How are these Great Beings explained?

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes I know. If you go back to the first page or two of this incredibly long thread, I argued that a number of these "Manifestations'" messages were propagated more by warfare and conquest than by the peaceful persuasiveness of their messages. In the case of Krishna, this would be the Kurukshetra War which is recorded in the Mahabharata and is the backdrop for the discussion between Krishna and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. For Moses, it was the conquest of Canaan, for Jesus it was the establishment of the Roman Empire and for Muhammad it was the conquest of Arabia and the ensuing Caliphates that ensured the longevity and wide acceptance of their reported teachings. These all became state religions and it was that fact that ensured that their message endured, not the veracity or content of their teachings. In response, your fellow Baha'is suggested that the military conquests were the result of the distortions of their teachings and that the "Manifestations" themselves were peace-loving, humble and generally uneducated and could not, therefore (I presume the argument was meant to go) be personally responsible for the bloodshed perpetrated in their names. These claims are patently untrue in the cases of Krishna, Moses and Muhammad all of whom personally led armies of conquest (one way or another). If we deny the historicity of these accounts then we have no idea whether anyone even closely resembling them even existed at all - let alone any reliable idea what they may or may not have said, taught and done. You just can't have it both ways. If Krishna did not stand in Arjun's chariot and admonish him to shoulder his military duty and abandon his filial compassion, if Krishna was not really a privileged nobleman with palaces and wealth at his disposal, if Moses was not educated in the court of Pharoah and did not personally direct the genocide of the Canaanite tribes, if Muhammad did not personally lead the conquest of Arabia...as recorded in the scriptural traditions of the religions they 'established' - then what, if anything, do we know about them at all? I had already retired twice from this discussion and only really came back to assure my Hindu friends that I was not disrespecting their beliefs, just taking issue with the Baha'i misappropriation (as others in the thread have termed it) of the faiths of others.

Of course Baha'is like everyone else, are entitled to believe what they like - but if they post untrue statements about the key figures in other faiths in a religious debate forum, they should expect to be called on it.

Baha'i Scriptures states that 'Holy War', was part of the teachings of some of the previous Manifestations of the past, such as Muhammad. In the Bible also, Moses received commands from God to fight and go to war. Baha'is Scriptures confirm these. However, we believe, firstly, Holy wars are abrogated by divine command in our Age, and no longer is appropriate. Also these Holy Wars, which were performed by some of the previous Manifestations, were required in order to defend the religion of God in those Ages and not with the personal motives for bloodshed or conquering world. On the other hand, we believe, many pretended to be believers and took advantage of holy wars, to conquer places for their own corrupt desires. This was against the teachings of Manifestations, because holy wars were for defending, not attacking or conquering.

 

[siti]

Baha'i Scriptures states that 'Holy War', was part of the teachings of some of the previous Manifestations of the past, such as Muhammad. In the Bible also, Moses received commands from God to fight and go to war. Baha'is Scriptures confirm these. However, we believe, firstly, Holy wars are abrogated by divine command in our Age, and no longer is appropriate. Also these Holy Wars, which were performed by some of the previous Manifestations, were required in order to defend the religion of God in those Ages and not with the personal motives for bloodshed or conquering world. On the other hand, we believe, many pretended to be believers and took advantage of holy wars, to conquer places for their own corrupt desires. This was against the teachings of Manifestations, because holy wars were for defending, not attacking or conquering.

Yep - that's precisely the kind of disingenuous prevarication I was trying hard to avoid pointing out so pointedly - but here we go again...

The point was that the very "Holy Wars" you are now defending were the reason for the successful propagation of the message of these so-called "Manifestations". It was nothing to do with the "greatness" of these "Great Beings" and everything to do with the military prowess of their armies. And that was the whole point of the thread - to determine the explanation for the their "greatness". And there's your answer - War!

 

[sayak83]

Yes I know. If you go back to the first page or two of this incredibly long thread, I argued that a number of these "Manifestations'" messages were propagated more by warfare and conquest than by the peaceful persuasiveness of their messages. In the case of Krishna, this would be the Kurukshetra War which is recorded in the Mahabharata and is the backdrop for the discussion between Krishna and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. For Moses, it was the conquest of Canaan, for Jesus it was the establishment of the Roman Empire and for Muhammad it was the conquest of Arabia and the ensuing Caliphates that ensured the longevity and wide acceptance of their reported teachings. These all became state religions and it was that fact that ensured that their message endured, not the veracity or content of their teachings. In response, your fellow Baha'is suggested that the military conquests were the result of the distortions of their teachings and that the "Manifestations" themselves were peace-loving, humble and generally uneducated and could not, therefore (I presume the argument was meant to go) be personally responsible for the bloodshed perpetrated in their names. These claims are patently untrue in the cases of Krishna, Moses and Muhammad all of whom personally led armies of conquest (one way or another). If we deny the historicity of these accounts then we have no idea whether anyone even closely resembling them even existed at all - let alone any reliable idea what they may or may not have said, taught and done. You just can't have it both ways. If Krishna did not stand in Arjun's chariot and admonish him to shoulder his military duty and abandon his filial compassion, if Krishna was not really a privileged nobleman with palaces and wealth at his disposal, if Moses was not educated in the court of Pharoah and did not personally direct the genocide of the Canaanite tribes, if Muhammad did not personally lead the conquest of Arabia...as recorded in the scriptural traditions of the religions they 'established' - then what, if anything, do we know about them at all? I had already retired twice from this discussion and only really came back to assure my Hindu friends that I was not disrespecting their beliefs, just taking issue with the Baha'i misappropriation (as others in the thread have termed it) of the faiths of others.

Of course Baha'is like everyone else, are entitled to believe what they like - but if they post untrue statements about the key figures in other faiths in a religious debate forum, they should expect to be called on it.

Brief note. Didn't Moses die before reaching Canaan. He did not direct the conquest. Or is my memory failing me?

 

[CG Didymus]

Just came across this today. How do you see this about death.

"You will retain your individuality and will not be swallowed up in one vast spirit. Concerning the condition of the human soul after its ascension from the material world: the essence of the human soul is clarified from material substances and purified from the embodiment of physical things. It is exclusively luminous; it has no body; it is a dazzling pencil of light; it is a celestial orb of brightness." (Abdu’l-Baha, The Eternal Quest For God, p 218)

I got a question for you... Did the human soul exist prior to being attached to a physical body on Earth? How pure was it when it was given a body? Is it us, the physical person, making the good and bad decisions in life, or is it really the soul?

 

[siti]

Brief note. Didn't Moses die before reaching Canaan. He did not direct the conquest. Or is my memory failing me?

He did - you are correct, but he did make it very clear - by direct example in the case of the Midianites, that the mode of conquest should be genocide (Numbers 31). Moses personally directed the Israelite's genocidal battles east of the Jordan but you are right - he died before they crossed over into Canaan itself and his faithful No.2 Joshua took over the reigns of power.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yep - that's precisely the kind of disingenuous prevarication I was trying hard to avoid pointing out so pointedly - but here we go again...

The point was that the very "Holy Wars" you are now defending were the reason for the successful propagation of the message of these so-called "Manifestations". It was nothing to do with the "greatness" of these "Great Beings" and everything to do with the military prowess of their armies. And that was the whole point of the thread - to determine the explanation for the their "greatness". And there's your answer - War!

But we need to differentiate several things to be fair here.
The legitimate Holy War in Bahai view, were only those performed by Manifestations during their lifetime for the most part, and not by those who after the passing of Manifestations claimed to be followers. So, in a sense, the establishment of Religion of God, in some Ages was dependent upon Holy War and if you get the impression that Bahai Scriptures says otherwise or deny this, that would be misunderstanding. On the other hand , the Bahais do not believe, the greatness of Manifestations has anything to do with the number of people who claim to be believers. Also, while it is most likely that for example some have been converted forcefully to lets say Islam, it does not mean that, in previous Ages, many were not converted willingly. In our view, one of the signs of greatness of Manifestations, is the way their teachings were the cause of education and enlightening mankind and to be fair, and for anyone who knows history, the Arabs progressed a lot in terms of sciences and civilization during several centuries after Muhammad, a time known as Arabs Golden Age. If you compare their general conditions from the time before Islam, and after, you would be able to verify this. However, in Bahai view, every Religion was meant for a certain period of time, after its term ends, another Manifestation comes.

 

[CG Didymus]

When I first joined the Forum, I asked a question to which I never did receive any answers. The question being: For what reason does a System of Religious Beliefs exist? God has not prevented such a system to form. Could it be possible it is there for a reason of which humanity is unaware? And when knowing what we do not know, we may understand why Christianity is the most formidable of all religious beliefs.

Primitive religions had rain gods, war gods and all the rest. They had concepts of the unknown that helped them make sense of reality. But a lot of those religions had human sacrifices and other horrible things. So was it people or a god that required such things? I think people. If so, then people invented their own gods and religion.

Since I don't know what I don't know, I'm open to listen to someone's religious views. Some are very whacked out. But, so is Judaism and Christianity. A tree with forbidden fruit? A world wide flood? A walking stick turned into a snake? Waters parting? A man walking on water? Sure, all very powerful for the believer, but how different are those things to the things we call "myth" in Greek or Roman religions?

Now the belief that a man rose from the dead and has the power to forgive people for their sins and is returning to redeem his faithful... that formidable for sure. Is it easy to doubt and to question whether or not it's true? I think it is. Too many have "believed" out of fear of being thrown into hell. Many can't or don't want to follow the religious rules, so they find reasons to doubt the validity. The negative witness of how even the believers fall short makes some people question whether it true or not. But there it is, and it offers a way out of the biggest unknown, what happens after death, for those that chose to believe.

What is it that caused you to belief so strongly?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Absolutely. It was never my intention to critique the spectrum of Hindu beliefs and ideas about Krishna. My intention was to point out that the Baha'i appropriation of this icon of the Hindu faith was, at best misguided, and at worst disingenuous. The main reason is that at least a significant part of the teachings that the Baha'i wish to appropriate from Krishna are clearly derived from accounts about the Kurukshetra War. By history or tradition, it was success in this war that established Krishna's 'teachings' as a national religion. This is contrary to Baha'i claims in the earlier part of this thread where the so-called "Manifestations" were all claimed to have been teachers of peace (and of humble and uneducated origins we might add, neither of which are the case for the human Krishna of Hindu tradition).

The Baha'i position, at one and the same time, flatly denies the historicity of the accounts and then cherry-picks the attributed teachings of Krishna. They do the same with Jesus. But in the case of Krishna, it is simply a fact that the popularity of teachings by and/or about Krishna in ancient India was based on success in warfare - real or mythological - it matters not. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna did not teach ahimsa (pacifism and non-violence) over dharma (duty and virtue). The lesson, it seems to me, was more about the dilemma between them that constantly confronts humanity (the battle between what's good - for me/mine - and what's right - for us/ours - more than between what's right and what's wrong) than the solution. But the record (and again I stress, it really doesn't matter whether it is a historical or mythological record) shows that the outcome, in the human sphere at least, is often at one and the same time both unavoidably and unacceptably bloody. It is an ultimately irresolvable conflict - and that, it seems to me, is the message of the Bhagavad Gita. In its broader context (Mahabharata), there is really no resolution - only an alternating and temporary flaring up and quelling of the outward violence - the internal conflict is never satisfactorily resolved (as long as we are in the human sphere). This is not the message of Baha'i - the message of Baha'i is that world peace is actually achievable, and that, it seems to me, is almost the opposite of the message of Krishna. The two are just not compatible and Krishna simply did not teach what Baha'i's would like him to have taught.

PS - Gandhi read the Gita and plumped for ahimsa (as the overriding dharma I suppose), but 70 years and a couple of modern states to the west of the ancient boundaries of the Kuru Kingdom and current conditions suggest that whilst Gandhi's interpretation of ahimsa and dharma was right (as in morally virtuous or good), Krishna's unresolved dilemma between ahimsa and dharma was probably right (as in an accurate summation of the human condition).

Baha'u'llah made provisions for collective security and a just war against a tyrant. Baha'is are not pacifists. If the innocent are harmed Baha'u'llah advocated collective security and if need be to destroy a government that is mass murdering it's own citizens. So although the purpose in Bahaullah's coming is to establish the Most Great Peace, only a system of justice can achieve that. Pure ahimsa towards terrorists like Isis would be suicidal and both Krishna and Baha'u'llah are one in this regard.

The constitution of the communities depends upon justice, not upon forgiveness. Then what Christ meant by forgiveness and pardon is not that, when nations attack you, burn your homes, plunder your goods, assault your wives, children and relatives, and violate your honour, you should be submissive in the presence of these tyrannical foes and allow them to perform all their cruelties and oppressions. No, the words of Christ refer to the conduct of two individuals toward each other: if one person assaults another, the injured one should forgive him. But the communities must protect the rights of man. (Abdul-Bahá')

A conquest can be a praiseworthy thing, and there are times when war becomes the powerful basis of peace, and ruin the very means of reconstruction. If, for example, a high-minded sovereign marshals his troops to block the onset of the insurgent and the aggressor, or again, if he takes the field and distinguishes himself in a struggle to unify a divided state and people, if, in brief, he is ‘waging war for a righteous purpose’, then this seeming wrath is mercy itself, and this apparent tyranny the very substance of justice and this warfare the cornerstone of peace. Today, the task befitting great rulers is to establish universal peace, for in this lies the freedom of all peoples.( The Secret of Divine Civilisation)

Just from the above quotes it is proven that the Baha'i stance is in accordance with Krishna and that a just war is acceptable. It would be completely against both the Baha'i and Hindu belief in ahimsa to allow an innocent poulation to be massacred at the hands of a tyrant. There must be a balance between ahimsa and protection of the community which I am sure Hindus understand.

You speak of a dilemma between ahimsa and duty. And Krishna gave the answer. That to obey the Lord is paramount as He has the wisdom to know when ahimsa needs to be applied ands when duty calls.

We now have that guidance from the Universal House of Justice.today which we believe is infallible and will know when ahimsa applies and when duty or justice is applicable so we do have today the guidance from the Lord to be able to resolve the conflict you say cannot be resolved.

We are both a Faith of ahimsa and justice or duty and are fully compatible and complementary to what Krishna taught.

Bahá’ís recognize the right and duty of governments to use force for the maintenance of law and order and to protect their people. Thus, for a Bahá’í, the shedding of blood for such a purpose is not necessarily essentially wrong. The Bahá’í Faith draws a very definite distinction between the duty of an individual to forgive and 'to be killed rather than to kill' and the duty of society to uphold justice. This matter is explained by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in 'Some Answered Questions'. In the present condition of the world Bahá’ís try to keep themselves out of the internecine conflicts that are raging among their fellow men and to avoid shedding blood in struggles, but this does not mean that we are absolute pacifists.

 

[CG Didymus]

...How likely do you think it is that Jesus literally rose above the clouds to be with His Father in heaven. Just curious, because as you know that's the big issue for me, and the irreconcilable contradiction Abdu'l-Baha highlights.

...From what we know about the revealed books in the Abrahamic Faiths, it is extremely hard to see it has being primative IMHO.

...From my study of Mosaic law a few months ago when talking to the Jews, I was amazed at the breadth and scope of the laws that had been revealed three and a half thousand years ago. For I while there was a glimpse of the way it could have all worked out if the Jews had not strayed so badly.

Because Jesus allegedly brought a couple of people back to life, I still believe that's what true Christians believe... that Jesus came back to life. Scientific? Not a chance. Possible for God? Sure, the Christian God can do anything.

Rising into the sky? A different dimension would work for me as an explanation.

I'm talking about primitive tribal religions. Did God send them a manifestation or did they make up their own religion? But when God speaks to Abraham and tells him to sacrifice his son? And he obeys? That's primitive. Thank God for the goat stuck in the bushes or the poor kid would have been a goner.

Yes, all have strayed, but they've also stayed. They still exist. Why? Why haven't they listened to the various manifestations in the world around them? It is not just about needing an update of social laws. It's about being faithful to what they believe God told them to do. God didn't say change your religion. And, what's funny is they don't do much to spread their religion. Why, if they had the truth, didn't they go send missionaries throughout the world?

But besides them, all people had laws. All people had laws from their gods. So why were some gods real and some gods make believe?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I got a question for you... Did the human soul exist prior to being attached to a physical body on Earth? How pure was it when it was given a body? Is it us, the physical person, making the good and bad decisions in life, or is it really the soul?

"The soul or spirit of the individual comes into being with the conception of his physical body.
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, October 9, 1947, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1699)

Excerpt From: Hornby. “Lights of Guidance.”

Conception - Bahai9

The soul is the power and authority that makes discoveries and decisions in life.


Abdu’l-Bahá has said that the soul “can discover the realities of things, comprehend the peculiarities of beings, and penetrate the mysteries of existence. All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes we are a diverse lot, aren't we, and most of us haven't even seen 10% of it. North America had over 500 languages and cultural groups before the European invasion and attempted genocide.

Some of that happened during Baha'u'llah's lifetime. If he would have been accepted and given the authority to rule over the Earth, I wonder what he would have done? Would he have had the other countries of the world unite and put a stop to the aggression and hostile take over of the land?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Some of that happened during Baha'u'llah's lifetime. If he would have been accepted and given the authority to rule over the Earth, I wonder what he would have done? Would he have had the other countries of the world unite and put a stop to the aggression and hostile take over of the land?

He called in the Kings to do just that.

Be united, O kings of the earth, for thereby will the tempest of discord be stilled amongst you, and your peoples find rest, if ye be of them that comprehend. Should any one among you take up arms against another, rise ye all against him, for this is naught but manifest justice.

Clearly Hindus are included to be protected.

 

[CG Didymus]

...And We Baha'is believe that the reasons these things are mentioned in symbolic language was to Test mankind, and separate pure from impure hearts, as Baha'u'llah mentioned in the Iqan. If God wanted them to be explicit, He would have, but He wanted to use symbolic language and abstruse allusions, and if wants to guide anyone, in His ways He guides him.

So, God makes so hard to understand some religions that it fails and gets taken over by power hungry people that use the religion to control and extort the masses? Like God tested Adam and Eve. He puts a tree in the middle of the garden and puts a tempter in the tree to talk Eve into eating the fruit? Sounds like a set up. God knew they would fail, but he put them to the test anyway. I do hope that story is symbolic, but with all the evil in the world... maybe not.

 

[Evie]

Primitive religions had rain gods, war gods and all the rest. They had concepts of the unknown that helped them make sense of reality. But a lot of those religions had human sacrifices and other horrible things. So was it people or a god that required such things? I think people. If so, then people invented their own gods and religion.

Since I don't know what I don't know, I'm open to listen to someone's religious views. Some are very whacked out. But, so is Judaism and Christianity. A tree with forbidden fruit? A world wide flood? A walking stick turned into a snake? Waters parting? A man walking on water? Sure, all very powerful for the believer, but how different are those things to the things we call "myth" in Greek or Roman religions?

Now the belief that a man rose from the dead and has the power to forgive people for their sins and is returning to redeem his faithful... that formidable for sure. Is it easy to doubt and to question whether or not it's true? I think it is. Too many have "believed" out of fear of being thrown into hell. Many can't or don't want to follow the religious rules, so they find reasons to doubt the validity. The negative witness of how even the believers fall short makes some people question whether it true or not. But there it is, and it offers a way out of the biggest unknown, what happens after death, for those that chose to believe.

What is it that caused you to belief so strongly?

I believe strongly that there is a reason for the System of Religious Beliefs to exist. A reason known only to God. My strong belief is in the Bible as being the Written Word of God, and all contained in the Bible. Always keep mind that we are human with limited understanding. It is argued that the Bible is contradictory,; that because it was written and assembled by human hands it is faulty. But I believe God would have had it written and assembled exactly the way He wanted it. And no human could put in or leave out anything God did not want put in or left out. Maybe there were some people who 'believed' they had put something in or left something out, but if so , they 'believed' wrong. The Bible is there for believers to go to and be able to see if what people are telling them to believe is true or false. If it is not Biblical, it is false. Otherwise we would all be vulnerable to false teachers and false prophets who are usually good with words. You ask me why my belief is so strong. How can I answer that? It just is. Religion is not God as I see it. And Christianity, the way of Jesus, is a way of life. Christian countries have flourished, while countries which are not Christian have not flourished as much. Why are people from unchristian countries desperately trying to get into Christian countries? And at the same time saying Christianity is wrong and their religious belief is right. The proof is there for all to see how belief in Jesus brings blessings in abundance. Whilst non- believers in Jesus have countries that, to all appearances, are far from blessed. So, the Bible is it for me. There is so much corruption within Church establishments. God is not religion.

 

[siti]

The legitimate Holy War in Bahai view, were only those performed by Manifestations during their lifetime for the most part, and not by those who after the passing of Manifestations claimed to be followers.

So the Midianite genocide (Numbers 31) was legitimate Holy War but the destruction of Jericho (Joshua 6), Ai (Joshua 7-8) and the Amalekite genocide (1 Samuel 15) were all illegitimate and unwarranted aggression perpetrated by imposters? Its all a bit of a rabbit hole really isn't it? "Curioser and curioser!" cried Alice.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So the Midianite genocide (Numbers 31) was legitimate Holy War but the destruction of Jericho (Joshua 6), Ai (Joshua 7-8) and the Amalekite genocide (1 Samuel 15) were all illegitimate and unwarranted aggression perpetrated by imposters? Its all a bit of a rabbit hole really isn't it? "Curioser and curioser!" cried Alice.

I am not a Bible scholar. But what Bahais believe is, after Moses, there came a number of minor prophets, prior to Jesus to promote the Religion that Moses established. For example David and Solomon were two of them. Any commands by these prophets were legitimate in Bahai view.

Bahais believe that We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings. So, when you quote from old testaments, i cannot know if it is authentic, unless Bahai Scriptures or Quran confirms it.

 

[siti]

Then what Christ meant by forgiveness and pardon is not that, when nations attack you, burn your homes, plunder your goods, assault your wives, children and relatives, and violate your honour, you should be submissive in the presence of these tyrannical foes and allow them to perform all their cruelties and oppressions. No, the words of Christ refer to the conduct of two individuals toward each other: if one person assaults another, the injured one should forgive him. But the communities must protect the rights of man.

Right - so how did this play out in the conquest of Canaan? What had the Canaanites done to the Hebrews - who, until immediately before the conquest had been in captivity in Egypt for somewhere between a couple of generations and 430 years? And before that, their ancestors were a nomadic tribe out of Mesopotamia that had wandered haplessly into the Canaanite's ancestral homelands and ultimately found themselves at the mercy of a great famine whereupon they had thrown themselves on the mercy of Egypt and - in effect - sold themselves into slavery in order to fill their bellies. The Hebrews - following Moses' commands (but now under the direct leadership of Joshua) were the ones doing the attacking, burning, plundering, assaulting and violating. They were the oppressors - at God's command through the "Manifestation" Moses.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So, God makes so hard to understand some religions that it fails and gets taken over by power hungry people that use the religion to control and extort the masses? Like God tested Adam and Eve. He puts a tree in the middle of the garden and puts a tempter in the tree to talk Eve into eating the fruit? Sounds like a set up. God knew they would fail, but he put them to the test anyway. I do hope that story is symbolic, but with all the evil in the world... maybe not.

I believe the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic.

 

[siti]

I am not a Bible scholar. But what Bahais believe is, after Moses, there came a number of minor prophets, prior to Jesus to promote the Religion that Moses established. For example David and Solomon were two of them. Any commands by these prophets were legitimate in Bahai view.

Bahais believe that We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings. So, when you quote from old testaments, i cannot know if it is authentic, unless Bahai Scriptures or Quran confirms it.

OK - so please enlighten me. Which conquests - or rather Holy Wars - of Moses are attested to in the Qur'an and/or Baha'i scripture?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

OK - so please enlighten me. Which conquests - or rather Holy Wars - of Moses are attested to in the Qur'an and/or Baha'i scripture?

This story for example:

for example, when the children of Israel rebelled and said to Moses: “We cannot fight with the Amalekites, for they are powerful, mighty and courageous.”

This was actually a command from God in our view.