Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#71

Post by kodoman »

huijzer wrote: post #65
kodoman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those that tend to hold to ideas of singular anti-christ and as you pointed out identify anti-christ with the son of perdition and also the false prophet and sometimes little horn in Daniel, often still maintain the plural the plural quality of the word to mean those who follow heresy while still maintaining there is one false prophet who will exalt him or someone or something above god or sometimes simply deny god o…

I’m surprised you capitalize “the Fathers” and write “god” lowercase

I am not sure what your point is, I hold the fathers as at least partially authoritative, I do not hold the fathers above God, nor do I hold any theology or translation above God, God is the source of truth. If you feel you can simply disregard the fathers and the apostolic fathers, I would like to hear it. As though it seems we hold different theology how can you simply cast aside and not hold these sources with authority?

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#72

Post by huijzer »

kodoman wrote: post #60
huijzer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's from the Book of Revelations, which is probably talking about Nero Caesar anyway. It’s “Book of Revelation”. Singular. Probably because it talks about Jesus being revealed to the whole world. He will be revealed once and for all, so singular. Regarding Revelation being behind us. It will be as clear as thunder visible from the east to the west and many cities will be destroyed etc what didn’t happen yet I’m…

I am someone who is unsure of per-millenial post-millennial debate and would roughly consider myself a recapitulationist of some kind. I do not think you can use it in that way to argue against post-millennial for one the post-millennial would simply say that Pual is writing to the Thessalonians is still in the pre-millennial phase. I feel are theology is different but I do not see the passage you gave as a good coun…

I understand your theory regarding 70 AD and find it not completely implausible, but I don’t see much evidence for most of the events from Revelation 13 and 16 having occurred already. Especially Revelation 13:15 and 13:17 would be possible only with modern technology it seems to me.

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#73

Post by kodoman »

inigyou wrote: post #69
kodoman wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the UK are bill of rights from 1689 has a clause called free speech in it. When you actually look at it's free speech... for parliament and parliamentarians from the king, Citizens get no such right. We have a clause that is the right to bear arms, when you look at it predicated on being the a protestant and parliament allowing you. No one actually reads these things or the history surrounding it here because wh…

Have there been any new laws in the UK since 1689?

Of course that is not my point. Yes we have the humans rights act Etc that provides rights, but much much later and contested. My primary point is that the bill of rights is one of the important parts of are constitution where as human rights or any other documents is not constitutional.

I also think are revolution is not particularly rousing and that freedom of speech and such is still very tenuous.

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#74

Post by inigyou »

kodoman wrote: post #73
inigyou wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have there been any new laws in the UK since 1689?

Of course that is not my point. Yes we have the humans rights act Etc that provides rights, but much much later and contested. My primary point is that the bill of rights is one of the important parts of are constitution where as human rights or any other documents is not constitutional. I also think are revolution is not particularly rousing and that freedom of speech and such is still very tenuous.

The UK doesn't have a separate constitution, just a bunch of laws, some of which grant rights.

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#75

Post by kodoman »

inigyou wrote: post #74
kodoman wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course that is not my point. Yes we have the humans rights act Etc that provides rights, but much much later and contested. My primary point is that the bill of rights is one of the important parts of are constitution where as human rights or any other documents is not constitutional. I also think are revolution is not particularly rousing and that freedom of speech and such is still very tenuous.

The UK doesn't have a separate constitution, just a bunch of laws, some of which grant rights.

It's more complicated then that it has written portion making up many documents going back to magna carta (in actual fact basically only 4 clauses barely survive) and the Glorious revolution is the real written document that actually supports the sovereignty of parliament, and a lot of flimflam that makes up supposed ancient rights given to parliament starting with magna carta.

I do not hold said constitution in high esteem.

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#76

Post by huijzer »

delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #63
huijzer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to rebuke me, then come with arguments. Just questioning the source is no counter argument. “Bad” sources can provide accurate information and “good” sources can provide inaccurate information. We need to go beyond mere categorization by source and use logic instead (which computer scientists know) to find what is true and what is not. Also that some other person was possibly wicked doesn’t counter my poi…

What logic supports that Franklin was a member of Hellfire Club? From what premises can we deduct that it is unquestionably true? Or perhaps we inductively come into that conclusion based on the fact that he knew the founder, and some site on the internet - with plenty of reason to exaggerate - says so? If any source is equally valid, I can just quickly write an html-file that says Franklin was an alien from other pl…

> What logic supports that Franklin was a member of Hellfire Club?

According to the book The Hellfire Clubs by Evelyn Lord (2010),

"A key figure and someone who could have been a link between British hell-fire clubs and colonial America was Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was intimate with Sir Francis Dashwood and other Medmenham Friars in England, and an attack on Cotton Mather in 1721 by Benjamin’s brother James in his newspaper the New England Courant had resulted in Mather calling the Franklins and their friends a ‘Hell-Fire Club’.[59]

The date is significant, as this is the year that the Duke of Wharton’s alleged Hell-Fire Club was in operation. We know that the Franklin was aware of this club as on 6 May 1721 the New England Courant had published an account of the London club taken from Applebee’s Journal, which, being sensational news of blasphemy and supposed sexual orgies, boosted the circulation of Franklin’s paper considerably. News of the Hell-Fire Club and the King’s proclamation against scandalous clubs was also published in Boston. Tavern rumour suggested that Boston had its own Hell-Fire Club, of which James Franklin was alleged to be a prominent member.[60]"

Also one of the Hellfire Caves was named in honor of Benjamin Franklin, namely Franklin's Cave.

Also Francis Dashwood was the founder of the Hellfire Club and he and Franklin were good friends.

Then the organization that currently operates the caves writes that "Benjamin Franklin, a great friend of Sir Francis, was also a visitor to the Caves." (https://www.westwycombeestate.co.uk/the-hellfire-caves)

So all in all, there seems to be no conclusive evidence proving that Benjamin Franklin was a member of the Hellfire Club, but it is also hard to make the argument that he for certain was not a member or never visited a gathering. Given that he was friends with the founder, who also named one of the caves after him, it is likely that he at least visited one event.

[59]: C.A. Lopez and E.W. Herbert, The Private Franklin, 1975, 12.

[60]: J.A.L. Leman, The Life of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. I: 1706–1730, 2005, 110–11, 133

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#77

Post by inigyou »

kodoman wrote: post #75
inigyou wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK doesn't have a separate constitution, just a bunch of laws, some of which grant rights.

It's more complicated then that it has written portion making up many documents going back to magna carta (in actual fact basically only 4 clauses barely survive) and the Glorious revolution is the real written document that actually supports the sovereignty of parliament, and a lot of flimflam that makes up supposed ancient rights given to parliament starting with magna carta. I do not hold said constitution in high…

The basis of the UK system is that parliament has infinite rights. It's allowed to pass a bill saying all police officers must try to murder the king, and then they must. It won't pass that because politicians won't agree to pass it, because they're scared of the extra-parliamentary consequences, but nothing in the law stops them.

The sole check against these infinite rights is not electing morons. Doesn't seem to work very well.

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#78

Post by kodoman »

huijzer wrote: post #72
kodoman wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am someone who is unsure of per-millenial post-millennial debate and would roughly consider myself a recapitulationist of some kind. I do not think you can use it in that way to argue against post-millennial for one the post-millennial would simply say that Pual is writing to the Thessalonians is still in the pre-millennial phase. I feel are theology is different but I do not see the passage you gave as a good coun…

I understand your theory regarding 70 AD and find it not completely implausible, but I don’t see much evidence for most of the events from Revelation 13 and 16 having occurred already. Especially Revelation 13:15 and 13:17 would be possible only with modern technology it seems to me.

First of all this is not my theory, I did not put it forward other then to illustrate the argument. the Argument for those parts would roughly be that taking the whole chapter is talking of Nero's persecution of the early church, also in particular martyrs and saints following in Christs sacrifice, One can argue that 13:17 is bowing down and accepting the pagan imperial roman cult and Nero's claim to be emperor (which requires him to call himself a god as per the roman tradition) and they are must bare the mark of the emperor (coinage or simply allegiance you decide) and 13:15 can be understood few fold first that the injury of the beast is the Judaea end of Judea (the temple falling but more importantly the weakening of the roman jewish kings (Herodian line ending before the fall of the temple) and the persecution of Christians now happening to in Rome (outside of Judaea/Palestine) in the image of Herod. Over all this lines up some fairly well. Finally 16 can be interrupted as the Plague of Rome or any wrath of god that one could interpreting as falling on Rome. For me however I would give the importance here (weather this is in the future or past) to the experience and something that greatly accords with gods wrath and judgement generalized into the apocalypse that we all face are death, Should we curse God for are suffering we shell be hated and put to hell righteously and are sufferings show the greatness of God and glorify god the blasphemy becoming the blade to torment the blasphemer and the to aid the vengeful angels in their ordering of the universe to reveal gods glory.

Finally A point I feel you might disagree with but would be something I hold given we are talking about this period Constantine is ordained by god and it's Constantine that redeems Rome and finally gives us the counsel of Nicaea and Catholic Church (One may hold Catholic as per the Nicean creed not the necessarily modern day Roman Catholic Church, indeed most Churches hold they are Catholic in that sense.).

Again I am unsure as to the interpretation of the Revelation and do in that their is no dogma or authoritative interpretation and sources that I hold authoritative conflict I am unsure, but I find it an amazing book that is important to me.

Let me also clarify that this is not Tertullian position either he is firmly a futurist (At least of his time). I think Tertullian made many mistakes though he is a great doctor of the church.

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#79

Post by kodoman »

inigyou wrote: post #77
kodoman wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more complicated then that it has written portion making up many documents going back to magna carta (in actual fact basically only 4 clauses barely survive) and the Glorious revolution is the real written document that actually supports the sovereignty of parliament, and a lot of flimflam that makes up supposed ancient rights given to parliament starting with magna carta. I do not hold said constitution in high…

The basis of the UK system is that parliament has infinite rights. It's allowed to pass a bill saying all police officers must try to murder the king, and then they must. It won't pass that because politicians won't agree to pass it, because they're scared of the extra-parliamentary consequences, but nothing in the law stops them. The sole check against these infinite rights is not electing morons. Doesn't seem to wo…

Yes I would disagree with your framing of you hypothetical not least because parliament did kill the king (Charles I), then once the lord protectorate was over and the restoration conspired successfully with a foreign king to over throw the current king and then wrote a document deciding who can and can not be king which has applied to all king and queens so far. Parliament wants the king as a figure head so they can hide behind something, formally it's not Parliaments government by it's self but the monarchs, though the monarch may not raise an army or really have any power outside parliament but still the monarchs government and should things go badly they may simply blame the figure head. Once you see the pattern you will see it lots of time's in are history maybe other histories ;) .

Re: Benjamin Franklin’s alter egos gave him the most freedom

#80

Post by cheesecakegood »

TitaRusell wrote: post #55
some_random wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even today, every member of the Canadian military swears fealty to the King of England.

Mexico is an independent country because the US elite belatedly realised that adding millions of brown citizens would be a bad idea. Canada is an independent country because it had the British empire backing them.

That’s… not really accurate. Some factions in the US flirted with taking over more or even all of Mexico for the grand total of like, a few months, and even then it never would have passed Congress. Additionally “the US elite” is a flawed and inaccurate understanding of mid-1800s politics as even the most basic of historical understanding will tell you. It’s mostly regional politics and economic constituencies, not class struggle. You’re just projecting modern thought and dynamics onto the past.
Post reply on HN