What most biographies forget to mention is that Franklin was also member of the Hellfire club, which is described as [1],
> Members would drink vast quantities of alcohol and gorge themselves on food. Drunkenness was a prerequisite of The Hellfire Club. They’d dabble in most of the seven deadly sins to be honest – with gluttony, greed and lust being regular activities. Add in a smattering of gambling, fornicating and blasphemy, and you get the idea of a night at the Hellfire Club.
And,
> When we say ‘poking fun’, they were all about dressing as monks, performing parodies of religious ceremonies and making mock sacrifices to Bacchus and Venus. Along with that there was huge amounts of boozing, feasting, entertaining prostitutes and sharing pornographic materials.
Franklin corresponded from time to time with Sir Francis Dashwood, the founder of the Order of the Friars of St Francis of Wycombe, the most infamous of the hellfire clubs. There is no evidence that Franklin actually was a member of the club or partook of its activities.
Biographies forget to mention it since there’s no evidence of him belonging to any such club. Also those clubs reputation is probably highly exaggerated. Your main source is some London tourist guide -site, so doesn’t seem you did exactly stellar research here.
If you are interested in rich elites of the time doing strange and sordid festivitoes, I recommend studying the life of Peter the Great of Russia, who really was not very great at all as a person, but his drinking parties were literally insane and deadly. Empire and Rest is Hostory has great podcasts on him and there’s several good biographies available in English.
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 point either. Both can be wicked at the same time according to basic logic since the one doesn’t exclude the other.
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 planet, and then it is up to you to prove it wrong. Where’s the logic in that?
When discussing a historic figure, we usually base our claim on primary sources (such as Franklin or other people at the time either directly saying he was member of the club, or there being a member register or other such clear evidence) or at least on primary sources that we can trust to base their research on primary sources and strong evidence. Otherwise we could just say anything about anything. Maybe Abraham Lincoln was part of Hell’s Angels.
And my example of Peter The Not-So-Great’s debauchery of course is not rebuke, rather it is an example that real history gives far more interesting examples of behaviour you describe and is a million times crazier that anything anyone can fantasise. Therefore we don’t need to make up stories.
> 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.
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
> So all in all, there seems to be no conclusive evidence
This is what I am saying. Can you provide me with conclusive evidence that you are not a member of Hell’s Angels? Because if you can’t, there’s always a doubt about your character… This is why the burden of broof is on the one making the claim.
It works the same in historical research. Basically you have hearsay and a tavern rumour, but that is hardly any evidence of anything. This is why biographers and real historians hardly discuss it. There’s no proof and besides, it kinda is not that interesting anyway. Of course Franklin could have visited every meeting, but then any proof of it has disappeared. But occam’s razor would conclude, that he probably just wasn’t interested in the whole thing.
Fascinating. TIL. One wonders what we common folk would think of such activities. Would we treat Benjamin Franklin as some kind of modern Thiel-adjacent debauch who thinks himself far too smart?
Or would canceling old Benjy actually have created a better world? Perhaps a man moderated by a society more observant and inclined to police might have been even more influential? I suppose we will never know but it is entertaining to consider the counterfactual.
I feel like everything I have seen of Thiel is not as well thought out as people claim, I feel he came to lots of his positions from a sort of contrarian attitude and simply the limited things he has been exposed to (that of course is true of everyone but to me it seems striking how little the things actually fit together are are sort of all just mushed together), Take for example The Straussian Moment, though quotes Strauss not actually very Straussian does not really use ancient wisdom and I think he adopted it because of the connection that the left made (incorrectly I think) to the neo-cons and Leo Strauss.
His use of Girard does not actually fit at all and his whole Anti-christ prophesy thing is a kind of inversion of Girard and actually identifies the anti-christ with the katechon the opposite to tertuilian, Girard himself (I think) and Schmitt.
I don't think his views are all that meaningful or held with real conviction other then they are views that allow him to behave how he wants for now. If his views came into conflict with his desired behavior he would adopt new ideas no doubt.
I agree that Thiels ideas are on weak foundations. The idea of "the antichrist" is especially silly when you go back to historical sources. Scholars have said it's not a person, but a category. "The antichrist" is just people against Christ. At some point it got misinterpreted into some kind of reverse-Jesus.
> 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 sure. Bible warned that people will try to convince us that it has passed already. Quoting KJV from 1611 because I like the used language and find it a clear text.
2 Thess 2, “That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”
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 counter to identification of with the 70 AD. One can also hold that 70 AD was part of part of revelation but it's still to be fulfilled and completed. 70 AD seems to be something christ does predict and in astonishing fashion and a deeply important apocalyptic event.
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.
One possibility that does accord very well with the events, but no fixed interpretation and no church dogma on positions of antichrist(s), man of sin, whore of Babylon.
One should read the Apocalypse of John/revelation and be amazed by the imagery and strangeness that is conjured up, as well as it's highly vengeful nature. Another great way to read it is with a word in mind hupopodion/ὑποπόδιον, and to think of this as god putting the world under his feed and conquering the world and look at it's accordance in Hebrews.
Talking about historical sources, this verse from the King James Version from 1611 agrees with you.
1 John 2:18, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”
The antichrist is often correctly or incorrectly made synonymous with the son of perdition, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4,
“ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
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 or gods true nature (basically any heresy). I think Tertullian has in mind Arianism or Marcionism or some other major heresy. My point was that Schmit is reading Tertullian and closely and holds very different positions to Thiel who holds very different things and the identification of the Katchon as a negative force seems unique and I have not seen before and goes competely against Tertullian and Schmit (who is making the consept corrupt but in a much smarter way then Thiel does In my opinion).
I do however think the views of the Fathers can not simply be dismissed and hold them in high esteem and as partially authoritative even outside counsels.
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?
Their was no consensus amongst the Fathers of the church or later Christians and little dogma on the subject. Tertullian did hold that the their is a figure of anti-christ, a singular figure teaching some kind of heresy and ruling, actually a looking a lot like premillennial low church Christianity today (not that I like these groups but there is some president though Tertullian would find plenty to disagree with elsewhere in particular the restraint on the antichrist is Rome and prays for the continuation of imperial rome) eschatology is highly contested and it's difficult to give one set answer and the actual positions of the Fathers varies so much and the reformers complicate this again.(Connecting to my other other post on my country, By law when the 'humble divines' settled this in parliament (because parliament under the protectorate had the authority to settle such things would you believe) set forward the Westminster confession one of the precepts is that you proclaim that the bishop of Rome the pope is the anti-christ.)
If you've never been to a party like that, I dare to say you've missed out. These days they'd be open to the public but not well advertised. They also wouldn't do all of those things at the same party.
But not all members of society are treated like a symbol whose behavior and manners we ought to revere and draw inspiration from. In such scenarios, pointing out that they were flawed is to humanize them.
It's clear that there was something that compelled you to write "yeah, so what?" as a rebuttal. But I can't tell if that came from a need to protect Franklin's public image, and to what end.
Throughout human history, there has been sparse evidence of historical figures which we draw (correctly) inspiration and admiration. I'll never forget reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations where he was writing down in his journal how he was struggling to keep his sexual attraction to young boys at bay, who were also probably slaves. And he's still considered one of the five good emperors of Rome.
I'm not writing this to say whether any of them deserve it. I'm just pointing out that abuse of power isn't something new, and its expression isn't always known. For those people, the difference wasn't in their desires but that they had the power to act on them with no one batting an eye, and if they noticed they'd just walked it off.
> Members would drink vast quantities of alcohol and gorge themselves on food. Drunkenness was a prerequisite of The Hellfire Club. They’d dabble in most of the seven deadly sins to be honest – with gluttony, greed and lust being regular activities. Add in a smattering of gambling, fornicating and blasphemy, and you get the idea of a night at the Hellfire Club.
And,
> When we say ‘poking fun’, they were all about dressing as monks, performing parodies of religious ceremonies and making mock sacrifices to Bacchus and Venus. Along with that there was huge amounts of boozing, feasting, entertaining prostitutes and sharing pornographic materials.
[1]: https://www.walks.com/blog/hellfire-club-london/