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

©2024 Poal.co

551

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 )

Interesting. I'm not Christian but I've heard that the Book of Enoch is about this, though it's not recognized as cannon because of when it was written. Some think gods described by the Sumerian religion were actually aliens or fallen angels who created the Nephilim. There are also some schizo esoteric Aryan theories about good aliens creating the Aryan race and evil reptillians creating the jews haha

edit: btw Robert Sephehr has some good videos about giants, small people etc. that you might be interested in. He also gets into some really bizarre theories and is a jew who lies about not being a jew though.

[–] • 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

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.