Antichrist

[PJammer]

 AI continues to impress me.

I prefer communal when I associate with high level spiritual humans, and capitalism when dealing with materialistic humans.

Just my preferences.  You of course are entitled to your preferences.

[occerpa]

“There is only one religion, the religion of Love; there is only one race, the race of Humanity; there is only one language, the language of the Heart; there is only one God, and He is Omnipresent.” (SAIBABA)

This statement, according to my understanding, gives us a more complete and harmonious idea of Globalism: “Unity in diversity and diversity in unity.” The most intelligent application of the cosmic law of Synthesis, the law of spiritual existence.

I hope that this opinion will find a place in this discussion thread. Thank you.

[Dominick O]

PJammer, I'm a little frustrated with your reply so I turned to my new friend to help me communicate better about it. I think we have a unintentional misunderstanding.

Dom:
is there a term for when someone takes the meaning of a word you say for a subject and use the root of that word for an alternative meaning? For example, if person a says something is an expression or result of Communism, then the other person says they prefer communal. Is the second part dealing with community and communion, and not Communism? The two are very separate definitions?


ChatGPT said:
Yes, this rhetorical tactic is known as etymological fallacy or equivocation.

• Etymological Fallacy – This occurs when someone argues that a word must mean what its root historically meant, rather than what it currently means in context. In your example, someone might take "Communism" and redirect it to "communal" based on the shared root, even though they have distinct meanings.
• Equivocation – This happens when someone shifts between different meanings of a word (or words with a common root) to make an argument seem valid when it is not. In your example, someone conflating "Communism" with "communal" to change the conversation is a form of equivocation.

Would you like examples of how these are used in debate or discussion?
You said:
define equivocation please


ChatGPT said:
Equivocation is a logical fallacy that occurs when a word or phrase is used in two or more different senses within the same argument, leading to a misleading or invalid conclusion.
Example:

• Person A: "Giving people free healthcare is an expression of socialism."
• Person B: "Well, I love being social, so I guess I'm a socialist!"

In this case, "socialism" (a political and economic system) and "social" (relating to friendly interactions) are distinct meanings, but Person B equivocates by conflating them.
Equivocation can be intentional (to mislead) or unintentional (a misunderstanding). It's often used in debates, wordplay, or rhetorical tricks to confuse the issue.

[PJammer]

Yes Dominick, I can understand your frustration with my answer.  I interjected the new word "communal", where you associated this new word with "communism" which was never my intention.  I do tend to be too brief, and therefore often misunderstood.  Let me explain myself better, as I expect we have much more in common than you think.

I would never choose to live under "communism" as it has been implemented, I think for the same reasons as you, it has so far been conceived and implemented in a godless way (ie. God has no role).  However "communal", as I use it, is much more related to the way a God centered family lives today, we share everything with each other.  This has rarely been used at a national level.  We do see evidence of it in smaller communities like monasteries, convents, ...  Socialism does share some things in common, but usually has a fare amount of capitalism as well.

I guess my vision of Light and Life on Urantia is that we, and our offspring are destined to become much less materialistic, of course very God centered, and with the Heart of our Father, dedicated to service to all.  I doubt there will be anything close to a 40 hour work week.  Most things will be free (AI, automation, robots, less materialistic consumption, minimal to no corruption and crime, will create more than enough wealth to share).

Since what I have just described has rarely if ever existed at the national or world level before, I chose the word "communal" as the best adjective I could think of.  Perhaps there is a better word to use, or more likely a group of words?

By the way, I would like to thank every one who has contributed to this interesting thread.  Notice it now has over 3000 views, so thank you Clency for "stirring the pot" with a controversial topic, and thanks to those who can discuss important topics with respect for any who may have differing opinions, all this is worthy of a Spiritual Forum.

[occerpa]

Here is a reference of a recent interview with Pope Francis, (for whom I profess great respect and admiration), as a further contribution to enrich the Dominick-PJammer discussion on the divergences of East-West political ideologies: Communism-Capitalism. Pope Francis on Donald Trump is reported to have responded that he “does not judge politicians,” but that he is interested in “the suffering that his way of acting causes to the poor and the excluded.”

“What we want is to fight against inequalities, the greatest evil that exists in the world,” the Pope assures. “They are caused by money, which is against measures to balance well-being and promote equality,” he explains.

The journalist points out that Marx’s socialism and communism also wanted to build a society characterized by equality. “Are you also referring to a Marxist type of society?” Scalfari asks him. “If anything, it is the communists who think like Christians,” the Pope answers.  «Christ spoke of a society in which the poor, the weak and the excluded decide. To obtain equality and freedom we must help the people, the poor with faith in God or without it, and not the demagogues or the Barabbas», he added.

Scalfari concludes by telling him that in his opinion the Pope has many adversaries in the Church. «I would not call them adversaries», Francis answers. «Faith unites us all. Naturally, each individual sees things in a different way; the picture is objectively the same, but subjectively different», he is reported to have concluded. I would add to this statement by the Pope, a well-known saying, which says: «Money is the dung of the devil»

To conclude the following:
*"We are living creatures who extend our experience into matter - we evolve on other planets - we are born in deep space of dust and cosmic gases - we return to our permanent bodies of pure energy when our journey in time and space is complete"* 

[Dominick O]

“If anything, it is the communists who think like Christians,” the Pope answers.

Also, earlier this week, on Meet the Press, or a similar national weekend news show. Rubio had to refute the press claiming it was free speech that caused the Holocaust.

Pope and press are bass ackwards, imo.

[occerpa]

Although what we would like is for everyone here in the forum to have the same or almost the same opinion as everyone else (because we are a true spiritual family, no matter how far apart we are), in this matter of politics (where in the end there is always the "blessed" money), it is hard to accept it, but it is very difficult to agree.

For example, the reference that Dominick makes to Rubio (Marcos Rubio), a Cuban American from an oligarchic family very hostile to Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution, disqualifies itself because he is a well-known ultra-right, anti-communist activist, who has made a name for himself for his persistent and merciless attacks against all progressive governments in the region; having invested efforts, time and energy in the opposition in Venezuela, against a genuinely democratic president trying to make him in appear as a dictator. 
But that is all because I think we need a lot of positive energy to face these difficult times of change.

Thank you Dominick for your commitment to the forum. 9

[Dominick O]

Rubio, is the fact of the person on the other side of a media interview. Where the media is claiming free speech is a contributing cause to the holocaust.
Substitute Rubio for Mickey Mouse if that helps.

In what world does free speech lead to genocide? If I'm not mistaken, this is the opinion coming out of the EU leadership, too?

[occerpa]

Dominick, what happened to me was that as soon as I saw the name of Mr. Rubio, I didn't give much importance to the fact to see at which side the fire was coming from. But I'm sure that if it was a press conference with representatives from both sides, the Secretary of State refuted the independent journalists who held that position, stating that freedom of the press was the cause of the Holocaust, a rather controversial statement but I don't doubt that they would have strong arguments to defend it. Many times, misinformation makes us confuse friends with enemies and vice versa: the big bad wolf with Little Red Riding Hood. 
Keep in mind Dominick that traslations are not always, very good. Thanks 

[Dominick O]

There will likely never be a real problem between us occerpa, yes, thank you. And the rest of you to in and outside the thread.
But occerpa, even your instinct shows how there is some absurdity of Rubio (from his appointed position on a national press show) having to defend free speech from a network anchor suggesting free speech helped Hilter's holocaust.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bbFOssvV4k
and I'd like to provide other links but it looks like not all the news outlets covered this

[occerpa]

Dominick, I wouldn't say probably, otherwise there will never be any kind of problems between the two. But you give me the opportunity to "philosophize" a little about the point under discussion here: Freedom of the Press.

Without being an expert on the subject, but speaking as one more opinion giver, I believe, from what I have been able to find out, that this thing about freedom of expression in general is a great fallacy. I will try to be brief because, in any case, I think that no amount of figures and arguments can convince someone who has a well-founded opinion, even if it is wrong, about what they defend.

At the UB I read that only 15 percent of what appears recorded in history can be credited as true.

Freedom of expression exists only to defend state institutions and if that state is capitalist, even worse. Here in Colombia since 1977, 152 journalists have been murdered, all of them progressive or leftist.  In Mexico last year only 30 journalists were killed, also for attacking corruption; only Gaza surpasses this with 130 in the same period and you know very well who, those who suffered the Holocaust.

So what is left of this supposed freedom of the press that someone with dubious morals like Rubio defends?

There is much more, but I think that with so many other important issues that you can share with us, it is not justifiable to occupy ourselves with something about which we can do nothing, only wait for divine intervention, for which we should all pray. 

[occerpa]

Great Dominick, this is a real collaboration for everyone. Of course, I have to read that Grok3 document more carefully because it seems very interesting. Thanks
Now the next thing:

Something that I keep confused without being able to see a reason for being or happening, but I suppose that in the forum, people like you Dominick or Lemuel (who has not posted anything for many days; but I trust that it is not due to health problems), could shed light on it. It has to do with Ron's current state. I understood that he was undergoing a process of organic-spiritual mutation, until it was announced that his reality was almost or totally morontial although keeping his human body. From here the following uncertainty arises: Ron's really died and his soul ascended to the mansion worlds and what remains here below is a kind of "container" with a certain capacity to connect with his soul-personality. But for me it is very disappointing and sad to think that only a simulacrum has remained of that brilliant and superior mind.
I cannot reconcile with the idea that so many hardships that Ron had to go through, for so many years, sacrificing much of his family and social life, all that unprecedented experimentation, (which I called at the time Father Michael's Star project), would have been an absolute failure. 

Excuse my speculative mind. Thank you

NOTE I apologize for that giant writing, it has gotten out of my control

[Dominick O]

The Voice of God is something Ron helped people use as well.
But as far as Ron's personal experiences and claims related to his status and sufferings? 
Well those are quite different. For people with open dispositions, you keep an open mind to the possibilities you have outlined.
For those with closed dispositions, you might say, feel free to join Ron in fantasy-land, occerpa.

I honestly don't know how to resolve that for you let alone myself or others to our complete satisfaction

[PJammer]

Occerpa,

"UB I read that only 15 percent of what appears recorded in history can be credited as true".

Any chance you can give us a direct quote from The Urantia Book?  Or even a Paper number?

It is a curious statement if true.

[Dominick O]

Dom's prompt:
someone at a forum says the following: "At the UB I read that only 15 percent of what appears recorded in history can be credited as true." 

Can you analyze the Urantia Book TXT file only. No outside knowledge base. And help validate or correct any error in the statement?

ChatGPT
I couldn't find a direct statement in The Urantia Book that says "only 15 percent of what appears recorded in history can be credited as true." However, there are passages that discuss the distortion and dogmatization of history, particularly religious history.
For instance, the book criticizes the alteration of Hebrew history by Jewish priests in Babylon, turning secular events into sacred fictionUF-ENG-001-1955-1.22. It also mentions that New Testament authors and later Christian writers further complicated historical distortion by attempting to transcendentalize Jewish prophetsUF-ENG-001-1955-1.22.
While The Urantia Book implies that a significant portion of historical records are inaccurate or altered, I did not find any specific percentage, such as 15%, attributed to this claim. If you have a more precise reference or a passage in mind, I can search again with more focused keywords

You said:
No, I don't. At face value it seems a little off. Anything you can find indirectly within the book that would imply that 15% statement?


ChatGPT said:

The Urantia Book contains several passages discussing historical inaccuracies, distortions, and fabrications, particularly in religious history. However, I did not find any direct reference to the claim that "only 15 percent of what appears recorded in history can be credited as true." That specific percentage does not seem to be present in the text.
That said, there are strong indications in The Urantia Book that a significant portion of historical records, particularly religious ones, have been altered, exaggerated, or rewritten to serve ideological or theological agendas:

• Distortion of Hebrew History
  The book describes how Jewish priests in Babylon modified and dogmatized their history, converting secular events into sacred fictionUF-ENG-001-1955-1.22.
• Sacred vs. Profane History
  It states that the division between sacred and profane history has caused great confusion, as historical records were often rewritten with theological intent. Many original secular records were deliberately destroyedUF-ENG-001-1955-1.22.
• Alteration of the Story of King David
  The Urantia Book reveals that the biblical account of King David was heavily revised to support the idea of divine kingship. The actual events were much different from what was later writtenUF-ENG-001-1955-1.22.
• Fictionalized Old Testament Accounts
  The book states that many Old Testament narratives, such as divine interventions in war, were fabricated or exaggerated, with mundane events rewritten as supernatural occurrencesUF-ENG-001-1955-1.22.
• General Fallibility of Human Records
  The book suggests that "nothing which human nature has touched can be regarded as infallible," indicating that historical records—especially those influenced by religious or political motives—are prone to distortionUF-ENG-001-1955-1.22.

Conclusion:
While The Urantia Book clearly asserts that historical records, especially religious ones, have been manipulated and rewritten, it does not provide a specific percentage (such as 15%) to quantify the extent of inaccuracy. However, the general theme of the book suggests that a significant portion of recorded history has been altered to fit ideological and theological narratives.
If the 15% figure is referenced somewhere in the book, I was unable to locate it. The safest correction to the forum statement would be to say that The Urantia Book supports the idea of widespread historical distortion but does not quantify it with an exact percentage.