Baha'u'llah was NOT a Prophet of Allah (God). The Bahi Faith is a deviant sect. (Page 5)

GeraldtheGnome: No, you use it that way and a small amount of people do. Here, I'll send you every day of this weeks Courier Mail newspaper if you want me to. You can then tell me how many times co-operation is in there. You should know better. Then again you should know better than to repeat the words of others and you should avoid symbols too.

Your Merza was just another guy who told people what he wanted people to believe, he never had a supernatural encounter. In a sense what came before your religion was a cult of Islam and yours is a cult of that mixed in with other made up beliefs about other religions.

shadowline: One is of course permitted to be skeptical about supernatural encounters, but it's a bit dogmatic to declare that someone didn't have one when there is no possibility of testing that. And the word "cult" has become much too easy a put down of religions you don't happen to adhere to yourself. The Baha'i religion does derive from Shi'ite Islam, but neither of them just becomes a cult because someone doesn't like them. They're both religions.

Zanjan: These days, we identify cults by extreme, negative behaviours, aka, the death cults. They're a soft version of militant fanaticism while being somewhat hedonistic behind closed doors.

Like serial killers, we can look back on their lives and see the red flags when they were children and adolescents. Yet we can't take action based on flags alone - we have to wait for an individual to commit an actual crime. Until then, we'd be wise to ensure our own security is reliably effective.

True protection comes from God, alone. Therefore, nothing the genuine Revelator says/does can ever harm His followers.

GeraldtheGnome: To Shadowline. Yes, about that. Well how many times in various religions is it depicted that someone was on his or her own and a god or goddess in some form appeared to that one ? When it comes to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, The Baha'i Faith that was spelled as Bahi on here and so on then each being that appeared before them was either the main god or that of a god or goddess under that one. Well that is the problem, most of them of those religions are under the impression that it is about one god and that he never had an origin. It then has that the one created from nothing created all except him from nothing. Unless you can prove that one scientific law that states and has be proven that something never came from nothing some time in the past was once not so then every supernatural being listed in each of those stories was disproven long ago. Yes, it can be tested and it has been tested.

Your use of the word and at the front of a sentence was not a good idea, it would have been better used if you used the word and in lower case and joined it to the sentence before that one. When it's not directly from what someone said vocally in one way or the other then I cannot see the reason for quotation marks. Christianity does fall into the category of a cult of Judaism and Zanjan's religion is indirectly of cult of Islam, it's more of cult of Bab's religion, of which Merza was a part of. I cannot remember if Bab was really the guys name since I think that his was a title that was something about a gate. I'm not just having a go at religions just for some unfair reason. I am not for any religion, each religion is a human interpretation of the unknown. Sure they are religions in a way, then again each religious cult is some sort of religion anyway.

To Zanjan. The trend now for too many is to use too many commas and to use plurals for words like that of the word behaviour. You oddly use hyphens for no good reason. There is no god named God around anywhere. The Feudal Age was the first time the name God was used. The stupid title Revelator is a made up word that someone thought was a good word to use when the English translation of your Persian/Arabic based religion was made. Even the name God was never used in your own religion at first. It is just his, not His. There never was a 'Revelator' at all. Not all cults have your version of what a cult is. It was put that Bahi is a deviant sect. Well there is no reason to believe that, in fact I thought it was Baha'i anyway. It still comes back to that one question though that some wise men once said.

shadowline: Gerald, if you are saying what you seem to be saying, that a cult is a religion that derives from another religion, I think you will find, if you look, that no dictionary defines the word "cult" that way.

AND when I said that experiences of the supernatural could not be tested I was referring to experiences of the supernatural, not whether gods exist. The fact that nothing can come from nothing is considered by many to necessitate a Creator, not to make the existence of one impossible. Nothing can come from nothing, ergo, something that has always been there must have created everything. It's a cogent concept, however you take it, but it's up to you whether you believe it or not. Philosophers have long agreed that nothing can be proven about that matter, in either direction.

GeraldtheGnome: A standard dictionary also doesn’t define Atheism in the proper context either Atheist, it still doesn’t mean that you aren’t into Atheism. Sometimes definitions in a standard dictionary are not broad enough. I typed on here, I did not say anything here, nor is anyone saying anything on here. I mentioned a religious cult, not just a cult in general anyway, of course I forgot though about Scientology, but in some ways Scientologists got a certain idea off Christianity, they have an odd looking cross after all. The word and does not need to be in capitals and it’s an adjoining word when it is used properly. The new trend by some, which is encouraged by some foolish people without are into an odd new trend with grammar, is to use what I refer to as lazy English. I mean where the direct opposite of what used to be grammatically incorrect is now considered to be grammatically correct to some. You, yourself are a fan of that new trend.

Sure, there have some in the distant past that we’re into it to. Whatever can be tested in regards to anything supernatural that can be tested can be disproven, all of what can be tested about anything that is considered to be supernatural has already been proven false. Stop making up very lame excuses, you are too good at that. Nothing at present, also nothing known about in the past have examples of something that came from nothing and most likely nothing in the future will show that either, unless of course you can show a time in the past when a certain scientific law, that you are going up against, did not apply. There never was a beginning, there was only a beginning to what is around presently. Nothing and no one will last forever. Matter just becomes another form of matter as it always did, unless of course you can prove that in the past that was not so. Good luck on that one ! Your lot love using Creator, rather than creator, it’s because it gives some prestige to your false monotheistic beliefs that your favourite book is only about one god and the false belief that the book is about only one creator.

The fantasy is about gods and goddesses as creators, it’s not just about one god. Each religious god and goddess is imaginary, once you go through the claims about each god and goddess of any religion about any of them property you too will notice that they are all made up. The only gods and goddesses that cannot be disproven are those that there are no claims about, they will never be proven to be real or false. There possibly is at least one god or goddess around somewhere right now, no one will ever know. Just live your life without such superstitious beliefs. Use a dictionary or a thesaurus so you can find a better word to use than cogent, one that most people use rather than a word that you falsely thinks impresses people. Sorry, it was quite unimpressive and it just made you look rather dumb instead. I still don’t consider Zanjan’s religion, which is still a cult, a deviant sect at all.

GeraldtheGnome: Allah is not another name for God, one is a Muslim god and the other is a Christian god of The Feudal Age. Merza or Mirza as I prefer to name him, rather than his arrogant self appointed title, used Khodan as the name for his cult even though shortly after he mixed in the name Allah and various titles when he mixed in a number of religions, some of which have nothing to do with the other gods that he claimed were the same god under different names, appearances and attributes. Each religious god and goddess is made up.

The breakaway cult started in the nineteenth century, so in The Industrial Age, it’s actually a cult of a breakaway Muslim cult. The dictionary doesn’t define certain things that are true, it just shows a narrowed down explanation of what the word means. That means that the words cult and atheist are not properly explained because they are oversimplified in dictionaries. The word and is best not used at the front of a sentence, any sentence can make sense without it being at the front of a sentence. These are text messages, no one literally said anything on here.

shadowline: The God of Christianity is not "of the feudal age", not by a long way. That God was believed in and worshiped - and written about - for thousands of years before anything that could be called "feudal" appeared. That would also put belief in in Him about 1200 years before Christianity began.

"Allah" is simply Arabic for "the god", that being what the principal deity of the polytheistic cult of pagan Arabia was called. However Islam got started, it's foundation entailed identifying that deity with the God of the Bible, and Mohammed as His last and most perfect prophet.

From the Jewish point of view the God of the Bible revealed Himself to one ancient people only, and has still not moved beyond having spoken only to them. From the Christian point of view that God revealed himself to one ancient people in order to prepare for the day when He would reveal Himself to all of humanity, which He then did through Jesus. From the Muslim point of view that God revealed Himself through prophets for several centuries, Jesus being one of them, and Mohammed another.

From the non-religious point of view, the ancient Israelites acquired a concept of the Divine partly from their Canaanite forbears, and partly from other Near Eastern peoples, and then first Christians, and then Muslims, inherited that concept from the Israelites.

Take your pick.

GeraldtheGnome: God with the letters G, o and d is not documented before when I mentioned, god is a reference to any god, unlike the name God there is a god of Christianity before that and in its current use it is not a name, God though, as in the uppercase use, is the name of a God. The Muslims and Jews never used that name in the past outside of those who lived in places where English, Frisian, Dutch and Afrikaans was used. Even now most Christians and other people worldwide and in orbit do not currently use the name God. The main god, not even just the god, of Christianity is not just of when I mentioned. The Feudal Age started in 732 AD and it was certainly not when Christian mythology and Christian gods and goddesses were mentioned well before then. The specific year that started off The Feudal Age is based on the halt of the then Muslim expansion of Western Europe.

Mirza/Merza was indeed not a prophet of any god, his religion is a confusing mess of various religions passed off as being about one god in various forms and so on. He arrogantly had a grand title which shows that he had delusions of grandeur with a title that meant bugger all even though it was meant to impress everyone just as he was supposed to impress as many people as possible. He did manage to impress some otherwise it would be a religion that no one is now for. There is no His, the word is his. Allah is a name, one that most Muslims use instead of the name God. Himself, Him, His and so on that you use is really not necessary. Mohammed never existed, 1200 years before Christianity began there was a no Judaism, Islam, The Baha’i Faith and so on that had and have people under the false belief that their religion was monotheistic and not Pagan in any way. There is not even any known form of Hebrew that went that far back in The Bronze Age.

Each religious god and goddess is made up. Jesus is a god, a name dreamt up well after that imaginary god is claimed to have left Earth. I believe that aliens might be out there in space, you, other Christians, Muslims and those of various religions including Zanjan’s religion, which is highlighted on here, really do believe that Aliens are around right now and you and the others that I have mentioned really do worship them. There is the problem that you have no proof of all that you have claimed and you never will, there is also the problem you can not show that all of it is possible even and you never will. Do not put a comma before the word and no matter if you have been told otherwise. It is not one people, it does not even make any sense. You didn’t need the quotation marks and the hyphens were not needed either. Good luck with the chosen people myth too. As for the bit about ancient Israelites goes, well I’ll leave that alone for now. Unless Divine is used as a name for someone then I never use it with a capital.

GeraldTheGnumbnut: Baha ha ha ha!

shadowline: I really don't understand why you are making issues out of languages and nomenclatures where such issues do not exist. The God of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, first appears in human culture in the 12th century BC. Because this God was believed in and worshiped by the ancient Israelites He appears in that people's written record of their history and beliefs, namely, the Bible.

The Bible was written in Hebrew, so, a Hebrew word was used to refer to the God the Israelites believed in when the Bible was written. Christianity, which dates from the early 1st century AD, derives from Judaism and therefore inherited Judaism's God. Christian Scripture, namely, the New Testament, was written in Greek, so, a Greek word was used to refer to the God who is referred to in Hebrew in Jewish Scripture. The Hebrew and Greek words do not refer to different Gods simply because the words are different. They refer to the same God, or if you prefer, concept of deity.

Christianity's first spread was into the Romanized societies around the Mediterranean, where Latin was the language of most written discourse. The New Testament was therefore, before long, translated into Latin. The Latin New Testament used a Latin word to refer to the same God originally referred to in Hebrew and later in Greek. All three languages are referring to the same God, just as all three languages are referring to the same animal when they use their different words for "horse".

In time the Bible, Old and New Testaments, was translated into the other languages of Europe, some of which are offshoots of Latin, and some belong to other language families, as does English, which is Germanic. Those languages use their own words to refer to the God originally referred to in Hebrew, then referred to in Greek, and then in Latin. The concept of God did not change, or begin, with translation. The word simply became that of the language into which the Scriptures about that God were translated. So did the words referring to everything else referred to in the Old and New Testaments. That's what translation means.

The God referred to in English as "God" is the same God originally referred to in Hebrew, and believed in by the Israelite people since the 12th century BC. The word is Germanic rather than Semitic because the one is a translation of the other. The entity, or concept, referred to is the same.

I don't mean to be rude, but, surely you can see this? It's not rocket science.

GeraldtheGnome: With at least those who use English the myth is that God is a title. The reason that you really don't understand why I am making issues out of languages, writing and that of terminology is because you have been told for so long that the use of 'God' is a title that you have convinced yourself that it cannot even possibly mean anything other than what you believe to be true. It's not a title, look at how the word is used rather than by what you believe is true about it. So to that and to the other things that you without proof have claimed to be true I will leave you with the below video.



I agree that issues don't exist, I only use the word in reference to life forms and viruses. There is a god of The Bible named God, he is made up though. The name God goes back to The Feudal Age in The Middle Ages. The Bible is an English word, the first Bible, with that spelling, goes back to 1535 AD as a complete Bible, to time of 'The Renaissance' in other words. It was not named The Bible or anything like that as far back as what you have claimed. Before the name God came about there is the ninth century name god without a capital of course, after that time in The Feudal Age it was replaced by the name God, where god, that used to be a generic word for any god only became a generic word for any god only. Sure, god in the lower case or at least the spoken name may have been used before then, no one will ever know when, where exactly and how it came about. God is a name, not a title, Lord is a title, god, after The Feudal Age, only became a word about any god. It also meant the word good in The Feudal Age too, I didn't want to bring that up though.

There were names similar to God and to the generic word for any god as well, only in Germanic/Gothic speaking places though. In reference to Christianity though is the time when any similar name to God was only when Germanic people/The Goths started using Christianity. I prefer to use the term Early rather than 'Old' in reference to The Old Testament because I never like using that name away from life forms and viruses. No 'God' was worshipped by ancient Israelites. The word is he, not He, it is not a name after all. The Bible was never written in Hebrew except maybe for Christians that use Hebrew these days.

Christians in was a term first used in the fourth century by those who weren't those that were those who worshipped who we now refer to as Christ. Christ is made up anyway. So Christianity does not refer to any time further back in The Iron Age. Sure, all of it does indeed derive from Judaism, Judaism was around in the first century, still within The Iron Age of course. The name of the god of Judaism was changed by the new cult followers. Now there is nothing from anyone about a Christ in the first half of that century and the claim is that there was in the second half of that century. I will bring the latter half up at some other time. I know the bit about what became The New Testament was written in from the still intact examples, none of which dates to the first century at all, references to the first century is not evidence that proves that any of it was ever written in the first century after all. The Greek name for the major god is different than the now English name for that god, it's not even like it. Don't use or with a comma before it, I understand that it is what North Americans use. Either way it makes everyone wrong about commas anyway. I wish you the word discourse, communication is a better suited word for example. Stop wanting to try to impress people with words. Mentioning something the usual way most people do is so much better after all.

It's just scriptures, not Scriptures. You used quotation marks for no good reason. If we were dealing with rocket science then we both would be stuffed. Now I want to get away from your off topic response.

The claim is that The Quran was written in the seventh century, so in The Dark Ages, whatever the case the Arabs weren't using the name God back then, in fact no one did, it was yet to be dreamt up.

In the eighteenth century The Baha'i Faith started up, so that was in The Industrial Age, none of those of that religion, at first, used the name God at all. It is a cult, I don't consider it to be a deviant sect though.

Zanjan: It's ok to have a personal opinion but insidiously evil to deliberately post false information.

Readers should beware and be fair - look up the facts for themselves.

GeraldtheGnome: I don't use the word post in that way because the word meant other things before the internet was around. Readers of course should be aware and fair about anything, they also should find out if they are wrong or right by thorough research, that means that you should do that as well Zanjan. You really should have have just used a comma and then the words they find out if they were wrong or you should have at least used a comma and then the words they should. You used a hyphen instead.

Who exactly was evil on here with false information ? You yourself claim that there certainly is a god around yet never show proof of the god that you believe in or even that he is possibly around. Even if you yourself were not evil on here, which I don't think you were, then I at least hope that you didn't falsely claim that any god certainly is around somewhere at the moment when you were on here at any given time in the past.

GeraldTheGnumbnut: Who let the dogs out?

GeraldtheGnome: God is a name that is very different than any Hebrew name about who is supposed to be the same god. It's funny how so many were supposed to have seen the chosen one and yet so few wrote about him. I mean apart from some vague references in the first century, that were basically rumours anyway, you have nothing, absolutely nothing about Christ by anyone but a breakaway cult and even then the first known, still intact material about him is still from The Iron Age, the thing is though is that it is from the second century. So nothing credible from the early first century can be found, nothing but rumours from anyone in the late first century and the first known thing directly about the claimed to exist Christ is from the second century and the first one is in Greek. The name used in Greek is nothing like any Hebrew or Aramaic name of that time and also it was quite a while after the Jewish cult that became Christianity that those of Judaism outside of that cult even used any name for the claimed to then exist Christ.

There's nothing in the Tanakh about him and since then Islam started up with Arabic, so there was no Jesus name being used by Muslims and then a break away cult started and then afterwards a breakaway cult, that didn't use the name God or Jesus in their religious literature, started up. It is the Baha'i religion and it is really a breakaway cult of a breakaway cult. I could use the joke video of Sargent Schultz saying, "Nothing !", over and over again, I will not do that though. Instead I will reply to Fergus.

To Fergus. ? That is the biggest mystery. Who did let the dogs out ? No one will ever know. It's a very deep and philosophical question, maybe the deleting philosopher on another forum has solved that problem since he knows everything and is never wrong, according to him only. But since you asked the question that I can't answer I can at least supply you with the song.

GeraldTheGnumbnut: Excellent!