• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Happy day!


Regular Member
Oct 28, 2011
Frozen Tundra, Wisconsin
Quote Originally Posted by PQ36
Without an Author of life, no rational basis for self defense exists.

:question: 'Splain, please?

When we bore down through all the chaff/distractions/variations of world views or paradigms, we are left with two, and only two "explanations".
One being the meta narrative of a creator/designer, revealed through creation (general revelation) and scripture (special revelation).
The other view being that of "evolution", where the idea is posited that everything came from nothing for no particular reason ( a singularity did it)

No matter how many ways it is presented or colored or whatever, all views boil down to fitting one or the other of these.

Given that, we have the view that the creator God gives us life, it is of value, precious, and in His image (albeit fallen/tainted), and therefore deserves to be preserved, protected and defended.

On the other hand, if we evolved from pond scum (or whatever pre-existant material you choose), then there is really no rational basis for a definition of right vs wrong, or good vs evil, since in this model, might makes right, at it's core. I'll refer one to world history to see the long list of despots who have operated under this model. It is also seen manifested in examples such as the Canton, OH, PD, where "officer" Harless repeatedly threatens a citizen with murder, claiming multiple times that he (citizen) is a "stupid/filthy/etc human", implying that the officer has swallowed the kool-aid and thinks he is evolved to a higher level, or caste, or whatever (very very common theme these days, in oppression, that one person or group is "evolved" higher than other(s) )

IF there is a creator, then life should be defended. We are accountable to Him. It is part of our stewardship of life, liberty, property.

IF there is no creator, then man looks to man for definitions of right/wrong, good/evil, etc, and the biggest muscles, or guns, or armies, wins. With this model, there is no accountability (big error!), and no stewardship, rationale (key point) basis. The only basis is human might. You could be a tender soul who wouldn't hurt a flea, and Thadeus Thug can show up to rape, rob, and pillage you, and according to "no creator" model, the thug is "right" to do so, as there is no value ascribed to life by this model/view. (we can only say this thug is "wrong" if there is a law giver that transcends this world IE: not limited or subject or confined to this space and time we are in)

In fact, in the evolution model, (blows my mind) death equals life by virtue of the claim that through a stochastic process (yes, a big oxymoron), somehow a ton of pain/struggle/death gave life to bigger/better us.

Animals act in self-defense even if they don't have the higher brain function to conceive of anything beyond their basic physical needs.

Animals indeed act defensively, and just the study of the plethora of tactics/abilities built in to them is amazing. From camouflage (passive) of frogs to fish to you name it, to chemical machine guns (active!) of the bombardier beetle, to the horns on a bull (passive, until he gets active with you!) God designed into the animal world these abilities, knowing they would be needed, post fall - post curse. It shows His providence, even in light of the struggles.

Self-defense is one more step in perpetuating the species, spreading a particular set of genes.

Questions come to mind like, why are there pacifists still around? Why are we not all Supermen and Superwomen? Why have we not "evolved" past all the travailing in pain that the creation is groaning with, if we have only been passing on "superior" genes all these years? (be sure to watch the youtube clip linked at bottom, regarding "genes").

If I die, there's no chance my genes will be passed on.

Now you don't KNOW that. Someone may donate your clothes to goodwill or some other place, and voila! Oh? You mean the other kind :p

[Doesn't actually apply to me, but more of a generic individual creature.]

I think you saying you have no kiddos, and mean in overall sense, the propagation of people.
Provokes these Questions: Can an individual be generic? (think of all the billions of people, and how unique we all are?) A creature requires a creator, does it not? Etymology itself is an amazing subject, pointing back to one main language, "once upon a time". Linguists tend to not point to Adam and Eve, if they are evolutionists, but the fact remains that Etymology is an arrow pointing in that direction.

Are there species other than humans that live beyond their breeding years? If we're the oddity, then the above makes perfect sense for everything except us, and actually even for us too, before modern medicine & sanitation.

Living beyond breeding years.... hmmm....Not sure what that might demonstrate, as "living beyond" is pretty subjective. How far beyond? Some/many perish without pro-creating, some soon after, some later, some...... etc.

Before modern medicine and sanitation? Ugh, don't get me started on Big Pharma and Big Agra and all the other ways we poison ourselves with "better living through chemicals" (is that the slogan?):eek: Just recently heard some interesting details regarding Levitical dietary laws and life spans / mortality rates of Jewish peoples who kept and those who didn't keep the diet. More than can be covered here. Advise if interested in more info.

Not too many hundreds of years ago, I'd be considered old & Jim would be ancient.

Not too many thousands of years ago, we would all be considered babes. Look at the Genesis chapter five life spans (antediluvian)

In Aristotelian Law, we observe the law of the excluded middle, and the law of non contradiction. We make note of this in the taxonomic sense, giving credit to Aristotle, IOW, gravity is not true because of Newton, he simply observed/noted truth/reality, and we refer to Newtonian Laws of physics.

The point is that we can't have creation and evolution ( a law giver and no law giver). It is an either/or, not both/and situation. The law of the excluded middle and the law of non contradiction apply here. We can apply the steps of scientific inquiry to creation itself, as well as scripture.

When we examine the evidence, actual empirical evidence, we see it pointing to a creator rather than to a big bang. A person may not agree, but the arrow points nonetheless.

It is only upon this assertion that God created life, that we can have a basis, a rational basis, for an argument for defense of self - defense of life of self.

If not, then might makes right, and the world is dominated by a "sucks to be you" mentality that breeds death and destruction, as history plainly, and all to painfully points out.

All of this to say that if a church prohibits self defense by it's members/attendees, then that is a form of hypocrisy on a grand scale. Or it is not a "church" that defends the value of life. It is ignoring the reality of this fallen world.

Even though Peter walked daily with the Lord (can you think of a better body guard!), Peter "open carried" without admonition from Jesus (notwithstanding "put up thy sword into the sheath" given the time appointed for the fulfillment of that prophetic element). We are to deal with things as they are, not how we "wish them to be". The world is a dangerous, fallen, mess of a place, despite the beauty that still exist ( It is a mixture of good and evil)

This treatise started with " 'splain, please ", and I hope I have not gone too long in the tooth for your question! It is tough to truncate such a fascinating and rewarding subject!

The crux of the answer is predicated on the aspect of rationality. It must be rational. It must be reasonable.

Come, let us reason together... Isaiah 1:18.

A "church" that says you must be a dis-armed victim any time you are here, is a "church" that is not giving heed to the reality of the fall (doctrinal error) I don't "do" irrational fear. No thanks.


Clarifying questions welcome.

ONE LAST THING..... Paul, why can't I be as succinct as you? (brevity as the soul of wit? ugh)

A "must watch" tib-bit. Truly mind-boggling....