[titidam]

Here is TFES take on religion according to the FAQ page https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

Is flat earth theory connected to a religion?
Flat earth theory is neither officially nor unofficially associated with any religion. Throughout the ages various religious institutions have championed a flat earth model for the world. Unfortunately this leaves us with the vestigial thought that flat earth theory and religions are symbiotic. They are not, even though many religions today, both mainstream and otherwise, still teach its followers that the world is flat. While they are not incorrect, believing in a flat earth isn't contingent upon believing in a deity or being a part of any religion.

However, in the couple of paragraphs immediately above this one, two names are cited. Samuel Shenton for being at the origin of the International Flat Earth Research Society, following the Universal Zetetic Society. And Samuel Rowbotham for his experiments on the lack of curvature. His book "Earth not a globe" is even cited and linked, which is often the case in Flat Earth discussions.

These statements are contradictory with the fact that TFES deems those religious connections "vestigial" and not "contingent".

An example of contingency, the reason behind the Universal Zetetic Society reads:

After Rowbotham's death, Lady Elizabeth Blount established a Universal Zetetic Society, whose objective was "the propagation of knowledge related to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based on practical scientific investigation".

The book linked by TFES wiki itself, "Earth not a globe", explains how the Flat Earth theory is written to support Christians against modern science. Here is the last paragraph of the book, in the words of Samuel Rowbotham:

To truthfully instruct the ingenuous Christian mind, to protect it from the meshes of false philosophy, and the snares of specious but hollow illogical reasoning; to save it from falling into the frigid arms of atheistic science; to convince it that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly, and to induce great numbers of earnest deep-thinking human beings to desert the rebellious cause of atheism; to return to a full recognition of the beauty and truthfulness of the Scriptures, and to a participation in the joy and satisfaction which the Christian religion alone can supply, is a grand and cheering result, and one which furnishes the noblest possible answer to the ever ready Cui bono.

Many other pages in the book explain how his work supposedly reinstate the belief in Christ and the Bible. So by dissociating itself with its Christian roots, TFES is contradicting the one and only source it is built on.

So which one is it? A mere hypocrisy to hide the truth, or an assumed treason of Rowbotham's ideas?

[Mysfit]

Some folks' flat theories are rooted in Christianity (not sure where you got 'Christianism' from). Some are not, and are based upon understanding of a book or interpretation of a few experiments.
Sorry if i didn't cover the spectrum

Regardless, being linked to people that are christians would not make a theory that is necessarily christian. Natural selection and the origin of the species both have roots in christianity (monks and Darwin) but can conflict with most religious dogma.
A lot of historical scientists were very much religious (it was cool back then), a religious link doesn't make a theory religious.

What would make a theory religious to me would be basing it on scripture and attacking anything that is contrary to it's ultimate truth.
Flat theory has this forum, so would fail my imaginary test on at least the second count.

[Tom Bishop]

Many other pages in the book explain how his work supposedly reinstate the belief in Christ and the Bible. So by dissociating itself with its Christian roots, TFES is contradicting the one and only source it is built on.

Religion is only mentioned in the final chapter, which assesses Flat Earth from a philosophical standpoint. Read the entire chapter: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za66.htm

Rowbotham describes that the the material world of of Christian, Jewish, and religious scripture reflects a Flat Earth. Rowbotham further described ancient mythologies also depict a Flat Earth; which is true. The ancients believed in a Flat Earth, and scripture is used as an authority by historians to tell us what the ancients believed. Humanity got it right the first time. The earth is flat.

"Christ" isn't mentioned at all. You are either mistaken, or you are lying and have other motives.

[stack]

Some folks' flat theories are rooted in Christianity (not sure where you got 'Christianism' from). Some are not, and are based upon understanding of a book or interpretation of a few experiments.
Sorry if i didn't cover the spectrum

Regardless, being linked to people that are christians would not make a theory that is necessarily christian. Natural selection and the origin of the species both have roots in christianity (monks and Darwin) but can conflict with most religious dogma.
A lot of historical scientists were very much religious (it was cool back then), a religious link doesn't make a theory religious.

What would make a theory religious to me would be basing it on scripture and attacking anything that is contrary to it's ultimate truth.
Flat theory has this forum, so would fail my imaginary test on at least the second count.

I think the point is that it's clear that Rowbotham, as evidenced by Chapter 15 in ENAG, purports that his theory is in support of and based on scriptural doctrine. Lady Blount and Voliva as well. Steadfastly so.

Whether the christian foundation upon which these founders of modern day flat earth theory still runs through FET today is debatable. The point of fact is that these founders were firmly rooting their theory in support of religious dogma.

[Tom Bishop]

Some folks' flat theories are rooted in Christianity (not sure where you got 'Christianism' from). Some are not, and are based upon understanding of a book or interpretation of a few experiments.
Sorry if i didn't cover the spectrum

Regardless, being linked to people that are christians would not make a theory that is necessarily christian. Natural selection and the origin of the species both have roots in christianity (monks and Darwin) but can conflict with most religious dogma.
A lot of historical scientists were very much religious (it was cool back then), a religious link doesn't make a theory religious.

What would make a theory religious to me would be basing it on scripture and attacking anything that is contrary to it's ultimate truth.
Flat theory has this forum, so would fail my imaginary test on at least the second count.

I think the point is that it's clear that Rowbotham, as evidenced by Chapter 15 in ENAG, purports that his theory is in support of and based on scriptural doctrine. Lady Blount and Voliva as well. Steadfastly so.

Whether the christian foundation upon which these founders of modern day flat earth theory still runs through FET today is debatable. The point of fact is that these founders were firmly rooting their theory in support of religious dogma.

Rowbotham mentions both Christian and Jewish religions as supporting Flat Earth, and has several quotes such as "In the religious and mythological poems of all ages and nations the fact of the sun's motion is recognized and declared."

Are these words of a Christian biblical literalist?

No. It shows that your conclusions to be biased, and your research to be sub-par. This fact was pointed out to you in the past, and you ignore it, showing your motives to be deviant.

[stack]

Some folks' flat theories are rooted in Christianity (not sure where you got 'Christianism' from). Some are not, and are based upon understanding of a book or interpretation of a few experiments.
Sorry if i didn't cover the spectrum

Regardless, being linked to people that are christians would not make a theory that is necessarily christian. Natural selection and the origin of the species both have roots in christianity (monks and Darwin) but can conflict with most religious dogma.
A lot of historical scientists were very much religious (it was cool back then), a religious link doesn't make a theory religious.

What would make a theory religious to me would be basing it on scripture and attacking anything that is contrary to it's ultimate truth.
Flat theory has this forum, so would fail my imaginary test on at least the second count.

I think the point is that it's clear that Rowbotham, as evidenced by Chapter 15 in ENAG, purports that his theory is in support of and based on scriptural doctrine. Lady Blount and Voliva as well. Steadfastly so.

Whether the christian foundation upon which these founders of modern day flat earth theory still runs through FET today is debatable. The point of fact is that these founders were firmly rooting their theory in support of religious dogma.

Rowbotham mentions both Christian and Jewish religions as supporting Flat Earth, and has several quotes such as "In the religious and mythological poems of all ages and nations the fact of the sun's motion is recognized and declared."

Are these words of a Christian biblical literalist?

No. It shows that your conclusions of bias to be based on ignorance, and your research to be sub-par.

In ENAG, Rowbotham lays out his flat earth theory, findings, experiments, conjecture and otherwise. However, he cleverly leaves the best for last. Chapter 15.

Chapter 15 traces back to 'scripture' as everything he purports in the first 14 chapters with dozens and dozens of scriptural references that either back his claims or he backs into them.

According to Rowbotham, "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” According to his bible interpretation, the scriptures are the hypothesis, the initial theory, that the world is flat. As he continually cites biblical quotes, dozens of them, to prove such.

Lady Blount and her cronies do no better with their society in this regard. From The Universal Zetetic Society founded in 1892:

OUR MOTTO
For God and His truth, as found in Nature and taught in His Word.

OUR OBJECT

The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation.

RULES

1.  Everything extraneous to “Our Object” to be avoided.

2.  The so-called “sciences,” and especially Modern Astronomy, to be dealt with from practical data in connection with the Divine system of Cosmogony revealed by the Creator.

[Tom Bishop]

According to Rowbotham, "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” According to his bible interpretation, the scriptures are the hypothesis, the initial theory, that the world is flat. As he continually cites biblical quotes, dozens of them, to prove such.

Scripture and its meaning has been discussed for thousands of years. The fact that the ancients were correct about the material world after all is significant.

Throughout the entire book Rowbotham argues that scientists deny an empirical deduction process, and prefer to speculate on theory. That is the entire moral of the book. The final chapter concludes with the fact that the ancients were smart and observant enough to figure out the truth and had it right all along.

In regards to the later Flat Earthers, such as Lady Blount, Flat Earth does affirm the teachings of the material world as depicted in scripture.

[Mysfit]

I'm hesitant to call everything a religious person does, even if attempting to coincide with dogma, to be religious. It's shaky, but still.
So long as debating or contradicting it at all isn't assumed to be foolish.

Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents. It is an authority regardless if one is religious or not.

Using old scripture as evidence is a bit... It has it's limits. Do cave paintings count as absolute truth? Clay tablets? How old are you allowed to go?
Then you get into picking and choosing which bits are true or not. I am not fond of religious debate.

[Tom Bishop]

I'm hesitant to call everything a religious person does, even if attempting to coincide with dogma, to be religious. It's shaky, but still.
So long as debating or contradicting it at all isn't assumed to be foolish.

Scripture IS an authority. You are ignorant on what it actually represents. It is an authority regardless if one is religious or not.

Using old scripture as evidence is a bit... It has it's limits. Do cave paintings count as absolute truth? Clay tablets? How old are you allowed to go?
Then you get into picking and choosing which bits are true or not. I am not fond of religious debate.

Scripture represents what the ancients believed. It has tremendous historical value. The fact that many cultures and civilizations believed in Flat Earth is a significant point. They all came to the same conclusion: The earth is flat and it is the sun that moves. Their thoughts on the matter is absolutely an authority to point to. Many (all) of those civilizations dedicated themselves to discovery of our world, and often excelled in astronomical prediction.

Or are you to say that the lives and conclusions of numerous cultures, civilizations, and literally millions of people means nothing?

[titidam]

"Christ" isn't mentioned at all. You are either mistaken, or a liar with other motives.

Have you even looked for the word "Christ" in the link you provided (the last chapter of Earth not a globe)? Because it appears numerous times.

The creation of the world, the origin of evil, and the fall of man; the plan of redemption .by the death of Christ, the Day of Judgment, and the final consummation of all things, are, in the Scriptures, invariably associated with this earth alone. A great number of passages might be quoted which prove that no other material world is ever, in the slightest manner, referred to by the inspired writers.

The same stultifying theory of astronomy, with its false and inconceivable distances and magnitudes, operates to destroy the ordinary common sense and Scripturally authorised chronology. Christian and Jewish commentators--except the astronomically educated--hold and teach, on Scriptural authority, that the earth as well as the sun, moon, and stars, were created about 4000 years before the birth of Christ, or less than 6000 years before the present time.

If it be true that the stars and planets are magnificent worlds, for the most part larger than the earth, it is a very proper question to ask "Are they inhabited?" If the answer be in the affirmative, it is equally proper to inquire "Have the first parents in each world been tempted as were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?" If so, "Did they yield to the temptation and fall as they did?" If so, "Have they required redemption?" And "Have they been redeemed?" "Has each different world required the same kind of redemption, and had a separate Redeemer; or has Christ, by His suffering on earth and crucifixion on Calvary, been the Redeemer for all the innumerable myriads of worlds in the universe; or had He to suffer and die in each world successively?

I hope this proves I'm not a liar or have hidden motives. Just that you don't read what you cite.

[titidam]

A lot of historical scientists were very much religious (it was cool back then), a religious link doesn't make a theory religious.

I'm well aware of that argument and I couldn't agree more. Some religious minds have massively contributed to science and we'd loose a lot by ignoring them.

However, there's a difference between citing a theory from a religious author, and citing a theory that is definitely religious as admitted and advertised by its author. This is the case of "Earth not a globe" and everything that followed.

[Tom Bishop]

"Christ" isn't mentioned at all. You are either mistaken, or a liar with other motives.

Have you even looked for the word "Christ" in the link you provided (the last chapter of Earth not a globe)? Because it appears numerous times.

The creation of the world, the origin of evil, and the fall of man; the plan of redemption .by the death of Christ, the Day of Judgment, and the final consummation of all things, are, in the Scriptures, invariably associated with this earth alone. A great number of passages might be quoted which prove that no other material world is ever, in the slightest manner, referred to by the inspired writers.

The same stultifying theory of astronomy, with its false and inconceivable distances and magnitudes, operates to destroy the ordinary common sense and Scripturally authorised chronology. Christian and Jewish commentators--except the astronomically educated--hold and teach, on Scriptural authority, that the earth as well as the sun, moon, and stars, were created about 4000 years before the birth of Christ, or less than 6000 years before the present time.

If it be true that the stars and planets are magnificent worlds, for the most part larger than the earth, it is a very proper question to ask "Are they inhabited?" If the answer be in the affirmative, it is equally proper to inquire "Have the first parents in each world been tempted as were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?" If so, "Did they yield to the temptation and fall as they did?" If so, "Have they required redemption?" And "Have they been redeemed?" "Has each different world required the same kind of redemption, and had a separate Redeemer; or has Christ, by His suffering on earth and crucifixion on Calvary, been the Redeemer for all the innumerable myriads of worlds in the universe; or had He to suffer and die in each world successively?

I hope this proves I'm not a liar or have hidden motives. Just that you don't read what you cite.

"Before Christ," "After Christ"... have you never used the terms B.C. and A.D before?

Those are literally the only mentions of "Christ" at all, are rather indirect, and it is in a context of talking about religious philosophy. Hardly a message of "this proves Christ!" as you depict in your OP.

Rowbotham does not say that at all. Your depiction of that is either a mistake or a lie, and I am leaning towards the later.

[Pete Svarrior]

However, in the couple of paragraphs immediately above this one, two names are cited. Samuel Shenton for being at the origin of the International Flat Earth Research Society, following the Universal Zetetic Society. And Samuel Rowbotham for his experiments on the lack of curvature. His book "Earth not a globe" is even cited and linked, which is often the case in Flat Earth discussions.

Things can change a lot over the course of decades (or, indeed, centuries). Pretending that the religious beliefs of the long-deceased somehow force us to be religious is laughable, to put things lightly.

[Mysfit]

Scripture represents what the ancients believed.

I'm not gonna poke at what "the ancients" are, that's a beehive if I ever saw one.

It has tremendous historical value. The fact that many cultures and civilizations believed in Flat Earth is a significant point. They all came to the same conclusion: The earth is flat and it is the sun that moves. Their thoughts on the matter is absolutely an authority to point to. Many (All) of those civilizations dedicated themselves to discovery of our world, and excelled in astronomical prediction.

Or are you to say that the lives and conclusions of numerous cultures, civilizations, and literally millions of people means nothing?

I agree that old writings have historical significance. I'm not fond of history, but television tells me it's worth a lot of money.
I disagree that that worth is truth.
Hell, for a long period the Americas were not on the map. No explicitly scriptures said there were more countries than the one giant land mass.
Should I assume the Americas don't exist? The lives and conclusions of numerous civilizations and literally millions of people says there's nothing there.

[Tom Bishop]

I agree that old writings have historical significance. I'm not fond of history, but television tells me it's worth a lot of money.
I disagree that that worth is truth.
Hell, for a long period the Americas were not on the map. No explicitly scriptures said there were more countries than the one giant land mass.
Should I assume the Americas don't exist? The lives and conclusions of numerous civilizations and literally millions of people says there's nothing there.

Did they really say that nothing was there, or did they say that it was undiscovered and it was unknown what was there?

However, in the couple of paragraphs immediately above this one, two names are cited. Samuel Shenton for being at the origin of the International Flat Earth Research Society, following the Universal Zetetic Society. And Samuel Rowbotham for his experiments on the lack of curvature. His book "Earth not a globe" is even cited and linked, which is often the case in Flat Earth discussions.

Things can change a lot over the course of decades (or, indeed, centuries). Pretending that the religious beliefs of the long-deceased somehow force us to be religious is laughable, to put things lightly.

The funny thing is that neither Rowbotham or Lady Bount ever said that "this proves Christ" or "this proves God," and only made comments that it affirms the material world as depicted in scripture.

Here is Issac Newton, the authority who brought the laws of physics to the solar system, using the influence of God to explain why his solar system doesn't fall apart:

https://books.google.com/books?id=hy48DQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false

At the beginning of the 18th century, Newton famously wrote that the solar system needed occasional divine intervention (presumably a nudge here and there from the hand of God) in order to remain stable.¹¹ This was interpreted to mean that Newton believed his mathematical model of the solar system—the n body problem—did not have stable solutions. Thus was the gauntlet laid down, and a proof of the stability of the n body problem became one of the great mathematical challenges of the age.

¹¹Newton's remarks about divine intervention appear in Query 23 of the 1706 (Latin) edition of Opticks, which became Query 31 of the 1717 (2nd Edition) edition see Quote Q[New] in Appendix E). Similar 'theological' remarks are found in scholia of the 2nd and 3rd editions of Principia, and in at least one of Newton's letters. In a 1715 letter to Caroline, Princess of Wales, Leibniz observed sarcastically that Newton had not only cast the Creator as a clock-maker, and a faulty one, but now as a clock-repairman (see [Klo73], Part XXXIV, pp. 54-55).

[titidam]

"Before Christ," "After Christ"... have you never used the terms B.C. and A.D before?

Those are literally the only mentions of "Christ" at all, and it is in a context of talking about religious philosophy. Hardly a message of "this proves Christ!" as you depict in your OP.

Rowbotham does not say that at all. Your depiction of that is either a mistake or a lie, and I am leaning towards the later.

You're cherry picking because you obviously don't refer to the last one, where Rowbotham imagines what a universe with several planets implies for the Redemption of Christ - whether each planet had their own savior or if the death of our savior works for every other planet. Don't tell me that this isn't aimed at furthering the belief in Christ in the light of modern astronomy.

And I didn't even paste all the quotes regarding Christ, there are more. You could read the book before defending it. This is a major issue in your stance, and you resorting to name calling is an indication of it.

[Tom Bishop]

"Before Christ," "After Christ"... have you never used the terms B.C. and A.D before?

Those are literally the only mentions of "Christ" at all, and it is in a context of talking about religious philosophy. Hardly a message of "this proves Christ!" as you depict in your OP.

Rowbotham does not say that at all. Your depiction of that is either a mistake or a lie, and I am leaning towards the later.

You're cherry picking because you obviously don't refer to the last one, where Rowbotham imagines what a universe with several planets implies for the Redemption of Christ - whether each planet had their own savior or if the death of our savior works for every other planet. Don't tell me that this isn't aimed at furthering the belief in Christ in the light of modern astronomy.

And I didn't even paste all the quotes regarding Christ, there are more. You could read the book before defending it. This is a major issue in your stance, and you resorting to name calling is an indication of it.

Where does Rowbotham say that Flat Earth proves Christ?

He does not say that at all, and unlike Issac Newton, never brings in God to explain anything.

[stack]

"Before Christ," "After Christ"... have you never used the terms B.C. and A.D before?

Those are literally the only mentions of "Christ" at all, and it is in a context of talking about religious philosophy. Hardly a message of "this proves Christ!" as you depict in your OP.

Rowbotham does not say that at all. Your depiction of that is either a mistake or a lie, and I am leaning towards the later.

You first wrote:

"Christ" isn't mentioned at all. You are either mistaken, or a liar with other motives.

When the word is mentioned. And you proceeded to imply he is a liar in saying "Christ" is mentioned. And are now further implying it. That's not a very christian thing to do.

It's not necessarily the word "Christ", the word "scripture" is far more revealing in his writing. From Chapter 15:

"Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of our senses and judgment and authority of Scripture?"

"To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false!”

"The following language is quoted as an instance of the manner in which the doctrine of the earth's rotundity and the plurality of worlds interferes with Scriptural teachings…”

I could go on, there are many more.

[titidam]

Where does Rowbotham say that Flat Earth proves Christ?

He does not say that at all, and unlike Newton, never brings in God to explain anything.

He obviously doesn't say that Flat Earth proves Christ, that would be stupid. He says that his Flat Earth theory is made for Christians to reconcile their beliefs in the Scriptures with modern science. Including the belief in Christ and his Redemption. Many quotes have been cited in this thread already, that are taken directly from "Earth not a globe", stating that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong. And Flat Earth is supposed to make things right. It's absolutely contingent with the theory.

[Tom Bishop]

"Before Christ," "After Christ"... have you never used the terms B.C. and A.D before?

Those are literally the only mentions of "Christ" at all, and it is in a context of talking about religious philosophy. Hardly a message of "this proves Christ!" as you depict in your OP.

Rowbotham does not say that at all. Your depiction of that is either a mistake or a lie, and I am leaning towards the later.

You first wrote:

"Christ" isn't mentioned at all. You are either mistaken, or a liar with other motives.

When the word is mentioned. And you proceeded to imply he is a liar in saying "Christ" is mentioned. And are now further implying it. That's not a very christian thing to do.

And the weak rebuttal was to do a search and find Rowbotham's comments about

- statement about Scripture that was from a period of about "4000 years before the birth of Christ" -- factual statement
- a mention that "the death of Christ, the Day of Judgment, and the final consummation of all things, are, in the Scriptures" -- a factual statement
- a third statement more along the lines of "the bible says that that the earth is 'the' world... did these religious events such as the death of Christ happen on all of the worlds astronomy imagines?" -- more of an allegory and pointing out a contradiction, not about the character Christ at all.

That some words were found, without interpretation of the meaning, still makes it either a mistake or a lie. None of it is about using Flat Earth to prove Christ. None of it at all. Rowbotham does not devote any effort to talk about Christ or push the legitimacy of Christ. Christ is referred to indirectly, as a reference to birth or death, to talk about something else entirely. You are blindly referencing something to 'win' your case without context.