The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: titidam on October 26, 2018, 05:50:13 PM

Title: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 26, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
Here is TFES take on religion according to the FAQ page https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions (https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions)

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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?
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Mysfit on October 26, 2018, 06:06:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 06:24:27 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: stack on October 26, 2018, 06:25:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 06:33:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: stack on October 26, 2018, 06:34:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 06:43:16 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Mysfit on October 26, 2018, 06:44:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 06:48:53 PM
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?
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 26, 2018, 06:51:47 PM
"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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 26, 2018, 06:57:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 07:01:28 PM
"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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 26, 2018, 07:02:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Mysfit on October 26, 2018, 07:03:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 07:07:21 PM
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

Quote
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).
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 26, 2018, 07:16:44 PM
"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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 07:23:35 PM
"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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: stack on October 26, 2018, 07:24:59 PM
"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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 26, 2018, 07:26:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 07:34:54 PM
"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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Mysfit on October 26, 2018, 07:38:41 PM
Did they really say that nothing was there, or did they say that it was undiscovered?
That's an odd question. I would have to prove that no one back then said anything about the Americas without resorting to hearsay, which is impossible.
My history on opinions back in them times is spotty (i'm not that old), and I will base my answer on opinion back then on the many books that describe the attempt to find a more direct route to Asia. A quicker silk and spice route.
I know Christopher Columbus was not the first to travel the distance (Native Americans and Vikings were), but he is the most famous one.

I am not religiously versed, but if you can quote scripture to the effect of "and west of Europe/east of Asia is a new continent" then colour me impressed.
Me quoting blank scripture of no reference to America would be infinite, so this seems quicker.
I would be surprised if either of those continents are in scripture...  *sigh* religious debate.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 07:51:58 PM
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.

He does not say any of that.

Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong?  ???
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: stack on October 26, 2018, 07:53:40 PM
"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 of " 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

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 at all. You are blindly referencing something to 'win' your case without context.

Hey, I'm just saying you implied he was liar for stating that the word "'Christ' isn't mentioned at all" (Your words) in ENAG. You were wrong, it is. Therefore he is not a liar.

I'm not sure this, "...using Flat Earth to prove Christ...." is the argument here at all. The argument is that the founders of modern FET state that believing in the rotundity of earth is going against the scriptures, therefore, going against the word of God.

I mean this basically says it all here - He closes, ends, ENAG with 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."
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 08:02:02 PM
Quote
Hey, I'm just saying you implied he was liar for stating that the word "'Christ' isn't mentioned at all" (Your words) in ENAG. You were wrong, it is. Therefore he is not a liar.

From the OP: "the book explain how his work supposedly reinstate the belief in Christ and the Bible."

No, the quotes given do not "reinstate the belief in Christ".

Rowbotham mentioning that scripture was written 4000 years before Christ is not a reinstatement of belief in Christ. He is pointing out fact.

Rowbotham mentioning that the death of Christ is written in scripture is not a reinstatement of belief in Christ. He is pointing out fact.

Rowbotham pointing out that the beliefs of multiple-worlds theory of astronomy contradicts the events in the bible, such as the death of Christ, which all occurred on "the" world, is not a reinstatement of the belief in Christ. He is actually pointing out a contradiction between science and religion. Christ is only involved indirectly.

None of the quotes about Christ are even really opinions by Rowbotham. I don't see any religious tracts there. He refers to Christ in a factual and plain manner, making indirect references about things Before Christ and After Christ, like many authors, in a chapter about how religions and scriptures reflect a Flat Earth. It is not really about the Christ character and a push for his validity at all.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: stack on October 26, 2018, 08:04:37 PM
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.

He does not say any of that.

Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong?  ???

For starters, here:

"Worse than all, it 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.”

"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!”

"That of its diurnal and annual motion, and of its being one of an infinite number of revolving spheres, is equally false; and, therefore, the Scriptures, which negative these notions, and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true. In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 26, 2018, 08:08:41 PM
Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong?  ???

"Having detected the fundamental falsehoods of modern astronomy, and discovered that the earth is a plane, and motionless, and the only known material world, we are able to demonstrate the actual character of the universe. In doing this, we are enabled to prove that all the so-called arguments with which so many scientific but irreligious men have assailed the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely false--not doubtful or less plausible, but unconditionally false; that they have no foundation except in fallacious astronomical and geological theories; and, therefore, must fall to the ground as valueless. They can no longer be wielded by irreverent smatterers as weapons against religion. If used at all, it can only be that their weakness and utter worthlessness will be exposed. Atheism and every other form of infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away and their poison dissipated. The irreligious philosopher can no longer obtrude his theories as things proved wherewith to test the teachings of Scripture. He must now himself be tested. He must be forced to demonstrate his premises, a thing which he has never yet attempted, and if he fails in this respect, his impious vanity, self-conceit, and utter disregard of truth and justice, will become so clearly apparent that his presence in the ranks of science will no longer be tolerated. All theories must be put aside, and the question at issue decided by independent practical evidence. 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. 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."

Why do you ask me to read the book for you, the one that is cited on the wiki and by all Flat Earthers?
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 08:10:40 PM
Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong?  ???

"Having detected the fundamental falsehoods of modern astronomy, and discovered that the earth is a plane, and motionless, and the only known material world, we are able to demonstrate the actual character of the universe. In doing this, we are enabled to prove that all the so-called arguments with which so many scientific but irreligious men have assailed the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely false--not doubtful or less plausible, but unconditionally false; that they have no foundation except in fallacious astronomical and geological theories; and, therefore, must fall to the ground as valueless. They can no longer be wielded by irreverent smatterers as weapons against religion. If used at all, it can only be that their weakness and utter worthlessness will be exposed. Atheism and every other form of infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away and their poison dissipated. The irreligious philosopher can no longer obtrude his theories as things proved wherewith to test the teachings of Scripture. He must now himself be tested. He must be forced to demonstrate his premises, a thing which he has never yet attempted, and if he fails in this respect, his impious vanity, self-conceit, and utter disregard of truth and justice, will become so clearly apparent that his presence in the ranks of science will no longer be tolerated. All theories must be put aside, and the question at issue decided by independent practical evidence. 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. 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.
"

Why do you ask me to read the book for you, the one that is cited on the wiki and by all Flat Earthers?

None of that reflects the statement that all beliefs contrary to scripture are wrong. Those are statements that Flat Earth shows that scripture was right about the world.

For starters, here:

"Worse than all, it 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.”

"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!”

"That of its diurnal and annual motion, and of its being one of an infinite number of revolving spheres, is equally false; and, therefore, the Scriptures, which negative these notions, and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true. In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary which does nothing to support your argument.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: stack on October 26, 2018, 08:14:02 PM
Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 26, 2018, 08:15:09 PM
None of that reflects the statement that all beliefs contrary to scripture are wrong. Those are statements that Flat Earth shows that scripture was right about the world.

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary which does nothing to support your argument.

I'm very satisfied that everybody can see your disingenuity.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 08:16:40 PM
Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Right. You have no foundation to deny what the ancients thought about the world. You are carelessly discarding the study of millions of people and numerous civilizations without cause.

This point says nothing about "all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong".
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: stack on October 26, 2018, 08:29:49 PM
Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Right. You have no foundation to deny what the ancients thought about the world. You are carelessly discarding the study of millions of people and numerous civilizations without cause.

This point says nothing about "all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong".

Hmm, if I'm an atheist, my science has no foundation and if I'm not an atheist but deny Scriptural teachings and authority my science has no foundation. Who is left to have a scientific foundation according to Rowbotham? Only those who do not deny the Scriptural teaching and authority.  Seems pretty clear to me.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 08:36:11 PM
Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Right. You have no foundation to deny what the ancients thought about the world. You are carelessly discarding the study of millions of people and numerous civilizations without cause.

This point says nothing about "all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong".

Hmm, if I'm an atheist, my science has no foundation and if I'm not an atheist but deny Scriptural teachings and authority my science has no foundation. Who is left to have a scientific foundation according to Rowbotham? Only those who do not deny the Scriptural teaching and authority.  Seems pretty clear to me.

It doesn't say that at all. It is a criticism that science has not built up the necessary foundation to tell us the true nature of the world. Rowbotham assesses elsewhere that what was taught in Scripture was science at the time. Rowbotham believes that the science is not at the level to totally discard everything that came before it.

Rowbotham doesn't say anything about how 'anything contrary to scripture is necessarily wrong'. He is asserting that Aristotile and Copernicus never legitimately overshadowed what came before.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: JCM on October 26, 2018, 08:49:31 PM
What we are witnessing right now is an illustration of the FE conspiracist mind in action.  To any reasonable person, Rowbotham’s words are self explanatory.  If we had a survey of people, I have no doubt 99/100 would disagree wholeheartedly with Tom Bishop.  Mr. Bishop is using the same exact impossible demands of the Round Earth and applying it to Rowbotham’s own words. 
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 26, 2018, 08:51:19 PM
Rowbotham doesn't say anything about how anything contrary to scripture is necessarily wrong. He is asserting that Copernicus never legitimately overshadowed what came before.

Rowbotham says that every single statement in the Scriptures is literally true, which is equivalent to saying that anybody who thinks they're not is wrong.

He says that any irreligious scientist whose findings disagree with the Scriptures in a literal sense is unconditionnally wrong and should be excluded from science.

The goal of his work in "Earth not a globe" is to provide a definitive proof. He comes up with a theory to use as reference and to condemn, once and for all, all non-Christians to be wrong and unscientific.

All of this is in the book. Flat Earth is merely a tool to achieve this goal. You can choose to interpret it another way but it's Rowbotham's words. Hence my question about TFES denying contingency.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: stack on October 26, 2018, 08:54:50 PM
Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary.

"...In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

Right. You have no foundation to deny what the ancients thought about the world. You are carelessly discarding the study of millions of people and numerous civilizations without cause.

This point says nothing about "all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong".

Hmm, if I'm an atheist, my science has no foundation and if I'm not an atheist but deny Scriptural teachings and authority my science has no foundation. Who is left to have a scientific foundation according to Rowbotham? Only those who do not deny the Scriptural teaching and authority.  Seems pretty clear to me.

It doesn't say that at all. It is a criticism that science has not built up the necessary foundation to tell us the true nature of the world. Rowbotham assets elsewhere that what was taught in Scripture was science at the time. Rowbotham believes that the science is not at the level to totally disregard everything that came before it.

Rowbotham doesn't say anything about how anything contrary to scripture is necessarily wrong. He is asserting that Aristotile and Copernicus never legitimately overshadowed what came before.

Actually, it does say that, right there in black and white. He says, and I'll spell it out again, an atheist or a denier of the Scripture as authority (i.e., non-Jew, Non-christian) has no scientific foundation.

Elsewhere he states, "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!”

 He cites all over Chapter 15 where the scriptures, God, talks of how there is no rotundity to the earth. And, according to him, if you deny the scriptures, you deny God. God is not wrong. Therefore, all who deny the scriptures is denying god and is therefore wrong. It's pretty simple really.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 09:24:18 PM
Rowbotham doesn't say anything about how anything contrary to scripture is necessarily wrong. He is asserting that Copernicus never legitimately overshadowed what came before.

Rowbotham says that every single statement in the Scriptures is literally true, which is equivalent to saying that anybody who thinks they're not is wrong.

You should read closer. He makes sure to disclaim that every statement -- about the material world -- is true.

Quote
He says that any irreligious scientist whose findings disagree with the Scriptures in a literal sense is unconditionnally wrong and should be excluded from science.

He merely says that they have not built the proper foundation to overshadow the ancients.

Quote
The goal of his work in "Earth not a globe" is to provide a definitive proof. He comes up with a theory to use as reference and to condemn, once and for all, all non-Christians to be wrong and unscientific.

All of this is in the book. Flat Earth is merely a tool to achieve this goal. You can choose to interpret it another way but it's Rowbotham's words. Hence my question about TFES denying contingency.

I'm not "choosing" to believe this. You are, very visibly, inserting your own meaning into what is being said.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 09:38:37 PM
Actually, it does say that, right there in black and white. He says, and I'll spell it out again, an atheist or a denier of the Scripture as authority (i.e., non-Jew, Non-christian) has no scientific foundation.

Elsewhere he states, "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!”

 He cites all over Chapter 15 where the scriptures, God, talks of how there is no rotundity to the earth. And, according to him, if you deny the scriptures, you deny God. God is not wrong. Therefore, all who deny the scriptures is denying god and is therefore wrong. It's pretty simple really.

Look. Rowbotham is explaining in that quote 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.

You are making many assumptions on what Rowbotham is saying, and the meaning behind his statements. He never makes these wild "religion is irrefutably correct and all else is irrefutably wrong" proclemations that you guys are making.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 26, 2018, 09:56:32 PM
I'm not "choosing" to believe this. You are, very visibly, inserting your own meaning into what is being said.

No, I'm not. I'm merely reading the book to you.

"Atheism and every other form of infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away and their poison dissipated."
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: stack on October 26, 2018, 10:09:10 PM
Actually, it does say that, right there in black and white. He says, and I'll spell it out again, an atheist or a denier of the Scripture as authority (i.e., non-Jew, Non-christian) has no scientific foundation.

Elsewhere he states, "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!”

 He cites all over Chapter 15 where the scriptures, God, talks of how there is no rotundity to the earth. And, according to him, if you deny the scriptures, you deny God. God is not wrong. Therefore, all who deny the scriptures is denying god and is therefore wrong. It's pretty simple really.

Look. Rowbotham is explaining in that quote 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.

You are making many assumptions on what Rowbotham is saying, and the meaning behind his statements. He never makes these wild "religion is irrefutably correct and all else is irrefutably wrong" proclemations that you guys are making.

He's not saying, 'religion' or 'ancients' in that quote, he says 'scriptures'. And says, 'scriptures' all over the place. Much, as clearly he states without interpretation, that if you deny the 'scriptures' you are wrong b/c you are denying God. All of these quotes are profoundly specific to 'scriptures' and all the while citing dozens and dozens of bible verse in support. It's not just, "Hey, there's science in the good book, check it out."

He is quite clear and I am not assuming, literally just reading what he wrote. And you're right, he's not saying 'religion' is irrefutably correct", he is saying that the 'scriptures' are irrefutably correct. He's very specific about that.

"That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” If anything is contrary to the scriptures, then it can't be true. Simple as that.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2018, 10:57:26 PM
Quote from: stack
He's not saying, 'religion' or 'ancients' in that quote, he says 'scriptures'

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

Quote
Much, as clearly he states without interpretation, that if you deny the 'scriptures' you are wrong b/c you are denying God.

He never says that.

You feel that he implies that, but feelings are not facts.

Quote
All of these quotes are profoundly specific to 'scriptures' and all the while citing dozens and dozens of bible verse in support. It's not just, "Hey, there's science in the good book, check it out."

He is quite clear and I am not assuming, literally just reading what he wrote. And you're right, he's not saying 'religion' is irrefutably correct", he is saying that the 'scriptures' are irrefutably correct. He's very specific about that.

"That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.” If anything is contrary to the scriptures, then it can't be true. Simple as that.

No. "That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen” does not imply that anything that is contrary to scripture is untrue.

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

Secondly, he says that it "will readily be seen," meaning that whole quote is about Rowbotham making a prediction that the material world as depicted in Scripture will readily be seen.

Your allegation that Rowbotham is saying that "anything contrary to scripture is untrue" does not hold water at all, is not stated, and is ridiculous. That is only implied in your imagination.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Mysfit on October 26, 2018, 11:44:46 PM
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?
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 27, 2018, 12:04:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2018, 12:48:40 AM
You are totally misinterpreting Rowbotham. Look at what you quoted on the last page:

Quote
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.  ::)
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 27, 2018, 01:10:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2018, 01:37:11 AM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: stack on October 27, 2018, 01:58:44 AM
Quote
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. 
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 27, 2018, 02:21:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2018, 02:49:57 AM
Here you go, I balanced out the "may" with the "must":

Quote
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 27, 2018, 03:50:04 PM
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2018, 04:21:29 PM
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.

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 27, 2018, 05:39:02 PM
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."
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2018, 08:05:22 PM
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 27, 2018, 08:29:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2018, 09:47:33 PM
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.

Quote
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:

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
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.

Quote
"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, concave earth, and skeptical zetetic societies, but also is the founder of the religious zetetic movement 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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 27, 2018, 09:55:26 PM
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:

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 27, 2018, 09:58:55 PM

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:

Quote
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:

Quote
Are these words of a Christian biblical literalist?

These certainly are:

Quote
the Scriptures, which negative these notions, and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true.
and
Quote
That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the material world is literally true will readily be seen.
and
Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote
Scripture represents what the ancients believed.

No, it doesn't. Rowbotham again:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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?
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: stack on October 31, 2018, 02:46:59 AM
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”.

(https://i.imgur.com/pZXatHB.png)

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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2018, 04:43:07 AM
Lets see the full quote and context around that, stack:

Quote
"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.

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
"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? ::)

Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2018, 05:14:03 AM
As well, Rowbotham’s seemingly unpublished work to follow ENAG was “The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ Zetetically Considered”.

(https://i.imgur.com/pZXatHB.png)

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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 31, 2018, 10:37:59 AM
Rowbotham's agenda is very clear no matter how you wriggle...

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2018, 11:48:02 AM
False. There is no way Rowbotham would tell us to put the Bible under the most severe criticism, that the religious and moral aspects are 'possibly' true, and that the religious minded should seek to demonstrate themselves true with evidence and facts. There is absolutely no way those words would be thought by a religious fanatic, or someone who was trying to push a religion on us.

Rowbotham is clearly a learned man of gifted intellect. Rowbotham is speaking in terms of the meaning and ramifications of a Flat Earth under a religious context. Many scholars and historians have since used his research to debate whether the Bible really does depict a Flat Earth or not.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 31, 2018, 11:53:22 AM
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.
His agenda is very clear:

Quote
A system of philosophy which makes such havoc with the human soul; which destroys its hope of future rest and happiness, and renders the existence of Heaven impossible, and of a beneficent, ever-ruling God and Father of creation useless and uncertain, cannot be less than a curse---a dark and dangerous dragon, hell-born and tartarean in its character and influence. If all who forget God, who deride and repudiate all ideas of creation, and find a sufficiency of ruling power in the self-operating forces of modern astronomy--in its centrifugal and centripetal universalities--are of necessity rejected of Heaven, then indeed have the blinding philosophies of the day done wondrous service in peopling hell, and adding to the horrors of infernal existence.

When he says "possibly" he is very clearly talking about how an unbeliever, if shown that the scientific theories are "fallacious", will conclude that "possibly their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true. He is talking about converting an unbeliever to avoid "peopling hell":

Quote
If it can be shown to the atheistical or unbelieving philosopher that his astronomical and geological theories have no practical foundation, but are fallacious both in their premises and conclusions, and that all the literal expressions in the Scriptures which have reference to natural phenomena are demonstrably true, he will, of necessity, as a truth-seeker, if he should have so avowed himself, and for very shame as a man, be led to admit that, apart from all other considerations, 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 so their conclusion will be:

Quote
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, and that he himself, through all his days of forgetfulness and denial of God, has been guarded and cared for as a merely mistaken creature, undeserving the fate of an obstinate, self-willed opponent of everything sacred and superhuman. He may be led to see that the very discussion of his theories with a Zetetic opponent was a loving and mysterious leading into a purer and clearer philosophy for his own eternal benefit.

Very clearly talking about the journey from athiest to Christian and his position on the absolute and literal truth of Scripture is very clear.
I know you like arguing the toss and arguing from a position you don't really believe, but if you're going to post a picture of a cat and then say it's not a picture of a cat then it's not a very interesting discussion.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2018, 12:19:22 PM
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.
His agenda is very clear:

Quote
A system of philosophy which makes such havoc with the human soul; which destroys its hope of future rest and happiness, and renders the existence of Heaven impossible, and of a beneficent, ever-ruling God and Father of creation useless and uncertain, cannot be less than a curse---a dark and dangerous dragon, hell-born and tartarean in its character and influence. If all who forget God, who deride and repudiate all ideas of creation, and find a sufficiency of ruling power in the self-operating forces of modern astronomy--in its centrifugal and centripetal universalities--are of necessity rejected of Heaven, then indeed have the blinding philosophies of the day done wondrous service in peopling hell, and adding to the horrors of infernal existence.

Full quote with context:

Quote
If this ill-founded philosophy, unsupported as it is by fact or Scripture, or any evidence of the senses, is admitted, the religious mind can no longer rejoice in singing:--

"Far above the sun, and stars, and skies,
In realms of endless light and love,
    My Father's mansion lies."

A system of philosophy which makes such havoc with the human soul; which destroys its hope of future rest and happiness, and renders the existence of Heaven impossible, and of a beneficent, ever-ruling God and Father of creation useless and uncertain, cannot be less than a curse---a dark and dangerous dragon, hell-born and tartarean in its character and influence. If all who forget God, who deride and repudiate all ideas of creation, and find a sufficiency of ruling power in the self-operating forces of modern astronomy--in its centrifugal and centripetal universalities--are of necessity rejected of Heaven, then indeed have the blinding philosophies of the day done wondrous service in peopling hell, and adding to the horrors of infernal existence.

Rowbotham makes mention of terms like 'the religious mind' or 'minded', 'the Christian', 'the religious' multiple times. The context and meaning of that is very clear.

Please show me a video of a religious zealot telling people about "the religious mind" or "the Christian."  ::)

Quote
When he says "possibly" he is very clearly talking about how an unbeliever, if shown that the scientific theories are "fallacious", will conclude that "possibly their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true. He is talking about converting an unbeliever to avoid "peopling hell":

Quote
If it can be shown to the atheistical or unbelieving philosopher that his astronomical and geological theories have no practical foundation, but are fallacious both in their premises and conclusions, and that all the literal expressions in the Scriptures which have reference to natural phenomena are demonstrably true, he will, of necessity, as a truth-seeker, if he should have so avowed himself, and for very shame as a man, be led to admit that, apart from all other considerations, 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;

The keyword there is, of course, "possibly". If Rowbotham were a zealot there would be no question at all on what is true. This one word alone in this entire work TOTALLY blows any criticism of Rowbotham as being a religious zealot out of the water.

Quote
And so their conclusion will be:

Quote
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, and that he himself, through all his days of forgetfulness and denial of God, has been guarded and cared for as a merely mistaken creature, undeserving the fate of an obstinate, self-willed opponent of everything sacred and superhuman. He may be led to see that the very discussion of his theories with a Zetetic opponent was a loving and mysterious leading into a purer and clearer philosophy for his own eternal benefit.

Very clearly talking about the journey from athiest to Christian and his position on the absolute and literal truth of Scripture is very clear.
I know you like arguing the toss and arguing from a position you don't really believe, but if you're going to post a picture of a cat and then say it's not a picture of a cat then it's not a very interesting discussion.

Read the whole quote.

"IF it can be shown," then "possibly," here is the conclusion.

The work has big words and complex subjects and themes for some readers, certainly, but this denial is clearly amateur, childish, and deliberate.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: totallackey on October 31, 2018, 12:19:53 PM
What we are witnessing right now is an illustration of the FE conspiracist mind in action.  To any reasonable person, Rowbotham’s words are self explanatory.  If we had a survey of people, I have no doubt 99/100 would disagree wholeheartedly with Tom Bishop.  Mr. Bishop is using the same exact impossible demands of the Round Earth and applying it to Rowbotham’s own words.
And here is an appeal to numbers (argumentum ad populum).

One could just as easily point out it may well be your concept of, "reasonable person," that is lacking.

If RET is real, it would seem there be no such thing as impossible demands to be made of it.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: totallackey on October 31, 2018, 12:25:39 PM
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?
I would submit the mere fact many ancient structures, such as Gobekli Tepe, have been found to exist, and thoroughly make a laughing stock of the claims regarding, "oldest known texts."

No one constructs structures such as these with out a form of written communication.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 31, 2018, 12:44:46 PM
Please show me a video of a religious zealot telling people about "the religious mind" or "the Christian."
Unfortunately video was not available in the time of Rowbotham. :(

Quote
The work has big words and complex subjects and themes for some readers

I know. Things like the moon shining with cold moonlight and the moon being translucent.  ;D
Nice wriggling but your trolling is clearly amateur, childish, and deliberate.
For future reference, a good troll shouldn't make it so obvious he is trolling.

The quotes I have given make his beliefs and his agenda very clear no matter how much you wriggle.

Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: JCM on October 31, 2018, 01:26:53 PM

If RET is real, it would seem there be no such thing as impossible demands to be made of it.

You mean examples like needing to have a unified theory explaining GR and Quantum Theory in order to say the world is a sphere or explain perfectly how Gravity works down to a subatomic level with no room for every possible scenario in the universe or failings to understand every aspect of the The Big Bang in order to defend a spherical earth?

Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.  Forget the math that most seem to not understand.  ENaG is very much tied to the Christian faith as flat Earths greatest scientist demonstrates.  This thread should be stickied so everyone can see flat Earths prophet scientist Rowbotham’s words to unequivocally prop up religion via the flat Earth as he views his religious beliefs are being undermined by round Earth atheists. 
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: totallackey on October 31, 2018, 04:04:42 PM

If RET is real, it would seem there be no such thing as impossible demands to be made of it.

You mean examples like needing to have a unified theory explaining GR and Quantum Theory in order to say the world is a sphere...
Not in the least.

GR or unified theory are only examples.
or explain perfectly how Gravity works down to a subatomic level with no room for every possible scenario in the universe or failings to understand every aspect of the The Big Bang in order to defend a spherical earth?
This will never happen anyway...

Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.
I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation. 
Forget the math that most seem to not understand.
Math is easily equated to many scenarios.

Hence the simple operation of casting out 9's. 
ENaG is very much tied to the Christian faith as flat Earths greatest scientist demonstrates.
Who would that be? 
This thread should be stickied so everyone can see flat Earths prophet scientist Rowbotham’s words to unequivocally prop up religion via the flat Earth as he views his religious beliefs are being undermined by round Earth atheists.
Well, go ahead and draw the ire of FE atheists and mount a campaign to have it stickied...
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 31, 2018, 04:20:28 PM
Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.
Quote
I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation.
As does cube earth theory or globe earth theory IF the globe is of sufficient size.
Just looking at stuff is not enough to determine truth. Our senses are limited and easily fooled.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2018, 04:34:25 PM
Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.
I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation.
As does cube earth theory or globe earth theory IF the globe is of sufficient size.

I noticed that in your response you needed to justify your model through special pleading with an IF.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on October 31, 2018, 04:37:44 PM
Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.
I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation.
As does cube earth theory or globe earth theory IF the globe is of sufficient size.

I noticed that in your response you needed to justify your model through special pleading with an IF.
Yes, The size of the globe affects the observation.
As does the size of a flat earth, I guess. If it's small enough and flat enough that you can see the edges then that changes your observation.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: JCM on October 31, 2018, 04:55:05 PM
Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.
I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation.
As does cube earth theory or globe earth theory IF the globe is of sufficient size.

I noticed that in your response you needed to justify your model through special pleading with an IF.

The use of IF is commonly used mathematically, as well as in computer coding for that matter.  It is tying step 1 to step 2.  Rowbotham’s use of IF THEN statements are self explanatory in the dozens of quotations above.   He defined step 1 as IF a man questions the world as non flat or ADMITS the world is not flat THEN he cannot be a Christian essentially as it is saying the BIble is false therefore Heaven is false.   Rowbotham even says the flood is only possible on a flat Earth...  That is just one example of him directly trying to use FE theory to justify the Bible. To deny the FE is to deny God himself, he cannot make it any clearer. 
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2018, 05:07:37 PM
The use of IF is commonly used mathematically, as well as in computer coding for that matter.  It is tying step 1 to step 2.  Rowbotham’s use of IF THEN statements are self explanatory in the dozens of quotations above.

Rowbotham does say IF in regard to the statements on religion in his chapter. Rowbotham also says that evidence is required to turn IF into something more, and encourages those with faith to seek to provide evidence.

Rowbotham, in fact, tells us that it is faulty to push religion based on belief:

Quote
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.

Rowbotham continues:

Quote
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.

Rowbotham says that facts trump belief, and recommends the Christian to engage in a collection of evidence to back up belief.

Quote from: JCM
He defined step 1 as IF a man questions the world as non flat or ADMITS the world is flat THEN he cannot be a Christian essentially as it is saying the BIble is false therefore Heaven is false.

Quote from: JCM
To deny the FE is to deny God himself, he cannot make it any clearer.

He does not say that at all. Rowbotham champions evidence of fact.
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: titidam on October 31, 2018, 05:09:16 PM
Please show me a video of a religious zealot telling people about "the religious mind" or "the Christian."  ::)

The keyword there is, of course, "possibly". If Rowbotham were a zealot there would be no question at all on what is true. This one word alone in this entire work TOTALLY blows any criticism of Rowbotham as being a religious zealot out of the water.

"IF it can be shown," then "possibly," here is the conclusion.

Learn to read. The work has big words and complex subjects and themes for some readers, certainly, but this denial is clearly amateur, childish, and deliberate.

Your entire rebuttal of Rowbotham's thesis still consists in picking the phrasing instead of the content. That's not an acceptable reason. You can continue, but the denial, childishness, and lack of reading is on your part.

If you spent more time reading lengthy books, you would see that words like 'possibly' don't weaken an argument. On the contrary, authors strengthen their argument by using logic.

The conclusion of an 'if/then' structure isn't less endorsed by an author. If the author wasn't convinced of the argument, he wouldn't make it. The logical structure only serves to convince others, it doesn't speak of the author's conviction.

Rowbotham doesn't say that Christianity needs to be proven. He says that his book proves Christianity.

Quote from: Rowbotham
"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."

'Earth not a globe' attempts to display the practical evidence that the Scriptures are true, both literally and philosophically, so that Christianity will be strengthened.

Quote from: Rowbotham
"If the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true;

We know, from the previous statement, that this condition is fulfilled by Rowbotham's evidence.

So this "if" doesn't mean that a doubt remains. This "if" means that Rowbotham's work proves the conclusion, which follows "then".

What exactly is this conclusion?

Quote
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, and that he himself, through all his days of forgetfulness and denial of God, has been guarded and cared for as a merely mistaken creature, undeserving the fate of an obstinate, self-willed opponent of everything sacred and superhuman."
Title: Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism
Post by: totallackey on November 01, 2018, 10:47:03 AM
Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.
Quote
I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation.
As does cube earth theory or globe earth theory IF the globe is of sufficient size.
Just looking at stuff is not enough to determine truth. Our senses are limited and easily fooled.
Other options may also completely fulfill the simple observation.

The point was offered to dispute the initial statement, that's all...