The Hebrews sent spies into Amalekite territory and realized that they (Amalekites) were militarily superior. The Amalekites were (quite naturally) suspicious of this potential invader and defended their territory against Israelite incursions and the Israelites had to find another way itno the Promised Land. The Amalekites successfully defended their territory for 400 years before Saul's attempted genocide and finally, more than 600 years after their first encounter, an army of the tribe of Simeon obliterated the remnant of the Amalekite tribes in the 8th century BCE. At least that's what the Bible tells us - to my knowledge there is no independent archaeological or historical evidence to support the Biblical account. But I do think you should try reading the Bible from an unbiased and honestly critical point of view rather than simply quoting overtly evangelistic Christian internet resources.
In any case, none of this changes the main point I have been making since page 1, that the success of Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam as national and international cultural religions was founded more on military success than on the peaceful persuasion of the messages of their sages.
All your responses have done so far is to deflect the conversation away from the historical facts and claim that the "Manifestations" did not promote warfare and conquest. Even this is demonstrably untrue, but it is beside the point anyway. The point is that the Baha'i faith is founded on re-interpretations of religious ideas the widespread adoption of which, like it or not, necessarily hinged on the military success of the nations that adopted these "Manifestations" as religious icons.
I have another question though. If Confucianism or Taoism had made an impression in Persia before the 19th century, do you suppose that Confucius and Lao Tzu would have been considered "Great Beings" and "Manifestations"?
The Manifestations, if you read their Holy Books nowhere promote war as a teaching. You will find in the Torah and Quran verses about not murdering. Although self defence or wars may have been a part of their history yet war not a part of their teachings.
Deuteronomy 25:17-18 "Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God."
It's clear from the Bible that God ordered the Amalekites to be destroyed in response to continued attacks on the Jews over many generations and also for their vile practices such as child sacrifice, incest, bestiality etc
All the Manifestations of God are sent to help us advance spiritually. Wars are not what made them successful because powerful kings with great wealth have not been so successful and their memories have been long forgotten whereas these Manifestations have a power from God that today is still exerting a positive influence over millions of minds and hearts and that cannot be explained away simply by a war or battle centuries ago.
In all cases the wars approved of by God or His Manifestations including Krishna were just wars - a response to being attacked. The Muslims were attacked by the Quraysh for 13 years. The Jews were continually attacked by the Amalekites for many generations,
Surely you're not advocating the Muslims should have agreed to extermination by the Meccans or the Jews once again, after having fled captivity again submit to it?
The Baha'i Faith states that the essence of all religions is spiritual but doesn't shirk from justice, that we must defend and protect ourselves from oppressors and tyrants.
History shows that in the Bible, the Amalekites were the aggressors against the Jews initially and persistently and also the Quraysh were the aggressors against Islam.
Any violence associated with religion has been committed against the teachings of the very religion the people claim to espouse. All religions teach not to kill or harm but not that we cannot defend ourselves if attacked which is what Moses and Muhammad rightly did.
With regards to Confucious and Lao Tzu we don't believe tyey were Manifestations of God
“Regarding Lao-Tse: The Bahá’ís do not consider him a prophet, or even a secondary prophet or messenger, unlike Buddha or Zoroaster, both of whom were divinely-appointed and fully independent Manifestations of God.”
“Confucius was not a Prophet. It is quite correct to say he is the founder of a moral system and a great reformer.”
Excerpt From: Hornby. “Lights of Guidance.”
