[Mysfit]

Scriptures are teachings that were written by the ancients and adopted into various religions.

Fine. I'll kick the bees nest.
Who are these "ancients" that wrote the scriptures.
The book indicates the scriptures are about 6,000 years old, though the oldest known writing system is 4000 years old (Semitic) with pictograph tablets at 5500 years old (Sumer). Yes, i'm googling as I go.
So, older than the oldest form of writing. I can't conceive of what comes before drawing on rocks.
What are the scriptures?

[titidam]

First off, in the quote he disclaims "respecting the material world," not all scripture.

Weird argument, your distinction makes no difference. We're discussing how he dismisses all science and scientists that may literaly contradict the Scriptures. Anything else, like the "immaterial" world I presume, bears no weight on science and knowledge, and certainly not on his dismissal of them.

Your distinction is also factually wrong. He does claim that the material truth of the Scriptures implies the truth of their moral and spiritual teachings, even their divine origin:

"The Christian will be greatly strengthened, and his mind more completely satisfied, by having it in his power to demonstrate that the Scriptures are philosophically true, than he could possibly be by the simple belief in their truthfulness unsupported by practical evidence."

"If the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality."

This Christian religion as a grand reality is still a quote from "Earth not a globe".

Secondly, he says that it "will readily be seen," meaning that whole quote is about Rowbotham making a prediction.

It's not a prediction. At the end of the book, his work of proving the Scriptures right is considered definitely accomplished, and any future evidence against them should be considered definitely wrong.

"This has now been done. The process–the modus operandi and the conclusions derived therefrom have been given in the early sections of this work; and, as these conclusions are found to be entirely consistent with the teachings of Scripture, we are compelled, by the sheer weight of evidence, by the force of practical demonstration and logical requirement, to declare emphatically that the Old and New Testaments of the Jewish and Christian Church are, in everything which appertains to the visible and material world, strictly and literally true."

The purpose of the book cannot be more transparent.

[Tom Bishop]

You are totally misinterpreting Rowbotham. Look at what you quoted on the last page:

If, after the severest criticism, and comparison with known causes of phenomena, the Scriptures are thus found to be absolutely truthful in their literal expressions, it is simply just and wise that we take them as standards by which to test the truth or falsehood of all systems or teachings which may hereafter be presented to the world. Philosophy is no longer to be employed as a test of Scriptural truth, but the Scriptures ought and may with safety and satisfaction be applied as the test of all philosophy. They are not, however, to be used as a test of science and philosophy simply because they are thought or believed to be written or dictated by inspiration, but because their literal teachings in regard to natural phenomena are demonstrably true.

If, after the severest of criticism

Who could disagree with this?

Does this sound like someone who is a bible fanatic, who only wants to prove God or whatever? Would a priest say that? No. It sounds like someone who values empiricism and critical deduction beyond all else. You are reaching to find whatever it is you want want to find.

Rowbotham makes reference to both Christian and Jewish religions and its agreement with Flat Earth in that chapter. Sometimes he says Jewish first and sometimes he says Christian first, and seems to be conscious about it. Is Rowbotham both a Christian and a Jew? Is Rowbotham the religion that he references the most by number count? Are you asserting that Rowbotham thinks that the Christian and Jewish religions are factually correct and are simultaneously the two true religions? You are not making any sense at all on your interpretation of motive. Your position does not make any sense because you are entirely wrong. All of this is a fantasy of yours.

PLEASE show us an example of a religious radical who encourages his audience to criticize scripture. 

[titidam]

Does this sound like someone who is a bible fanatic, who only wants to prove God or whatever? Would a priest say that? No. It sounds like someone who values empiricism and critical deduction beyond all else. You are reaching to find whatever it is you want want to find.

Yes, his book is about empirism. He wants to give an empirical and scientific credibility to the Bible. Because he wants Christianity to be considered factually and morally true. He wants his book to demonstrate it, once and for all, so that every other opinion can be considered wrong.

Rowbotham makes reference to both Christian and Jewish religions and its agreement with Flat Earth in that chapter. Sometimes he says Jewish first and sometimes he says Christian first, and seems to be conscious about it. Is Rowbotham both a Christian and a Jew? Is Rowbotham the religion that he references the most by number count? Are you asserting that Rowbotham thinks that the Christian and Jewish religions are factually correct and are the simultaneously the two true religions? You are not making any sense at all on your interpretation of motive. Your position does not make any sense because you are entirely wrong. All of this is a fantasy of yours.

Look, you are contradicting Rowbotham, not me. Yes he thinks that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are both true. You know very well this isn't contradictory because the Christian Bible includes the Jewish Bible. He embraces Christianity as the one true religion though. He declares it as a conclusion of his work: if the Bible can be demonstrated factually true, then it must also be philosophically and spiritually true, then the Christian god exists.

PLEASE show us an example of a religious radical who encourages his audience to criticize scripture. 

That's ridiculous, I'm not saying that a religious should criticize his own beliefs. I'm saying that this particular work referenced by all Flat Earthers is written to encourage people in believing the Scriptures. It isn't just a personal belief from the author without any consequence on his work. It is the central purpose and reason for the whole work, the whole theory. So much that he spent an entire chapter on explaining his motives in great details.

Could you react on this quote found in "Earth not a globe"?

"If the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality."

You have said repeatedly that this book doesn't proclaim the truth of the Christian god, and this quote seems relevant.

[Tom Bishop]

Could you react on this quote found in "Earth not a globe"?

"If the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality."

You have said repeatedly that this book doesn't proclaim the truth of the Christian god, and this quote seems relevant.

What kind of religious nut says that that the spiritual and moral teachings of religion is "possibly" true? And also encourages us to criticize the Bible?

This is a baloney assassination attempt. It's Rowbotham's chapter about what a Flat Earth might mean on a philophical and religious level, is obviously commentary, and nothing more.

[stack]

Could you react on this quote found in "Earth not a globe"?

"If the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality."

You have said repeatedly that this book doesn't proclaim the truth of the Christian god, and this quote seems relevant.

What kind of religious nut says that that the spiritual and moral teachings of religion is "possibly" true? And also encourages us to criticize the Bible?

This is a baloney assassination attempt. It's Rowbotham's chapter about what a Flat Earth might mean on a philophical and religious level, is obiously commentary, and nothing more.

Then all of ENAG is just 'commentary'. Here's this repeated bit of commentary, pretty clear as we've seen before:

"By defending a system which is directly opposed to that which is taught in connection with the Jewish and Christian religion they lead the more critical and daring intellects to question and deride the cosmogony and general philosophy contained in the sacred books. Because the Newtonian theory is held to be true they are led to reject the Scriptures altogether, to ignore the worship, and doubt and deny the existence of a Creator and Supreme Ruler of the world."

Seems like more to the point, if you're not on the bible bus, you're off the bible bus. 

[titidam]

This is a baloney assassination attempt. It's Rowbotham's chapter about what a Flat Earth might mean on a philophical and religious level, is obiously commentary, and nothing more.

I knew you would pick the may instead of the must. Ignoring the fact that this quote proves your previous messages wrong.

As someone already mentioned, your usual method is catastrophic here. It's Rowbotham's words you're denying, not an opponent's.

[Tom Bishop]

Here you go, I balanced out the "may" with the "must":

If the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality."

How anyone can think these are words of a religious zealot is beyond me. How many times have you heard a preacher say that the spiritual and moral teachings of the Bible are "possible," while also encouraging the listener to criticize it?

Then all of ENAG is just 'commentary'. Here's this repeated bit of commentary, pretty clear as we've seen before:

"By defending a system which is directly opposed to that which is taught in connection with the Jewish and Christian religion they lead the more critical and daring intellects to question and deride the cosmogony and general philosophy contained in the sacred books. Because the Newtonian theory is held to be true they are led to reject the Scriptures altogether, to ignore the worship, and doubt and deny the existence of a Creator and Supreme Ruler of the world."

Seems like more to the point, if you're not on the bible bus, you're off the bible bus. 

This is commentary on Athiesm and it's role in science. Do you know when people started calling themselves athiests? During the "Age of Enlightenment" of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"The actual term atheism emerged first in the 16th century.[15] With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word atheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment.[16][15]"

They thought they were cool for rejecting religious dogma of the world and called it enlightenment. A supposed scientific revolution to be free of the old mythology.

The role of athiesm is directly related to the subject matter. Rowbotham criticises the Age of Enlightenment all throughout his work.

[titidam]

How anyone can think these are words of a religious zealot is beyond me. How many times have you heard a preacher say that the spiritual and moral teachings of the Bible are "possible," while also encouraging the listener to criticize it?

Nobody accused Rowbotham of fanatism. I don't have a problem with Rowbotham being religious. He could be the most pious man and that would only be his right. That would not diminish the value of his work for me. I have a problem with the Flat Earth theory being religious in nature and TFES denying it.

Let's look at another author. Racism is contingent with the work of H.P. Lovecraft. It's impossible to appreciate his literature without being bombarded with racist hypotheses. They're a concrete part of the lore. In his work, there are supernatural creatures such as Cthulhu ; respectable men driven crazy and into submission by the powers of such creatures ; and black people who are seen as a degenerate form, already corrupted by the supernatural, intermediate between man and Cthulhu's servant.

Confronted with this fact, readers can choose to fully reject such literature. One can hold the author accountable for his beliefs, estimate that they are incompatible with any intellectual value, and preemptively discard all the work. You know that some atheists can be as virulent against religiosity as others are against racism. In Rowbotham's case, this attitude would be akin to rejecting his work on the only basis of his Christian beliefs. This is not what I do. In my opinion, thinking that a religious person can't produce a work of any scientific value, is a grave error.

Other Lovecraft's readers, more interested in literature than judging morals, try to make amends with the work. One can estimate that moral flaws don't preclude all intellectual value. You just have to cut through the bad and keep the good. We do that all the time in everyday's life. Given that a vast majority of authors lived under very different times and belief systems than nowadays, cutting through their horrendous mistakes is very often necessary.

However, it's still an intellectual alteration of the work. One can say: "I don't care that the work of Lovecraft is blatantly racist. I forget that, dissociate myself from him, and read for the sci fi."

But if one were to say: "The work of Lovecraft isn't racist," that would only be a lie. This is the fallacy that TFES commits with Rowbotham's "Earth not a globe" and the whole Flat Earth theory.

The book itself is a piece of proselytism to convince people that the Scriptures are true. His goal is written by Rowbotham himself.

The Christian religion, and no other, is contingent with his Flat Earth theory. You can't have one without the other. Just like you can't have Cthulhu without degenerate humans. The contingency is written in both works.

TFES could say: "We know that the Flat Earth theory is religious, but we don't care. We dissociate ourselves from Rowbotham, cut through the religious stuff, and only keep the empirical."

That's not what TFES does, however. Instead it denies the religiosity of the Flat Earth theory:

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.

Again, you only have to read "Earth not a globe" to see the contingency of the Christian religion with Rowbotham's theory.

My question was: is the dissociation with Rowbotham's ideas assumed? If not, it's only a hypocrisy.

All the dancing around and making excuses in this thread should be proof enough.

[Tom Bishop]

What we have seen here are not the words of someone trying to use this to push a religion. No self respecting religious zealot would say that the spiritual nature of the Bible is "possible" and encourage the reader to subject the teachings of the Bible to the harshest of criticism.

Rowbotham is very fact-based in his approach. He tells us what is believed about religion and it's application to a Flat Earth, not what he believes in any spiritual sense.

All who believe in and speak of Heaven and hell, do so of the former as above and of the latter as below the earth; and we have good reason, nay, positive evidence, that regions answering to such places exist over and under the physical world (the subject, however, in its moral and spiritual aspect cannot be entered upon in a scientific work like this; the reader who may feel an interest will find sufficient to satisfy him in the work entitled the "Life of Christ Zetetically Considered").

All of these quotes posted from his chapter on religion and philosophy, therefore, are not really Rowbotham pushing anything at all, and are merely facts on what Scripture says and what is believed.

So, no, religion is not really a part of Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe. He prefers to keep the "possible" spiritual and moral aspect out of this scientific work, and directs the reader, if interested in that, to another work entirely.

We do the same. We state, more or less, in the Wiki that, while many religions describe a Flat Earth, the spiritual matter is not really in the scope of our content. We do the same thing Rowbotham does, except in one sentence instead of 10,000. There is no contradiction with Rowbotham, only an imagined one. We are in full agreement.

[titidam]

So it's denial and hypocrisy.

"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."

[Tom Bishop]

This is an entire misinterpretation. Rowbotham characterizes atheists as "rebellious" and are doing so merely for rebellious reasons. Rowbotham goes on to deride atheism because they generally discard Scripture, our past knowledge, without cause. Atheists have mainly been of a "rebellious" cause, and I tend to agree with him on that.

I don't see a religious zealot. Rowbotham, in fact, tells us that it is faulty to push religion based on belief:

It is quite as faulty and unjust for the religious devotee to urge the teaching of Scripture against the theories of the philosopher simply because he believes them to be true, as it is for the philosopher to defend his theories against Scripture for no other reason than that he disbelieves them. The whole matter must be taken out of the region of belief and disbelief. In regard to elements and phenomena belief and disbelief should never be named. Men differ in their powers of conception and concatenation; and, therefore, what may readily be believed by some, others may find impossible to believe. Belief is a state of mind which should be exerted only in relation to matters confessedly beyond the direct reach of our senses, and in regard to which it is meritorious to believe. But in reference to matter, and material combinations and phenomena, we should be content with nothing less than conviction, the result of special practical experimental investigation.

Who can disagree with this?

Rowbotham continues:

The Christian will be greatly strengthened, and his mind more completely satisfied, by having it in his power to demonstrate that the Scriptures are philosophically true, than he could possibly be by the simple belief in their truthfulness unsupported by practical evidence. On the other hand, the atheist or the disbeliever in the Scriptures, who is met by the Christian on purely scientific grounds, will be led to listen with more respect, and to pay more regard to the reasons advanced than he would concede to the purely religious belief or to any argument founded upon faith alone.

The moral that Rowbotham is "pushing" is that the religious should seek to demonstrate themselves to be true, which provides better argument than faith alone. Facts > Beliefs. Said by Rowbotham himself.

Again, who can disagree with this?

All of this is very reasonable. None of this sounds like someone trying to use Flat Earth to push a faith or to prove the validity of Christ.

This is an atomic bomb against your argument. Rowbotham thinks that the spiritual nature of religion is "possibly" true, encourages the strongest of criticism of the bible, and encourages those with faith to provide demonstration.

Personally, this doesn't sound very "devout" at all. This thread gives me newfound respect that Rowbotham's primary interest is in truth.

Further, we should all have a new respect for Lady Blount's religious Zetetic movement that spawned as a result of Rowbotham. The problem is that it was not understood. Rowbotham outlines, quite clearly, and quite reasonably, above, what it was all about.

[titidam]

The moral pushed by Rowbotham is that everything in the Scriptures is literally true, and everything contrary to Scriptures is necessarily wrong.

If you call that truth, it's only because you share those beliefs. In which case TFES could acknowledge that the Flat Earth theory is religious.

But regardless of one's opinion, that is proselytism. "To convince that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly."

"Earth not a globe" is a book for convincing readers on religious matters, following an empirical basis constructed to allow for these religious beliefs, which is the Flat Earth theory.

You haven't provided a single reason to think that dissociating Rowbotham's theory from its religious grounds is relevant, or even possible. You just bury your head in the sand.

[Tom Bishop]

The moral pushed by Rowbotham is that everything in the Scriptures is literally true, and everything contrary to Scriptures is necessarily wrong.

Quite incorrect. I have pointed out to you that Rowbotham encourages us to put Scripture under the harshest of criticism and for himself says that the spiritual meaning behind it is "possibly" true.

But regardless of one's opinion, that is proselytism. "To convince that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly."

And that criticism of atheism is related to this bit:

It is quite as faulty and unjust for the religious devotee to urge the teaching of Scripture against the theories of the philosopher simply because he believes them to be true, as it is for the philosopher to defend his theories against Scripture for no other reason than that he disbelieves them.

Which part of this do you disagree with? Rowbotham makes an excellent argument.

"Earth not a globe" is a book for convincing readers on religious matters, following an empirical basis constructed to allow for these religious beliefs, which is the Flat Earth theory.

You haven't provided a single reason to think that dissociating Rowbotham's theory from its religious grounds is relevant, or even possible. You just bury your head in the sand.

It is not a matter of me burying my head in the sand at all. Words matter. Context matters. Rowbotham is not pushing a religion on us. Quite the contrary. He is promoting fact over belief. This is a prime motivating call of Earth Not a Globe, the Zetetic philosophy, everything Rowbotham believes in and upholds.

Rowbotham is a very influential figure, who champions empericism, and who is not only the prime founder of flat earth, inspiration of concave earth, and the skeptical zetetic societies, but also is the founder of the religious zetetic movement later led by Lady Blount which prided themselves on fact-based evidence; a movement quite unlike any other religious movement ever seen.

Facts > Beliefs

Applicable to both Copernicus and the Bible.

Rowbotham is a scientist, you see. The greatest scientist who has ever lived.

[titidam]

The moral pushed by Rowbotham is that everything in the Scriptures is literally true, and everything contrary to Scriptures is necessarily wrong.

Quite incorrect. I have pointed out to you that Rowbotham encourages us to put Scripture under the harshest of criticism and for himself says that the spiritual meaning behind it is "possibly" true.

Yes he exactly states that the Scriptures are literally true, and everything that contradicts Scriptures is wrong.

You have refuted this and you have been proven wrong countless times already. Don't think that our readers have forgotten. You went back on every single statement that you quite hastily made on this question.

First you said that he didn't mention Christ, wrong. Then that "Earth not a globe" didn't endorse Christianism more than Judaism, wrong. Then that he didn't consider false anything that contradicts the Scriptures, wrong. Then that he only declared the facts of Scriptures true, not their spiritual message, wrong again!

But regardless of one's opinion, that is proselytism. "To convince that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly."

And that criticism of atheism is related to this bit:

It is quite as faulty and unjust for the religious devotee to urge the teaching of Scripture against the theories of the philosopher simply because he believes them to be true, as it is for the philosopher to defend his theories against Scripture for no other reason than that he disbelieves them.

Which part of this do you disagree with? Rowbotham makes an excellent argument.

And yet again, I am not disagreeing with Rowbotham. You are. I am only asking if you have any justification for this position. But it doesn't seem like you're ready to concede the truth. For a truth seeker, I hope the irony isn't lost.

It is not a matter of me burying my head in the sand at all. Words matter. Context matters. Rowbotham is not pushing a religion on us. Quite the contrary. Facts > Beliefs. This is a prime motivating call of Earth Not a Globe, the Zetetic philosophy, everything Rowbotham believes in and upholds.

Yes, words matter, context matters, and Rowbotham's words and context couldn't be made more clear than by reading him.

He constructs a factual theory to support Christian beliefs. He doesn't say that facts are superior to beliefs, as you wish to put in his mouth. He says that beliefs should be justified by facts.

He says that all serious analysis, no matter how harsh, should only lead to conclude the truthness of the facts upon which his beliefs become founded. Else it is unconditionnally wrong.

Both his facts and beliefs go hand in hand to achieve the same goal, to further Christianity. Which is why I'm repeatingly asking you to justify how you can dissociate them.

Rowbotham is a very influential figure, who champions empericism, and who is not only the prime founder of flat earth, concave earth, and skeptical zetetic societies, but also is the founder of the religious zetetic movement which prided themselves on fact-based evidence for religious philosophy; a movement quite unlike any other religious movement ever seen.

Sorry but pretending that I'm attacking him is, quite frankly, a juvenile tactic.


Careful readers note that you're omitting to answer to this:

If you call that truth, it's only because you share those beliefs. In which case TFES could acknowledge that the Flat Earth theory is religious.

It shouldn't be so hard, really.

[AATW]

This is an amazing thread.

Tom starts by providing a link to a chapter of ENaG and says that "'Christ' isn't mentioned at all".
Searching the text of that link, Rowbotham mentions Christ 5 times (6 if you include a Bible verse he quotes which mentions Christ). So that is just a flat out lie - ironic given he accuses titidam of lying. Tom later amends that to say that Rowbotham only mentions Christ in an indirect way "in a context of talking about religious philosophy" which is balls when you look at this quote in his musings about whether there may be multiple inhabinted worlds:

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?

Tom tries to claim that Rowbotham isn't talking about Christianity specifically because Rowbotham says
"in the religious and mythological poems of all ages and nations."
Although I note Tom leaves out the very next sentence where Rowbotham cites a Christiam hymn.
Tom asks:

Are these words of a Christian biblical literalist?

These certainly are:

the Scriptures, which negative these notions, and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true.

and

That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.

and

we are compelled, by the sheer weight of evidence, by the force of practical demonstration and logical requirement, to declare emphatically that the Old and New Testaments of the Jewish and Christian Church are, in everything which appertains to the visible and material world, strictly and literally true.

Rowbotham does indeed mention "Jewish" too, 6 times. On every occasions he mentions Christians too.
"Jewish and Christian Scriptures" and "Jewish and Christian Church" are two of the occurances, both of these are strange phrasings, almost like Rowbotham doesn't understand that Judaism and Christianity are different things.

Tom says

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.

It actually ends like this

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.

Honestly, the wriggling that Tom does in this thread to pretend that Rowbotham isn't saying what he is clearly saying in black and white in the link that Tom himself provided is ridiculous.
And while we are here, Scripture is nothing to do with the ancients figuring anything out.

Scripture represents what the ancients believed.

No, it doesn't. Rowbotham again:

Call Scripture the Word of God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, and the Fountain of all truth; and call the Newtonian or Copernican system of astronomy the word and work of man

I actually agree with him about this. Scripture is (believed to be) the inspired word of God, it's not just what the ancients thought. And science is indeed man-made.
And to answer Tom's question:

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

It neither means nothing nor is it authoritative. Just because ancient civilizations believed certain things that doesn't mean those things had merit. Some of their ideas have indeed survived the test of time - one of those being the globe earth which was figured out thousands of years ago. Many others have been supplanted. We no longer believe that everything is made from 4 elements, water, earth, fire and air, for example. An idea doesn't have merit because it is old or because it was widely believed.

Tom again:

Rowbotham is explaining ... that the argument of "Religion and scripture wasn't meant to teach science," an argument many of us have seen in other contexts, is a really dumb argument.
This is equivalent to arguing that the ancients would write things that were false, or that God's would teach false things. This shows the "Religion was never meant to teach science" argument to be a really bad argument which is made without much thought. The truth is that it was their science and it was always meant to be a teaching about how the world is.

Rowbotham does this here:

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! Those Newtonian philosophers who still hold that the Sacred Volume is the word of God are thus placed in a fearful dilemma. How can the two systems, so directly opposite in character, be reconciled?

I never understand this argument. Science and religion are not in opposition to one another, if anything they are complimentary because they are asking different questions. Science seeks to understand "how?". How did the universe start? Those of us with faith can be glib and say "God did it" but how exactly, what did that look like in detail? How did the universe develop? How does the universe work? That is what science is trying to understand. Religion and philosophy don't - or shouldn't - care about that. They are asking "why?". Why is there a universe? Why are we here? Is there any purpose to our lives? Is this it or is there something more after death? There is very little overlap here and I never understand Christians who think that a literal young earth creation reading of Genesis is important. Is the take home message of Genesis really the age of the universe? Or the exact order of events which took place during creation? There are much deeper truths in Genesis than that. Genesis tells me that I'm a creation, it tells me who I was created by and what I was created for. Let science worry about the timescale and the mechanics of it, Genesis is talking about our purpose which is a much more important truth.

Rowbotham asks:

Is God a deceiver? Has He spoken direct and unequivocal falsehood?

No, He isn't. I just don't believe He's trying to teach me science through Scripture.
Rowbotham talks about the "plainest astronomical teachings of Scripture (he again makes it clear in this paragraph he is talking about Christian scripture). I completely reject the notion that Scripture is trying to teach me astronomy.
"Religion tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" - Galileo.

It's pretty clear what Rowbotham's main agenda is. His main problem with modern astronomy - the thing he says is the worst thing about it - is that it turns people away from God:

Worse than all, [The modern or Newtonian astronomy] is a prolific source of irreligion and of atheism, of which its advocates are practically supporters. By defending a system which is directly opposed to that which is taught in connection with the Jewish and Christian religion they lead the more critical and daring intellects to question and deride the cosmogony and general philosophy contained in the sacred books.  Because the Newtonian theory is held to be true they are led to reject the Scriptures altogether, to ignore the worship, and doubt and deny the existence of a Creator and Supreme Ruler of the world.

And to remove any doubt that he is talking about the Christian God, he goes on to say:

Many of the primest minds are thus irreparably injured, robbed of those present pleasures, and that cheering hope of the future which the earnest Christian devotee holds as of far greater value than ail earthly wealth and grandeur; or than the mastery of all the philosophical complications which the human mind ever invented. To the religious mind this matter is most important--it is, indeed, no less than a sacred question, but to the dogged atheist, whose "mind is made up" not to enter into any further investigation, and not to admit of possible error in his past conclusions, it is of little more account than it is to the lowest animal in creation.

He then spends another while railing against atheism and, again, makes it very clear that he's talking about Christian teaching, not just religion in general:

It is this confusion and want of certainty as to the absolute truths of religious teachings which creates a love of display and outward manifestation of religion, instead of that "cheerful solemnity" and quiet, unobtrusive good-will and devotion which solid convictions of the truthfulness of Christianity never fail to produce

Rowbotham's beliefs and agenda are laid out very clearly. The modern FES might not be motivated by religious beliefs but it's clear that Rowbotham was no matter how much Tom trolls or argues black is white.


This is an interesting quote from that chapter:

As the earth is a globe and in continual motion, how could Jesus, on being 'taken up into an exceedingly high mountain, see all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time?

It's a good point, I guess I would counter that with if that was literal then why can't you see "all the kingdoms of the world" from mount Everest or other high mountains?

[stack]

Rowbotham is a scientist, you see. The greatest scientist who has ever lived.

Hardly, unless we consider ‘bible-science’ a science.

Another example, he devotes paragraphs in Chapter XV on how the Great Flood, as described in the Scriptures, can only be explained by a planar earth. Furthering the notion that supposed earth rotundity is contrary to that biblical event being able to occur. He’s working his way backward from the Bible into FET.

And there’s so much more in the same vain, the “Heaven and Hell” bits, for example. It goes on.

The point is, you can’t separate his interpretation of the Bible from his FET. They are intrinsically bound as he lays out in Chapter 15. Why you keep trying to squirm away from this fact, I’m not sure. I’m guessing that you fear Rowbotham’s notions would be considered “bible-science”, which they are. ENAG is predicated on Rowbotham’s interpretation of the Scriptures (Old & New Testament) as being that if you don’t accept the Bible’s teachings as literally, not ‘possibly', true, then you are denying the word of God. He cites Scripture verse 72 times all as evidence to back up the previous 14 chapters. Rowbotham, along with every other quote previously mentioned, makes all of this abundantly clear yet again:

"Not a shadow of doubt remains that this earth is the only material world created; that the Sacred Scriptures contain, in addition to religious and moral doctrines, a true and consistent philosophy; that they were written for the good of mankind by the direct dictation of God Himself; and that all their teachings and promises may be relied on as truthful, beneficent, and conducive to the greatest enjoyment here and to perfect happiness hereafter. Whoever holds the contrary conclusion is the victim of an arrogant and false astronomy; of an equally false and presumptuous geology; and a suicidal method of reasoning--a logic which never demands a proof of its premises, and which, therefore, leads to deductions and opinions which are contrary to nature, to fact, and human experience, and to the direct teachings of God's Word; and, therefore, contrary to the deepest and most lasting interests of humanity.”

As well, Rowbotham’s seemingly unpublished work to follow ENAG was “The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ Zetetically Considered”.



His cohorts, Hampden & Carpenter, as well as successors, Lady Blount and the Zetetic Society, make it more clear that theirs is “bible-science”. But Rowbotham certainly does quite well in doing so with ENAG.

[Tom Bishop]

Lets see the full quote and context around that, stack:

"Did the fall of Adam in this world involve in his guilt the inhabitants of all the other worlds?" "Or was the baneful influence of the tempter confined to the first parents of this earth?" If so, "Why so?" and, if not, "Why not?" But, and if, and why, and, again, if but it is useless thus to ponder. The Christian philosopher must be confounded. If his religion be to him a living reality, he will turn with loathing from, or spurn with indignation and disgust as he would a poisonous reptile, a system of astronomy which creates in his mind so much confusion and uncertainty. But as the system which necessitates such doubts and difficulties has been shown to be purely theoretical, and not to have the slightest foundation in fact, the religious mind has really no cause for apprehension.

Rowbotham is clearly talking about the Christian religion, and to any Christian readers. This is not how one would phrase his words if they were trying to push a Christian religion.

Not a shadow of doubt remains that this earth is the only material world created; that the Sacred Scriptures contain, in addition to religious and moral doctrines, a true and consistent philosophy;

In the 1800's the word "philosophy" was used in the place of "science". Rowbotham says that the science is true, and merely mentions that the religious and moral doctrines are something that is in the scriptures.

The sentence continues:

that they were written for the good of mankind by the direct dictation of God Himself; and that all their teachings and promises may be relied on as truthful, beneficent, and conducive to the greatest enjoyment here and to perfect happiness hereafter. Whoever holds the contrary conclusion is the victim of an arrogant and false astronomy; of an equally false and presumptuous geology; and a suicidal method of reasoning--a logic which never demands a proof of its premises, and which, therefore, leads to deductions and opinions which are contrary to nature, to fact, and human experience, and to the direct teachings of God's Word; and, therefore, contrary to the deepest and most lasting interests of humanity.

Rowbotham is talking about a God very vague and general terms, which he prefaced in the previous sentence that he was to talk about the reasons for why the religious mind should have no cause for apprehension.

"God has spoken to man in two voices--the voice of Inspiration and the voice of Nature. By man's ignorance they have been made to disagree; but the time will come, and cannot be far distant, when these two languages will strictly accord; when the science of Nature will no longer contradict the science of Scripture." 1

In all the religions of the earth the words up and above are associated with a region of peace and happiness. Not only is this idea taught by the priests and sacred books of all nations, but human nature itself, even when least intelligent, or unbiassed by education, in its deepest sorrows and sufferings, in great bodily pain, and trouble and anguish of mind, seems instinctively to look upwards, as though relief and comfort might, or could only, come from above.

Now Rowbotham is promoting "all religions of the world."

Is Rowbotham pushing "all religions of the world" onto us too?

[Tom Bishop]

As well, Rowbotham’s seemingly unpublished work to follow ENAG was “The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ Zetetically Considered”.



His cohorts, Hampden & Carpenter, as well as successors, Lady Blount and the Zetetic Society, make it more clear that theirs is “bible-science”. But Rowbotham certainly does quite well in doing so with ENAG.

And as far as we know Rowbotham does the same thing as in Earth Not a Globe in this work:

The spiritual aspect of Jesus Christ is 'possibly' true, a declaration that the teachings of the Bible should be criticized, that Christians should seek to demonstrate their beliefs with facts, and with perhaps further assessment of the the religions of the world and other sources to contrast with the morality of the Bible, and any substantive and supporting evidence of biblical teachings. That would be a direct continuation of the type of 'religious thinking' Rowbotham espouses.

[AATW]

Rowbotham's agenda is very clear no matter how you wriggle...

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

Some more

Because the Newtonian theory is held to be true they are led to reject the Scriptures altogether, to ignore the worship, and doubt and deny the existence of a Creator and Supreme Ruler of the world. Many of the primest minds are thus irreparably injured, robbed of those present pleasures, and that cheering hope of the future which the earnest Christian devotee holds as of far greater value than ail earthly wealth and grandeur; or than the mastery of all the philosophical complications which the human mind ever invented

It is this confusion and want of certainty as to the absolute truths of religious teachings which creates a love of display and outward manifestation of religion, instead of that "cheerful solemnity" and quiet, unobtrusive good-will and devotion which solid convictions of the truthfulness of Christianity never fail to produce.

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

In addition to the numerous quotations from the Scriptures which have here been found to be true and consistent we are compelled, by the sheer weight of evidence, by the force of practical demonstration and logical requirement, to declare emphatically that the Old and New Testaments of the Jewish and Christian Church are, in everything which appertains to the visible and material world, strictly and literally true.

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?

All who believe in and speak of Heaven and hell, do so of the former as above and of the latter as below the earth; and we have good reason, nay, positive evidence, that regions answering to such places exist over and under the physical world (the subject, however, in its moral and spiritual aspect cannot be entered upon in a scientific work like this; the reader who may feel an interest will find sufficient to satisfy him in the work entitled the "Life of Christ Zetetically Considered"). And the language of the Scriptures invariably conveys the same idea.