Ecclesiastes 3: 3 Commentary

A TIME TO KILL WHEN THEY TAKE AWAY YOUR WIFE & FAMILY?
Source of excerpts below: http://angryharry.com/esWhyViolenceIsOftenJustified.htm?AHbt

…Furthermore, I still hold on to the view that anybody who takes away a man’s children and/or his home deserves little sympathy if they suffer significant retribution.

I suppose that for some men, arguing their case in court is a reasonable option, but for many men - particularly the less intelligent, the less wealthy, the less articulate and/or the less able they are to deal with officialdom - such an option is going to get them nowhere. And so, in my view, violence is not only understandable and predictable, but also morally quite justifiable.

If someone is taking away your home and your children then I think that you are quite justified in behaving violently towards them.

To put it bluntly: If someone is taking away your home and your children then I think that you are quite justified in behaving violently towards them.

Would most people say that a woman who is being raped is not entitled to react violently against the perpetrator?

No, they would not.

Most people would argue that a woman in such a situation is perfectly entitled to react with violence.

Well, most people would also say that they would rather be raped than lose their homes and children. In other words, losing one’s home and children is worse than being raped.

And so if a woman who is being raped is justified in reacting with violence, then there is even more justification for violence when a home and children are at stake.

Well, that’s my view.

But let me just take this issue a little further.

Imagine, for the moment, that instead of flying planes into the twin towers on 9/11, the terrorists had just taken them over.

They kicked everybody out and said, “No American can come into these buildings ever again.”

Do you think that the state would simply have sat by and accepted this?

No. The state would have gone in with its guns blazing.

If a group of MRAs took over a judge’s home and said, “This judge can never enter his home again,” do you think that the state would simply sit by and accept this?

No. The state would use violence.

Well, I see very little difference in principle between such scenarios and men being denied access to their own homes and children. And so if it is acceptable for the state to use violence in the above circumstances then I believe that it is acceptable for men to use violence in circumstances which are similar.

Of course, there is a legal argument which would say that it is legal for men to be denied access to their own homes and children but it is not legal for a group to take over the twin towers or the homes of judges.

So what?

Just because something is legal, this does not make it moral.

Just because something is legal, this does not make it moral. And just because something is illegal, this does not make it immoral.

Besides which, laws are made by people, not by gods. And, these days, laws are made by people who are thoroughly corrupt, and who are pursuing their own feminist-dominated agendas. Morality and fairness do not come into their equations. Indeed, their ‘relationship’ laws are specifically designed to break up men’s families and their relationships.

We know that these laws are designed to debilitate men.

And given that the state is supportive of these thoroughly unjust laws, and, further, that the state would use violence to uphold them, then it seems to me that men are perfectly entitled to use violence in order to counter them.

And if you argue that men should not use violence in order to try to combat the taking away of their homes and children then you must also argue that women should not use violence in order to try to combat an attack by a rapist - because, I repeat, in the eyes of most people - including my own - the former is far worse an injury than the latter.

Indeed, when the state commits ‘crimes’, this is a far, far more heinous situation for the whole of society than when individuals do such things. And this was recognised in the old days when, for example, it was said that it was far better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted by the state for a crime that he did not commit.

Nowadays, however, the state seems to commit crimes - mostly against men - with relative impunity.

This situation is absolutely intolerable, and if it takes violence to stop the state committing such crimes then, quite frankly, it is something that will/might need to be done.

To see just how completely unacceptable it is for state officials to engage in crimes, let us just get a feel for a few ‘crimes’ and their perpetrators.

If my memory is correct, there are about 20,000 homicides every year in the USA. Most of these are committed by individuals.

what if these 20,000 homicides were mostly carried out by the state?

But what if these 20,000 homicides were mostly carried out by the state?

Such a thing would be absolutely terrible. The whole of America would live in fear…

By TIUCHE (wrote 3262 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/24/2011 12:40 pm

1. Whereas the Hebrew word
a. For murder is RATSAKH (Ex 20:13)
b. Meaning to kill another UNLAWFULLY
c. And with PREMEDITATION
2. The Hebrew word for “kill”
a. In THIS verse is HARAG
b. Meaning to kill, destroy, ruin
3. The word KILL in this verse
a. Can NOT mean MURDER
b. Because murder is a sin
c. And Solomon is NOT blithely
d. Advocating that there is a time
e. For premeditated murder
4. But the human experience DOES
a. Instances of JUST killings
b. Such as personal self-defense
c. Defending the life of another
d. Engaging in a just war
e. Or police upholding the law
5. There is also a time to heal wounds
a. To repair the damage
b. That has been done
6. There are times to tear down buildings
a. And times to rebuild them

By Tractorman (wrote 3574 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/6/2011 10:19 am

Roland G: Thank you for your view. It is important that this be expanded upon and not be taken lightly. This seems at odds with the ever popular ‘WWJD’? When persecuted, Jesus forgave.

As you know, in my view, this passage of the bible was written by man and his evil influence. An opportunity for the monarchy to use religion to control its people.

Religion has always been used as a method of control by the ruling class. Example: Solomon. Solomon has one standard for others, yet another for himself. He was an evil ruler.

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/22/2011 19:49 pm

James (Post #3): Question 1: God only honored the free will choices of the people to have a human King. God never forces His will on others. The people are responsible and accountable for all free-will choices in life whether good or bad.

Question 2: God made it clear there must be wars and rumors of wars until He returns (Matt. 24:6; Mark 13:7). So, war is inevitable to maintain peace. Without a strong military any country is vulnerable to attack by evil nations. Indeed, the cost of our freedoms is great! God does not condone unjust wars.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/22/2011 00:26 am

Roland G: You are firmly grounded in a ‘rational and moderate faith’ that isn’t too radical. Let me bounce two questions about this verse off of you.

To be honest and upfront, this is one verse that I don’t care for. As you know I have a lot of problems and doubts with the old testament. At the same time the old testament stories are fun to read.

First question, the idea that the monarchy is the mouthpiece of God (like this verse) contradicts what God told Samuel, doesn’t it?

1 Sam 8:6-7 ” 6. But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7. And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.” NIV

And then the next thing you know, all wisdom comes from the monarchy. They wrote huge chunks of the bible.

Secondly, I was told that there is a difference between killing and murdering. Killing, as in wars opposed to murdering out of anger. Look at all of the killing the Jews did. In reality aren’t they the same thing? Jesus said to ‘put away the sword’. As Christians are we to kill others, ie. in patriotic wars for whatever country we reside in?

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/21/2011 19:37 pm

Jennifer (Post #1): The Hebrew word for “kill” (harag הרג verb qal infinitive construct) in this verse has wide meaning. But, God used a different Hebrew word for “kill” (ratsach רצח verb qal imperfect 2nd person masculine singular) to forbid Murder (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17). War is lawful when it is necessary to preserve peace.

When Solomon spoke these words he likely had God in mind. “See now that I, even I am He, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any than can deliver out of my hand” (Deut. 32:39). Indeed, God has an appointed time for everything under the sun. God is perfect and all His decisions are just.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/21/2011 01:59 am

what does it mean to Kill

By Jennifer Alexander (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/16/2011 13:26 pm