Is Flat Earth Hypothesis a Christian cult?

The concept of FE was invented as a response to the growing prevalance of modern, evolution-based thinking in the mid 19th Century.
With an all-powerful Creator such needless ideas as "science" are not required to explain away anything, "cos god made it like it is"

Does the FES still hold to Bible Literalism? Or has the semblance of reality crept in over the last 150 years?

I'm not privy to the backroom politics of the Flat Earth Society, so I can't claim to know for certain if there is a link to some cult or not... however the FAQ states:

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.

the official response should be yes. the flat earth society is closely related to religion. it is all over the membership certificate.

The "official" history of the FES: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=65

The modern age of the Flat Earth Society dates back to the early 1800s, when it was founded by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, an English inventor. Samuel Rowbotham's Flat Earth views were based largely on literal interpretation of Bible passages.

I think most of the believers here wouldn't be Christians because Christianity is too mainstream.

since organized religion is by far the worlds largest conspiracy, and the FES hates conspiracies, we can only conclude, the FES hates religion, so no, it is not a religious cult.

The Flat Earth Society does not control the worlds churches and we deny all claims to the contrary.  The Flat Earth Society is the oldest organization in the world today and we have no opinion stated regarding religious institutions themselves. 

Johnson once said "We maintain that what is called 'Science' today and 'scientists' consist of the same old gang of witch doctors, sorcerers, tellers of tales, the 'Priest-Entertainers' for the common people."  I would extend this to include religious institutions, though not the base of religion itself, spirituality and mysticism.

The Flat Earth Society does not control the worlds' churches? LOL. Who has claimed such a stupid thing? The FES has its roots in Bible literalism and Christian conservatism. Perhaps it still has some behind the scenes connection to some religious group; maybe. But to suggest that it controls all the churches? You'd have to be severely inebriated or suffer from some sort of mental impairment to even suggest this notion.

As for the claim that it's the oldest organization in the world... is there any proof to that? Or is it just a case of a "slight" exaggeration? I was under the impression the FES was revived in 2004, after it was originally founded in 1956. Even if you stretch it back to the 1880s, when the Zetetic Society was established (1883?), that would hardly make the FES the oldest organization in the world.

Parsifal says: "It's a well known fact!"

I'm a Christian, but I don't base my belief in the Flat Earth solely on Scripture. The evidence (simple observation, Bedford Level, model utility, ice wall historicity) pretty clearly points to a planar rather than globular model.

Direct observation and global travel make much stronger cases.

Some of us are christian, some of us are atheists. I think we have a muslim poster who comes on every once in a blue moon. Personally, I'm agnostic.

In other words, religion is entirely irrelevant to the Flat Earth Movement.

I'm a Christian, but I don't base my belief in the Flat Earth solely on Scripture. The evidence (simple observation, Bedford Level, model utility, ice wall historicity) pretty clearly points to a planar rather than globular model.

The Bedford Level experiment confirmed the radius of the earth, and there is no photographic evidence of the ice wall. I don't know what you mean by "historicity" though.

In 1870 Dr. A. R. Wallace performed his well-known Bedford Level experiment. In the summers of 1900 and 1901 a series of similar experiments was made with the special object of obtaining photographic records of the same... The height of the parapet of Welney bridge above the water level was measured, a mark was set up on Denver bridge at the same height above the water-level, and midway — three miles from each end — a mark was set up on a pole at the same height above the water-level. A telescope was then directed from the parapet of Welney bridge to the mark on Denver bridge, and the middle mark was seen to stand up about six feet above the line of sight, agreeing with the effect calculated to be produced by the curvature of the earth's surface.

Source: Oldham, H Yule (1901) - "The experimental demonstration of the curvature of the Earth's surface" British Association for the Advancement of Science (Annual Report) p725–6

Wallace was a fraud, as determined by a court of law.

From what I have read Wallace defeated the Hampden libel suit and was paid the £500 sum due to him. In fact Hampden was imprisoned for libel and threatened to kill Wallace!  Wallace was persecuted for being an atheist, perhaps that is what you are thinking of?

Wallace was a fraud, as determined by a court of law.

No, the court determined that the wager was illegal and therefore invalid.

Quote from: Tausami on April 07, 2013, 03:48:06 PM

Wallace was a fraud, as determined by a court of law.

No, the court determined that the wager was illegal and therefore invalid.

"Wallace won multiple libel suits against Hampden, but the resulting litigation cost Wallace more than the amount of the wager and the controversy frustrated him for years."[133]

[133] Shermer pp. 258–61.

Wallace was a fraud, as determined by a court of law.

How do you think this is relevant? The entire purpose of the study I cited was to clarify and document the studies of Wallace for the very reason that controversy surrounded the original study.

It seems to me like you didn't read past the first line of the citation.

Quote from: Tausami on April 07, 2013, 03:48:06 PM

Wallace was a fraud, as determined by a court of law.

How do you think this is relevant? The entire purpose of the study I cited was to clarify and document the studies of Wallace for the very reason that controversy surrounded the original study.

It seems to me like you didn't read past the first line of the citation.

I skimmed it and misunderstood slightly. There are only so many experiments which demonstrate a round earth, so I saw Wallace's name and kind of assumed you were discussing that one. Yule's experiments had very proof of veritably. Between Rowbotham, who performed his experiments in front of dozens of people and found a flat earth, Lady Blount, who took pictures and had witnesses and found a flat earth, and Yule, who took pictures but had no witnesses and found a round earth, I would have to side with the first two.

Quote from: jason_85 on April 07, 2013, 04:59:44 PM

Quote from: Tausami on April 07, 2013, 03:48:06 PM

Wallace was a fraud, as determined by a court of law.

How do you think this is relevant? The entire purpose of the study I cited was to clarify and document the studies of Wallace for the very reason that controversy surrounded the original study.

It seems to me like you didn't read past the first line of the citation.

I skimmed it and misunderstood slightly. There are only so many experiments which demonstrate a round earth, so I saw Wallace's name and kind of assumed you were discussing that one. Yule's experiments had very proof of veritably. Between Rowbotham, who performed his experiments in front of dozens of people and found a flat earth, Lady Blount, who took pictures and had witnesses and found a flat earth, and Yule, who took pictures but had no witnesses and found a round earth, I would have to side with the first two.

Can you provide citations to actual documented studies, as I have?

The Flat Earth Society does not control the worlds' churches? LOL. Who has claimed such a stupid thing? The FES has its roots in Bible literalism and Christian conservatism. Perhaps it still has some behind the scenes connection to some religious group; maybe. But to suggest that it controls all the churches? You'd have to be severely inebriated or suffer from some sort of mental impairment to even suggest this notion.

Couldn't agree more.  We are a bunch of powerless fools with no connection to any players at all.

As for the claim that it's the oldest organization in the world... is there any proof to that? Or is it just a case of a "slight" exaggeration? I was under the impression the FES was revived in 2004, after it was originally founded in 1956. Even if you stretch it back to the 1880s, when the Zetetic Society was established (1883?), that would hardly make the FES the oldest organization in the world.

Its the oldest continuous society abstractly in the world due to the nature of time, and its ever present world-view which exists during every age of recorded history.

Quote from: Sculder on April 07, 2013, 12:44:07 PM

The Flat Earth Society does not control the worlds' churches? LOL. Who has claimed such a stupid thing? The FES has its roots in Bible literalism and Christian conservatism. Perhaps it still has some behind the scenes connection to some religious group; maybe. But to suggest that it controls all the churches? You'd have to be severely inebriated or suffer from some sort of mental impairment to even suggest this notion.

Couldn't agree more.  We are a bunch of powerless fools with no connection to any players at all.

Quote

As for the claim that it's the oldest organization in the world... is there any proof to that? Or is it just a case of a "slight" exaggeration? I was under the impression the FES was revived in 2004, after it was originally founded in 1956. Even if you stretch it back to the 1880s, when the Zetetic Society was established (1883?), that would hardly make the FES the oldest organization in the world.

Its the oldest continuous society abstractly in the world due to the nature of time, and its ever present world-view which exists during every age of recorded history.

Oh, abstractly of course. So not as an actual organization then. By that logic I could invent the "Water is Wet" society and probably claim that it is even older. 

Incorrect.  The earth has always existed.  If not, every single theory, religious or not, states the earth was made before the water.

So... no.

However, I assume Johnson meant it in a religious context.  In addition there are other roots that history seems to have forgotten to the flat earth society.  I don't mind keeping it that way either.  A properly trained mine can dig it out I'm sure though.  Its just not my path.

Incorrect.  The earth has always existed.  If not, every single theory, religious or not, states the earth was made before the water.

So... no.

Apparently you have not read Genesis lately, or at all? Not that I believe it to be true, but this is what it says:

"6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good."

I don't know if you guys are just trolling, or if you just lack understanding, or what. Either way it's pretty frustrating. I wonder if this is what Daniel Shenton had in mind for the FES. It seems that so many questions just get deflected this way by statements that are meant to confuse, or irritate the people who come here with sincere questions. I suppose that keeps the non-believers on their toes to some extent, but so far it just seems to make you guys look really, really foolish.

Sorry to be so blunt. If FE is really a viable theory, I am honestly open to evidence of it. I just haven't seen any yet.

If you are frustrated at something, usually its because its foreign and worth while to investigate.  Its a defense mechanism of the mind which creates things like bigotry, racism, and paradigm freeze. 

I'm not a troll, but I imagine many flat earthers here are, especially those who post still. 

I need to study it in the original language, but I had thought the at that point the *earth was without form*.  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Thats all we need to hear, it starts without form until such time that god creates form by splitting the salt water / water / land.

"Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear" seems to assume they happened simultaneously, much like other myths in which it is split assunder.    Especially since a bit earlier the writers talked of god already creating day and night, and it is talked about splitting the water and the earth.  The Earth would have had to have been flat for this to happen.  The heavens were created to separate the water from the earth, supposedly.  It gains much of its basis from Enuma Elis which also clearly states a flat earth and is referenced within it fairly well.    At times I believe, it is also attributed to God destroying sea daemon.

There are also tie ins clearly with other religions, both from a willing into existence standpoint, and also a battle standpoint, usually with a war against lesser Gods or sea daemon.

All these religious notes however are really more of us tapping into social memory, or a mystical sphere.  Most of us are more interested in the "physics" of a flat earth and the philosophical backings of it (and failings of main stream Philosophy of Science.) 

If you take nothing else from this site, take this:  being frustrated at people like us is the fundamental source of bigotry.

Of course, you can interpret it any way you'd like and still be correct.  I am certainly no biblical scholar, and if the last 50 years have taught us anything, its that one shouldn't try to push ones worldview on others as it only will hold authority to him.

Quote from: Sculder on April 07, 2013, 12:44:07 PM

The Flat Earth Society does not control the worlds' churches? LOL. Who has claimed such a stupid thing? The FES has its roots in Bible literalism and Christian conservatism. Perhaps it still has some behind the scenes connection to some religious group; maybe. But to suggest that it controls all the churches? You'd have to be severely inebriated or suffer from some sort of mental impairment to even suggest this notion.

Couldn't agree more.  We are a bunch of powerless fools with no connection to any players at all.

You said that you're a bunch of powerless fools. It's certainly not what I said. But thanks for that... confession?!

Quote from: Sculder on April 07, 2013, 12:44:07 PM

As for the claim that it's the oldest organization in the world... is there any proof to that? Or is it just a case of a "slight" exaggeration? I was under the impression the FES was revived in 2004, after it was originally founded in 1956. Even if you stretch it back to the 1880s, when the Zetetic Society was established (1883?), that would hardly make the FES the oldest organization in the world.

Its the oldest continuous society abstractly in the world due to the nature of time, and its ever present world-view which exists during every age of recorded history.

Too bad that concretely the FES is actually less than 60 years old.

The point being, since man has been on this earth he has thought the world flat.  We just happen to be a smaller number now -- and the term to apply appropriately to our number and structure resultant from said number is a society.  viola.

The point being, since man has been on this earth he has thought the world flat.  We just happen to be a smaller number now -- and the term to apply appropriately to our number and structure resultant from said number is a society.  viola.

You appear to be confusing the duality of the word Society...

Did I say the term was not always society?  I only stated that the term now is society, and stated nothing else of the sort.  Hence the more abstract nature of it, When, given say the Christian worldview, there were only two on earth was it a Society|society?  Its an underlying aspect of our social memory and touches every age of man.  Good catch!

The point being, since man has been on this earth he has thought the world flat.  We just happen to be a smaller number now -- and the term to apply appropriately to our number and structure resultant from said number is a society.  viola.

Considering there is exactly no way to know how long mankind has thought the Earth was flat it renders the rest of the statement null.