Monthly Archives: March 2013



I have long maintained that only some people can notably and influentially talk, write or research about Jesus. It’s useful to see who and why. It’s the same principle as will apply to Shakespeare and other celebrated persons, but it’s not necessarily involved with levels of accurate information, agreement or whatever for the person considered

In London, the BBC once again managed to spark controversy over religion by broadcasting Lenten talks in one of which Benjamin Cohen, a conflicted gay Jew but a successful journalist, businessman and founder of Pink News, spoke of Christ and abandonment and compared the crucifixion of Christ to problems of being gay.

I have not heard the broadcast in Australia but was curious as to why Cohen could say what he said and manage to do that so easily. I wrote to him via Pink News, (and so far haven’t received acknowledgement), suggesting why the figure of Jesus had strongly engaged him. The astrological rule is quite simply that it’s impossible to be notably for or against a leading figure without close major ties to their natus. Few cases known to me however display quite so many ties as Cohen but this explains how he can unexpectedly be asked and allowed to expound his exceptional thesis. Manifest connection of this sort is yet again proof that the birth data of Jesus can be known and now are so. Cohen was born 14th Aug 1982. Cohen’s data is to given to the left, Jesus’s data to the right.

Sun, 20 Leo……………………….conjunct MC (destiny/reputation) and IC (origins, family) axis for Jesus of 20 Aquarius/20 Leo
Moon……………………………..(something in early Gemini depending on birth time). Jesus has 8.40 Gemini moon at birth and Ascendant degree at 8.50
Mercury at 9 Virgo……………….. conjunct Jesus’ Pluto at 10 Virgo
Venus at 29 Cancer or 0 Leo….   conjunct Jesus’asteroid Cohen at 1 Leo
Mars, 6 Scorpio………………….   conjunct Jesus’ Venus at almost 5 Scorpio
Jupiter, 3 Scorpio………………..  conjunct Jesus’ Neptune (the Christ planet) at 3 Scorpio
Saturn 18 Libra…………………. . conjunct asteroid Christian at 18 Libra
Pluto 24 Libra………………….. .  conjunct asteroids Masi (Messiah) at almost 24 and Christ at 24 Libra
(Neptune 24 Sagittarius……….    sextile asteroid Christ at 24 Libra
Uranus 0 Sagittarius……………   conjunct Part of Self Undoing, trine Cohen at 1 Leo.
(To explain a point. The Part of Self Undoing seems involved with the point eclipsed before the crucifixion to which Christ gave himself up).

I have not included any contact wider than 2 degrees though many astrologers would.

Opposition aspects reflect either actual opposition or challenges to be resolved. Conjunctions are strong agreements or disagreements depending upon the factors and persons engaged.


Compare Benjamin Cohen’s pattern with recent Booker Prize winner, J.M Coetzee, who has just issued a mysterious novel, The Childhood of Jesus. It portrays what one critic has called a bratty kind of young Jesus one would sometimes like to hit. Plainly Coetzee isn’t representing any very Christian views! The pattern as it affects Christ’s chart is however interesting. Coetzee was born 9th Feb 1940.

Sun at 19 + Aquarius………………conjunct the 20 Aquarius reputation Midheaven
Mars 24 Aries……………………… opposite asteroid Masi (Messiah) and Christ at 23 and 24 Libra
Jupiter 7 Aries…………………….   opportunity sextiles asteroid CHILD at 7 Aquarius
Saturn 26 Aries……………………..opposite asteroid Isa (Ar. Jesus)
Nodes 23 Libra……………………..conjunct asteorid Masi (Messiah)

Coetzee’s pattern interestingly compares with humanist atheist Phillip Pullman (19th Oct 1946),author of The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ

Sun at 25 Libra…………………… conjunct asteroid Isa (Ar. Jesus)
Mars at 15 Scorpio……………….  conjunct asteroid Malus (Bad) at 15 and Sethos/Set/Satan at 16
Venus 0 Sagittarius……………..   conjunct Part of Self Undoing (see above)
And other factors I won’t get into controversies citing.

Someone keen to write a biography of Jesus and have the real facts was the just retired Pope Benedict who did the job across 3 volumes. Suitably we find:

Sun at 25 Aries……………………. Opposite Isa (Ar. Jesus) at 25 Libra
Ascendant at 19.11 Pisces…..   .  .Conjunct “his star” messianic Jupiter at 19.23 Pisces
Jupiter at 20.33 Pisces…………… Conjunct “his star” messianic Jupiter at 19.23 Pisces
Moon at 14 Libra…………………. .Conjunct Mercury at 13.54

In my own case my researches are facilitated or fated by “his star” at 19 Pisces trining my Mercury/Venus conjunction on 20 Scorpio where they also conjunct Christ’s Mars at 21 Scorpio. My sun at 5 Scorpio conjunct Christ’s 3 degree Neptune and 4 degree Venus in Scorpio. The asteroid that works for me Rollandia- asteroids were originally registered in feminine form – similarly to Brown which works for Dan Brown, is opposite “his star”.

In passing I would mention I doubt that by comparison with his papal predecessor Pope Francis will be saying, writing or knowing exceptional, controversial things about Jesus; he seeks only to be a suitable follower in a more general way. His chart is less directly linked to Jesus’ natus (to the extent we know it). I would note there seems now to be some evidence from a birth certificate of 9 pm (another feminine sign on the ascendant rather than Pisces) discussed last blog. With Cancer rising we might expect someone rather strongly dedicated to the Virgin. [Pope Francis dedicated the world to the Virgin on Oct 13th]

The affinities and connections I have demonstrated for writing and speaking somewhat carry over to film and theatrical representation of Jesus. Jim Caviezel who represents one of the better portrayals of Jesus in film, even if The Passion of the Christ cannot be deemed the best enactment of the gospel as such, shows at birth – and remember Jupiter is crucial for the success of actors and acting.

Jupiter at 20.12 Virgo…………….to Jesus’ Sun at 20.14 Virgo
and there are other points of contact including to Jesus’ Uranus

At the recent premiere ( a birth pattern) for the phenomenally successful Bible TV series in America which is said to have a very good section on the gospels, transiting Neptune was closely conjunct Jesus’ Uranus which is meaningful as the producers claimed the most “God moment” of the whole filming was when Jesus speaks of the Spirit and a wind suddenly springs up from nowhere. Neptune for astrologers is Christ and Uranus is the Spirit in any religious contexts, hence the most telling moment would suitably be in connection with Jesus and the Spirit


The main thing to register is that vocal, controversial opinions around Jesus really do register on his chart perhaps especially the angles affecting reputation and image as I noted in
Testament of the Magi.

It’s not an absolute rule, but perhaps because connection with planets is more likely to show understanding, hostility and misunderstanding tends to show up more in relation to the angles like Jack Miles with his rather profane Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God has his limiting Saturn conjunct Christ’s ascendant

Satanist Aleister Crowley shows limiting, doubting, hostile Saturn conjunct Christ’s reputation Midheaven and Uranus conjunct the opposite IC angle. On the other hand, the pioneering theologian Carsten Thiede of The Jesus Papyrus about a fragment that would date Matthew’s gospel very early, has Nodes and Pluto across the same angles; he is researching and contributing to seeing Jesus differently.

The data for Christ’s birth have been found and they act as a mirror for persons and events to this day. It is possible even to read much about Christ’s life from this data, certainly to read very clearly and exactly what occurred at the Easter Week and when it occurred which people and scholars say they want to know the truth of, but do they?

The sheer statistical improbability of what one has uncovered (in radical development of various theories of the late astronomer Ferrari D’Occhieppo and astrophysicist David Hughes who has stubbornly refused all contact despite appeals form myself and influential others presumably because he dare not contaminate his reputation with “astrology”) not to say its clarity and consistency on so many issues cannot be dismissed, yet it is.

It is possible even to read much about Christ’s life from this data, certainly to read very clearly and exactly what occurred at the Easter Week and when it occurred which people and scholars say they want to know the truth concerning, but do they? I’ll not talk about abandonment and rejection in the shadow of Christ, which perhaps I know better than those who talk about Christ in relation to history, gay issues or anything else. I’ll not make a list of all those who have ignored or insulted me for no reason but the list is long and outrageous in the circumstances – I could at least be somewhat trusted as a doctor of religious studies.

Certainly since much of this can be called “astrology” from scientist to theologians no one wants to know lest it blow open certain preconceptions. “We know all there is to know about Jesus, we don’t need to know about the Magi” as I was airily told by The Church Times in London. Perhaps some humility is needed, a good lesson at Easter.

[July 10th ’13]. An additional perspective on those writing on Jesus is given at the end of  July’s posting headed, Icon World

[Feb 24th ’14] Perspectives on film, art and images of Jesus as they connect or otherwise to Jesus’ birth data is included in the article Colton Burpo’s ‘Real Heaven’, Akiane’s Jesus and New Christ Images in the Feb feature at

1 Comment

Posted by on March 22, 2013 in astrology, Mysteries, religion


Tags: , , , , , , ,



There was once a time that popes employed astrology, but there is no chance they are doing so now. In one of the few changes Rome has made, its catechism has ruled against astrology. Since astrologers came to Christ’s birth this is controversial. But no astrologer in their right mind would elect, and no pope – unless perhaps he was Petrus Romanus, the last of them all and Pope at the time of Rome’s supposed destruction – would consent to the inaugural mass for his ministry to be set for this March 19th. It doesn’t look healthy. It is the day the sun is on the fateful last degree of Pisces (drownings, murder, suicide, and any permanent endings), the same degree that malefic Mars held at the last lunation just prior to the conclave.

Since not everyone and everything is invariably ruined on this degree – Ibsen was born with the sun well aspected here so he just wrote about death and endings! – one looks for other more helpful factors. But in this instance the picture seems unmitigated by even one decent lunar aspect (there’s just moon square Sun and Venus before leaving its sign). And in the background the fated nodes have now reached 19 Scorpio, by tradition supposedly the most unfortunate degree on the zodiac along with 29 Pisces. The single saving grace is that the inaugural mass starts at 9.30 am (Rome time) in the last minutes of 28 Pisces rather than on 29 degrees itself which hits around 11.30. I suppose one could say, as someone observed to me, that there are already indications, as when the Pope refused the ceremonial cape and remarked “the carnival is over”, that as far as any papal king and court are concerned Vatican pomp is receiving a death blow. Well, maybe, but I think there’s more. It’s hard to say quite what future is promised by such a negative picture at inauguration, and I won’t repeat here the nostrums of the late Catholic seeress, Jeane Dixon, about a last Pope (though I should mention that astrologers have noticed the bizarre fact that the 266th Pope is born on the 266th degree of the zodiac). Nevertheless somewhere, something is wrong, especially given the other signs mentioned in my other recent Vatican and Pope related articles. The new Pope himself is however optimistic…


“Come on a journey…of faith” were some of the first words of the new Pope Francis. Sagittarius is the sign of faith and distance travel and the invitation was the expression of the mind of a Jupiter ruled Sagittarian, one brought from afar and who has already made clear he very much aligns with in his sign’s concern with beliefs, evangelization and mission, without which, he says, Christianity is merely another charity. Which is true enough – Christianity justifying its existence as an arm of charity only won’t do. But what’s in a name? Despite the modesty, simple life, known work among slum dwellers of Buenos Aires and even humour, this first third world and Jesuit Pope has perhaps as much identification with the far ranging Jesuit missionary St Francis Xavier as with the St Francis of Assisi (and St Francis de Sales, also devoted to the poor) he more consciously emulates.

And how identified Pope Francis is with the Jesuit tradition and order is a pertinent question since by tradition the Jesuits, though specially sworn to the Pope, have had very special loyalties to their Superior General, the “Black Pope”, head of their order, currently Alfonso Nicolas. This could mean that a modest person like Pope Francis might finish much influenced by his order and/or its leader. The Jesuit asteroid surely has to be LOYOLA (name of the order’s founder, suitably placed too in the Vatican’s house of religion, at 5 Taurus, itself within calling distance of the natal sun of the current Black Pope at 9 degrees. This Vatican degree of LOYOLA is exactly conjunct Francis’ Uranus. This indicates an unusual, special relation to the Jesuits and the Jesuits to him. Of course he’s the first Jesuit pope which is itself a Uranian fact, but given that Francis’ Aquarian Venus is square his Uranus and his Venus is conjunct FINI (finished) and in Aquarius (same sign that produced RATZINGER conjunct FINI in the Pentecost chart for Christianity) what might we be looking at? What might Jesuit influences do or precipitate or help end?

Francis’ birth chart bespeaks someone with power issues either controlling or being controlled (Saturn is directly opposite Neptune, Jupiter is in Capricorn quincunx Pluto not to mention that Francis got chosen, as it’s said any underdog figure can be, when the moon was “void of course”). As someone with virtually no Vatican experience he might need to be much supported and advised (controlled?) by others to manage the tangled web the Vatican represents. Charity and idealism, however worthy, might not suffice…..It may not have sufficed in the Argentina of the generals where, though some of the charges against the new Pope may be left wing gossip and libel, nothing quite alters that he, like the hierarchy, more or less took the side of an oppressive Junta when the rank and file of priests did not. This is a person who has been and can be influenced. If one is aware of conditions in Latin America the talk about desiring a church of and for the poor is fine….up to a point, provided the idea is not penitential compensation for having been controlled by the rich or an alibi, a form of emotional blackmail even, that deflects criticism in the hope the voice of poverty establishes absolute priority and privilege. This can finish in itself a classic form of passive aggressive control.

Whether or not I am being too harsh here, as said, idealism could prove inadequate to the task, especially if retiring Pisces rises at Francis’ birth. It probably does – normally a Sagittarius sun with moon Aquarius could give character traits closer to a freedom tripping bikie so there’s a reason it doesn’t? The birth time appears unknown and looks set to remain so, but not only does Pisces rising with a birth time between 12 and 1 pm fit the shy demeanour, but it’s what any substitute symbolic midday chart anyway supplies. And it makes a lot of sense. Pisces is the sign of the servant and Bergoglio even humbly asked Protestant evangelist Luis Palau to lay hands on him to pray he would remain a servant. Widely accepted work done on the chart for St Francis Assisi has established Pisces, probably 15 degrees (conjunct the Pope’s Saturn), was rising. Regardless, if the person is unassuming they will then need something like the sun at or near their career Midheaven to propel them towards world prominence. A time between 12.30 and 12 45 pm is to be suspected. This supplies a 20+ degree of Pisces ascendant probably hit by the 21 degrees Pisces lunation just before the conclave and it’s a pattern that places the FRANCIS asteroid (at 1 Aries, the sign of Francis Xavier) in the first house while it places the sun high. And Francis’ probably elevated sun is at 25 Sagittarius – the same degree that Pope Benedict, whose birth time is known, had at his Midheaven of destiny.

This 25 degrees is interesting in its own right, or it could be if – big question! – this Pope is Petrus Romanus of the St Malachy prophecy with its end of era persecution scenario for the church and the destruction of Rome. The reason I say this is because, as pointed out in my Vatican Destiny article of 13 Feb, of the difficulty of around 2016 and 17 for Catholicism. But if I look at the chart for St Peter’s Basilica, which would necessarily be attacked or destroyed if Rome were to be destroyed, it looks to be in trouble for the same period. Eclipses would hit its crucial MC and IC angles at 25 Pisces/Virgo and of course this is then square Pope Francis’ 25 degree Sagittarius sun. It’s speculative, but it’s a major point all the same.


Rather more certainly, with Pisces rising the sign’s ancient and modern rulers Jupiter and Neptune assume heightened significance within the Pope’s pattern, and this again makes sense. Francis’ Jupiter is in Capricorn, a reserved, practical but above all conservative position, while Neptune with its charity, dreams, idealism and compassion, not to say links to Jesus, is severely challenged by its direct challenge to Saturn.

This self-effacing person who has Saturn in Pisces opposite Neptune, an aspect which sets reality versus dream and ideal – will struggle to realize his aims as Pontiff within the Vatican. With his Saturn in affliction to the Vatican’s sun (its identity), as is already clear, his modesty doesn’t fit the Vatican’s princely profile. The most positive thing for him is that despite all the humanity, modernity and novelty of sorts (first Jesuit pope signaled through moon and Venus in Aquarius), with his Jupiter in conservative Capricorn and then his sun conjunct the Vatican’s Saturn, he is a moderate conservative. He won’t upset the Vatican too much… or at all at the level of doctrine however much it might need it beyond reform of the corruption And that might upset other people when the initial excitement wears off.

If this Pope happens to be St Malachy’s Peter the Roman the conservatism might eventually contribute towards some promised persecution as there could even be, or seem to be, a touch of the self-imposing St Francis Xavier in the character. Xavier was the missionary saint who more or less lost Christianity for Japan not least due to an incomprehension and insults (“lower than pigs and dogs”) as regards gays and homosexuality as it affected his converts and Japanese society. The president of Argentina, however unfairly, has accused the capital’s Archbishop of having opinions fit for the Inquisition when it comes to the often criticized gays, and Francis Xavier was not so ideal a figure that, beyond homophobia, he didn’t help inflict the Inquisition upon an innocent unsuspecting Goa.

Pope Francis who is so misogynist while Archbishop he declared women “naturally unfit for political office” (this is his quirky afflicted moon to Uranus speaking) is firmly against all the liberal things from women’s right to abortion – never a solution, never justified in his view – to contraception and gay marriage which his country (where the saying goes “all priests are gays”) was the first in Latin America to institute. And ironically Francis’ elevation occurred a few days after a UN agency, (not without all reason in certain cases like, one feels, that of a needy Hindu woman refused abortion in Catholic Ireland), enlarged the definition of torture to include refusal to permit abortion. Pope Francis’ humanity manifests more in a kind of generosity like his known assistance to the poor and victims of AIDS his macho homeland has often overlooked and despised. In traditional Italian/Catholic style which he might inherit from his Italian parents, he is generous to a fault – he lambasted priests who refused baptism to the offspring of single mothers – but he doesn’t see changing laws that might affect the situations he treats. It would not for example impress his kind of outlook that the death rate among gay men has gone down since the introduction of same sex marriage in Denmark in 1989.


This should remind us that there are limits to the reform of anything or anyone in proudly semper idem (always the same) Catholicism, limits some Catholics fail to see but which they should realize are integral to the Vatican’s heavy and fixed sign Jupiter (its religion and philosophy) in its house of beliefs and philosophy in worldly but philosophical Taurus. Was Thomas Aquinas whom people called the ox and who invented the exhaustive mathematics of God and ethics approach to religion a Taurus? Probably. The church which canonized him wasn’t warned by the vision Aquinas had before the end of his life which silenced him because he saw that his teachings were so much straw.

The Vatican has been following the straw vision of his mathematics and geometry of faith ever since and reinterpreting the Judaeo-Christian traditions in light of it (as on natural law) firmly excluding everything from common sense to leadings of the Spirit. After all, if you once have infallible theorems to apply on all occasions, what do you have to know or change? Change is for appearances only, a new church design, a new order of nuns or a Pope from a new region, but it’s all shuffling the pack. And it’s tiresome when for example because homosexuality and masturbation could be rated “contra naturam” they got deemed worse than rape by the Inquisition because rape can have “natural” outcomes in fetuses.

Such thinking is nonsense and absorbing it could be a contributing factor to the twisted minds behind the sex abuse practiced and covered up and Aquinas’ thought legacy is one the church can only get round by ignoring or forgetting rather than openly denying because no tradition can be undone once established. Jesus was opposed to precisely “the traditions of men”. As at Joppa (Acts 10) St Peter was even told by the Spirit, and initially resisted, that he should go against what the scriptures taught Jews to do as regards gentiles. The Spirit must be allowed to modify traditions against the cycles of time God oversees (there is a theological aspect to astrology!). A willingness to change could even be considered fundamental to Christian spirituality itself. But could the Spirit convince a Pope to change? It wouldn’t be easy and of course since some issues are anyway extremely complex or specialized it would often be better if a council rather than any one person made a decision for certain changes. Semper idem is a dubious boast for any branch of Christianity. Only the essence of the gospel can remain the same.

But before commenting further on the Pope’s chart I shall look again at the Vatican chart considered in the article (26th Feb) and frankly state what seems most controversial about Catholic religion today which this Pope is set if not to change, at least renew. It has taken the extreme emotions and opinions surrounding recent events of papal resignation and election for me to realize just what some traditional Protestant charges against the religion were and maybe how crucial…..


First and foremost I became impressed at just how much the faithful depend upon “Christ’s Vicar”. At elevation he is even announced as being Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum (“most eminent and reverent Lord”….) as though Christ was himself scarcely Lord of the Church. Followers were describing themselves as “orphaned” and “rudderless” until a new one is found. Another almost felt reborn with the new Pope. People were in tears of joy as previously tears of distress when Benedict left. The seriously devout were praying at the tomb of the late John Paul 11 to supply them a new leader. The extreme of focus is controversial. The faithful are scarcely related to God in their dependence upon a half deified priest and saints rather as formerly pagans prayed less to the gods than genii loci, the spirits of place. Grace is scarcely recognized within the system. As opposed to Christ as advocate with the Father Creator there is the Pope and/or Mary and saints as intermediary with the mediator. And one gets heard with them the more one does good works. This itself is one of the reasons for the mess around the unbiblical tradition of priestly celibacy that should be thrown out but never gets cleared up. Pope Paul V1 declared one obtained more grace if one was celibate. This is misleading. It is because one has obtained grace that one may be stimulated to greater effort, may request more grace and might feel called to celibacy.

Even if Catholics were right about Peter as first leader in the way non Catholics question, there is still no evidence the early church was emotionally and otherwise attached to Peter in the way we have been recently seeing and hearing. (If anything there was more emotion around Paul). To the extent the Bible forbids contacting the dead (Deut 11:18), the cult of saints is controversial and risks persons finishing communing with merely tricksy spirits who appear as those invoked. Biblically “answering according to your idols” such would be the penalty of idolatry which means invoking anything or anyone less than God, and in effect the new Pope concurs. He has already said:

“He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil. When we don’t proclaim Jesus Christ, we proclaim the worldliness of the devil, the worldliness of the demon,” he added. “We must always walk in the presence of the Lord, in the light of the Lord, always trying to live in an irreprehensible way.”

Yet he hasn’t attacked, and is unlikely to criticize, all this praying to deceased popes and saints, and one of his first acts was to go to pray before a Byzantine icon of Mary whom he told the crowds was Rome’s protectress (aren’t God and his angels sufficient to look after Rome?) and to whom like many in South America he is said to be inordinately dedicated. It’s true one can argue that what comes to us from laws of the Pentateuch no longer count or must be modified in Christian interpretation, but Catholicism has always imported the Old Testament for everything from tithes to war to sex so there is unresolved contradiction here.


As author of Temple Mysteries and Spiritual Efficiency ( See ) I feel what I have been witnessing is a degree of spiritual inefficiency whose inevitable end would be precisely the not easily avoided or healed manifest corruption afflicting the church. I am beginning to see mainstream Catholicism as much like its periphery’s renewed exorcism rites. The latter can go on periodically for years like ongoing psychotherapy and because, I would maintain, the wrong principles are employed, including that Lucifer is not even seen as a name of the devil. Exorcists keep encountering spirits in dramatic ways but instead of fully expelling them in Christ’s name they employ the agency of exorcism’s patron Mary and various saints and angels, confusing the entire process away from its known earliest practice. Catholicism is like Hinduism, a patchwork of too many sources weighed down by “tradition”, a tradition which doesn’t seem to realize the core crucial biblical principle for the entire religion that God is absent from or departs from whatever is unholy. Nothing is more misleading than the belief,repeated by the Mayor of Rome in the face of scandals, that the Church is perfect even if its members aren’t. But religion is never so automatic, so objective or abstractly determined.

The prophet Ezekiel sees God leaving the Jerusalem temple because of priestly sins tolerated there Ezek 10). To imagine, contrary to claims like “the Spirit blows where he wills” (Joh 3:8) that God is automatically present to the affairs of a place or ordained persons serving there belongs with the magical/political kind of Catholicism entrenched since St Augustine. According to this mass is always miraculously grace supplying even if the priest is a gross adulterer or pedophile; benedictions are effective whether those giving or receiving them are right with God; persons are eternally Catholic even if debaptized, since the infant baptism to which they never consented cannot be undone. It is this belief in objective automatic presence that has enabled the excess of scandals marking the papacy historically as recorded in books like the Jesuit Peter de Rosa’s Vicars of Christ. How could even a saintly Pope such as Francis aims to be hope to reform things against such a background of false belief? Right mindedness which includes right belief is as important as any practice and it defines practice.

The Vatican has entertained more than enough corruption so that unsurprisingly and as mentioned in my article of Feb 26th, on the Vatican Babylon its chart doesn’t even reveal the institution as notably Christian and not only by the way its Jupiter to Neptune affliction (in Leo sign of children) would assist pedophile cover ups.

The fact is that whereas the CHRISTIAN asteroid directly trines the CHRIST asteroid at Christianity’s Pentecost foundation, neither the CHRIST nor CHRISTIAN asteroids are even aspected for the Vatican, albeit ISA the Jesus asteroid is between sun and moon. It is however rather trumped by a more elevated MARIA conjuncting The Part of Success near the reputation Midheaven. It’s a pattern suggestive for the long standing “to Jesus through Mary” formula by promotion of which Catholicism might be said to have enjoyed precisely most success. One ex-Catholic rebel Argentinean theologian (the impossible late Marcella Althaus-Reid) has proposed that without Mary the South America that historically Catholicism harried and persecuted into submission would not have gone Christian and it scarcely is Christian, it is just Marian. I also note that from surprising Aquarius the asteroid DEVINE (divine) makes easy trine to MARIA strongly hinting that despite the denials, the “Mother of God” is unofficially treated as divine by many Catholics. At the same time this Mother is (as Protestant and skeptics generally have long suspected) much related to the Babylonian Ishtar since ISHTAR conjuncts DEVINE while it trines MARIA.


Almost anything Pope and Church now say and do about homosexuality is controversial. If there’s any truth (and factually and astrologically there looks to be), that the Vatican has gay cabals, in the wake of the blizzard of priestly child sex scandals and given South America’s treatment of gays historically (everything from conquistadores throwing gays to wild dogs to modern Brazil’s world highest murder rate against gays), to say almost anything about gays is controversial short of the church going into deep repentance first. Which it isn’t likely to do. And though Bergoglio has been kinder than many, including washing and kissing the feet of AIDS patients, that doesn’t necessarily address the problem. It is almost the Catholic way and survival mechanism not to address too many core issues and past failures.

Despite its history of death-dealing religious wars, the Vatican happily forgets this so as to accuse persons of murder and excommunicate them if they remove life support from a patient who can only blink an eyelid or give an abortion to a woman traumatized by rape, the latter not necessarily even Christian tradition but become so by medieval mathematics of God ruling – in the early church Tertullian understood the life of the mother came before the child not vice versa as in Catholicism. Given the treatment of sinful women under ancient OT laws, how could it possibly be God that would be opposed to all occasions of abortion when the capital sentence for sinners meant many a babe would be killed in the womb? Neither Jews nor early Christians were ever agreed the soul had even entered the fetus from the first (some thought it was at 3 months). None of these issues are so clear cut they can be regulated quite as Catholicism wishes, and even if by law they could be, that merely produces the kind of corruptions common under Prohibition. Christians can protect the defenceless and support ethical policies in societies, but not absolutely or by purely legal/political means.

Already as Archbishop of Buenos Aires Francis has treated the gay marriage as a spiritual issue. He regards it as a move of the devil to destroy “God’s plan” for the children of God with gay adoption. a form of discrimination against children. While even as a gay theologian as an aspect of gay unions and marriages I have to question gay parenting and adoption as have even some leading gays including the actor Rupert Everett who thinks the who idea is selfish and repulsive, the Archbishop’s objections are typical cart-before-the-horse, fear mongering stuff. It belongs in the order of Pope Benedict’s bizarre claim that gay marriage threatens world peace and undermines the whole basis of marriage and society. Please! First, most gays are not and do not aspire to be parents, only a minority of society’s gay minority so aspire. And while it would seem better for a child to have a father and a mother, the fact is that death and illness prevent many from having that experience while we hear about so much bad upbringing among regular parents that gays would have a hard job to be worse. And some actually do have parenting skills. In short, the Catholic case is special pleading around a secondary social issue and by a church that as usual reckons to impose upon the secular laws on the basis of artificial, abstract notions of natural law following the notions of the philosopher ox, Aquinas. The Jesuits particularly have had a philosophy of total domination akin to the modern evangelical heresy of Dominionism which believes it can and must help Christ return by imposing biblical laws upon the whole world.

All this special pleading and convoluted argument which paints Catholicism into a corner, derives from semper idem. Because it concedes almost nothing to anything or anyone it a) piles up occasions for hypocrisy – if all priests must be celibate, inevitably some are going to have affairs on the side and if gays can never declare or describe themselves or have relationships they will have them by stealth and in exploitative corrupt ways and b) in the increasingly secular world by conceding nothing it gets increasingly excluded from arguments where it could contribute as on gay marriage and parenting which as said not all gays are agreed upon. As it is, secular equality theories trump everything while the Catholic response to exclusion is the paranoia which suggests the world is threatened by gays and/or the devil.


In Pope Francis’s Argentina the saying goes “all priests are gay”. Undoubtedly many priests are and Jesus always knew and realized this connection of spirituality with homosexuality. On this sensitive topic see
and especially Chaps 11,12,13 of Testament of the Magi
I don’t suggest Pope Francis is unconsciously gay. For the record he had a girlfriend with whom he was so enamored he promised if refused he could never marry but would become a priest and so he became. However, gays represent a problem for this Pope. Any aspects of Uranus to planets is liable to represent either a gay disposition or a conflicted, problematic relation to gays.

The Pope shows Uranus in affliction aspect to Venus certainly and probably also the moon if we are near correct about the birth time. He doesn’t get it about gays and probably doesn’t want to and that’s true for many in Christianity whose horrified response whether to gay unions or marriages overlooks the psychological problem Christianity presents of Jesus married to both female and male believers (we are “the bride of Christ” says Francis without thinking too deeply what that means) and historically that David and Jonathan had a covenant, a word sometimes used for marriage in the OT. Unquestionably Christianity has to nuance and revise its entire management of the gay issue. [ These comments have proved wrong. I simply couldn’t have imagined the alternative explanation, namely that the Pope could run into trouble because he was regarded as too liberal on the gay theme! On the other hand despite his liberalism against history he has not been for same sex marriage so he has offended left and right ]

It is my suspicion that overly rigid interpretations of sexual issues, a refusal to compromise or reform will be a contributing, indirect if not a direct, cause of any persecution that Pope Francis, if he is a final Petrus Romanus, will occasion and suffer. He will just not seem sufficiently to favour human rights despite all the works of charity. True, secularism may exaggerate the degree of offence. There is already far too much abortion for us to say the status of women and just any reason should justify it, but it must be conceded to as a human right in certain instances and only stubborn traditionalism won’t do so.

Although it has been denied, it is widely believed intrigues of a gay cabal in the Vatican contributed to Benedict’s decision to resign. The Vatican chart (see my article 13th and 26th Feb) gives every appearance of being a rather gay place, and it’s interesting that the RATZINGER conjunct FINI in the Pentecost chart for Christianity is in Uranus ruled Aquarius, sign of the sudden, shocking and also gay with RATZINGER opposite PRAXITELES. It’s like a hint that the cult of beautiful young men that even somewhat got attributed to the Pope himself with Gorgeous George, could be linked to the resignation. As for Benedict so for Francis. Gays or gay issues could (along with other things) precipitate an end to his rule and even possibly problems for the faithful within the secular world. Pope Benedict believed Catholics should be prepared to suffer persecution in pursuit of opposing gay marriage.

But if there would be other problems, what could these be? What about the politics and policies beyond sex? Controversially Francis has declared the Falklands (regardless what its inhabitants have just voted and the Hague Declaration supporting their vote) belongs to the Argentina which has never really owned them but feels they should because they are reasonably near, rather as China thinks it should own Taiwan on much the same basis. What if other political beliefs prove still more contentious? Francis’ relations with the Jews appears to have been good but how will he deal with the current Mid East situation which if he is Petrus Romanus is a distinctly thorny issue and takes us deeply into how we should read the Malachy prophecy? I hope to look at these things in due time. Meanwhile, if you watch the inauguration you are witnessing history in the making.

1 Comment

Posted by on March 17, 2013 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , ,




Following the resignation of a Pope whose name appears beside the word FINI (finished) in the Pentecost chart for Christianity, and, as considered presently, following a run of significant signs in Pisces, sign of our era now at its last gasps, habemus Papam. We have a new Pope. But what does it and he really mean? Is he the last of a line at the end of a dying era?

Given his reputation in his native Argentina, the largely unexpected election of Cardinal Bergoglio (b. 17th Dec 1936) promises well for a new humanity and transparency in the affairs of a Catholicism mired in scandals. He is “a man of the people” (moon and Venus in Aquarius) and being a Jesuit in the papal role belongs to Aquarian novelty and difference. But what else might this election promise? And is this person, or isn’t he, the elusive “Peter the Roman” of the popular but much questioned prophecy of St Malachy?

It cannot be said the time of announcement with the moon what is called “void of course” (i.e.not making major aspect before it leaves its sign unless one cares to count “weak” semi-sextiles to sun and Venus) suggests things are going anywhere very much. A certain dynamism could be lacking or prevented. In fact, with this Pope’s natal Saturn in affliction square to the Vatican sun he can see wrongs but could have an uphill battle managing them.

In harmony with the element of confusion and upsets which can accompany any period of Mercury’s apparent retrograde, I correctly guessed which time the smoke would provide the decision, but not for whom it would rise – I thought Turkson likely (though as my earlier article stressed I couldn’t feel certain in ignorance of patterns for other papabili). What Turkson did seem well set up for was the role of any Petrus Romanus of the Malachy prophecy. After all, this Peter Turkson, called Roman in his native Ghana, even had asteroid ROMAN conjunct his natal sun (for perhaps the reason he is so called in his native country?). Coincidences sometimes happen; and anyway conclave might hesitate to vote for someone positively known as “Peter the Roman”. The prophesied last pope’s name might anyway be more a description than a real title to look for.

But should any of us still be talking about the questioned prophecy and could it yet be fulfilled through Bergoglio? There are reasons to think this remains a meaningful issue.


Nine centuries ago an Irish saint and prophet according to St Bernard of Clairvaux (though he doesn’t mention specifically the papal prophecy), is said during a visit to Rome to have presented a prophecy of the Popes which disappeared into the vaults. It’s my opinion Malachy gave at least the number of the popes and that the mottos were later added. Something I didn’t know when I wrote my Vatican Destiny article was that a little known but important, very detailed work by a Belgian Jesuit, Rene Thibault, La Mysterieuse Prophetie des Papes (1945) maintains that the prophecy is genuine but that the version we possess was likely edited from a Celtic document by Nicholas Sanders (1530-1581). The latter was a papal legate who spent a lot of time in Ireland prior to the publication of the work by the Benedictine Arnold Wion in 1595. Thibault regards the earlier almost too perfect prophecies as forgeries and the more generalizing but often correct later prophecies as genuine. As some recommendation for the book’s researches and speculations, the author did regard the regular line as ending in 2012. This means he was two months out if Ratzinger was end of the line as the Pentecost chart for Christianity indicates. As said, this shows RATZINTGER conjunct FINI (finished) in a portion of the chart actually stimulated when the resignation was announced.

Is there anything following Bergoglio’s election would suggest we should still suspect the Petrus Romanus identity for this person whose name is not Pietro but who if nothing else would surely do well in the kind of protector role given him as opposed to the darker, Antichrist-linked picture some have recently been putting upon a last Pope? (They have done the latter in the light not just of Protestant ruminations but some old Catholic forecasts including one attributed to St Francis of Assisi)…..I notice the following.

• Just as RATZINGER conjuncts FINI (Finished) in shocking Aquarius for Pentecost, so we find FINI conjunct Bergoglio’s Venus in the same Aquarius sign (though I am unable at this time to know where in the new Pope’s chart this Venus stands and what issues it might “rule”).

• At Pentecost RATZINGER and FINI were at 24 and 25 Aquarius. There is no Malachy asteroid unless its translation, MESSENGER; but as though giving a connective signature to the prophecy and to Ratzinger’s end of line resignation, MESSENGER for Bergoglio falls at 24.15 Aquarius, itself highlighted under the usual rules by the fact that 24 degrees is the same degree as his fated nodes (in Sagittarius) this meaning MESSENGER could hold a special significance for this whole chart.

• Bergoglio was born with VATICANA conjunct the degree of his Pluto (in Cancer). This links him rather specially to the Vatican and certainly promises he could transform and reform it in the style of Plutonic action; but Pluto can be involved with death too.

• The death dimension of Pluto is somewhat more likely to apply since Bergoglio’s sun at 25.32 Sagittarius is conjunct the Saturn at 28 Sagittarius in the house of any endings for the Vatican. (The Saturn connection also bespeaks the known conservatism of this Pope – expect needed reform but not necessarily progressive policies). Bergoglio’s own Saturn at 16 Pisces is a very heavy one conjunct the Vatican’s Part of Father and Fate.

• I have long said that the ACHRISTOU asteroid is an astrospeak factor and works for persons and issues like Satanists and Satanism that are fundamentally Antichrist. Interestingly, Bergoglio’s Mars (attack and resistance) is conjunct the Achristou asteroid which would fit for any Peter the Roman.


If there is anything at all in this it should be assessed in the strange, larger context of current celestial signs.

• When Pope Benedict announced resignation 4 planets were in Pisces.
• When he left the Vatican 5 planets were in Pisces.
• When the conclave began there was a lunation with 6 planets in Pisces. The comet PanStarrs has been passing through the sign. (Comets traditionally harbor trouble and endings). The lunation just preceding the conclave and which colours issues under the month it is held, showed Mars at 29 Pisces, its last degree, the notorious endings, sinkings and murder degree, a feature which belongs to a general pattern of ending one sees.
• Pope Francis himself has Saturn in Pisces which reflects his humility, simplicity and and labours of service and is very Christian (Jesus had Saturn in Pisces) but at this point in time it could link him to the sinking ship.
• Why, we may ask, at the time of Benedict’s departure from the Vatican at 8 pm on 28th February, was Mars, which often cuts off, on 20 degree Pisces directly opposite Jesus’ natal sun and conjuncting HEMERA (Gk Day) and ISHI (Ara. Lord/Husband) in the Pentecost pattern for Christianity? ……One could say the Day of the Lord prepares and the darkness rises.
• The Age of Pisces introduced by Christ’s birth is now ending (albeit the faith he introduced is not of that sign). When the result of the conclave was announced Venus in Pisces was at 19.33 between the positions of messianic Jupiter (“his star”) at Jesus’ birth at 19.23 Pisces and The Part of Sons at 19.41 Pisces. I suppose one could say this means papacy under a Jesuit will be more than usually about Jesus and no more is implied, but VENUS is traditionally Peace and any Victory. The position of Venus here at this time and following all the other signs is like one recalling St Paul’s, “Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 15:57). In this case surely a victory beyond the approaching demise of the Vatican with its too many failures, and victory over what prepares beyond the darkness preceding the advent of the new age.

I hope to write further on the outlook and policies of this Pope and how and why he might become involved in any persecution of the church a la Malachy, but I shall wait to do that including to see if more exact birth data can be established.


Posted by on March 14, 2013 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , ,



First Baptist Dallas preacher Robert Jeffress (b. 29th Nov 1955) revels in over statement and the extreme for which he is much reported. If criticized, as for having said what gays do is filthy before God, – “It is so degrading that it is beyond description” – and that support of gay marriage invokes God’s judgement on America, he says he is proud of that. If, as has happened, the atheist lobby has taken him it up on it all and advised gays to go without God entirely, Jeffress regards that as proof he is true to the Bible as he understands it rather than as evidence he might lack discretion or just common sense.

Those of quieter views are anyway likely to be dismissed by Jeffress as cowards. This has even happened in the case of the very evangelically demonstrative sports star Tim Tebow. He has been accused by Jeffress of “wimping out of controversy” when he recently cancelled a talk at Jeffress’ mega-church in the wake of warnings the preacher is almost recklessly against gays, against Catholics (their religion is “Satanic”), Mormons, Muslims (their religion encourages paedophila) and just about anyone.

Fanatics are more difficult to criticize than might be imagined because they are not always completely wrong. They can plausibly mix truth with error in a way to confuse people and issues. One example from Christian history is the second century church father Tertullian. He certainly knew how to be an orator and his writings ringingly evoked various Christian truths along with the forms of Roman decadence and cruelty. However he finished up a Montanist heretic who believed the new Jerusalem could be founded in Phrygia (modern Turkey). On the way to this he plausibly spouted controversial views and even just seriously silly but famous ones like notably, “I believe because it’s impossible”. Tertullian had ideas that have caused trouble from that day to this –they are even being cited by one of the current papabiles Angelo Scola, who perceives the devil everywhere. Wrote Tertullian: “One must not even speak of astrologers, witches and charlatans of every sort. And yet, recently, an astrologer who declared himself a Christian had the nerve to make a defence of his profession! Astrology and magic are base inventions of the devil”.

So astrology is such an invention of the devil, astrologers represent a charlatanism that came to Christ’s birth? Why did the Essenes look for the Messiah in the stars and why did the rabbis of the Talmud not regard astrology as necessarily a Torah forbidden divination rather than a study of cycles? As a theologian who is also an astrologer and claims to know the astrology of Christianity that all Christians ought to know about (see Christianity’s Destiny )

I am weary of Tertullian’s bullying, shut-you-up, push-you-away American descendants. Tertullian was also against all philosophy, the church had nothing to do with Athens, the gospel alone sufficed. It’s all just the swaggering aggression, sensationalism and macho dismissiveness of the fanatic.


As someone who cares about and has sought to protest the bad reporting (or none) of the very real current persecution of Christians worldwide under everything from the Buddhism of Burma to various nations of Islam, I am vexed at the inflammatory, attention seeking sensationalism as it refers to the problem in a way which helps nothing and nobody. It certainly doesn’t help the victims of persecution and appeals on their behalf. Nor does it assist the criticism of religions that sometimes does need to be engaged instead of blinkered interfaith dialogues that too readily ignore the wrongs which get further glossed over because people like Jeffress can only declare Islam is an “evil, evil religion” and “from the pit of hell”. Another evangelical loud mouth, Billy Graham’s son Franklin, has been employing the same kind of discourse.

As a gay theologian I am frustrated at the kind of plausible conservatism which cites parts of the bible and not others to make out that homosexuality is nothing but abomination. However, instead of entering upon the kind of issues raised in my talk “Gay….Christians, Marriage, Jesus?“ at
as a gay theologian and astrologer I shall take a moderate and acceptable Christian “revenge” by word of truth…I shall do so because despite Tertullian and despite the noisy louts of American evangelicalism, the bible does say the night skies utter knowledge (Ps 19) and they do so and very much so if quietly.

Last year a rather embarrassing three university study of sexual arousal levels done in the US, Germany and UK and reported in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in April 2012, showed evidence through many cases that a marked homophobia betrays closet homosexuality. Strange cases like the evangelical Ted Haggard’s are almost, it seems, to be expected. There is however another way to test and demonstrate this whole issue, and actually, I think, more precisely so as when we can trace what is perhaps more vital, namely a tendency to bisexuality which promotes, experiment with, or at least longings for, the other side and/or wholesale self-hatred on account of that leading to fanatical views on sex and homosexuality.


I don’t know Jeffress’ full horoscope as I don’t know his birth time so I can only note the following. Jeffress was born under Sagittarius, the sign of organized religion and the preacher and he’s very strongly Sagittarian too since he also has Mercury, and Venus in the sign. He can therefore exaggerate the sign’s style which is notorious, especially among its men, for opening its mouth and putting the hoof in it. Jeffress’s Sagittarian Venus is a wonderfully fortunate one being trine his Jupiter (Jupiter to Venus helps make rich or lucky devil types and this preacher gets away with a lot).

Since the “ruler” of the sign, Jupiter, is conjunct Pluto, Jeffress can also be a mega-church pastor and enjoy fame and media attention – Jupiter/Pluto is known as the best way into Who’s Who whether one merits being there or not. Then with the moon in the opposite sign of words, Gemini, Jeffress can be seriously loquacious, can communicate and be heard just everywhere – he is on numerous radio and TV stations.

Everything in the garden (or paddock!?) of Jeffress is really rather lovely and it’s easy for getting his own way and getting heard except….that the fortunate Venus in the last degree of the sign is what’s called anaretic, which tends to make the symbolized energy insistent or insatiable and….it is degree exact opposite a point in the heavens called Priapus. That’s only the beginning of a certain problem.

It must be stressed no single aspect clinches any matter. I am not here to throw mud or spread rumour. Nobody is gay or bisexual, overtly or otherwise, on account of a single aspect. It’s the total pattern counts and it helps to have a birth time to run factors like the Part of Homosexuality. Even so… any aspect or aspects to especially Uranus is always significant for gays (or being homophobically against gays) perhaps especially to Mars, the libido. In straights Mars making square (90 degrees) to Uranus could encourage a yen for extreme sports or a special relation to machines and inventions, but it always inclines to a certain recklessness, while among gays it is about the more out, loud and proud type. Jeffreys is not up and out there waving and shouting on a Pride day float. He’s just being recklessly Bible proud year round in your face, thank you.

He may however now and again feel, or suppress the feeling, it’s a pity he’s not out there on a float because his gay Uranus potential is oddly directly opposed by wounded healer Chiron. He may be wounded not to be able to express the inner gay or feels others must necessarily be wounded about their gayness and need help for it. After it, it’s only a sickness!

I am still not saying that our rather fanatical Jeffress, who after all is the standard fit, evangelical and married preacher with kids type, is gay, either out or closeted. I don’t say it because if anything I feel he is closer to something or someone else who is behind the greatest amount of confusion around who’s gay and who isn’t, whether homosexuality is natural or learned, expressible or curable, namely the often confused person of bisexual potential. History and literature are full of such individuals.


I am not a student of English literature but recently I was re-reading David Copperfield and felt impelled to look into something which struck me vividly, but which evidently few critics have been exercised over though I see a French critic has taken the point. There in plain view is David (the nearest to an autobiographical Dickens figure) constantly dreaming over and idealizing the handsome, older Steerforth who regularly refers to his young friend in terms like “Dear Daisy”. Dear Daisy? I asked myself was Dickens a bisexual and was Victorian society in not suspecting this fact being as blind as those Edwardians who looked at Von Gloeden’s tastefully homoerotic photography of Sicilian male nudes and decided it was all a revival of Greek art or even an exercise in anthropology?

I knew I had only one way to find out at this late date: examine the horoscope and see if it had a version of afflicted Neptune which is the almost exceptionless rule, the primary building block for any bisexual profile. Sure enough, there it was. Dickens had Venus square Neptune as surely as Madonna and others have variations on it (David Bowie: Neptune square Sun, square Mars, square Mercury). And if one looks at Dickens’ harsh treatment of his wife it belongs to a type of bisexual psychology and behavior pattern I describe in the course of my The Great Circle”:Asia, David and God Consciousness.

Jeffress shows Neptune afflicting the gay associated Uranus. Its aspect, which many others near him could have as these planets move slowly, is nonetheless thrust into prominence and a more active expression through inharmonious, out-of-sign conjunction of Neptune with Mars, an unusual version of “affliction”, but affliction all the same. (The effect is a bit like Tennyson’s self-divided and stop go, “gay” Mars/Uranus conjunction but more “bisexual” Neptune/Saturn conjunction)

There is much that one might say, but sufficient to state here that as long as there is bisexuality and people of bisexual potential in the world there are going to be persons, especially of religious inclination, to assure you that same sex attraction is unnecessary, curable, effeminate and innately sinful and should never be acted on or expressed if they even allow it exists (some will repress the whole idea). Instead of giving us great poetry like Tennyson on Hallam or Shakespeare on the Master Mistress of his passion, it will provide us ugly references to either what gays are, or do, and it will see nothing of psychological meaning or value but only temptation to be resisted. (And it is true that the affairs of some bisexuals can finish creating the maximum of suffering and confusion to partners gay or straight so that it might be better to try and keep things with whatever is the spare sex, no one being 50/50 bisexual, as close to poetry as possible!)

However, as I said, the fanatic is not necessarily completely wrong, there can be gleamings of truth amid the overstatements, gleamings of truth which others may overlook. And the fact is that the overwhelming majority of evangelical Christians just don’t even accept that anyone is born gay, it is always just learned behavior, it is never first and foremost an orientation and a psychology, it is always a chosen lifestyle.

Somewhere within himself Jeffress knows a little better. That Mars/Uranus is telling him something. He has protested that Christians may have been too quick to deny the possibility of innate genetic disposition, even though of course for him that means the disposition could only be a bad one, one that should never be acted on as it is evil by nature, a sort of double effect of original sin in itself. And of course it’s not his nature of the kind that for the gay person cannot be denied as a fundamental datum of their consciousness. It is more like a possibility of his nature, vague enough to present itself as a threat, anything from say an undermining effeminacy to a meaningless, directionless lust to deny. He believes it exists and means something, but maybe a bit like Tertullian on Christian faith because the whole thing is so irrational!


But I am properly weary of these noisy evangelists who in Christ’s name and offering Jesus as salvation and cure, distort what Jesus himself taught about the “homosexuality” word that is nowhere in the Bible. In any case and just for starters the eunuch word which describes what Jesus reckoned some people were born to be, by his time was a word that no longer signified just castrate nor even necessarily celibate but was the nearest word to the modern “gay”. And it’s because the gay mind and situation at the margins of society give certain advantages and insights not automatically shared by straights and socially successful persons, that Jesus can recommend everyone in the kingdom approximate more to the eunuch. (Even as early as Isaiah eunuchs are indicated as at least potentially nearer to God).

All this shouting against homosexuality and gays in Jesus’ name is little more than lies and deception and even devil’s work in Jesus’ name, driving many to confusion, despair (some to suicide) and disillusion with Christianity itself and not assisting any debates about legal changes which have been left in purely secular hands. And did these people doing this really imagine that they were desirable models of something? Perhaps as icons of prosperity gospel success some do admire them, and in the rather tribal social organization of America where to join, be accepted and belong can become a paramount drive there will always be people queuing up to be “normal” straight, to be married family men through clenched teeth and clinging to prayer despite everything.

I don’t like to say it, it’s not my style, but frankly, while these standard fit evangelicals a la Jeffress spit out their disgust at the filthiness of gay behavior, would it ever occur to them that many gays in turn have “ugh” rather than “wow” feelings about them. They find nothing socially, intellectually or erotically attractive about them and certainly nothing and no one that they would wish to imitate or be associated with.

The children of Tertullian believe what’s impossible. Some of us believe in the Jesus and life that’s actually real and possible.


Posted by on March 7, 2013 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: