Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 101748 times)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #105 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:26:13 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Since Adam first named the animals, science exists. Its realm stretched from charting the sky to the latest medical research to alleviate human ailments; from discovering electricity to creating an atomic bomb; from inventing paper to the latest mobile telephones.

But then emerged the Earthmovers; offering assumptions as ‘science.’

The seventeenth century saw the replacement of Aristotelian physics by the classic physics of Newton. The Aristotelian view of the universe was that of unaided common sense: a stationary earth with the sun, the stars and the planets revolving around it . . . Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He distinguished between normal science when research goes on using an accepted theory, or paradigm, and the times of crisis when there is a switch to a new and incommensurable paradigm. (See T. Kuhn, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press, 1970.)

So, what is a theory, one that leads to a paradigm as described above?

A theory or hypothesis is a supposition; a proposition assumed for the sake of argument, to be proved or disproved by reference to facts.

Q. And when does a theory become a scientific fact?

A. Scientific theory, according to most philosophers from Aristotle to Popper, in addition to being [self]-explanatory and self-consistent (non-contradictory), must also be testable or falsifiable. It must be vulnerable to observation and we must, in principle, be able to envision a set of observations that would render the theory false.

A scientific theory that does not contain these requisites is but pseudo-science, and has no right to be classed as science. Only when a theory has [been] proven consistent and cannot be falsified will it become regarded as a fact.

Q. Now, what is an assumption when used in science?

A. When I can’t get the facts to comply with the conclusions I want, I make one up and put it forward as a fact, but it is really an assumption. An assumption is a made-up fact. Any conclusion based on such an invention is a belief, not true science but pseudo-science. When the first assumption enters any scientific quest, science ceases, true-science that is, for now you have a belief in an idea, natural faith, a mind-conviction, nothing more.

Q. Now we ask, what is a Law?

A. Law is not a theory, a hypothesis, an assumption or a cause. It is a proven statement or formula expressing the constant order of a certain fact of nature. Now watch this one, it’s important, for there will come men in our story who postulate theories and mathematical formulae sometimes not even consistent with the observations (constant order), cleverly calling them ‘laws,’ and others who will come after them claiming these ‘laws’ are proven causes thus facts of nature. Newton’s ‘universal gravity’ is one such example.

For anyone trying to get to grips with the fraudulent ‘proofs’ offered by science, the following advice is crucial:

To begin with: any line of argument, any syllogism, which proceeds to a conclusion that we cannot deny to be true, has to satisfy two conditions. Firstly, its major premise must be truly self-evident, that is, not contradictable or at least proven beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, affirmations of the consequent must be avoided at all costs. This syllogism, the so-called modus ponendo ponens, at best offers only plausibility. (W. van der Kamp: The Cosmos, Einstein and Truth, p.10.)

For example, we know that when there is a total eclipse of the sun the streets are dark, yes? Can we thus assume the consequent and say that dark streets tell us there is a total eclipse of the sun? Of course we can’t.

Such stringent demands as to what true science is, we know, may well cause many a professor of astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, theoretical-physics, molecular and quantum physics etc., to have a seizure, for to them the maybe(s), must be(s) if(s), but(s), could(s), might(s), etc., hold their very belief-systems of science together. But we are not interested in their standards, are we, only those as laid down by true science and adhered to by Church law; conditions demanded by St Augustine and reflected by Cardinal Bellarmine in 1615, to determine if something is truly a fact, potentially a fact or not a fact; conditions absolutely necessary for proper Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics.

That said; the empirical method has without doubt determined some irrefutable facts regarding the order of the heavens. We cannot deny the moon goes around the earth once a month. We cannot deny the planets go around the sun in different times. We cannot deny the planets also have moons going around them as seen with telescopes. But as we have said, there is no way science can prove whether the sun goes around the earth as we see it do, or whether we witness a relative movement as the earth spins every 24 hours while going around the sun in a year.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #106 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:30:33 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: This brings us to level (3). Philosophy (Philo/love; Sophia/wisdom) is a love for knowledge or a love for truth. Today however, the term philosophy has come to possess a much narrower significance than it once had. One can now find it described as a rational study of all or some of the problems arising from our attempts to explain the universal order of things by their causes or principles. The scholastic system or system of the School is the system that dominated up to the 17th century. Much of scholastic philosophy was built upon the reasoning and insights of the Greek Aristotle (384-322BC). The greatest exponent of scholastic philosophy was St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and arising from him is named Thomism, a form of scholastic wisdom that received the special approbation of popes and councils of the Church.

To Saint Thomas, Aristotle was ‘the philosopher.’ To Dante, Aristotle was il maestro di color che sanno, the master of those that know; but he held St Thomas as fiamma benedetta, a flame of heavenly wisdom, wiser even than Aristotle. As a young man St Thomas entered the new Order of the Dominicans, was taught by Albert the Great, went to the University of Paris, the intellectual centre of the world at the time, and captured it with the freshness and wisdom of the views he taught. He went on to lecture at Naples and Cologne, and repeatedly refused high honours.

The Thirteenth century of St Thomas was a time when Christianity was beginning to remake a world ravaged by the barbarian invasions. A new culture was coming into being; its inspiration was Christian and many universities received their permanent charters and statutes as common law and jurisprudence took shape throughout Europe. The period was one that asked for an architectural master who could co-ordinate the multitudinous ideas, ancient and new, which were stirring man’s minds. St Thomas became that architect, giving to Christianity and the world a philosophy and theology upon which a whole educational system was built, one embraced throughout all Christendom.

The Greek Aristotle, and Plato to a lesser extent, laid the permanent foundation of this philosophy. St Thomas Aquinas, as it were, baptised it, making it Christian, purging all minor imperfections from their thinking, giving it mature expression. What in fact the Angelic Doctor did was to place the jewel of revelation (theology) into Aristotle’s work, taking his philosophy to new heights, making Thomism as worthy a philosophy for the Church as Latin was as the language of the Church, clear and unchanging. For over seven hundred years this philosophy did not undergo any significant intensive growth or change.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #107 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:32:28 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: The Pythagorean/Copernican postulation challenged Thomism in the following way: Scholasticism sought causes in the first place through the evidence of the senses concerning appearances. Our perception of a thing depends on how we see, hear, feel, smell or taste it. Without the exercise of the appropriate senses we cannot acquire first-hand knowledge of the existence or properties of any object.

It was this, St Thomas said, which led the intellect to recognise essences, which are the qualities that make any object what it is. Once this outer distinctive nature of something is recognised by the intellect as the basis of a phenomenon, it then seeks to infer cause from effect deductively, that is, when we have attained all the information that the senses provide, a further quest presents itself: what is the ‘unobservable’ reality underlying these qualities or appearances. It is here both theology and philosophy are used to attain perfect wisdom.

Aristotle’s theory of science postulates, as we have seen, every science to have a deductive structure, to start from principles accepted as self-evident, and have an empirical foundation. (Evert Beth: The Foundations of Mathematics – A Study in the Philosophy of Science, p.38.)

Pythagoreanism, according to both Aristotle and St Thomas, does not seek causes and principles to explain phenomena, but establishes ideas, a product of the mind that have no existence in reality, and then tries to support these ideas by means of phenomena. This conflict of philosophies can be illustrated so:

(1) ARISTOTELIANISM: SCHOLASTICISM: REALISM: --The way it is to us (for example - geocentric) is how I must think about it.

(2) PYTHAGOREANISM: COPERNICANISM: IDEALISM: etc. -- The way I think about it (for example - heliocentric) is the way it is. [Aristotle continually attacked Pythagoreanism thus: ‘They do not with regard to the phenomena seek for their reasons and cause but forcibly make the phenomena fit their opinions and preconceived ideas and attempt to reconstruct the universe.']

This is the archprinciple of the NWO - Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law.

The fact that Aristotle at times did not put into practice what he preached, and was shown to be incorrect in some of his physics, does not detract from his philosophy - quite the opposite, it illustrates how correct he was. [For example, Aristotle held that a ball tossed by a man moving on a horse would fall behind as it came down. Had he tested this belief he would have found the ball takes up the forward momentum of the horse and rider and falls back into the man’s arms.]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #108 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:36:08 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Because scientific research is practically endless in extent it cannot be exhausted. Indeed, the history of investigation merely demonstrates that the more we know the more we know how little we know. Legitimate freedom is consequently needed for scientific progress as well as for any human development. There are however, limitations within the sphere of legitimate freedom in science, as the Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1903 states. All things in this world may be considered from a triple point of view: from the logical, the physical, and the ethical. Applied to science we discover limitations in all three.

(A) Logically science is limited by truth, which belongs to its very essence. Knowledge of things cannot be known from their causes unless the knowledge is true. False knowledge cannot be derived from the causes of things; it has its origin in some spurious source such as a false philosophy or ideology. Should science ever have to choose between truth and freedom it must under all circuмstances decide for truth under penalty of sham or self-annihilation.

Every scientist must accept certain truths dictated by sound reason. Whatever science is chosen it must be built upon natural or philosophical presuppositions on which the life of man rests. As we record the story of the Earthmovers, we find philosophers and scientists from the sixteenth century onwards calling for unlimited freedom in natural philosophy, ‘science without presuppositions.’ Such a proposition is absurd. Every scientist should accept certain truths dictated by sound reason. The fact is that all positive science borrows from philosophy a number of essential principles, presuppositions or axioms.

(B) The physical limitations of science are found in its technical and material means. Advances in technology often determine the pace at which a science progresses, - astronomy for example, as telescopes were improved and magnified. The sciences also need places for research, teaching and learning, such as observatories, laboratories and universities. However, depending on the ethos of these institutions and establishments from theist to atheist, from Christian to anti-Christian, philosophical limitations will be applied even here.

C) The ethical limitations of science come from within two spiritual faculties - understanding and will. It must be said here that ethics is more important for mankind than science. History reveals this fact for all to see, whether Christian or rationalist. The happiness of peoples rests in moral rectitude not in scientific progress. [The truth of this is seen all around us in our medication-crazed, techno-addicted world. Moral evil causes deep psychological and spiritual trauma. The world of this darkness offers no relief from all-pervasive moral evil in family homes and community workplaces. Thus the people, en masse, are psychologically and spiritually sick, even unto death.]

We should conclude from this that if ever there should be a conflict between science and ethics the latter should prevail.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #109 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:37:21 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Anti-Christian science has surrounded itself with a number of boundary stakes driven into scientific ground, and has thus limited its own freedom of progress and growth. The ‘science without presupposition’ is entangled in its own axiom, and for no other reason than its aversion to Christianity. On the other hand, the scientist who accepts the teaching of Christ need not fall back on a single arbitrary postulate. If he/she is a philosopher, one starts from the premises dictated by reason.

In the world around us we recognise the natural revelation of a Creator, and by logical deductions concluded from the contingency of things created to the Being Uncreated. The same reasoning gives us an understanding of the spirituality and immortality of the soul. From both results combined we concluded further to moral obligations and the existence of the natural law. Thus prepared one can start into any scientific research without the necessity of erecting boundary stakes for the purpose of justifying any prejudices.

If one wants to go further and put our faith upon a scientific basis, we may take the books called the Sacred Scriptures as a starting point, apply methodical criticism to their authenticity, and find them just as reliable as any other historical record. Their contents, prophecies, and miracles convince us of the Divinity of Christ, and from the testimony of Jesus Christ we accept the entire supernatural revelation. We have constructed the science of our faith without any other than scientific premises. Thus the science of the Christian is the only one that gives freedom of research and progress; its boundaries are none but the pale of truth.

Anti-Christian science, on the contrary, is the slave of its own preconceived ethics, and from such prejudiced axioms and suppositions are derived the heliocentric system and much of the cosmological and evolutionary ‘sciences’ propagated today.

The demand for unlimited freedom in science is unreasonable and unjust, because it always leads to licence and rebellion. There is no unlimited freedom in the world, and liberty overstepping its boundaries inevitably leads to evil. Freedom is not the greatest boon or the final end of man; it is given to us as a means to reach our end. Within our own mind, man feels bound to truth. As we see nature around us bound to certain laws, we know we too must remain within certain laws. But these judgments are the best that are formed in accordance with the rules of logic. Opinions are free only where certainty cannot be reached. Scientific theories are free as long as they rest on probabilities. It is ironic that the freest of all in their thinking are the ignorant. The more freedom of opinion, the less science we have.

The long held cry for anti-Christian or unlimited freedom in science is for licence. Whenever science steps outside of the constraints of the logical, the physical, and the ethical, it falls into error, into misfortune, into licence. This may be summed up by saying that unlimited freedom in science is a rebellion against both supernatural and natural revelation. If God pleases to reveal Himself in any way whatever, man is obliged to accept the revelation, and no arbitrary axiom will dispense him from this duty. When anti-Christian science repudiates the claim of Jesus Christ as Son of God, it necessarily repudiates the Father Who sent Him, and the Holy Ghost Who proceeds from both. Anti-Christian science, we find, leads to atheism. There is no such thing as ‘natural’ atheism, for all people are born with an inherent yearning towards God. Atheism is an acquired state, and one has to work hard to sustain it. Atheism, in the main, is one of the more diabolical products of the Copernican revolution.

In the face of the natural law, however, which binds man to know and serve our Creator, pleading ignorance of the triune God is as much a rebellion against Him as shutting Him out of the world. Once God is excluded then there is need of an idol; the necessity lies in human nature. The idol created by anti-Christian science - the emancipation of the mind and will from God, from idealism to subjectivism - is the human ego.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #110 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:40:03 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Science that is changed then is not developed but abandoned. Similarly faith changed is faith abandoned. True development is shown in the parable of the mustard seed that grows into a tree without destroying the organic connection between the root and the smallest branches.

It is true that the believer is less free in his knowledge but only because he knows more. The unbeliever has only one source of knowledge; the believer has two. Logic will indicate both should be used to establish the infallible truth. Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science. Hence another supposed conflict between faith and science. The answer to this accusation is that it is what injures the dignity of science that constitutes the conflict, things such as the endorsement of errors, sham theories and arbitrary postulates.

None of these qualifications is found in faith. In the faith there is the highest logical truth (infinite wisdom), the highest ontological truth (the infinite being), and the highest moral truth (infinite veracity). Bowing to such authority, infinitely beyond human science, is so much in harmony with sound reason. The dignity of science is indeed overshadowed by the dignity of faith, yet by no means degraded.

As far as scientific facts are concerned, we can be assured that so far, none of them has ever been in contradiction with any official teaching of the Church. In case of an apparent difference between faith and science, as St Augustine said, we may take the following position; when a religious view is contradicted by a properly established scientific fact, then there has to be a re-examination of the source for this view. Until the matter is clarified the point remains an open question. But when a clearly defined dogma contradicts a scientific assertion, the latter has to be abandoned or revised whereupon it will surely be found to be premature in its claims.

Suffice to say that the final objection of the sceptics to the above will be to assert that such a view of faith and science is discredited by history. There have been many fables invented for this purpose, but when examined they prove to be untrue. In reply, the Galileo affair - a case in which it can be said that the Church did condemn heliocentricism outright as heretical and false philosophy - is often portrayed as an undeniable exception, docuмented in thousands of books touching on the subject of faith and science, one that even popes, historians, theologians, scientists, scholars, teachers etc., have admitted for nearly three centuries, albeit saying it is the only case of its kind in the history of the Church. But we say that even one such error would falsify the divine protection afforded the Church by the Holy Ghost.

Thus we must repeat: when a clearly defined doctrine contradicts a scientific assertion, the latter has to be re-examined and it will be found to be a false statement, without any real verification or proof. Had those Churchmen done this in 1741, 1820-22 or even 1981-92, in the light of faith and [with] confidence in its Catholic truth, as was their duty, it would have been found that in 1616 Mother Church did properly define that the Bible does assert a moving, orbiting sun around the earth of life that occupies the centre of the universe, and the Church did properly defend its teaching of this in 1633, and because there cannot be conflict between the Bible, truth and science, Copernicanism should again have been found to be what it is and will always be, a heresy and false scientific claim without any real or possible verification or proof.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #111 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:42:46 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Before we begin to trace the history of the ‘Discarded Image,’ let us first prepare ourselves with a little reading that helps us see Catholic faith in an Omnipotent Creator as He is and why a geocentric world concords with all the perfections of his creation. Our choice of reading comes from the private revelations of God to Sister Mary of Jesus, better known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). Sister Mary began recording these secret insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial wherein the formal heresy of a fixed sun and moving earth was condemned by popes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

[Not only is this no coincidence, but also, the revelations of Our Lady of Good success to Mother Marianna of Quito occurred at this time. Consider the fact that Sister Mary of Agreda was mystically transported to South America to prepare certain Indians for the coming of the Gospel. Consider further that South America was the seat of the diabolical, cannibalistic, human-sacrificing, sun-worshipping cult of the serpent idol. Consider the mind-boggling number of conversions of sun-worshipping natives caused by the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which culminated in the great Cristero war, in which so many faithful Catholics were slaughtered at the hands of sun-worshiping freemasons and through the ignorance and permissiveness of an impotent, copernicanized pope, whose church of St. Peter at the Vatican sports an Egyptian obelisk smack dab in the centre of its piazza - a disgusting symbol of the most perverse of all helio-occultic ideas. Lastly consider that the public miracle of Fatima was the heavenly revelation, to both Church and State, of the natural, real, and divinely determined motility of the sun.]

[Mary of Agreda's] three volume work is entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ or ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These insights of Mary of Agreda, whose body lies incorrupt in the Agreda Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have received approbations from many popes throughout history as a mode of greater understanding of Catholic faith completely in line with the teaching of the Church:

cantatedomino · « **Reply #112 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:44:03 PM »

FROM THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD

I learnt also to understand the quality of these perfections of the highest Lord: that He is beautiful without a blemish, great without quantity, good without need of qualification, eternal without the duration of time, strong without any weakness, living without touch of decay, true without deceit, present in all places, filling them without occupying them, existing in all things without occupying any space. There is no contradiction in His kindness, nor any defect in His wisdom. In His wisdom He is inscrutable, in His decrees He is terrible, in His judgments just, in His thoughts most hidden, in His words most true, in His works holy, in His riches affluent. To Him no space is too wide, no narrowness causes restraint, His will does not vary, the sorrowful does not cause Him pain, the past has not passed for Him, nor does the future happen in regard to Him. O eternal Immensity . . .

Although, this divine knowledge is one, most simple and indivisible, nevertheless since the things which I see are many, and since there is a certain order, by which some are first and some come after, it is necessary to divide the knowledge of God’s intelligence and the knowledge of his will into many instants, or into many different acts, according as they correspond to the diverse orders of created things. For as some of the creatures hold their existence because of others, there is a dependence of one upon the other. Accordingly we say that God intended and decreed this before that, the one on account of the other; and that if He had not desired or included in the science of vision the one, He would not have desired the other. But by this way of speaking, we must not try to convey the meaning that God placed many acts of intelligence, or of the will; rather we must intend merely to indicate, that the creatures are dependent on each other and that they succeed one another. In order to be able to comprehend the manner of creation more easily, we apply the order of things as we see them objectively, to the acts of the divine intelligence and will in creating them . . .

cantatedomino · « **Reply #113 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:45:08 PM »

FROM THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD:

I understood that this order comprises the following instants. The first instant is: God recognizing his infinite attributes and perfections together with the propensity and the ineffable inclination to communicate Himself outwardly . . .

The second instant was to confirm and determine the object and intention of this communication of the Divinity ad extra, namely . . . to set in motion his Omnipotence in order that He might be known, praised and glorified . . .

The third instant consisted in selecting and determining the order and arrangement, or the mode of this communication, so as to realize in an adequate manner the most exalted ends . . .

The fourth instant was to determine the gifts and graces, which were to be conferred upon the humanity of Christ, our Lord, in union with the Divinity . . .

In this fifth decree the creation of the angelic nature which is more excellent and more like unto the spiritual being of the Divinity was determined upon, and at the same time the division or arrangement of the angelic hosts into nine choirs and three hierarchies was provided and decreed . . .

To this instant belongs also the predestination of the good, and the reprobation of the bad angels. God saw in it, by means of His infinite science, all the works of the former and of the latter and the propriety of predestinating by His free will and by His merciful liberality, those that would obey and give honour, and of reprobating by His justice those who would rise up against His Majesty in pride and disobedience on account of their disordered self love. In the same instant also was decreed the creation of the empyrean heaven, for the manifestation of His glory and the reward of the good; also the earth and the heavenly bodies for the other creatures; moreover also in the centre or depth of the earth, hell, for the punishment of the bad angels . . .

In the sixth instant was decreed the creation of a people and the congregation of men for Christ, who was already formed in the divine mind and will, and according to His image and likeness man was to be made, in order, that the incarnate Word might find brethren, similar but inferior to Himself and a people of His own nature, of whom He might be the Head. In this instant was determined the order of creation of the whole human race, which was to begin from one man and woman and propagate itself, until the Virgin and her Son should be born in the predestined order . . .

In the same instant, and as it were in the third and last place, God determined to create a locality and an abode, where the incarnate Word and his Mother should converse and dwell. For them primarily did He create the heaven and earth with its stars and elements and all that is contained in them. Secondarily the intention and decree included the creation of the members, of which Jesus was to be the Head, and of whom He would be the King; in order that with kingly providence, all the necessary and befitting arrangements might be made beforehand . . .

Of the first day Moses says that "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." And before creating intellectual and rational creatures, desiring also the order of executing these works to be most perfect, He created heaven for angels and men; and the earth as a place of pilgrimage for mortals. These places are so adapted to their end and so perfect that as David says of them, the heavens publish the glory of the Lord, the firmament and the earth announce the glory of the work of his hands (Ps.18, 2). The heavens in their beauty manifest His magnificence and glory, because in them is deposited the predestined reward of the just. And the earthly firmament announced that there would be creatures and man to inhabit the earth and that man should journey upon it to their Creator.

Of the earth Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights . . .

God created the earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned. The Lord was presently to divide the light from the darkness and to call the light day and the darkness night. And this did happen not only in regard to the natural night and day, but in regard to the good and bad angels; for to the good, He gave the eternal light of his vision and called it day, the eternal day, and to the bad, the night of sin, casting them into the eternal darkness of hell.

The angels were created in the empyrean heavens and in the state of grace, by which they might be first to merit the reward of glory. For although they were in the midst of glory, the Divinity itself was not to be made manifest to them face to face and unveiled, until they should have merited such a favour by obeying the divine will. The holy angels, as well as the bad ones, remained only a very short time in the state of probation; for their creation and probation with its result were three distinct instants or moments, separated by short intermissions.

In the first instant they were all created and endowed with graces and gifts, coming into existence as most beautiful and perfect creatures. Then followed a short pause, during which the will of the Creator was propounded and intimated, and the law and command was given to them, to acknowledge Him as their Maker and supreme Lord, and to fulfil the end for which they have been created. During this pause, instant or interval, Saint Michael and his angels fought that great battle with the dragon and his followers, which is described by the apostle Saint John in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse. The good angels, persevering in grace, merited eternal happiness. The disobedient angels, rebelling against God, merited the punishment, which they now suffer . . .

During the whole first week of the creation of the world and its contents Lucifer and the demons were occupied in machinations and projects of wickedness against the Word, who was to become incarnate, and against the Woman [who was to crush his head (Gen. 3, 15)] of Whom He was to be born and made man. On the first day, which corresponds to Sunday, were created the angels. Laws and precepts were given to them, for the guidance of their actions. The bad ones disobeyed and transgressed the mandates of the Lord. By divine providence and disposition then succeeded all the other events, which have been recorded above, up to the morning of the second day, corresponding to Monday, on which Lucifer and his hosts were driven and hurdled into hell. The duration of these days corresponds in the small periods, or delays, which intervened between their creation, activity, conquest, and fall or glorification . . .

cantatedomino · « **Reply #114 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:50:23 PM »

FROM THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD:

The most High looked upon His Son, and upon His most holy Mother as models, produced in the culmination of His wisdom and power, in order that They serve as prototypes according to which He was to copy the whole human race. He created also the necessary material beings required for human life, but with such wisdom that some of them act as symbols, to represent, in a certain way these two Beings. On this account He made the luminaries of heaven, the sun and the moon (Gen. 1,16) so that in dividing the day and the night, they might symbolise the Sun of Justice, Christ, and His holy mother, who is beautiful as the moon (Cant. 6, 9) for these two divide the day of grace and the night of sin. The sun illuminates the moon; and both, together with the stars of the firmament, illume all other creatures within the confines of the universe . . .

He created the rest of the beings and added to their perfection, because they were to be submissive to Christ and the most holy Mary and through Them to the rest of men. Before the universe proceeded from its nothingness, He set it as a banquet abundant and unfailing, for he was to create man for his delight and to draw him to the enjoyment of his knowledge and love. Like a most courteous and bounteous Lord He did not wish that the invited guests should wait, but that both the creation and the invitation to the banquet and love be one and the same act. Man was not to lose any time in that which concerned him so much; namely, to know and to praise his almighty Maker . . .

On the sixth day He formed and created Adam, as it were of the age of thirty-three years. This was the age in which Christ was to suffer death and Adam with regard to his body was so like unto Christ, that scarcely any difference existed. Also according to the soul, Adam was similar to Christ. From Adam God formed Eve so similar to the Blessed Virgin that she was like unto Her in personal appearance and in figure. God looked upon these two images of the great Originals with the highest pleasure and benevolence, and on account of the Originals He heaped many blessings upon them, as if He wanted to entertain Himself with them and their descendants until the time should arrive for forming Christ and Mary.

But the happy state in which God had created the parents of the human race lasted only a very short while. The envy of the serpent was immediately aroused against them, for Satan was patiently awaiting their creation, and no sooner were they created, than his hatred became active against them. However, he was not permitted to witness the formation of Adam and Eve, as he had witnessed the creation of all other things: for the Lord did not choose to manifest to him the creation of man, nor the formation of Eve from a rib; all these things were concealed from him for a space of time until both of them were joined.

But when the demon saw the admirable composition of the human nature, perfect beyond that of any creature, the beauty of the souls and also of the bodies of Adam and Eve; when he saw the paternal love with which the Lord regarded them, and how He made them the lords of all creation, and that He gave them hope of eternal life: the wrath of the dragon was lashed to fury, and no tongue can describe the rage with which that beast was filled, nor how great was his envy and his desire to take the life of these two beings. Like an enraged lion he certainly would have done so, if he had not known that a superior force would prevent him. Nevertheless he studied and plotted out some means, which would suffice to deprive them of the grace of the Most High and make them God’s enemies . . .

cantatedomino · « **Reply #115 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:51:41 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church; and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #116 on:** January 30, 2014, 12:57:34 AM »

.

Thank you, cantatedomino for selecting a larger font. It looks great!

Now, I might be wrong, but you can click that font size button once, and now all the readers don't have to adjust their display every time they come to this thread, if I'm not mistaken. I know it's that way for me. But I guess I could be alone on this.

And again, am I alone, or does nobody else know who it is who wrote this blue font paragraph a few posts back? Is this the Earthmovers' author (hardly likely!), or cantatedomino, or someone else speaking? I mean this:

Quote from: cantatedomino

THE EARTHMOVERS: Before we begin to trace the history of the ‘Discarded Image,’ let us first prepare ourselves with a little reading that helps us see Catholic faith in an Omnipotent Creator as He is and why a geocentric world concords with all the perfections of his creation. Our choice of reading comes from the private revelations of God to Sister Mary of Jesus, better known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). Sister Mary began recording these secret insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial wherein the formal heresy of a fixed sun and moving earth was condemned by popes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

[Not only is this no coincidence, but also, the revelations of Our Lady of Good success to Mother Marianna of Quito occurred at this time. Consider the fact that Sister Mary of Agreda was mystically transported to South America to prepare certain Indians for the coming of the Gospel. Consider further that South America was the seat of the diabolical, cannibalistic, human-sacrificing, sun-worshipping cult of the serpent idol. Consider the mind-boggling number of conversions of sun-worshipping natives caused by the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which culminated in the great Cristero war, in which so many faithful Catholics were slaughtered at the hands of sun-worshiping freemasons and through the ignorance and permissiveness of an impotent, copernicanized pope, whose church of St. Peter at the Vatican sports an Egyptian obelisk smack dab in the centre of its piazza - a disgusting symbol of the most perverse of all helio-occultic ideas. Lastly consider that the public miracle of Fatima was the heavenly revelation, to both Church and State, of the natural, real, and divinely determined motility of the sun.]

I'm asking because it seems like the page breaks character here. I'm glad the font is in blue because then my suspicion is verified. If it were not in blue, my question here might not be so meek, if you know what I mean! HAHAHA

Post

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: cantatedomino
Posted by: Memento Dec 22 2012, 08:40 PM

The intersecting paths of the orbiting bodies create a five petaled flower around the earth which has 5 points like the wounds of Christ.

Not only that, but following the innermost path alone, you can apply the pattern to properly torque your wheel lug nuts when you're changing a tire on your car!

That being said, are we still in the Preface to The Earthmovers here?

Or is this thread now off to another topic, like what, your emails, cantatedomino?

.

So, without answering me, here is Chapter 1 following my post, above, so I guess that means we were still in the Preface, after a few quick detours to emails?

Warning: the following material is OFF TOPIC:

Quote from: Wessex

There are four wheel nuts on my four tyres .... oh I forgot the spare!

Wessex, you shouldn't be worrying about tightening lug nuts on the spare, until you go to mount it on the car! It's not secured by 4 bolts in the boot, is it?

FYI: you can still use the spirograph flower for your lug nuts! Remember which nut you start on, and just snug it, then the next one to snug is diametrical; followed by the two adjacent, snugged one at a time; then for the second pass, return to the one you started on, and tighten halfway to the torque spec, repeating the pattern above, then finally on the third pass, torque the first one all the way, then the second, etc. This is the pattern that the 5-pointed flower approximates when applied to the 4-bolt / square pattern.

More simply stated, if you number the bolts 1, 2, 3, 4, going around the axle, then you would tighten them as either 1, 3, 4, 2, or 1, 3, 2, 4; it makes no difference which of these two. Just be sure to return to 1 for the second pass and the final pass.

It's interesting that on older race cars, when they change tires in pit stops, they didn't usually bother with all that fuss to save time, but then remember, sometimes wheels fell off of race cars. The newer ones just have one lug nut in the center. And yes, the left side has left handed threads, like the old Chryslers used to have.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #117 on:** January 30, 2014, 01:25:21 AM »

.

Syntax and grammar problems:

The following appears as a compound sentence, one separated by a semicolon, however, neither the part that comes before the divide is a sentence, nor is the part that follows it:

Quote from: cantatedomino

THE EARTHMOVERS: Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church; and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science.

This is not a sentence:
Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church

Nor is this a sentence:
and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science

So what are we to make of it? Are we supposed to start presuming that we know what the subject and the predicate are? Are we supposed to supply the missing verb? Here are some possibilities:

Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church arises before us and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science.

Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church becomes manifest to us and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science.

Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church is reaffirmed, and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science, is put in his place.

This topic is difficult enough, without the added obfuscation of inept diction.
Is there something that can be done about this?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #118 on:** January 30, 2014, 03:39:22 AM »

.

Here's another problem paragraph.

What is the meaning of this "sentence?"

Quote

Hence another supposed conflict between faith and science.

Reading just this 'sentence' (it isn't a sentence at all), by the time one arrives at the end of it, the period is a complete surprise, because more words are required for it to be a sentence. E.g., "Hence, another supposed conflict between faith and science, because of the diligent and nefarious efforts of those who would undermine the authority of the Church, was perceived by many." Or, "Hence, another supposed conflict between faith and science erupted." -- But that's not what's on the page, is it? No, it's not. So what happens then? Then the reader has to go back and read it again to see if some word was missed. But upon finding no skipped words, the following questions come to the fore:

What is the subject? What is the predicate? What is the verb?

As an adverb, hence could be used here to mean: 3. from this source or origin.

..but if so, as an adverb, it is not the Subject of the "sentence," but would be used to join the Subject to the predicate, therefore, the Subject is missing, and so is the verb, because "another supposed conflict between faith and science" is just a prepositional phrase (based on "between") that would be ATTACHED to the sentence (if it were a sentence).

Example: We found another supposed conflict between faith and science. -- the subject is "We," and the verb is "found," and the rest is the prepositional phrase belonging to the predicate, "found another supposed conflict between faith and science." An analytical contraction would be "We found it."

Is this word, "hence" being used in an archaic sense? And if so, is that some roundabout appeal to awaken an archaic sensibility in the reader?

From dictionary.com:

Archaic: ...2 (of 3 such). from this world or from the living: After a long, hard life they were taken hence.

If not, then is there a verb at all? Is "hence" hiding the verb -- in which case the subject is missing? I.e., From hence is another supposed conflict between faith and science.

The reader has to return to the beginning of the paragraph and presume that some inadequacy of diction is present, and now this shortcoming and defect of syntax and/or grammar must be anticipated so as to discern what might possibly have been in the mind of the writer who just forgot to put all the words in that should be there, WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE.

The paragraph is found in post #110, and it appears as follows:

Quote

It is true that the believer is less free in his knowledge but only because he knows more. The unbeliever has only one source of knowledge; the believer has two. Logic will indicate both should be used to establish the infallible truth. Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science. Hence another supposed conflict between faith and science. The answer to this accusation is that it is what injures the dignity of science that constitutes the conflict, things such as the endorsement of errors, sham theories and arbitrary postulates.

Please know that I'm not trying to make trouble here. I believe that the content of this "book" (without page numbers!!) is important, and it can do a lot of good, but the sentence structure leaves A LOT to be desired. If I made mention of every instance when I've had to stop and re-read a paragraph two or three times as I did the one above, it would be at least one for every post. Why make it so difficult? Why not just use proper English? Or, is it the author's hope that as few people read it as possible?

A sentence is a complete thought, and a non-sentence can be anything at all, or it could even be MEANINGLESS. But it is always confusing.

If I didn't think this was important, I would not bother to comment. But there are a LOT of non-sentences like this here, which leave enormous ambiguities in the signification of what is being said here. A lot of readers are going to be turned off by the challenge, and they could well blame the style and grammar problems for why they had no interest in the material, even though the material itself may have been the real reason.

.

cassini · « **Reply #119 on:** January 30, 2014, 11:47:13 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.
Here's another problem paragraph.

What is the meaning of this "sentence?"
Quote
Hence another supposed conflict between faith and science.

Reading just this 'sentence' (it isn't a sentence at all), by the time one arrives at the end of it, the period is a complete surprise, because more words are required for it to be a sentence. E.g., "Hence, another supposed conflict between faith and science, because of the diligent and nefarious efforts of those who would undermine the authority of the Church, was perceived by many." Or, "Hence, another supposed conflict between faith and science erupted." -- But that's not what's on the page, is it? No, it's not. So what happens then? Then the reader has to go back and read it again to see if some word was missed. But upon finding no skipped words, the following questions come to the fore:

What is the subject? What is the predicate? What is the verb?

As an adverb, hence could be used here to mean: 3. from this source or origin.

..but if so, as an adverb, it is not the Subject of the "sentence," but would be used to join the Subject to the predicate, therefore, the Subject is missing, and so is the verb, because "another supposed conflict between faith and science" is just a prepositional phrase (based on "between") that would be ATTACHED to the sentence (if it were a sentence).

Example: We found another supposed conflict between faith and science. -- the subject is "We," and the verb is "found," and the rest is the prepositional phrase belonging to the predicate, "found another supposed conflict between faith and science." An analytical contraction would be "We found it."

Is this word, "hence" being used in an archaic sense? And if so, is that some roundabout appeal to awaken an archaic sensibility in the reader?
From dictionary.com:

Archaic: ...2 (of 3 such). from this world or from the living: After a long, hard life they were taken hence.

If not, then is there a verb at all? Is "hence" hiding the verb -- in which case the subject is missing? I.e., From hence is another supposed conflict between faith and science.

The reader has to return to the beginning of the paragraph and presume that some inadequacy of diction is present, and now this shortcoming and defect of syntax and/or grammar must be anticipated so as to discern what might possibly have been in the mind of the writer who just forgot to put all the words in that should be there, WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE.

The paragraph is found in post #110, and it appears as follows:

Quote

It is true that the believer is less free in his knowledge but only because he knows more. The unbeliever has only one source of knowledge; the believer has two. Logic will indicate both should be used to establish the infallible truth. Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science. Hence another supposed conflict between faith and science. The answer to this accusation is that it is what injures the dignity of science that constitutes the conflict, things such as the endorsement of errors, sham theories and arbitrary postulates.

Please know that I'm not trying to make trouble here. I believe that the content of this "book" (without page numbers!!) is important, and it can do a lot of good, but the sentence structure leaves A LOT to be desired. If I made mention of every instance when I've had to stop and re-read a paragraph two or three times as I did the one above, it would be at least one for every post. Why make it so difficult? Why not just use proper English? Or, is it the author's hope that as few people read it as possible?

A sentence is a complete thought, and a non-sentence can be anything at all, or it could even be MEANINGLESS. But it is always confusing.

If I didn't think this was important, I would not bother to comment. But there are a LOT of non-sentences like this here, which leave enormous ambiguities in the signification of what is being said here. A lot of readers are going to be turned off by the challenge, and they could well blame the style and grammar problems for why they had no interest in the material, even though the material itself may have been the real reason.
.

Why don't you eliminate 'Hence' and simply place a comma there. Both mean the same thing. Let us not make a song and dance out of two ways to say something.

'The unbeliever has only one source of knowledge; the believer has two. Logic will indicate both should be used to establish the infallible truth. Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science, another supposed conflict between faith and science.'

As I understand it Neil, the author decided to begin his book with a Prologue, the story as it has been offered for centuries, a Preface to show no proof exists for heliocentrism and that that is how the new paradign will be wrtten up, and finally an Introduction to the book as to what will be discussed.
As I understand it also, the passages in blue are the posters own comments.