at one of 3 hospitals within miles of each other. I wonder if that holds true in every state...? I must look more into that. Thanks so very much for the great idea!

Love and light,

posted February 13, 2006 01:52 AM            

My Sag friend with a Scorpio Ascendant just called (at like 10:20 tonight) asking for that first site I linked him to. Actually, I'm pretty certain it's the only site I linked him to. I told him it was astro.com. He's apparently got a new female friend who's a Taurus. Pretty cool that he wants to see her chart, huh?

I, of course, gave him a quick frame of reference by telling him about a mutual Navy buddy of ours who is a Taurus himself. He asked if Mike was fairly representative of Taurus'. I told him that when I was reading about Taurus' everything sounded like Mike, so I called him up and sure enough he was a Taurus. It was one of the first things outside of the accuracy of my own sign that pointed toward astrology being accurate.

Then I asked my Sag friend if he remembers how he had a few planets in the second house, and how that dealt with money and security. He said he did. I told him that the second house is ruled by Taurus, which he found very interesting. I told him that Taurus' generally do fairly well financially (big concern of his after being with a lazy Capricorn).