Amalek

[GeratTzedek]

In Scripture, we read about the Amelakites, that people which targeted Israel for destruction, and who (rather than engaging in appropriate warfar) picked off the weak, the sick, the children, and the old.

We are told to look for Amalek in each generation. In the 20th Century, Amalek was Hitler and the Nazis. Who is Amalek today?

I would like to have a discussion about this, and about how HaShem instructs Jews to deal with Amalek.

 

[randomman]

In Scripture, we read about the Amelakites, that people which targeted Israel for destruction, and who (rather than engaging in appropriate warfar) picked off the weak, the sick, the children, and the old.

We are told to look for Amalek in each generation. In the 20th Century, Amalek was Hitler and the Nazis. Who is Amalek today?

I would like to have a discussion about this, and about how HaShem instructs Jews to deal with Amalek.

just say it .... muslims

 

[Rasta]

Who was Amalek in the 19th century?

18th century?

17th century?

16th century?

15th century?

14th century?

13th century?

12th century?

11th century?

10th century?

9th century?

8th century?

7th century?

6th century?

5th century?

4th centrury?

3rd century?

2nd century?

1st century?

 

[Meshavrischika]

Why was Hitler this in the 20th century? (I mean is that an official Jewish idea or your personal idea - which I must concur is probably correct). Just asking.

 

[Ramona]

I'm pretty sure that Amalek is located in the minds of paranoid individuals these days.

 

[uberd00b]

I would like to have a discussion about this, and about how HaShem instructs Jews to deal with Amalek.

Isn't the instruction pretty much "slaughter them and keep the women for yourselves"?

 

[Ramona]

Isn't the instruction pretty much "slaughter them and keep the women for yourselves"?

I drew some pretty strange looks from laughing so hard at this post.

Joe, you are on a roll today even if Rasta and I are the only ones who think so.

 

[Secundulus]

Isn't the instruction pretty much "slaughter them and keep the women for yourselves"?

No, actually what it says is that Amalek first attacked the tribes of Israel without provocation. From this time forward, the Amalekites continued to attack Israel.

Several hundred years later, under King Saul, they were ordered to exterminate the Amalekites and everything they owned, not to keep the women.

Amalek didn't want peace. They wanted war. The problem was solved.

 

[uberd00b]

No, actually what it says is that Amalek first attacked the tribes of Israel without provocation. From this time forward, the Amalekites continued to attack Israel.

Several hundred years later, under King Saul, they were ordered to exterminate the Amalekites and everything they owned, not to keep the women.

Amalek didn't want peace. They wanted war. The problem was solved.

Ah thanks, I can't keep track of all these different tribes. Whose women was it they were ordered to keep?

 

[Secundulus]

Ah thanks, I can't keep track of all these different tribes. Whose women was it they were ordered to keep?

God didn't tell them to keep any women. They did that on their own.
Numbers, Chapter 31

 

[uberd00b]

Ah the Midianites. Thanks, I'm always impressed by you guy's Bible knowledge! Sometimes I wish I had a photographic memory.

Tell you what though I wouldn't have wanted to have these ancient Hebrews as my neighbours. They seem pretty angry about something.

 

[GeratTzedek]

just say it .... muslims

ALL Muslims? I wouldn't describe all Muslims as Amalek. I know many good and decent Muslims who are not anti-semitic and not terrorists.

Perhaps... Islami-fascism? Or MILITANT Islam?

 

[Secundulus]

Ah the Midianites. Thanks, I'm always impressed by you guy's Bible knowledge! Sometimes I wish I had a photographic memory.

Tell you what though I wouldn't have wanted to have these ancient Hebrews as my neighbours. They seem pretty angry about something.

I don't have a photographic memory. However, because of what I am currently studying in school I had to buy this grossly expensive digital library system for my PC. I can look up and quote anything really fast.
http://www.logos.com/scholars

As for the descriptions of warfare 3000 years ago, that was pretty much the standard for how things were done by everybody in that region.

Had they lost the war, we would be reading about the extermination of an obscure desert tribe called the Israelites.

edited to add----------

According to the secular history, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 68AD they killed nearly a million people and enslaved the few remaining.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Why was Hitler this in the 20th century? (I mean is that an official Jewish idea or your personal idea - which I must concur is probably correct). Just asking.

No, this is not my original idea. I've heard it from many different Jewish sources.

The idea that Terrorism is the Amalek of today is something I read about a year ago (when I was still Christian). It drew a direct comparison in actions. It made a lot of sense to me then. It made me realize that dealing with Terrorism in a fierce and non-compromising way is not simply practical, but Biblical.

 

[GeratTzedek]

I'm pretty sure that Amalek is located in the minds of paranoid individuals these days.

Either that, or you don't know how to think in metaphorical terms. Today, Amelakites doesn't simply refer to that historical people. It refers to anyone embracing the culture of that people in two major ways:

1. looking for the extermination of the Jews
2. targeting the weak, innocent, sick, old, etc.

 

[Secundulus]

No, this is not my original idea. I've heard it from many different Jewish sources.

The idea that Terrorism is the Amalek of today is something I read about a year ago (when I was still Christian). It drew a direct comparison in actions. It made a lot of sense to me then. It made me realize that dealing with Terrorism in a fierce and non-compromising way is not simply practical, but Biblical.

Back in the days when the USA still won wars we remembered that lesson.

 

[uberd00b]

Looks like a great program. At first I thought all that was contained on the website, I shall have to read more carefully!

 

[CaDan]

Muley called.

He wants to know who to shoot.

 

[Ramona]

Either that, or you don't know how to think in metaphorical terms.

Rest assured that it is the former, my dear.

Today, Amelakites doesn't simply refer to that historical people. It refers to anyone embracing the culture of that people in two major ways:

1. looking for the extermination of the Jews
2. targeting the weak, innocent, sick, old, etc.

I didn't get the second option from the OP, which seemed pretty Judeocentric to me. For the second example I could provide dozens...for the first, not so much.

Cheers!

 

[Secundulus]

Ah the Midianites. Thanks, I'm always impressed by you guy's Bible knowledge! Sometimes I wish I had a photographic memory.

Tell you what though I wouldn't have wanted to have these ancient Hebrews as my neighbours. They seem pretty angry about something.

Here is another secular description of ancient warfare nearly 1000 years after the Midianites. The Jews were not unusually bloodthirsty by the standards of the time.

This an account of Boudica's loss to the Romans. http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/England-History/Boudica.htm

The Britons now had little chance, with so many of them involved in the battle it is likely that their massed ranks worked against them by restricting their movements so they were unable to use their long swords effectively. To ensure success the Roman cavalry was released which promptly encircled the enemy and began their slaughter from the rear. Seemingly mad with blood lust, Tacitus records that 80,000 Britons; men, women and children, were killed. The Roman losses amounted to 400 dead with a slightly larger number wounded.