Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Thrown Out of the Potter's House

Expand Messages
  • kenhaining777
    Natasha said: [When I was talking to him, he quickly changed the subject by diverting my attention and started telling me all my faults . One, how did he know
    Message 1 of 21 , Dec 1, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Natasha said:

      [When I was talking to him, he quickly changed the
      subject by diverting my attention and started telling me all
      my 'faults'. One, how did he know this stuff?; two, it wasn't even
      true; and thirdly, what the hell did it have to do with anything?? He
      caught me off guard. I was so stunned I couldn't speak. I stared at
      him slack jawed until he finished his diatribe, and then I turned
      heel and walked away. I ended up obeying the 'pastor's' edict even
      though I didn't agree with it and having immediately regretted
      seeking his counsel.]

      Which pastor was it?

      You were judged before you got to the pastor's office.  There was no intention of letting you speak your side of the situation.  The purpose was to dissuade you from taking money from someone who was giving money to the church, and who might leave the church if you pursued legal action against him.  It was also the pastor doing the usual: exalting himself and fulfilling his massive ego.

      Imagine a woman going to her pastor to report that one of the men in the church had raped her the night before.  Imagine the pastor, whom she totally trusted, telling her not to say anything to anyone, and that he would take care of it.  Imagine when the pastor talked to the accused rapist and he tells the pastor, "Naw, she was into it," and the pastor totally believing him.  Imagine the pastor not even bothering to call the police to take a report.  You don't have to imagine, because it happened.  Total breach of the law with the pastor exalting himself to take the place of the entire justice system.  After all, he is "God's man." 

      Shalom




    • Darren Smith
      Message 2 of 21 , Dec 1, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        <Luckily, another brother helped me out so that I wasn't out of pocket
        as much (no thanks to the 'pastor'). The 'pastor' really showed no
        concern for my situation and just expected me to get over it. And no,
        God didn't magically fix everything.>

        Thats the same place where submission to "headship" is demanded.
        Somehow its righteous to submit to a "ruling" that you strongly
        disagree with. Bare in mind, its not a qualification of fellowship
        leadership to be what the bible would describe as an impartial
        christian judge. A fellowship pastor doesn't even have to qualify by
        christian virtue but just through agreement by being a "fellowship
        man". Its a well known fact that the majority of fellowship pastors
        when they are first sent out admit they didn't know the bible that
        well at all. Some fellowship pastors joke how they thought that
        maybe they taught "false doctrine" in the early days. These are the
        so called "spiritual" giants you are demanded to submit to, they
        can't even judge their own life let alone anyone else.

        As I said before, questioning your pastor or taking your "issues"
        regarding your pastor through the headship channel does not result in
        a "fair hearing" at any stage. The only "judgement" to be made is
        whether or not your behaviour is conducive to the fellowship and
        whether or not your complaint complies with fellowship protocol or
        against. A ruling has nothing to do with righteousness, fairness or
        grace. Most times the pastor is too blind to admit fault (he always
        has a bible reason to be a jerk) and taking a complaint through to
        the "headship" above your pastor is nothing more than talking to your
        pastor's buddy about him behind his back.

        Darren
        --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, theprincessa181
        <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        > Thanks, George and Ken. That makes so much sense.
        > So, basically the bottom line is is that the poor, ignorant schmuck
        > in the pew has no rights and is screwed - or so he is taught.
        Wayman
        > O-My-God has all his bases covered. He's covered his arse faster
        than
        > the new guy in prison.
        >
        > This has reminded me of a time I wanted to take legal action
        against
        > a brother. I was mad as a hornet and I was desperately trying to
        find
        > legal advice. However it was over the Christmas period and no one
        was
        > available for a few weeks. My 'friend' pushed me to speak
        > to 'pastor'. By this stage I was no longer baying for his blood, so
        I
        > agreed. The 'pastor' persuaded me not to take action against this
        > brother's business. His way of sorting it out wasn't to mediate
        > between me and this guy and come to some kind of compromise, it was
        > to just shut me up. When I was talking to him, he quickly changed
        the
        > subject by diverting my attention and started telling me all
        > my 'faults'. One, how did he know this stuff?; two, it wasn't even
        > true; and thirdly, what the hell did it have to do with anything??
        He
        > caught me off guard. I was so stunned I couldn't speak. I stared at
        > him slack jawed until he finished his diatribe, and then I turned
        > heel and walked away. I ended up obeying the 'pastor's' edict even
        > though I didn't agree with it and having immediately regretted
        > seeking his counsel.
        > I realised after I left PH, that the 'pastor' had
        this 'information'
        > on me because my 'friend' would regularly bag me to him and by
        > pushing me to see him she wanted him to chew me out - which he
        > promptly obliged without getting my side of the story. It just
        shows
        > how biased 'headship' really is when it suits their purposes.
        > Luckily, another brother helped me out so that I wasn't out of
        pocket
        > as much (no thanks to the 'pastor'). The 'pastor' really showed no
        > concern for my situation and just expected me to get over it. And
        no,
        > God didn't magically fix everything.
        >
        >
        > --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, kenhaining777
        > <no_reply@> wrote:
        > >
        > > [Don't have much time (it's past 1.20 a.m.). The reason why here
        in
        > > Australia an action of kind Ken described is not possible is that
        > the
        > > local pastors do not let people become members of the church. The
        > > Potters House church here is a strange "association of members" –
        > > without members! It is only a bunch of pastors and their adult
        > family
        > > members who are officially members of each other's "association of
        > > members".
        > >
        > > As I said before, I was lucky to just having been thrown out
        rather
        > > than having been "dismembered" if I were a member. There are two
        > sides
        > > to a coin...;^)
        > >
        > > shalom
        > > george]
        > >
        > >
        > > Back in the old days, they used to say that when people asked
        about
        > > church membership, the response would be, "If you tithe, you are a
        > > member."
        > >
        > > Thinking about that, I have to wonder, if you tithed, but never
        > showed
        > > up for church, would you still be a member? I suppose so. But if
        > you
        > > showed up and didn't tithe, well, that's a different story.
        > >
        > > Whether there is a membership or not, anyone who donates money
        has
        > the
        > > right to demand how the money was spent, at least here in the
        U.S.
        > And
        > > since the leadership insists that people tithe in a manner where
        it
        > can
        > > be tracked, i.e., by check or with a filled out envelope, they
        have
        > left
        > > a paper trail. They are required by law to hand out receipts for
        > > donations by the end of January of every year. So, by January
        31st
        > of
        > > 2009, all those who gave money by check or in filled out envelopes
        > > should have a receipt for what they gave for the year of 2008.
        > That's
        > > enough to have some real legal leverage.
        > >
        > > Also the idea of throwing someone out of the church if there is no
        > > membership is rather bizarre. Generally they have some kind of
        > > literature that says, "All Visitors Welcome," and if there is no
        > > membership, then everyone is a visitor except the pastor and his
        > > "council." If they take a vote to elect church council members,
        > then
        > > who is voting? Visitors? If someone is allowed to vote in a
        church
        > > election, then they would have to be considered a member of the
        > church,
        > > right?
        > >
        > > You can have churches without membership in the United States.
        In
        > that
        > > case, people just come and go as they please. Once again,
        however,
        > the
        > > fellowship tries to have both an officially non membership
        church,
        > and
        > > the right excommunicate "members." Some fellowship churches in
        the
        > U.S.
        > > did have people fill out membership forms, etc. But these guys
        are
        > so
        > > legally inept, and most can't afford a lawyer, so that they have
        a
        > very
        > > questionable organization.
        > >
        > > One of the constants in all of this is that someone who donated
        > money
        > > can demand a real accounting. Another constant is that you can
        > demand
        > > in writing why you are not allowed on church property. My
        > impression is
        > > that it has been advised if someone refuses to be thrown out,
        that
        > is
        > > when they go to a restraining order. But here's something
        > interesting.
        > > If the restraining order states that the excommunicated member is
        > > forbidden from contacting members of the church, and there is no
        > > membership, then you can call whoever you want. If you are
        > confronted
        > > by the police, you can point out that the church has no official
        > > membership. These are just people who hang out there.
        > >
        > > Once again, however, I would just contact a lawyer and see about
        > getting
        > > your tithes and offerings returned. Why should they take your
        > money,
        > > and then throw you out of the church? Fair is fair. If you are
        not
        > > allowed to attend a church that you financially supported, then
        you
        > are
        > > entitled to your money back.
        > >
        > > It would be nice to see some who were thrown out of their own
        > church,
        > > which they labored in, and supported with massive funds, turn
        > around and
        > > demand their tithes offerings back. Once someone won such a
        case, a
        > > precedent would be set. That would be very cool.
        > >
        > > Shalom
        > >
        >
      • Paulmp
        Hmmm. a good lawyer would be able to defend them on the terms of it being illegal to disrupt a religious gathering or meeting in Australia.. I m not saying
        Message 3 of 21 , Dec 1, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hmmm. a good lawyer would be able to defend them on the terms of it being illegal to disrupt a religious gathering or meeting in Australia.. I'm not saying that you were going off in church.. but that is the most likely defense they would use.

          - paul

          --- On Mon, 1/12/08, potkonyak <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
          From: potkonyak <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: [Escape_from_the_Fellowship] Re: Thrown Out of the Potter's House
          To: Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com
          Received: Monday, 1 December, 2008, 1:25 AM

          Ken wrote:
          [I am sure George, with his superior legal knowledge, can add clarity
          to this, and correct me if I am wrong. I do know that there have been
          cases of people being thrown out of a church, and they did a successful
          lawsuit against the church.]

          Don't have much time (it's past 1.20 a.m.). The reason why here in
          Australia an action of kind Ken described is not possible is that the
          local pastors do not let people become members of the church. The
          Potters House church here is a strange "association of members" –
          without members! It is only a bunch of pastors and their adult family
          members who are officially members of each other's "association of
          members".

          As I said before, I was lucky to just having been thrown out rather
          than having been "dismembered" if I were a member. There are two sides
          to a coin...;^)

          shalom
          george



          Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now.
        • theprincessa181
          It was Stewart Cameron. I very rarely ever asked the pastor for advice. I didn t trust him to make decisions for my life personally, even though I believed he
          Message 4 of 21 , Dec 2, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            It was Stewart Cameron. I very rarely ever asked the pastor for
            advice. I didn't trust him to make decisions for my life personally,
            even though I believed he was the voice of God for my life. I would
            never have actually articulated those feelings in the church. Crazy,
            huh? But, I just couldn't see the oxymoron for the trees.

            It's funny how you mentioned money, because so did Stewart. He railed
            on me for not being good with money. Umm... considering I had a
            minimum wage job (because of church peer pressure), paid at least 15%
            on my gross income in tithes and offerings, never spent money on
            myself and financially supported my little sister who was a young
            single mother, I'm not sure if I'd agree. Funny though that within a
            year of leaving I could afford to pay off my credit card, take a
            months holiday in the US and buy a brand new car. Maybe God was
            blessing me for all the tithes I'd paid??! Ha!

            I can totally understand how that girl trusted her pastor to take of
            her. After all he is supposed to be her spiritual
            covering/protection, especially as a young single woman in the
            church. He is supposed to have her best interests at heart. So when
            she was told he'd take care of it, she trusted him. The fact that she
            went to him the very next morning shows the level of trust she had
            for him. Besides, she was in no position to argue. If she went
            against her pastors wishes the whole church would have taken sides
            against her. She couldn't afford to take the risk of being alienated
            when she really needed the support of her spiritual family. But if
            he had really cared about her as her spiritual father, he would have
            rushed her straight to the hospital to make sure she was ok and where
            they could perform a rape kit test and report it to the police. Next
            he would want to throttle the guy that hurt her. But no, his only
            concern was damage control. Herein lies the true heart of the
            fellowship pastor.



            --- In Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com, kenhaining777
            <no_reply@...> wrote:
            >
            > Natasha said:
            >
            > [When I was talking to him, he quickly changed the
            > subject by diverting my attention and started telling me all
            > my 'faults'. One, how did he know this stuff?; two, it wasn't even
            > true; and thirdly, what the hell did it have to do with anything??
            He
            > caught me off guard. I was so stunned I couldn't speak. I stared at
            > him slack jawed until he finished his diatribe, and then I turned
            > heel and walked away. I ended up obeying the 'pastor's' edict even
            > though I didn't agree with it and having immediately regretted
            > seeking his counsel.]
            >
            > Which pastor was it?
            >
            > You were judged before you got to the pastor's office. There was no
            > intention of letting you speak your side of the situation. The
            purpose
            > was to dissuade you from taking money from someone who was giving
            money
            > to the church, and who might leave the church if you pursued legal
            > action against him. It was also the pastor doing the usual:
            exalting
            > himself and fulfilling his massive ego.
            >
            > Imagine a woman going to her pastor to report that one of the men
            in the
            > church had raped her the night before. Imagine the pastor, whom she
            > totally trusted, telling her not to say anything to anyone, and
            that he
            > would take care of it. Imagine when the pastor talked to the
            accused
            > rapist and he tells the pastor, "Naw, she was into it," and the
            pastor
            > totally believing him. Imagine the pastor not even bothering to
            call
            > the police to take a report. You don't have to imagine, because it
            > happened. Total breach of the law with the pastor exalting himself
            to
            > take the place of the entire justice system. After all, he
            is "God's
            > man."
            >
            > Shalom
            >
          • kenhaining777
            [Hmmm. a good lawyer would be able to defend them on the terms of it being illegal to disrupt a religious gathering or meeting in Australia.. I m not saying
            Message 5 of 21 , Dec 2, 2008
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              [Hmmm. a good lawyer would be able to defend them on the terms of it being illegal to disrupt a religious gathering or meeting in Australia.. I'm not saying that you were going off in church.. but that is the most likely defense they would use.

              - paul]

              Generally, the pastor will lie to the police and say that the member who has been excommunicated is causing a disruption.  The disruption is actually coming from the pastor, in many cases, having the ushers surround the excommunicated member, and watch him or her throughout the service.  Afterwards, the ex member will be confronted with, "What are you doing here?"  If the excommunicated member then tries to assert his right to be there, they will call that "a disturbance."  The police generally believe the one who calls the police, and so the excommunicated member is falsely accused by the pastor and members of the "greatest move of God in the earth today." (Didn't God say He hates false witnesses?)

              That is generally the way the pastor maintains his power to throw anyone out of the church.  If you bring witnesses that all you did was show up for a church service, and they harassed you, then you once again have the opportunity for a law suit.  The fact that they don't have a formal way of excommunicating members, and don't give the excommunicated member anything in writing, adds weight to a law suit filed against the church and the pastor.

              Shalom


               

            • kenhaining777
              Natasha said: [She couldn t afford to take the risk of being alienated when she really needed the support of her spiritual family. But if he had really cared
              Message 6 of 21 , Dec 2, 2008
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Natasha said:

                [She couldn't afford to take the risk of being alienated
                when she really needed the support of her spiritual family. But if
                he had really cared about her as her spiritual father, he would have
                rushed her straight to the hospital to make sure she was ok and where
                they could perform a rape kit test and report it to the police. Next
                he would want to throttle the guy that hurt her. But no, his only
                concern was damage control. Herein lies the true heart of the
                fellowship pastor.]

                The pastor in question was Paul Campo.  Paul was preaching for me the week this woman went on the Geraldo show and talked about what happened.  I watched it with him in his motel room.  He was totally panicked.  He told me himself that he told her not to tell anyone.  So, the information is not second hand.  I heard it from the "man of God's" mouth.  He also told me how when the guy told him, "She was into it," that he believed him, and told her to drop it. 

                When I confronted Lord Campo on why he didn't call the police, he became agitated, and he said that he couldn't risk the media coming in and putting the story on TV news and the newspapers.  That's right.  He was far more concerned about that than he was this girl's well being.  By the way, most rapists say, "She was into it," and they dare anyone to call the police, as they know she can't prove it past a certain point. You were right, Natasha, if Campo had called the authorities they could have done a rape test on her.  Unfortunately, that was not done.

                So, here we were, in Campo's motel room, watching this girl on national TV exposing what had happened.  Naturally, there was no remorse on the part of Lord Campo for failing to do what was truly right, and he viewed it as an attack of Satan.  Lord Wayman, who never met the girl, totally discredited her.  After all, at the time at least, Lord Campo was a raving fan of Waymanchrist.

                It came out a couple of years ago that the woman committed suicide.  I suppose those religious rodents think that this is vindication before God.  Or maybe her blood cries out for judgment?

                Shalom



              • kenhaining777
                [As I said before, questioning your pastor or taking your issues regarding your pastor through the headship channel does not result in a fair hearing at
                Message 7 of 21 , Dec 2, 2008
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  [As I said before, questioning your pastor or taking your "issues"
                  regarding your pastor through the headship channel does not result in
                  a "fair hearing" at any stage. The only "judgement" to be made is
                  whether or not your behaviour is conducive to the fellowship and
                  whether or not your complaint complies with fellowship protocol or
                  against. A ruling has nothing to do with righteousness, fairness or
                  grace. Most times the pastor is too blind to admit fault (he always
                  has a bible reason to be a jerk) and taking a complaint through to
                  the "headship" above your pastor is nothing more than talking to your
                  pastor's buddy about him behind his back.

                  Darren]

                  That pretty much sums it up.  Unfortunately, most people don't find this out until they seek the pastor out for some kind of help, or resolution of an issue.  Then it becomes clear that the pastor does not care for you at all, but only whether or not you fit into his agenda.

                  Case in point is complaints to leadership against your pastor.  If your pastor is in good with leadership, they will not even care what your complaint is about, unless you are about to blow the whistle on the pastor for something like adultery.  They will dismiss you with a rebuke, and tell you that you need to submit to headship, and quit being a rebel. 

                  On the other hand, if leadership is looking for a way to remove your pastor for any reason, then they will roll out the red carpet for you as you come to complain about your pastor.  They will ask if there is anyone else with similar complaints.  And then they will use you as a witness when they confront your pastor and ask him to hand over the church.

                  It is quite sleazy.

                  Shalom






                   
                • potkonyak
                  Ken wrote: [Case in point is complaints to leadership against your pastor. If your pastor is in good with leadership, they will not even care what your
                  Message 8 of 21 , Dec 2, 2008
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ken wrote:
                    [Case in point is complaints to leadership against your pastor. If
                    your pastor is in good with leadership, they will not even care what
                    your complaint is about, unless you are about to blow the whistle on
                    the pastor for something like adultery. They will dismiss you with a
                    rebuke, and tell you that you need to submit to headship, and quit
                    being a rebel.]

                    I have posted two "sermons" on submission, at thecrackedpots. Those
                    two sermons disclose much more than any of us can say about the
                    fellowship's "submission doctrine" and the "rights" of the ordinary pew-
                    warmers ("members").

                    BRW, Ken, do you know how soon after the rape Debbie left Campo's camp?

                    shalom
                    george
                  • potkonyak
                    BRW, Ken, do you know how soon after the rape Debbie left Campo s camp? means BTW (BY THE WAY), Ken, do you know how soon after the rape Debbie left Campo s
                    Message 9 of 21 , Dec 2, 2008
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      BRW, Ken, do you know how soon after the rape Debbie left Campo's camp?

                      means

                      BTW (BY THE WAY), Ken, do you know how soon after the rape Debbie left
                      Campo's camp?

                      ;^) I am in a hurry... have to leave in a few minutes...
                    • kenhaining777
                      [BTW, Ken, do you know how soon after the rape Debbie left Campo s camp? shalom george] I think it was a few weeks. She even brought her mother down to speak
                      Message 10 of 21 , Dec 2, 2008
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        [BTW, Ken, do you know how soon after the rape Debbie left Campo's camp?

                        shalom
                        george]

                        I think it was a few weeks.  She even brought her mother down to speak to Campo about the whole thing.  Her mother was on the Geraldo show with her, as was Rick Ross.  Her mother made the comment that Campo came off as so confident that she was even thrown off by him.

                        I seriously doubt that if Debbie was lying about the rape that she would have gone as far as to get her mother involved.  The bottom line was that the "pastor" didn't care.

                        Hey, George, can you do that thing where you put your email address spelled out?  I would like to email you about something.

                        Shalom
                        Ken


                      • potkonyak
                        Ken wrote: [Hey, George, can you do that thing where you put your email address spelled out? I would like to email you about something.] To answer this
                        Message 11 of 21 , Dec 2, 2008
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ken wrote:
                          [Hey, George, can you do that thing where you put your email address
                          spelled out? I would like to email you about something.]

                          To answer this question first: gpotkonyak at optusnet dot com dot au

                          Will have to go out again soon, but before I go, a question to Ken.

                          For some reason I thought about the astrology. As we know, just
                          recently the astronomers have discovered a rock orbiting Earth, whom
                          they named Eris, which is larger than Pluto. Since Pluto has been a
                          part of the astrological charts practically since its discovery in
                          early Twentieth Century, is it still prominent in the charts even
                          though, technically speaking, it is not a planet?

                          On the other hand, did or does Eris has any influence on the
                          astrological predictions? If so, is it possible that some of the
                          inaccuracies of the astrological predictions could be attributed to
                          the position of Eris and, if so, would it be possible that there are
                          some other significant rocks within the Earth's gravitational field
                          which may be interfering with the astrological charting?

                          shalom
                          george
                        • kenhaining777
                          [For some reason I thought about the astrology. As we know, just recently the astronomers have discovered a rock orbiting Earth, whom they named Eris, which is
                          Message 12 of 21 , Dec 2, 2008
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            [For some reason I thought about the astrology. As we know, just
                            recently the astronomers have discovered a rock orbiting Earth, whom
                            they named Eris, which is larger than Pluto. Since Pluto has been a
                            part of the astrological charts practically since its discovery in
                            early Twentieth Century, is it still prominent in the charts even
                            though, technically speaking, it is not a planet?

                            On the other hand, did or does Eris has any influence on the
                            astrological predictions? If so, is it possible that some of the
                            inaccuracies of the astrological predictions could be attributed to
                            the position of Eris and, if so, would it be possible that there are
                            some other significant rocks within the Earth's gravitational field
                            which may be interfering with the astrological charting?

                            shalom
                            george]

                            Pluto packs the same punch that it always did.  A group of astronomers "demoting" it had no effect on astrology.

                            Eris, which revolves around the Sun, not the Earth, is being observed and tested at this time.  It probably will be considered a main astrological object, in my opinion.  Too new to say yet.

                            The planets themselves don't actually do anything in the physical sense that would account for astrology.  There is some kind of metaphysical connection with the Zodiac, positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets at birth on the Zodiac, and where the planets are now in relation to the Natal positions.  There are points in the sky, relating to the Zodiac, that have great significance, even though they are just mathematical points, so to speak.  Long story with all of that.

                            I am examining midpoints between natal planets on my chart.  Very interesting.  Again, it would involve teaching a lesson on astrology to fully explain. 

                            Thanks for the email address.
                            Shalom
                            Ken



                          • potkonyak
                            Ken wrote: [Eris, which revolves around the Sun, not the Earth, is being observed and tested at this time. It probably will be considered a main astrological
                            Message 13 of 21 , Dec 3, 2008
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ken wrote:
                              [Eris, which revolves around the Sun, not the Earth, is being
                              observed and tested at this time. It probably will be considered a
                              main astrological object, in my opinion. Too new to say yet.]

                              Thanks Ken. First for the interesting chart that you posted to me and
                              then for the above correction. Of course, I knew that the planets
                              revolve around Sun... but it was in a rush. One more slip and I will
                              go back to the "biblical" position: everything revolves around
                              Earth...;^)

                              It is interesting what you wrote about the Zodiac and the
                              metaphysical basis to astrology. I always thought that the astrology
                              was developed by deductive process. I thought that people first
                              observed the connection between the positions and phases of the Moon
                              and the events on the Earth and gradually came up with some kind of
                              correlation. Then they did the same as the planets got discovered
                              etc... Still, it is puzzling to me how could anyone come up with the
                              idea that the time and place of birth of a person has anything to do
                              with his or her future.

                              Ken, if you ever have time, give us a brief history of development of
                              the astrology, even if you cut and paste it from your favourite texts.

                              shalom
                              george
                            • Paulmp
                              Ken, I m not trying to start an argument here, or anything like that. I would like to know how planets are supposed to affect our lives here or determine our
                              Message 14 of 21 , Dec 4, 2008
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Ken, I'm not trying to start an argument here, or anything like that. I would like to know how planets are supposed to affect our lives here or determine our futures? I'm really just curious as to what it is you believe and what astrology is in general.. I've not really looked into it at all.

                                - paul

                                --- On Wed, 3/12/08, kenhaining777 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                From: kenhaining777 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                                Subject: [Escape_from_the_Fellowship] Re: Astrology
                                To: Escape_from_the_Fellowship@yahoogroups.com
                                Received: Wednesday, 3 December, 2008, 2:31 PM

                                [For some reason I thought about the astrology. As we know, just
                                recently the astronomers have discovered a rock orbiting Earth, whom
                                they named Eris, which is larger than Pluto. Since Pluto has been a
                                part of the astrological charts practically since its discovery in
                                early Twentieth Century, is it still prominent in the charts even
                                though, technically speaking, it is not a planet?

                                On the other hand, did or does Eris has any influence on the
                                astrological predictions? If so, is it possible that some of the
                                inaccuracies of the astrological predictions could be attributed to
                                the position of Eris and, if so, would it be possible that there are
                                some other significant rocks within the Earth's gravitational field
                                which may be interfering with the astrological charting?

                                shalom
                                george]

                                Pluto packs the same punch that it always did.  A group of astronomers "demoting" it had no effect on astrology.

                                Eris, which revolves around the Sun, not the Earth, is being observed and tested at this time.  It probably will be considered a main astrological object, in my opinion.  Too new to say yet.

                                The planets themselves don't actually do anything in the physical sense that would account for astrology.  There is some kind of metaphysical connection with the Zodiac, positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets at birth on the Zodiac, and where the planets are now in relation to the Natal positions.  There are points in the sky, relating to the Zodiac, that have great significance, even though they are just mathematical points, so to speak.  Long story with all of that.

                                I am examining midpoints between natal planets on my chart.  Very interesting.  Again, it would involve teaching a lesson on astrology to fully explain. 

                                Thanks for the email address.
                                Shalom
                                Ken





                                Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.