- Apr 11, 2023
- 46,331
- 22,276
- 2,488
Of course, I have had to say it, because in your arrogance or exceeding pride, you can't admit it.
Zone1 Evolution of Rational Theism beyond Christianity gave us America
- Thread starter whutTHEYsay
- Start date
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 63,501
- 69,214
- 3,605
You put your faith in the Constitution? Here what your beloved Theist, Ben Franklin, said about the Constitution.
I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig’d, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error. [Sir Richard] Steele, a Protestant, in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only Difference between our two Churches in their Opinions of the Certainty of their Doctrine, is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the Wrong. But tho’ many private Persons think almost as highly of their own Infallibility, as that of their Sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a little Dispute with her Sister, said, I don’t know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with no body but myself that’s always in the right.
In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other
Ben Franklin had a better concept of original sin than you as he knew that mankind was inherently corrupt, so at man's core, everything he endeavors fails at some point.
Today the US government tramples your Constitutional rights every day. It will not preserve the US government and will surely fail, probably sooner than later. And to think, it was all predicted by one Ben Franklin.
Conversely, the teachings of Christ never fail.
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,351
- 6,145
- 245
- Thread starter
- #163
Benjamin Franklin supports the Constitution (1787)
Speaking at the Philadelphia convention in September 1787, Benjamin Franklin offered his cautious and measured support for the new Constitution.
alphahistory.com
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN SUPPORTS THE CONSTITUTION (1787)
Speaking at the Philadelphia convention in September 1787, Benjamin Franklin offered his cautious and measured support for the new Constitution:Benjamin Franklin: Speech in Convention, 17 September 1787
The final session of the Constitutional Convention on 17 September began with the reading and correction of the engrossed Constitution. Then, according to Maryland delegate James McHenry, “Dr. Franklin put a paper into Mr [James] Willsons hand to read containing his reasons for assenting to the constitution. It was plain, insinuating persuasive—and in any event of the system guarded the Doctor’s fame” (Farrand, II, 649). Two days later the Pennsylvania Gazette reported that the speech was “extremely sensible” and that Franklin’s support of the Constitution would recommend it to all his Pennsylvania friends.
I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig’d, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error. [Sir Richard] Steele, a Protestant, in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only Difference between our two Churches in their Opinions of the Certainty of their Doctrine, is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the Wrong. But tho’ many private Persons think almost as highly of their own Infallibility, as that of their Sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a little Dispute with her Sister, said, I don’t know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with no body but myself that’s always in the right. <Il n’y a que moi qui a toujours raison.>
In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with Confidence to hear that our Councils are confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet hereafter for the Purpose of cutting one another’s Throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. <The Opinions I have had of its Errors, I sacrifice to the Public Good. I have never whisper’d a Syllable of them abroad. Within these Walls they were born, & here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the Objections he has had to it, and endeavour to gain Partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary Effects & great Advantages resulting naturally in our favour among foreign Nations, as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent Unanimity.> Much of the Strength and
Efficiency of any Government, in procuring & securing Happiness to the People depends on Opinion, on the general Opinion of the Goodness of that Government as well as of the Wisdom & Integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own Sakes, as a Part of the People, and for the Sake of our Posterity, we shall act heartily & unanimously in recommending this Constitution,2 wherever our Influence may extend, and turn our future Thoughts and Endeavours to the Means of having it well administred.—
On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this Instrument.—
Cite as: The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution Digital Edition, ed. John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber and Margaret A. Hogan. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.
Canonic URL: 77 A–B. Benjamin Franklin: Speech in Convention, 17 September [accessed 31 Aug 2012]
Original source: Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume XIII: Commentaries on the Constitution, No. 1
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 63,501
- 69,214
- 3,605
So, what is your point here?Benjamin Franklin supports the Constitution (1787)
Speaking at the Philadelphia convention in September 1787, Benjamin Franklin offered his cautious and measured support for the new Constitution.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN SUPPORTS THE CONSTITUTION (1787)
Speaking at the Philadelphia convention in September 1787, Benjamin Franklin offered his cautious and measured support for the new Constitution:
Benjamin Franklin: Speech in Convention, 17 September 1787
The final session of the Constitutional Convention on 17 September began with the reading and correction of the engrossed Constitution. Then, according to Maryland delegate James McHenry, “Dr. Franklin put a paper into Mr [James] Willsons hand to read containing his reasons for assenting to the constitution. It was plain, insinuating persuasive—and in any event of the system guarded the Doctor’s fame” (Farrand, II, 649). Two days later the Pennsylvania Gazette reported that the speech was “extremely sensible” and that Franklin’s support of the Constitution would recommend it to all his Pennsylvania friends.
I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig’d, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error. [Sir Richard] Steele, a Protestant, in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only Difference between our two Churches in their Opinions of the Certainty of their Doctrine, is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the Wrong. But tho’ many private Persons think almost as highly of their own Infallibility, as that of their Sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a little Dispute with her Sister, said, I don’t know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with no body but myself that’s always in the right. <Il n’y a que moi qui a toujours raison.>
In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with Confidence to hear that our Councils are confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet hereafter for the Purpose of cutting one another’s Throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. <The Opinions I have had of its Errors, I sacrifice to the Public Good. I have never whisper’d a Syllable of them abroad. Within these Walls they were born, & here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the Objections he has had to it, and endeavour to gain Partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary Effects & great Advantages resulting naturally in our favour among foreign Nations, as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent Unanimity.> Much of the Strength and
Efficiency of any Government, in procuring & securing Happiness to the People depends on Opinion, on the general Opinion of the Goodness of that Government as well as of the Wisdom & Integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own Sakes, as a Part of the People, and for the Sake of our Posterity, we shall act heartily & unanimously in recommending this Constitution,2 wherever our Influence may extend, and turn our future Thoughts and Endeavours to the Means of having it well administred.—
On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this Instrument.—
Cite as: The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution Digital Edition, ed. John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber and Margaret A. Hogan. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.
Canonic URL: 77 A–B. Benjamin Franklin: Speech in Convention, 17 September [accessed 31 Aug 2012]
Original source: Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume XIII: Commentaries on the Constitution, No. 1
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,351
- 6,145
- 245
- Thread starter
- #165
Trump was the first to reject the results of an election and then attempt to deny the will of the people to stay in power.
That’s not original sin. It’s a criminal shitting on the right of the people to be self-governed.
James Madison's Notes of the Constitutional Convention (September 17, 1787)
Monday Sepr. 17. 1787. In Convention The engrossed Constitution being read, Docr. Franklin rose with a speech in his hand, which he had reduced to writing for his own conveniency, and which Mr. Wilson read in the words following.Mr. President I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that whereever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right" — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good — I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad — Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die — If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends. on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress &confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administered.
On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility— and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." — He then moved that the Constitution be signed by the members and offered the following as a convenient form viz. "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th. of Sepr. &c — In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names."1
This ambiguous form had been drawn up by Mr. G. M. in order to gain the dissenting members, and put into the hands of Docr. Franklin that it might have the better chance of success.
Mr. Gorham said if it was not too late he could wish, for the purpose of lessening objections to the Constitution, that the clause declaring "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every forty thousand —" which had produced so much discussion, might be yet reconsidered, in order to strike out 40,000 & insert "thirty thousand" This would not he remarked establish that as an absolute rule, but only give Congress a greater latitude which could not be thought unreasonable.
Mr. King & Mr Carrol seconded & supported the ideas of Mr Gorham.
When the President rose, for the purpose of putting the question, he said that although his situation had hitherto restrained him from offering his sentiments on questions depending in the House, and it might be thought, ought now to impose silence on him, yet he could not forbear expressing his wish that the alteration proposed might take place. It was much to be desired that the objections to the plan recommended might be made as few as possible — The smallness of the proportion of Representatives had been considered by many members of the Convention, an insufficient security for the rights & interests of the people. He acknowledged that it had always appeared to himself among the exceptionable parts of the plan; and late as the present moment was for admitting amendments, he thought this of so much consequence that it would give much satisfaction to see it adopted.
No opposition was made to the proposition of Mr. Gorham and it was agreed to unanimously On the question to agree to the Constitution enrolled in order to be signed. It was agreed to all the States answering ay.
Mr Randolph then rose and with an allusion to the observations of Docr Franklin, apologized for his refusing to sign the Constitution, notwithstanding the vast majority & venerable names that would give sanction to its wisdom and its worth. He said however that he did not mean by this refusal to decide that he should oppose the Constitution without doors. He meant only to keep himself free to be governed by his duty as it should be prescribed by his future judgment — He refused to sign, because he thought the object of the convention would be frustrated by the alternative which it presented to the people. Nine States will fail to ratify the plan and confusion must ensue. With such a view of the subject he ought not, he could not, by pledging himself to support the plan, restrain himself from taking such steps as might appear to him most consistent with the public good.
Mr. Govr. Morris said that he too had objections, but considering the present plan as the best that was to be attained, he should take it with all its faults. The majority had determined in its favor and by that determination he should abide. The moment this plan goes forth all other considerations will be laid aside— and the great question will be, shall there be a national Government or not? and this must take place or a general anarchy will be the alternative — He remarked that the signing in the form proposed related only to the fact that the States present were unanimous.
Mr. Williamson suggested that the signing should be confined to the letter accompanying the Constitution to Congress. which might perhaps do nearly as well, and would be found be satisfactory to some members* who disliked the Constitution. For himself he did not think a better plan was to be expected and had no scruples against putting his name to it.
Mr Hamilton expressed his anxiety that every member should sign. A few characters of consequence, by opposing or even refusing to sign the Constitution, might do infinite mischief by kindling the latent sparks which lurk under an enthusiasm in favor of the Convention which may soon subside. No man's ideas were more remote from the plan than his own were known to be; but is it possible to deliberate between anarchy and Convulsion on one side, and the chance of good to be expected from the plan on the other.
Mr Blount said he had declared that he would not sign, so as to pledge himself in support of the plan, but he was relieved by the form proposed and would without committing himself attest the fact that the plan was the unanimous act of the States in Convention.
Docr. Franklin expressed his fears from what Mr Randolph had said, that he thought himself alluded to in the remarks offered this morning to the House. He declared that when drawing up that paper he did not know that any particular member would refuse to sign his name to the instrument, and hoped to be so understood. He professed a high sense of obligation to Mr. Randolph for having brought forward the plan in the first instance, and for the assistance he had given in its progress, and hoped that he would yet lay aside his objections, and, by concurring with his brethren, prevent the great mischief which the refusal of his name might produce Mr. Randolph could not but regard the signing in the proposed form, as the same with signing the Constitution. The change of form therefore could make no difference with him. He repeated that in refusing to sign the Constitution, he took a step which might be the most awful of his life, but it was dictated by his conscience, and it was not possible for him to hesitate, much less, to change. He repeated also his persuasion, that the holding out this plan with a final alternative to the people, of accepting or rejecting it in toto, would really produce the anarchy &civil convulsions which were apprehended from the refusal of individuals to sign it.
Mr Gerry described the painful feelings of his situation, and the embarrassment under which he rose to offer any further observations on the subject wch. had been finally decided. Whilst the plan was depending, he had treated it with all the freedom he thought it deserved— He now felt himself bound as he was disposed to treat it with the respect due to the Act of the Convention— He hoped he should not violate that respect in declaring on this occasion his fears that a Civil war may result from the present crisis of the U. S— In Massachusetts, particularly he saw the danger of this calamitous event— In that State there are two parties, one devoted to Democracy, the worst he thought of all political evils, the other as violent in the opposite extreme. From the collision of these in opposing and resisting the Constitution, confusion was greatly to be feared. He had thought it necessary for this & other reasons that the plan should have been proposed in a more mediating shape, in order to abate the heat and opposition of parties— As it had been passed by the Convention, he was persuaded it would have a contrary effect— He could not therefore by signing the Constitution pledge himself to abide by it at all events. The proposed form made no difference with him. But if it were not otherwise apparent, the refusals to sign should never be known from him. Alluding to the remarks of Docr. Franklin, he could not he said but view them as levelled at himself and the other gentlemen who meant not to sign; Genl Pinkney— We are not likely to gain many converts by the ambiguity of the proposed form of signing. He thought it best to be candid and let the form speak the substance— If the meaning of the signers be left in doubt, his purpose would not be answered— He should sign the Constitution with a view to support it with all his influence, and wished to pledge himself accordingly—
Docr. Franklin. It is too soon to pledge ourselves before Congress and our Constituents shall have approved the plan.
Mr Ingersol did not consider the signing, either as a mere attestation of the fact, or as pledging the signers to support the Constitution at all events; but as a recommendation, of what, all things considered, was the most eligible.
On the motion of Docr. Franklin N. H. ay. Mas. ay— Ct. ay— N. J. ay— Pa. ay— Del— ay. Md. ay. Va. ay— (N. C. ay) S. C. divd.* Geo. ay. [Ayes — 10; noes — 0; divided — 1.]
Mr. King suggested that the Journals of the Convention should be either destroyed, or deposited in the custody of the President. He thought if suffered to be made public, a bad use would be made of them by those who would wish to prevent the adoption of the Constitution—
Mr Wilson prefered the second expedient. he had at one time liked the first best; but as false suggestions may be propagated it should not be made impossible to contradict them—
A question was then put on depositing the Journals and other papers of the Convention in the hands of the President, On which, N— H— ay. Mtts ay. Ct. ay— N. J. ay. Pena. ay. Del. ay. Md.* no. Va. ay. N. C. ay— S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [Ayes 10; noes — 1.]
The President having asked what the Convention meant should be done with the Journals &c, whether copies were to be allowed to the members if applied for. It was Resolved nem: con: "that he retain the Journal and other papers, subject to the order of Congress, if ever formed under the Constitution.
The members then proceeded to sign the instrument.
Whilst the last members were signing it Doctr. Franklin looking towards the Presidents Chair, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that Painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. I have, said he, often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.
2
The Constitution being signed by all the Members except Mr Randolph, Mr Mason, and Mr. Gerry who declined giving it the sanction of their names, the Convention dissolved itself by an Adjournment sine die —
( The few alterations and corrections made in these debates which are not in my hand writing, were dictated by me and made in my presence by John C. Payne.
James Madison)
Cougarbear
Gold Member
- Jan 29, 2022
- 12,324
- 5,941
- 208
Patrick Henry
Cougarbear
Gold Member
- Jan 29, 2022
- 12,324
- 5,941
- 208
Stop lying! Al Gore fought tooth and nail and would not accept his loss. He had a breakdown. Hillary rejected her loss and still does believe she won. There is no law that says a candidate cannot demand proof if there appears to be illegal voting and take it to a court of law. That’s what the judicial is there for. And, most sane people know Biden would never get more votes than Obama did. That doesn’t mean he broke the Constitution. That’s just stupid.
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,351
- 6,145
- 245
- Thread starter
- #168
Frsnklin did not believe in original sin.
Gore conceded in mid December, He had no intention to take the White House against the will of the voters as it was precipitously settled in s court of law.
I cannot do anything about your confusion. You obviously were not raised in an environment where the value of truth reason and character matters.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 63,501
- 69,214
- 3,605
This quote by Franklin seems to concede the point of original sin
and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
There is no perfect government that will last due to the inherent corruption of man.
He did not blatantly say as much, but his words seem to concede the point.
History also proves him correct.
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,351
- 6,145
- 245
- Thread starter
- #170
Franklin never said, inherit corruption of man. Left the possibility that the US government under the constitution he helped design would never be corrupted.
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,351
- 6,145
- 245
- Thread starter
- #171
nfbw 241208 Veortbc00171
NotfooledbyW cxxi: You should do research before using waffle words such as “serms to” Saint Votto
Back in 2020 I did that which I found Saint ding lying:
nfbw 200301 Vawfaa 160
NotfooledbyW ilx. B. Franklin quote: Benjamin Franklin on Original Sin; It is. “ .. every whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. ’Tis a Notion invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators. ’Tis absurd in it self, ......”
NotfooledbyW ilx. to 87: ding said: It seems your only evidence of multiculturalism is that a few of the founding fathers were deists. So what? They believed in natural law same as the Christians
What do you mean our founders’ beliefs on national law were the same as the Christians?
Do you believe the human intellect is incapable of knowing the true content of the moral aspect of natural law apart from revelation only through the Holy Bible as interpreted to online the doctrine of Original Sin?
Why don’t you honestly respond to any of these questions? Why can’t you find a Christian Nationalist to help you.
NotfooledbyW ilx. B. Franklin quote: Franklin rejected original sin in his 1735 A Defense of Mr. Hemphill’s Observations:
But lest they shou’d imagine that one of their strongest Objections hinted at here, and elsewhere, is designedly overlook’d, as being unanswerable, viz. our lost and undone State by Nature, as it is commonly call’d, proceeding undoubtedly from the Imputation of old Father Adam’s first Guilt. To this I answer once for all, that I look upon this Opinion every whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. ’Tis a Notion invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators. ’Tis absurd in it self, and therefore cannot be father’d upon the Christian Religion as deliver’d in the Gospel. Moral Guilt is so personal a Thing, that it cannot possibly in the Nature of Things be transferr’d from one Man to Myriads of others, that were no way accessary to it. And to suppose a Man liable to Punishment upon account of the Guilt of another, is unreasonable; and actually to punish him for it, is unjust and cruel. ••••. The Founders on Original Sin & Human Nature:
American Creation
NotfooledbyW ilx. to 87: So again Ding, what is with your “same as Christians” betrayal of the truth?
nfbw 200301 Vawfaa 160
nfbw 241208 Veortbc00171
NotfooledbyW cxxi: You should do research before using waffle words such as “serms to” Saint Votto
Back in 2020 I did that which I found Saint ding lying:
nfbw 200301 Vawfaa 160
NotfooledbyW ilx. B. Franklin quote: Benjamin Franklin on Original Sin; It is. “ .. every whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. ’Tis a Notion invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators. ’Tis absurd in it self, ......”
NotfooledbyW ilx. to 87: ding said: It seems your only evidence of multiculturalism is that a few of the founding fathers were deists. So what? They believed in natural law same as the Christians
What do you mean our founders’ beliefs on national law were the same as the Christians?
Do you believe the human intellect is incapable of knowing the true content of the moral aspect of natural law apart from revelation only through the Holy Bible as interpreted to online the doctrine of Original Sin?
Why don’t you honestly respond to any of these questions? Why can’t you find a Christian Nationalist to help you.
NotfooledbyW ilx. B. Franklin quote: Franklin rejected original sin in his 1735 A Defense of Mr. Hemphill’s Observations:
But lest they shou’d imagine that one of their strongest Objections hinted at here, and elsewhere, is designedly overlook’d, as being unanswerable, viz. our lost and undone State by Nature, as it is commonly call’d, proceeding undoubtedly from the Imputation of old Father Adam’s first Guilt. To this I answer once for all, that I look upon this Opinion every whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. ’Tis a Notion invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators. ’Tis absurd in it self, and therefore cannot be father’d upon the Christian Religion as deliver’d in the Gospel. Moral Guilt is so personal a Thing, that it cannot possibly in the Nature of Things be transferr’d from one Man to Myriads of others, that were no way accessary to it. And to suppose a Man liable to Punishment upon account of the Guilt of another, is unreasonable; and actually to punish him for it, is unjust and cruel. ••••. The Founders on Original Sin & Human Nature:
American Creation
NotfooledbyW ilx. to 87: So again Ding, what is with your “same as Christians” betrayal of the truth?
nfbw 200301 Vawfaa 160
nfbw 241208 Veortbc00171
Last edited:
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,351
- 6,145
- 245
- Thread starter
- #173
ding is stuck under a load of truth that was dumped on his head four years ago. Still stuck.
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,351
- 6,145
- 245
- Thread starter
- #174
that’s what one of our great rational theist American founders said about the religion of Christianity. “whether Popish or Presbyterian”
NotfooledbyW ilx. B. Franklin quote: Benjamin Franklin on Original Sin; It is. “ .. every whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. ’Tis a Notion invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators. ’Tis absurd in it self, ......”
No. I'm commenting on that goofy way of posting that you do.
That's nice. Did he use a similar goofy formatting style as you do?
I think you are tilting at windmills. Is your point that the 2024 vote should be invalidated?
Cougarbear
Gold Member
- Jan 29, 2022
- 12,324
- 5,941
- 208
And Hillary? She's still doing book tours complaining. Al went to court. Yep! Trying to steal the election. It's you that is confused nor does it matter. Trump is President - Elect, thank goodness!!!
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,351
- 6,145
- 245
- Thread starter
- #179
afaac00179. working people? Vote Your Tax Bracket.. help save western liberal Jeffersonian democracy; for it is the only backstop against “magnified by greed“ evil.
Porter Rockwell dclx: . There are those who think that the "Enlightenment" period as they call it, somehow marginalized Christianity. prxyz 200129 Safaac00660
ding xcix to 96 : Jefferson believed in a moralistic, providential creator who is the source of all natural rights. dvng 241124 Swcjdm00099
NotfooledbyW clxxix to wcjdm00099: Let’s talk Jeffersonian enlightenment doctrine versus Catholic salvation doctrine.
Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison all left a trail in action and word that their doctrinal belief system was that all men are good. No government should prescribe a supernatural medicine that all human beings must purchase in order to have eternal life with the one and only true God, in order to avoid being cast into the pit of burning hell with all sinners who chose not to be saved (take the right medicine)
Can all sinful men like the six above I just mentioned, since the fall of Adam, avoid eternal damnation in hell under Catholic medieval doctrine, unless on their deathbed, they submit their last few remaining breaths to the Catholic doctrine that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior?
nfbw 241123 Vafaac00179
Porter Rockwell dclx: . There are those who think that the "Enlightenment" period as they call it, somehow marginalized Christianity. prxyz 200129 Safaac00660
ding xcix to 96 : Jefferson believed in a moralistic, providential creator who is the source of all natural rights. dvng 241124 Swcjdm00099
NotfooledbyW clxxix to wcjdm00099: Let’s talk Jeffersonian enlightenment doctrine versus Catholic salvation doctrine.
Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison all left a trail in action and word that their doctrinal belief system was that all men are good. No government should prescribe a supernatural medicine that all human beings must purchase in order to have eternal life with the one and only true God, in order to avoid being cast into the pit of burning hell with all sinners who chose not to be saved (take the right medicine)
Can all sinful men like the six above I just mentioned, since the fall of Adam, avoid eternal damnation in hell under Catholic medieval doctrine, unless on their deathbed, they submit their last few remaining breaths to the Catholic doctrine that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior?
nfbw 241123 Vafaac00179
Last edited:
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,351
- 6,145
- 245
- Thread starter
- #180
Cougarbear iii. : The founding of this nation is based on Judeo-Christian principles. cgrbr 241124 Seortb00003
NotfooledbyW clxxx to 3: Could you please explain to me what taking Jesus Christ to become your personal Lord and Savior has to do with being a citizen living and working on US soil? nfbw 241124 Veortb00180
NotfooledbyW clxxx to 3: Could you please explain to me what taking Jesus Christ to become your personal Lord and Savior has to do with being a citizen living and working on US soil? nfbw 241124 Veortb00180
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Former Trump Supporter Pamela Hemphill Refuses And Returns Her Jan 6 Pardon- Started by Dr. Phosphorous
- Replies: 2
-
How 'Whataboutism' Is Clearing The Path Of Trumps Avalanche Of Corruption- Started by skews13
- Replies: 6
-
-
Ukraine Destroys 40 Aircraft Deep Inside Russia Ahead Of Peace Talks In Istanbul
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 6
Latest Discussions
-
-
How 'Whataboutism' Is Clearing The Path Of Trumps Avalanche Of Corruption- Latest: C_Clayton_Jones
-
