Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.2K

Edit: actually, commenters bring up some good points and they shouldn't be called anti-amalekites. The subject should still be brought up though.

Even if someone accusing us of being antisemetic is not a religious jew, we can ask "well do you associate with any religious jews?". According to guilt-by-association logic, someone who associates with antisemites must be an antisemite. If that makes sense, the logic should be the same for anti-amalekites.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130330043424/https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/05-14-05/

Even though the mitzvah to eradicate Amalek is mainly incumbent upon the community, every individual Jew is commanded to fulfill it, as well. Therefore, if a Jew meets an Amalekite, and has the ability to kill him, but refrains from doing so, he has neglected this mitzvah(Sefer HaChinuch 604). The descendants of Amalek are currently unknown, but if one would ascertain that a particular person is an Amalekite, who follows their ways, it would be a mitzvah to kill him.

This is a very extreme belief. Even the most extreme neonazis typically don't think that they are morally obligated to kill any jew they meet on the spot just for being ethnically and religiously jewish. But jews argue that this belief is not extreme because they can't act on it for now since they don't know for certain who is a descendant of Amalek.

This video has the viewpoint of multiple rabbis commenting on the subject. Since Hitler rose to power in Germany, Germany is widely considered by jews to be the location of many descendants of Amalek. Others say the United States has many Amalekites. Some say the Amalekites are also in middle eastern countries such as Palestine, Iran etc. A couple rabbis in this video say that even babies should be killed if they are descendants of Amelek. (The last rabbi in this video says that. I don't remember who else said it) https://www.bitchute.com/video/fAqlEEcEBxc/

Though apparently there are jews who think Amalekites should just be killed on the spot, there are also jews who believe it is forbidden to kill a descendant of Amalek if that descendant agrees to submit to the Noahide laws and pay a tribute to the jews. I guess that could be called a more moderate view. https://web.archive.org/web/20130330042355/https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/05-14-08/

Supposedly we are extremists if we take issue with this.

Edit:

Found some other more moderate views on Wikipedia

>A few authorities have ruled that the command never included killing Amalekites. R' Samson Raphael Hirsch said that the command was to destroy "the remembrance of Amalek" rather than actual Amalekites;[48] the Sfat Emet said that the command was to fully hate Amalek rather than performing any action;[49] and the Chofetz Chaim said that God would perform the elimination of Amalek, and Jews are commanded only to remember what Amalek did to them.[50]

So if knowledge of this belief about Amalek catches on among the goyim, the media will probably say that these more moderate beliefs about Amalek prevail.

Edit: actually, commenters bring up some good points and they shouldn't be called anti-amalekites. The subject should still be brought up though. - Even if someone accusing us of being antisemetic is not a religious jew, we can ask "well do you associate with any religious jews?". According to guilt-by-association logic, someone who associates with antisemites must be an antisemite. If that makes sense, the logic should be the same for anti-amalekites. https://web.archive.org/web/20130330043424/https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/05-14-05/ >Even though the mitzvah to eradicate Amalek is mainly incumbent upon the community, every individual Jew is commanded to fulfill it, as well. Therefore, if a Jew meets an Amalekite, and has the ability to kill him, but refrains from doing so, he has neglected this mitzvah(Sefer HaChinuch 604). The descendants of Amalek are currently unknown, but if one would ascertain that a particular person is an Amalekite, who follows their ways, it would be a mitzvah to kill him. This is a very extreme belief. Even the most extreme neonazis typically don't think that they are morally obligated to kill any jew they meet on the spot just for being ethnically and religiously jewish. But jews argue that this belief is not extreme because they can't act on it for now since they don't know for certain who is a descendant of Amalek. This video has the viewpoint of multiple rabbis commenting on the subject. Since Hitler rose to power in Germany, Germany is widely considered by jews to be the location of many descendants of Amalek. Others say the United States has many Amalekites. Some say the Amalekites are also in middle eastern countries such as Palestine, Iran etc. A couple rabbis in this video say that even babies should be killed if they are descendants of Amelek. (The last rabbi in this video says that. I don't remember who else said it) https://www.bitchute.com/video/fAqlEEcEBxc/ Though apparently there are jews who think Amalekites should just be killed on the spot, there are also jews who believe it is forbidden to kill a descendant of Amalek if that descendant agrees to submit to the Noahide laws and pay a tribute to the jews. I guess that could be called a more moderate view. https://web.archive.org/web/20130330042355/https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/05-14-08/ Supposedly we are extremists if we take issue with this. Edit: Found some other more moderate views on Wikipedia >>A few authorities have ruled that the command never included killing Amalekites. R' Samson Raphael Hirsch said that the command was to destroy "the remembrance of Amalek" rather than actual Amalekites;[48] the Sfat Emet said that the command was to fully hate Amalek rather than performing any action;[49] and the Chofetz Chaim said that God would perform the elimination of Amalek, and Jews are commanded only to remember what Amalek did to them.[50] So if knowledge of this belief about Amalek catches on among the goyim, the media will probably say that these more moderate beliefs about Amalek prevail.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (15).
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Another apparent misnomer… “Nephilim” are not the hybrids. They are fallen angels..the fallen angels are the ones who, according to the Bible, taught men to sin (or at least accelerated their abilities and efficiency at sinning). The nephilim created the hybrids.

Nephal means “to fall”….

The suffix “im” is consistent throughout scripture to describe different classes of ANGELS, specifically…

Seraphim…Teraphim…NEPHALIM.

You see?

There are also naming conventions for tribes or beings created by God.

Michael, Gabriel. Both angels. ISRAEL.

Satan’s actual name is Halel. Not Lucifer.

Notice the similarity in all of them? They carry God’s name: “El”…

It’s so simple, yet so complicated.. I think it complicated because we, with the help of the evil one, have complicated it.

But, it’s all right there in scripture if anyone would care to look.

[–] • 0 pt

Just saw the other stuff you added. I've heard about the disagreement about what god's name is but I hadn't heard that about Halel. What do you think about Lucifer? I ask because some people think the satanic religion that will be introduced in the end times is Theosophy because of Lucis Trust, which has consultative status with the UN. Lucis Trust says Lucifer was a good solar angel on their website.

[–] • 0 pt

God has MANY names, actually.

But I don’t know, my understanding is that man gave satan the name Lucifer at some point later and it stuck…borrowed it from a pagan demon god or something. I don’t know.

[–] • 0 pt

The name Lucifer appears in the bible but secret societies say that Lucifer is also esoterically linked to other pagan deities and symbols. Theosophy considers Lucifer to be a fallen angel linked to both the planet Venus and the God Mercury or Hermes. Hermes is considered to be related to the Egyptian god Thoth as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_Trismegistus

This article also says that Mercury’s function is served by St. Michael in Christianity according to St. Thomas. It also says “Mercury and the Sun are one” and that Helena Blavatsky’s “The Secret Doctrine” equates the planet Venus with Gaia (Earth). They link Venus to Jesus as well

https://web.archive.org/web/20151017034650/http://www.lucistrust.org/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/descent_and_sacrifice

Theosophy also links Lucifer to the serpent in the garden of Eden. The serpent is also symbolically linked to Prometheus https://www.theosophy.world/encyclopedia/serpent

It’s crazy how many symbols overlap in the mystery schools like Theosophy and Freemasonry. Quite a few of the “elites” are interested in ancient symbolism, and often it is linked to the concept of the lightbringer. Sometimes I read vigilantcitizen.com. They go overboard reading into music videos and stuff too much but have some good articles.

There is a Prometheus Mural at the rockefeller center. https://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-rockefeller-center/

This commercial has paintings by a theosophist in it, snakes, and some interesting symbols. I think the bull might be a reference to Mithraism. https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/the-occult-symbolism-of-the-creepy-meta-commercial/

Pfizer building has the image of Ra, who is closely related to Thoth. The eye of Horus symbol is there as well. https://www.bitchute.com/video/1iCD2Lm53XN4/

Regarding controversy about names, I had heard about this book “Kabbalah Secrets Christians Need to Know”, which says to avoid worshiping Ein Sof. Actually just started reading it and it’s really interesting. It talks about the connections between Kabbalah, Theosophy, and Freemasonry. https://1lib.ch/book/5066147/fd2b83

To sum up kabbalists view of different names: Ein Sof aka YHWH = the creator of Elohim Metatron = angel who gives knowledge to mankind. Sometimes called Yeshua. Voice of YHWH. (description of Metatron in the book of Enoch sounds similar to Lucifer though)

[–] • 0 pt

Ah ok. Got it. Yeah, I actually just learned about these theories recently so I'm not up to date on the terminology. But like you, I also really questioned the parts about genocide and left Christianity at a young age for that reason and a lot of other reasons, but I will keep that interpretation in mind in the future.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Most of the reasons people leave or reject the gospel (which literally means “good news”) is because of other people.

Legalists, religious types, hypocrites…it’s a shame because neither God himself or Christ are at all represented by those people and yet in reality, yet they are often rejected because of those people.

The present day Catholic Church is analogous to the Pharisees back then..

Jesus despised the Pharisees and everything they stood for.

Jesus, God, and the Bible aren’t your problems. It’s other people claiming to represent them, who really don’t.

I never outright “left” the faith…but I may as well have.. I felt the same way for a time that it sounds like you did.

That’s how I know that God was never the problem. I allowed other people (or entities) to define my relationship with him..and they poisoned that definition.

I’d tell you to reconsider, set yourself correct with him. Don’t let someone else dictate that relationship.

[–] • 0 pt

Though I didn’t have the best relationship with my Christian parents as a kid, I do have good relationships with them now. My issue with Christianity doesn’t have to do with specific people. Almost all religions have some people who are good and others who give the religion a bad name. I left it because I kept on noticing things that didn’t make sense and contradictions. Then I found resources like the skeptics annotated bible. https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Basically, I concluded that the bible makes way more sense if I view it as something written by humans, the same way I view all other religious texts. I think there could be god(s) and there could be aspects of reality that multiple religions tap into, but each religion is influenced by cultural norms as well.

Recent events being similar to prophecy made me consider Christianity again. But then reading what the bible says makes remember the reasons I left the religion before. If something happens to convince me that Christianity is true, I won’t take it as “the good news” because it means that lots of people are being tortured eternally for not being perfect and for being skeptical about an old book.