Yes, many of these have started, but they are not widely accepted yet.
Establishing a World Parliament does not mean a single government running the entire world. From that link:
The progressive teachings of the Baha’i Faith focus around this central idea of oneness, world unity and global governance. In a speech he gave in Cincinnati, Ohio a hundred years ago,
Abdu’l-Baha summarized
Baha’u’llah’s call to every nation:
In His Epistles He asked the parliaments of the world to send their wisest and best men to an international world conference which should decide all questions between the peoples and establish universal peace. This would be the highest court of appeal, and the parliament of man so long dreamed of by poets and idealists would be realized. …when we have the interparliamentary body composed of delegates from all the nations of the world and devoted to the maintenance of agreement and goodwill, the utopian dream of sages and poets, the parliament of man, will be realized. –
The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 388.
This primary
Baha’i principle:
…declares that there must needs be established the parliament of man or court of last appeals for international questions. The members of this arbitral court of justice will be representatives of all the nations. In each nation the members must be ratified by the government and the king or ruler, and this international parliament will be under the protection of the world of humanity. In it all international difficulties will be settled. – Baha’i Scriptures, p. 278.
The Parliament of Man
And what about the United Nations? Does that not count as this sort of thing?
NO, I am not saying that. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith was just speaking in general about what Jesus accomplished, putting it in a historical context. Jesus said that His goal was to bear witness unto the truth about God (John 18:37). Never did Jesus say that He came to die on the cross and save humanity from an original sin committed by Adam and Eve. That is a Christian doctrine. Baha'u'llah wrote that Jesus chose to sacrifice Himself for the 'sins and inequities' of mankind, but that is not the same as saving us from an original sin that came about from two people eating an apple off a tree.
Then you might want to be more careful with the way you phrase things. You said, "That was Jesus' general goal according to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, not what Jesus claimed as His goal." You seem to be very clearly saying that the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith is more qualified to state what Jesus' goal was than Jesus himself.
Why would the coming of another Messenger mean that Jesus did not accomplish His goal?
Why would you start Step 2 when you have not finished Step 1?
Shortly before He died, Jesus clearly said that His work was finished here:
John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
But that does not mean that there would never be any more work that another Messenger would do in the future.
So Jesus completed his work? What was Jesus work here? Apparently, it is whatever the Baha'i faith leaders decide, at least according to what you've said.
That sounds like a good thing to me, it sounds like progress. That is congruent with the goals of the Baha'i Faith, that nobody should live in poverty, without the basics like food.
How Baha’is Would Eliminate the Extremes of Wealth and Poverty
Okay, and what about when we use the same techniques to change people?
I would say that neither one of those are congruent with the moral teachings of the Baha'i Faith.
Is that because of an aversion to porn, or an aversion to depictions of people in situations that they may not agree to?
That's true, because every age is a stepping stone to the next age.
Right, so if you agree with me now, you are contradicting yourself.
Allow me to rephrase what I said before.
Let's say there are two ages. We'll have Age X, and then some time later, we'll have Age X+1.
Your first quote is someone in Age X saying, "What will be needed in Age X+1 will be DIFFERENT to what we need in Age X, because our present day afflictions can never be the same as what will be afflicting us in future ages (like Age X+1)."
The second quote is someone in Age X+1 saying, "Why shouldn't the treatments that what we need today in Age X+1 be THE SAME as what we needed in Age X?"
So we have one statement saying that what is needed in X+1 will be DIFFERENT to what is needed in X, and the other statement saying that what is needed would be the SAME.
The reliability of the Bible is a BIG subject, not one I want to get into now.
I was not saying the Bible is unreliable. The actions of men I was referring to was how Christians created false doctrines using the Bible, and that happened partly because they misinterpreted the Bible.
Yah huh. Keeping it vague. I've seen lots of religious people do similar things so they can form it as required to support their position.
That is because both are true. There are some similarities between their messages but there are also differences.
Trying to have your cake and eat it too.
