New Take on Utilitarianism

[_Gadianton]

I am totally lost as to the point of this thread.

Well, I thought it was funny. But if it wasn't, then I don't think I can rescue it by spelling it out.

[_Dr. Shades]

Well, I thought it was funny. But if it wasn't, then I don't think I can rescue it by spelling it out.

If for no other reason than to satisfy mine & John Larsen's curiousity, will you be kind enough to spell it out anyway?

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, I thought it was funny. But if it wasn't, then I don't think I can rescue it by spelling it out.

If for no other reason than to satisfy mine & John Larsen's curiousity, will you be kind enough to spell it out anyway?

Shades--

It was a parody of DCP's post. DCP stated elsewhere that he won't discuss certain subjects (e.g., the nature of God) due to their "sacred" nature, etc., and that he'll only do so with certain people whom he trusts. Thus, Gad was "making a funny" by stating that he knew of a means to solve all the world's ills, but, due to the "sacred nature" of his knowledge, he won't tell anyone about it. Essentially, he was poking fun at the mentality which says, "I know the secrets of the Universe! But, I won't tell you, except in certain situations, and only if I totally trust you!"

[_EAllusion]

Well, I thought it was funny. But if it wasn't, then I don't think I can rescue it by spelling it out.

If for no other reason than to satisfy mine & John Larsen's curiousity, will you be kind enough to spell it out anyway?

Shades--

It was a parody of DCP's post. DCP stated elsewhere that he won't discuss certain subjects (e.g., the nature of God) due to their "sacred" nature, etc., and that he'll only do so with certain people whom he trusts. Thus, Gad was "making a funny" by stating that he knew of a means to solve all the world's ills, but, due to the "sacred nature" of his knowledge, he won't tell anyone about it. Essentially, he was poking fun at the mentality which says, "I know the secrets of the Universe! But, I won't tell you, except in certain situations, and only if I totally trust you!"

g

There's more to it than that. Pay attention to the obvious errors in his initial post.

[_Dr. Shades]

Thanks for that, Mister Scratch.

Are you referring to a post that DCP made on this board that I missed, or to a recent post made on MA&D (that I also missed, for that matter)?

[_Mister Scratch]

Thanks for that, Mister Scratch.

Are you referring to a post that DCP made on this board that I missed, or to a recent post made on MA&D (that I also missed, for that matter)?

It's this post, reproduced in my thread entitled, "The Mopologetic Tactical Retreat"

Why do you think Hinkley's answer [concerning eternal progression] was so ambiguous?

I can only speculate, but I suspect that he wasn't eager to discuss a doctrine that he considered sacred and that he knew would be jarring and weird both to the (very possibly agnostic and/or irreligious, certainly skeptical) reporter interviewing him and to the largely skeptical audience that would read the interview, neither of whom (in any case) likely possessed the doctrinal foundation necessary to make proper sense of the subject. I myself prefer not to discuss certain things in certain venues. And the fundamental nature of God is one of those things: Several times, on this very board (including just two or three days ago), I've backed away from discussions of that topic, though I would be happy to discuss it elsewhere, with certain people, under the right circumstances and if I felt moved upon to do so. I simply won't discuss them on an internet message board with critics. There are subjects that I consider very sacred, and, even, where I believe myself to have received specific inspiration regarding them. This is one of those.

[_Gadianton]

Well, you know how it is, if the joke doesn't go over, you don't want to drag it out. But, Scratch is right. EA of course also is rarely wrong so a quick recap play-by-play

The context of the discussions here were around Tal's criticism of secularism and happiness. That's what I was posting on here. Then Scratch brought up the stuff on mad. The sacred doctrine of man becoming God was what, from the King Follet? Where all kinds of startling things were revealed like babies ruling the galaxies as Gods yet without one cubit added to their height!

So I thought, what if *I* had the same liberties and as a atheist could just come up with whatever complete BS (as EA pointed out) happened to seem like a good story to tell at the time and pass it off as factual, and then when challenged or made fun of appealed to the sacred nature of the teaching.

One thing I can guarantee you, the Mormon formula of sacridity: Sacredness is directly proportional to stupidity.