The House Wars of Astrology

Recently I watched a video on astrological domification posted by Deborah Houlding, whose work I have followed and admired for many years. Deb expressed her concern that the current popularity of what are called “Whole Sign Houses” might interfere with the newer generation of astrologers being able to understand the conceptual underpinnings of mundane houses. Unfortunately, Deb was somewhat polemical and provocative in her presentation and at times made factually inaccurate statements, which her critics have pounced on rather than trying to understand the gist of her presentation. Nonetheless, I felt that Deb’s argument was worth pondering, and I posted a link to her video on my Facebook page.

The response to the link to Deb’s video was quite startling. I felt like a tourist visiting the Holy Land when the Crusades broke out. It was like being in the midst of a religious war with opposing cults battling each other to the death over whose dogma had God’s blessing. In any case, the back and forth discussion did produce several valuable statements and references, which I’d like to summarize.

My name became linked to the controversy because about 20 years ago I had translated Morin’s Book 18 from Latin to English and discovered, to my great surprise, that he sometimes used the relative position of the signs with respect to the rising sign to derive house-related meanings of position of planets in those signs. For example, a planet in the 8th house is determined toward death but if the planet lies in the 9th sign from the Ascendant, it is also determined toward activities in a foreign land. At first I did not want to believe that Morin treated signs in this way, but after finding many instances in his chart examples I had to concede that Morin sometimes read house significations from the signs in which they planets resided. Even today, however, I see comments in forums by otherwise learned astrologers that I must have misunderstood or mistranslated Morin because, in their opinion, he could not have used signs as houses, but none of these critics has carefully read or argued from Morin’s original Latin text in which he unequivocally states that signs can accidentally carry the significations of the houses. Personal bias dominates their thinking rather than the explicit words of Morinus.

Upon further reflection I realized that in my own experience I had noticed signs at times acting like houses. When I was first learning astrology in my teens I kept a journal of the planets conjoining my house cusps (Placidus at the time) and noticed that often an event related to the meaning of the house took place close to the conjunction with the cusp but also when the planet entered the sign on the house cusp. This seemed odd to me, but it occurred repeatedly. It was as if the planet conjoining the cusp of the Sign on the house cusp “triggered” an event related to the cusp of the house of the same Sign.

At the same time popular astrology was using whole signs as houses in newspaper forecasts. Since the astrologer did not know the birth times of millions of readers, he or she could cast a chart with the Sun sign rising and all the other signs acting as houses. Then, it was easy to forecast the month ahead for thousands of readers at a time if they shared the same sun sign. The modern use of Whole Sign Houses has been with us since the early days of pop astrology and sun-sign horoscopes in the press. Sophisticated astrologers tended to poo-poo sun-sign pop astrology based on Whole Sign Houses as not being genuine astrology, which requires a chart with an accurate birth time and quadrant houses that begin at the degree of the Ascendant.

One thing I learned from the postings on Facebook was that a similar controversy was going on in ancient Egypt between the pop or lay astrologers and the more sophisticated astrologers of the period. Chris Brennan, who has been a pioneer in teaching and promoting Hellenistic astrology, posted on my Facebook page the following images which quote about the Egyptian  “Vulgärastrologen,” from a German text by Koch and Knappich on the Houses, translated by Jenn Zahrt:

Reading this text by Knappich, a respected authority on the history of house systems, we see that in ancient Egypt the “lay” or pop astrologers were in “absolute rebellion” against the hard-ball nerdy mathematically-mined astrologers who were into precise astronomical calculations, ascensional times, the use of the cardines, etc. To me this sounds like the ancient Egyptian warring camps of astrologers were debating whether to use a quadrant system of house division or to use the whole signs as if they were houses (the “house-less manner” or the “sign equals house” method, according to Knappish and Koch) as do the sun-sign pop astrologers today. There appears to be no doubt historically that whole signs were used instead of what we now call Mundane Houses by a vocal group of pop astrologers in ancient Egypt. To be fair, these authors also state that “the oldest, actually “house-less manner” was used later also by learned astrologers like for example Palchos.” Unfortunately, I do not have this book and therefore cannot comment on how the authors develop their argument or what their final conclusion are toward the end of the book. My comments here are based solely on the passages provided to me by Chris Brennan.

Note in the passage by Koch and Knappich, which Chris Brennan posted on my Facebook page, how the authors go out of their way to call the use of whole signs as if they were Houses as a “house-less manner” of working with a chart or a “sign equals house” method, but they carefully avoid calling is a House system, and they never use the term “whole sign houses.” For those who read German, Chris also posted on my Facebook page the original German text by Knappich and Koch:

Michel Ibarra added some historical perspective to the debate: “For some needed perspective, there are 278 extant horoscopes from the 1st to the 6th century CE. Out of those, 32 note the degrees of the Ascendant and the Midheaven, 21 note the degree of the Ascendant only, and the remaining 225 only note the Sign of the Ascendant.” Michel noted that he arrived at these statistics in collaboration with Chris Brennan. Michel and Chris view these statistics as definitive proof that Valens and other early astrologers were using whole signs as houses. Deb Houlding, on the other hand, accepts these statistics as valid but argues that they are not necessarily proof of the use of whole sign houses. Instead, if I understand Deb correctly, she feels that these statistics reflect a shorthand way of describing a chart, in other words, essential features from which trained astrologers could generate a detailed chart, including mundane houses demarcated by specific zodiacal degrees.

No one disagrees with the statistics gathered by Chris Brennan about how ancient astrologers described their charts. The question is, what do those statistics imply? They could be interpreted as suggesting the use of signs as houses, as Chris sees it, or alternatively they could be interpreted as a shorthand which astrologers would use to generate a detailed chart, as Deb sees it.

Let me give a personal example. I first came across the charts of Palchos back in the 1980s when I read the book by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen. At that time I was unaware of the ancient use of signs as houses, so I assumed from by 20th century perspective that Palchos must have used one of the early quadrant systems, especially because he provided the degree of the MC in his text. Koch and Knappish make it a point that Palchos “inserted the true MC” into the chart, implying that the whole sign method does not reflect the “true” MC because it is a “house-less” method. With the data provided by Palchos, I reconstructed the chart with Porphyry houses, and the delineation of Palchos fit nicely into my 20th century quadrant-house view of the chart. Hence, I was surprised that Koch and Knappich stated that Palchos used only whole signs as houses. My point is that Chris saw the description by Palchos and concluded that it implied whole sign houses. I saw the same written text some 35 years ago and assumed that it implied Porphyry houses. The specifics of this particular chart are not the issue; rather, the issue is what you can or cannot definitely conclude from a written set of chart data about the house system which the author is using.

If, centuries from now, we were to look back on all the horoscopes mentioned in writing in the 20th century we would most likely find that sun-sign horoscopes with whole signs as houses dominated the astrological writings of the 20th century. They appear often in a large number of newspapers and magazines. What could we conclude about the modern practice of astrology from such statistics? Would it be reasonable to conclude that sun-sign pop astrology is the best practice of the celestial art? I write this not to disparage pop astrology but to point out that the use of whole signs as houses has pervaded the experience which most people have of astrology in the popular press.

Interestingly, one of the sources cited in the too-and-fro about astrological Houses was a recent academic article by Martin Gansten, an excellent astrologer and a respected academic expert on the topic. Here is an abstract of Gansten’s paper (bold is mine) in which he argues that the use of whole signs as houses was a matter of convenience (as with modern pop astrology in newspaper columns) but that the calculation of the cusps of the “places” by degree was considered the more accurate and useful way to do astrology by knowledgeable practitioners (which is essentially the argument that Deb Houlding makes in her polemical video):


“From the ancient practice, implied by many textual sources although never formally prescribed, of identifying the twelve horoscopic places (the δωδεκάτροπος dōdekatropos) with the zodiacal signs, recent scholarship has often concluded that such identification constituted a tenet of ancient astrology even at a conceptual level. On the basis of a close reading of Vettius Valens’ Anthologies, supported by other ancient sources, this paper argues that while the places, like other elements of horoscopic practice, were often provisionally approximated by sign position alone, calculation of places by degree, with boundaries differing from those of the zodiacal signs, was consistently upheld in principle as more accurate and useful. Specifically, Valens’ preference appears to have been for places calculated from the quadrants formed by the intersections of horizon and meridian, a method also occasionally used in the Anthologies for defining planetary configurations and for annual transmission (παράδοσις paradosis). In several cases, such methods are explicitly employed even for horoscopes presented in a simple, signs-only format.”

The 2022 paper by Molina Escolano-Poveda which describes three new ancient Egyptian horoscopes from the 1st century BCE appears to support Martin Gansten’s position, especially in their use of the 4 Angles (Cardines) in calculating the horoscope chart.

The 4th century astrologer Julius Firmicus Maternus is also in agreement with Gansten’s hypothesis. In the Matheosis (II:14, 3-4) we find the following explanation:

3 Platice vitae locus est in eo signo, in quo est horoscopus constitutus, spei vel pecuniae in secundo horoscopi signo, fratrum in tertio, parentum in quarto, filiorum in quinto, valitudinis in sexto, coniugis in septimo, mortis in octavo. Quae omnia initium ab horoscopo facientes hac nominum definitione signavimus: vitae spei fratrum parentum filiorum valitudinis coniugis mortis. 4 Sed haec, sicut superius diximus, platice ad informanda initia discentis dixisse sufficiat; postea vero, quatenus haec loca suptili partium definitione monstrantur, explicare curabimus.

Here is my quick translation: “Speaking in generalities, the Place of Life is in the sign in which the Horoskopos is found, of Hope and Money in the 2nd sign of the horoscope, of Siblings in the 3rd, of Parents in the 4th, of Children in the 5th, of Illness in the 6th, of Spouses in the 7th, and of Death in the 8th. All these things measured from the Horoskopos we have indicated with the defining names: life, hope & siblings, parents, children, illness, spouses, and death. But these things, as we have said above, are sufficient in a general way to introduce the ideas to the beginning student; later on [once the students are more advanced], we will carefully explain the extent to which the Places are defined precisely in degrees (suptili partium definitione).” — Firmicus Maternus

This passage from Maternus gives a valuable perspective. As a teacher, he began by introducing novice students to the signs as if they were houses. Later, after the students had gained some experience working with charts, he taught they how to use houses defined more precisely by particular degrees of the zodiac.

A recent YouTube video by David Cochrane gives a useful perspective on the issue of zodiac signs versus mundane houses in astrology. He visually demonstrates the astronomical difference between the ecliptic (the home of the zodiac signs) and the equator, upon which mundane houses are based. The use of whole signs as houses and of mundane quadrant houses are each well-established and widely used in the literature dating back to Hellenistic times. We ought to ponder what each technique has to offer rather than get involved in hostile diatribes about different methods of practice.

In a video on Chris Brennan’s Astrology Podcast, Luis Ribeiro explains the various methods of quadrant house division. This is the best lecture on domification I have seen in all my years studying astrology, and I highly recommend it.

In summary, as I understand the arguments, there appears to be no doubt that whole zodiacal signs were used in ancient Egypt in the manner in which we use mundane Houses today. Koch and Knappish called the oldest manner of using signs as houses “eigentlich häuser-lose” which means “in fact, house-less” and to my mind these authors view it as less sophisticated than the use of the mundane houses. The “sign = house” system was extremely popular among the group of lay or pop astrologers who revolted against the more rigorous mathematically and astronomically minded astrologers of the period who insisted on precise measurements and the use of cardines (the four Angles). Nonetheless, some quite learned ancient astrologers used whole signs as houses. Firmicus Maternus explains how he taught beginning students the “sign = house” manner of delineating chart to introduce them to the art and later, when the students became more advanced, he introduced houses defined more precisely by degrees of the zodiac. At least in this case a learned astrologer attempted to integrate the two systems in his method of teaching.

To rephrase Deb Houlding’s argument (I hope accurately): As modern astrologers, do we want to limit ourselves to ancient Egyptian pop astrology, similar to the sun-sign astrology of newspaper columns today, or do we want to become nerdy, more mathematically oriented astrologers who work from a sophisticated understanding of the 3-dimensional astronomy that underlies our art?

My own view is strongly influenced by my long study of the work of Morinus who advocated the use of quadrant houses based on the diurnal rotation of the Earth and the projection of the Earth’s Equator onto the Celestial Sphere. For theoretical reasons, I lean more toward Placidus than Regiomontanus, which is the system Morinus favored (partly because they made him look so intellectually superior in his own natal chart). Even Morin, however, at times used the zodiac signs in his delineations as being analogous to mundane houses, so he found a theoretically satisfactory way to combine the two distinct systems.

In the end, it will come down to the experience each astrologer has with a chosen house system. I lean toward the more nerdy approach to house division, but it may turn out that the simpler whole sign system works just as well, or even better, in practice with clients. I am grateful to Chris Brennan for teaching me about the whole sign system in Hellenistic astrology. I am also grateful to Deb Houlding for her teachings about the use of the Regiomontanus system in horary. Morinus also deserves recognition for demonstrating a way to combine quadrant houses (Regiomontanus) with the “sign = house” approach. The proof of the pudding, however, will always be in the eating.

About Anthony Louis

Author of books about astrology and tarot, including TAROT PLAIN AND SIMPLE, HORARY ASTROLOGY, and THE ART OF FORECASTING WITH SOLAR RETURNS.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The House Wars of Astrology

  1. Reblogged this on Advice Astrologer and commented:
    Excellent article about the house debate written by Anthony Louis

  2. Deborah Houlding says:

    Interesting post Tony, and I think a fair summary all-round. A recommendation link on Twitter just brought me here.
    Of course, the quote from Koch is showing a modern assessment not a historical report, but I don’t think there is any sensible dispute about the fact that the “lay-astrologer” would be using convenient techniques. That is the conclusion that Gansten draws in his paper too. In fact, I’ve just made a rather light-hearted comment myself on Twitter about how astrologers in ancient times might find the ascendant by throwing a stick in the air and watching where it lands – appeals to historical authority can get pretty futile in terms of recommended technique in practice.
    My interest is in drawing re-evaluation of the commentary and intent within well known historical works; to argue more strongly the evidence of the existence of quadrant systems -which was previously denied (or allowed, but only if you used the quadrants for strength matched with WS for meaning).
    Your paraphrase of my position is a little comical, but I’ll go along with that 🙂
    I do think the Morin situation is a big red-herring though. I noticed Margherita has given a good response to that point on Facebook, and I personally think Morin’s name should be dropped from all WS discussion (by virtue of how much he argued his preference and clearly despised the concept!)
    Thanks for bring sanity, balance and a little humour into a currently over-heated debate. I still have more to say on the issue, but I’ll save some stuff for another day … LOL

    • Michel says:

      The quote from Koch and Knappich *is* a historical report, and it’s laughably absurd to suggest otherwise. Koch and Palchus were not contemporaries.

  3. Michel says:

    Anthony, thank you very much for this witness account of what is going on. It has tremendous value. Also, I appreciate the citation, but I only updated Brennan’s survey of extant horoscopes with the three ostraca recovered from Athribis, nothing more.

    I do quibble with something that I think might be a misreading of Koch and Knappich. To you, “this sounds like the ancient Egyptian warring camps of astrologers were debating whether to use a quadrant system of house division or to use the whole signs as if they were houses as do the sun-sign pop astrologers today. There appears to be no doubt historicaly that whole signs were used as what we now call Houses by a vocal group of pop astrologers in ancient Egypt.”

    But according to them, the Sign=House method “was used later also by learned astrologers, like for example Palchos.” I don’t see the distinction between “pop” and more educated/sophisticated astrologers that you see regarding the structure of the Houses.

    You also wrote, “The 2022 paper by Molina Escolano-Poveda which describes three new ancient Egyptian horoscopes from the 1st century BCE appears to support Martin Gansten’s position, especially in their use of the 4 Angles (Cardines) in calculating the horoscope chart.”

    I’m sorry but the mere notation of the degree of the MC does not entail this was crucial to the construction of the Houses in any way, shape or form. Hellenistic astrologers who used zodiacal places also worked with the degree of the MC… as falling within a Place, not dividing two Places.

    Another reason to not accept this presumptions is that the ostraca from Athribis note a number of degree-based placements for lots and anti-lots, besides the Planets, obviously. Is their mere inclusion in those horoscopes suggestive that they were integral to the division of the Places? I don’t think so, not in the slightest.

    At the end of the German paragraph translated by Zhart, Koch himself points out that in one of the charts from Palchus the MC degree is noted but he still used WSHs.

    I understand the assumption that noting the degrees of the cardines might imply Quadrant-based Houses. I think that assumption is strained, far-fetched, even untenable.

    Gansten’s paper focuses on the Anthology, and he’s right to observe Valens may have initially calculated the planets more precisely, and then presented them without all the information in the examples… but then he draws the wrong conclusion from that.

    Even though Valens knew the degrees sometimes, he still thought the Whole-Sign placements had some fundamental interpretive value and included them in his explanation of each example, while completely omitting any mention of degrees in 97% of them.

    Otherwise, he wouldn’t have spent any time explaining how the Whole-Sign placements matched specific events in the lives of individuals. He would just delineate the events and omit referring to the WS placements. He did not extend the same consideration to intermediate cusps, which are never mentioned in his more than 130 examples.

    • Hi Michel,
      I have to disagree with your characterization in this sentence: “At the end of the German paragraph translated by Zhart, Koch himself points out that in one of the charts from Palchus the MC degree is noted but he still used WSHs.”
      In fact, Koch and Knappish call the system used by Palchus “the oldest, HOUSE-LESS manner” of viewing a chart. They go out of their was to state that it is NOT a house system, and is “in fact, house-less.” I checked the original German (eigentlich Häuser-los) and this is indeed what they are saying.
      It may be that later in the book they change their mind, but unfortunately I don’t have the book and can’t check.
      In other words, Palchus, in their opinion, is not using WSH (whole sign houses) but is instead using a system which does not have Houses at all (house-less). This is not a matter of my opinion; rather, it is what the text literally and explicitly states both in German and in the English translation.

    • Michel says:

      Hi Anthony. I think you have to reconcile this ‘house-less’ comment with the earlier statement in the same text:

      “[they] viewed the sign in which the Horoskopos resides as the 1st house, the next sign as the 2nd house, and so on. They equated signs and houses.”

      Koch is saying they didn’t use houses, but also that they treated the Signs as Houses. There is no way around this, it’s Whole-Sign Houses.

      Koch conceptualized the Houses in his own Quadrant-based way, hence the ‘house-less’ comment, but he also understood the function of the 12 Houses was seen as a property of the Signs.

      Moreover… note they are basing their work on Bouché-Leclercq’s “Astrologie Grecque” (1899), which also included the (wrong) conclusion that Greco-Roman Astrology did not have Houses.

  4. Lalia Wilson says:

    I’ve been a student and practitioner of astrology for more than fifty years. I’ve used different house systems during that time, but keep coming back to Placidus and the Whole Sign House system. My conclusion is that ALL these house systems work. Sincere and experienced astrologers strongly advocate, sometimes even fight, over their favorite system. But if a system did not work for that astrologer most likely they would not continue to use it. So if I use one system and you use another, and we both get results, then let’s be happy about it, not fight.

    With the major sign changes this (2023) spring of Saturn and Pluto, all of us can observe how this effects us and our clients. I’m betting that you will find that both systems work.

  5. Anthony I’m disappointed that you’ve chosen to mischaracterize what Koch and Knappich said in that quote I shared in my lecture, by leaving out their statement that it was not just the “lay” astrologers who used the whole sign house system, but that it “was used later also by learned astrologers” as well. I’m not sure why you are suddenly trying to characterize whole sign houses as simply some lower form of “pop astrology”, given that it was used in the example charts of very sophisticated and influential astrologers such as Dorotheus of Sidon, Vettius Valens, and Rhetorius, but that’s a very misleading and disappointing thing to say.

    Here is the link to the lecture that you got that slide from by the way, which I would appreciate a proper citation and link to in the body of your article if you are going to share a screenshot from it:

  6. eisforesme says:

    This is the understated quote of the decade which made me laugh so hard:

    “I felt like a tourist visiting the Holy Land when the Crusades broke out.”

  7. Russell H says:

    ”The proof of the pudding, however, will always be in the eating.”

    Currently no proof to support any of the ”eating”. This fact often gets overlooked!

  8. Kirk Little says:

    Thanks for posting this. The tribalism and nastiness has been depressing to witness and I am sure prevents many people from expressing their views. Your post provides a helpful overview and also shows how reasonable people can draw diametrically opposed conclusions from the same data. Unfortunately, the disproportionate response from Brennan suggests something else is going on , that has little to do with an objective search for the historical truth of Whole Sign Houses. Overkill comes to mind.

    • Chris Brennan is a scholarly astrologer and he has a lot to teach us. Right now, in the midst of the House Wars, my guess that he is feeling attacked and is acting in an defensive manner. My hope is that the tensions will lessen between the camps so we can all get back to learning more about astrology in a more dispassionate manner.
      The intensity of the animosity resembles a religious war more than a scientific debate. My own view is that no one has the truth and we are all struggling to achieve a better understanding. We are trying to reconstruct the distant past of astrology based on conjecture about various types of evidence. Obviously, we will have differing viewpoints about what the evidence supports, and we will always feel that ours is the best and the brightest take on the matter. Unfortunately, some astrologers view their approach with religious zeal, and a difference of opinion gets viewed in a paranoid way as an attack on all that is sacred.
      I’ve been using the religious wars metaphor to describe the current situation, but perhaps an more apt metaphor would be a WWF Superstars of Wrestling Championship Match.

  9. Deb says:

    Don’t worry Tony, it’s only Baby Brennan being petulant again. His secret mission was to include the link to his epic new production – he probably includes that YouTube link in all his email sign-offs now.
    But since his production features epic content taken from my copyrighted production, – without appropriate permission – I’m afraid I am going to need both him (and you – if you are going to feature his work, which is so heavily dependent upon his unauthorised reproduction of my ideas and content) to give proper citation to my work and plaster advertisements to it all over your content, including visible promotion of the link where my presentation can be found. (Seriously – doesn’t seem fair that everyone gets links to content here, except me).

    Chris will need to request permission in writing first, and wait for my response, which will come after hell has frozen over.

  10. Clinton Garrett Soule says:

    Anthony said respectfully:

    “Deb expressed her concern that the current popularity of what are called “Whole Sign Houses” might interfere with the newer generation of astrologers being able to understand the conceptual underpinnings of mundane houses. Unfortunately, Deb was somewhat polemical and provocative in her presentation and at times made factually inaccurate statements, which her critics have pounced on rather than trying to understand the gist of her presentation. Nonetheless, I felt that Deb’s argument was worth pondering, and I posted a link to her video on my Facebook page.”

    Anthony, first let me humbly apologize for NOT responding to your recent posts; your posts like many horary artists are always worthy. Lately my 6th house and Asc have been acting up as Kronus has been swinging hard his sickle delaying me from commenting on many of your worthy posts of which I hope more will respond to your great insights.

    First let me say, I have had many experiences with Lakota Wicasa Wakan(Holy Men) of which astrological lore was respected on both Pine Ridge and Cheyenne River Reservations in my distant past. And the same phenomena, or actions seem to come up, in that different tribes, nations and their respective Holy Men often fall into the ‘trap of drastic disagreements’, and many times they result in long term feuds which are Not very spiritual in regards to being a ninth house leader of any type.

    We also have noted through the centuries in Christianity as well as Islam, that divisions have surfaced such as Martin Luther versus Yohaness Kepler on the ‘Geocentric theory’, as well as Giordano Bruno versus the RC Church on his vision of the non-factual Helio-centric stance of both the Church and astrologers/astronomers of the era before Copernicus.

    Chris Brennan’s stance and rebuttal:

    “Deborah Houlding and Whole Sign House Denialism”

    Robert Hand also has an input on this:

    “Robert Hand Responds to Deborah Houlding”

    Demetra George voices her opinions:

    “Demetra George Responds to Whole Sign House Denialism”

    Anthony you showed the differences in various authorities opinions on this a while back:

    “Looking at one of Valens’ charts — WSH or Porphyry?”

    And like any 9th house belief, ‘the beat goes on’:

    Personalty, as both a Bible believing Christian and devout astrologer I find what a Priest told the flock during a Christian Bible study where all attendees believed in the scriptural validity of controversial topics like reincarnation. He stated ‘….when the early protestant zealous movements began the responses was “well you do it your way and we will do it His way” ‘. And I think many will agree, as far as believers of ‘Biblical persuasion’, whether Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or Islam, would it be less than kind to orthodox-like(Jupiter dogma) zealously persecute any 9th house belief of an individual in such a manner as to personally berate them upon a point no matter how false?

    Or should one love and accept various points of view and be thankful they study the heavens even when most know that quiet possibly many have uneducated opinions just as many Bible advocates do NOT understand this astrological insight by a former King of Israel:

    Psalm 19:1-6 NIV
    The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. 3 They have no speech, they use no words;no sound is heard from them. 4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun. 5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth.

  11. #JediDeb says:

    Thanks for starting up the video library Tony 🙂
    After posting the Vimeo link to my own recording here, I realised why so many astrologers were unable to play it. So I’ve put it up on YouTube now, to allow my thoughts to be aired without the need for that ventriloquist.
    BTW, I’ve started proceedings to claim rights to the subject of “astrological houses” and to prevent others from using those two words together without my permission (having been inspired by what has been done with “Hellenistic astrology”).
    I’m going to let this article pass Tony, but be careful — you’re sailing close to the wind using phrases like “astrological domification”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s