I think you're overcomplicating our talk here and I'm not in the mood for dragged out debates but I do agree with, and only now realise that my comment about my christian friend and you being confused came across as an attack. I apologize for that.
A 'disturbance', in my book, usually correlates with words such as; failure, interference, malfunction, outage, breakdown. I don't really see what could be so disturbing about a reading. "You will have a day full adversity" If that is the type of stuff you're referring too that could rob you of your inner peace.. again, its what you allow to disturb you. Such a prediction would be used to my benefit to expect and handle adversity throughout my day in a controlled manner. A child couldn't really comprehend intricate readings, a young teenager probably. Experience and insight are also key into grasping readings and the message they try to put into words.
In my language, 'science' literally translates into 'knowing-ship'.
We, as a collective do not know the entirety of the mystery behind astro(theology) is all I'm saying. Lets not complicate the point any further.
"the very first and very last sentences both show that im giving full credibility to the omenisms. So the fact that you jump to defend that part says a lot about your own views on it - the views of those who defend it. "
^ Fair enough, I get your point. I misunderstood you and was too fast with my reply
edit: I've spent tons of hours over the past 11 years researching astrotheology, cymatics, etc. so yeah, if I say astrology is at the base of most, if not every religion, its not just a random claim.
A small hint: Luke 22:10
Its a troublesome thing.
Langauge on its own is not perfect for expressing our views. Even if it was, we ourselves may not be perfect at wielding it. Even if we were . . . well, at that point all of this would be meaningless because everything would be perfect . . . the thoughts and feelings themselves are not always perfect representations of us (hence the "racism is learned, not natural" campaigns). So 3 times over there is reason for us to not properly represent ourselves or at least make mistakes in our usage of language. Its actually why i myself do these long paragraphs, to try and cover all meanings. That is actually proof (of sorts) for one of my beliefs, which is that we all agree at our deepest level/foundations, but a whole lot of factors lead to us arguing because we misunderstrand each other, thus thinking we disagree on foundational issues.
Anyway. To deal with factors relevant to a point is never an over-complication because it is a part of the topic. At best, it may be unnecessary information/points, but i would even argue all information relevant to a topic is useful.
I see your definition. I didn't mean like that. I meant like when something moves you internally, changes your focus/thinking/feelings, even if slightly. Basically, a change in spirit/countenance. Your example is basically a small-scale version, which makes it difficult to see the movement, like when an ant moves from a mile away. A bigger scale is like if a rape victim read something about rape danger - it shocks/scares them. The major difference in our examples is scale. I used a bigger example to illustrate the basic quality by making it clearer.
But even with your understanding, i don't see how its a choice. You made an example of reaction, which itself comes after being affected. Before you apply it positively, you must feel it is worth applying. That's within my meaning of disturbance. Remember, i said that it doesn't always become a bad disturbance. It is within possibility for it to be a good disturbance. Like, if a lazy bum was told they could find their soul mate by jogging. Even if the prediction is false, the inspiration to jog is immediately positive. Generic example, don't scrutinise too much, it has some faults but I'm trying for the basic meaning. Perhaps the word disturbance has negative connotations, i concede that much.
Precisely my meaning as well, with science. If we dont know much, then it is less science because it is less knowledge. I don't want this to become about our personal views because i was trying to bring forth the general rules of logic, but i myself would argue that such things are as much science as common physics or biology.
I didn't mean its a random or unqualified claim. Its part of my belief that nothing is without reason. I meant that it carries connotations or implications that are unsuitable for the purpose of properly promoting it. Like, the very nature of religion makes the most confirmed sciences to be 'just the opinion of another guy', because of the supernatural factor that outright breaks natural laws, or our understanding of them.
Luke 22 is about a specific event, associated with a specific date whose origins (Exodus 11-12) lie in other events.
If the the date is what you're going on, that proves nothing in this context. That would be like taking the fact that science means knowledge to say that anything you know is science . . . pedantic and petty at best, non-meaning to the discussion context at worst.
If its the prediction made, context shows a clear difference. Who is making the prediction/prophecy? Now compare that specific person to anyone studying star signs . . . big difference. Even besides the person issue, prophecy is fundamentally different from omenisms because of the claimed source. The process is very different. And so on.
If there's something else, then i cant see it. Simply being associated with dates is addressed by my science = knowledge example above. Simple predictions/prophecies are fundamentally different. In fact, even if some astrology was used, it would not come close to being "at the
foundation of many religions". Immense difference. Simple association proves almost nothing (in the context of our discussion). Never mind association, even direct correlation is said to not prove causation in scientific studies. I don't necessarily agree with that, but im just pointing out the big difference between your initial claim and the evidence provided.
I have one more idea about your thinking here, but it adds little to this specific discussion. It basically brings it down to opinion. I would be interested in hearing your understanding of these things for the personal interest it is to me, but in this discussion it adds very little.
Read Wisdom of Solomon, its apocryphal. That's personal opinion based advice, little more. I think its good for shaping the mind, even if not every specific thing within it is perfect.