Why defense is relevant

When I call myself pro-life, I must explain every detail of what I mean so that no one is confused. Does this mean that I would never hurt or kill any form of life at any time? No. There are cases when I might possibly hurt or kill if it was to protect the life of someone else or myself. This is ONLY in the case of extreme situations where there is no time to think.

Imagine that I am walking down the street and I see a man hitting his son with a baseball bat repeatedly. This is not the time to stand there and debate with myself in my head about what the right thing to do is. What would I do in this situation? How should I know? At such a time, the mind is useless. Trying to be scientific, philosophical, or rational will not work. During the time I waste, the son of the mad batter will be hurt or even killed if nothing is done soon enough.

All I can know is that I would instantly be horrified at what I was seeing. I would definitely act. If I intervened, chances are that both the little boy and I would both be beaten to death with a baseball bat. There is the small chance that I could grab the bat and hit the man on the head hard enough to knock him into a coma. There is the chance that I could grab the boy and run him to safety. I could also try to call the police once the immediate threat has passed. Whether the police do anything or what they do is out of my control. I can’t predict the future, but I would still try to stop the damage I saw being done.

A moral relativist will tell me: Chandler, it is not your place to judge people for their actions or tell them who they can or cannot hurt with a bat, gun, knife, or anything else. Quit forcing your morality on people!

I will simply ignore them. My sense of relevance, love, compassion, empathy, or whatever you call it is what will decide my actions when I don’t have the time to think.

Is it bad to hit your son with a bat? Yes. Is it bad to hit the person who is hitting their son with a bat? Yes. Is it bad to do absolutely nothing and let the son of the mad batter beat his son to death? Yes.

Whether or not legal action is taken against someone is irrelevant to the case. This is a moral issue. The issue at hand is: What is wrong with the person who started hitting their son with a bat? What can be done to prevent this from happening again?

By the time something bad is happening, it is too late. Someone will be hurt. No matter what happens at this point is bad. All that we can do is prevent more harm from happening. How this is to be done is something people need to work together on.

There are times when killing may be necessary, but there is no way that all of the killing done by abortion, wars, or even accidents had to happen. Also, just because something becomes necessary does not make it good.

Why pro-choice atheists are irrelevant

I am a pro-life advocate, but I am not an atheism advocate. The reason is that atheism is a lack of belief, but being pro-life is an actual belief that life is relevant, true, and good. Usually atheists believe that their life on earth is the only one they get. This means that they should think twice before killing anything. The fact that those claiming to be atheists are mostly pro-choice seems impossible to me. Something is wrong.

If atheism was an actual belief system, it could be checked for validity. Instead, I have the challenge of watching individual people who claim to be atheists. Do their words match their actions? Are they truly freethinkers or do they make the mistake of siding with popular opinion?

I understand why some theists might be pro-choice if they have been convinced that murder is God’s will, but for atheists, it is a whole different story. Since atheists don’t have a God telling them what to do, they have the potential to do things that theists can’t do. Some of these things are good and others are bad.

I am disappointed to see that relativism has infected both theists and atheists. The key difference for the atheist is that they don’t have a God to blame their actions on when they do something wrong. This makes them MORE responsible for all their actions. This is something I remember in everything I do.

I think of morality as being something that is based in reality. The Golden Rule is the standard I go by. The reason is because not only is it nice, but also because it is the only thing that makes sense!

If I consider the life of other people to be as relevant as my own, then I don’t kill them. If I kill myself, I don’t live long enough to kill someone else. I don’t understand those who kill other people and then themselves. If they would just start with themselves, then no one’s choice is violated.

Aside from the Golden Rule, there is another rule that I live by. If an action is one that can’t be undone, I should either NOT do it, or I need to have a REALLY GOOD REASON for it. Some things can be reversed and others can’t.

When someone steals something, it is bad, but if they can give it back, then the damage is reversed. If they lie, they will lose trust, but they may be able to tell the truth before more damage is done. In those cases, the damage is reversible. When someone kills someone, they have no way of bringing them back to life. This means that killing is the ULTIMATE irreversible act.

The entire point of being an atheist is that it does not actually define who I am. It only defines what I am not. It strips away all presuppositions so that I can find meaning in my life without needing other sources to tell me what it is.

Not all information is useful and there are motivations for deceiving people. Atheists who hold the pro-choice position on abortion need to stop their hypocrisy. Being pro-choice about things involving life and death means that life does not matter enough to you. If life does not mean anything, then you might as well let the world be run over by those annoying theists who force their God on you.

Avoid the relativism that says that it does not matter what you believe or do. It tells us to be so “tolerant” that we stop asking questions or thinking about things that matter. If this is the only life that we have, then pretending that all truth is relative to an individual means that truth exists only in the minds of the living and then dies. This is why I care about standards that apply equally to life everywhere.

I do not want to let fear control my life anymore. For me, being an atheist means that no God, scientist, philosopher, or king has the right to stop me from telling the truth. They can stop me by killing me, but in the end, they would only be showing their weakness. I find great humor in the way that every time someone comes along and tells people not to kill people, it isn’t long before somebody kills them.

I am convinced that protecting life is the most rational thing that anyone can do. This applies to atheists even more because they can’t expect God to resurrect everyone and make everything right. Many atheists protect their own lives at any cost, but deny the relevance of other people when they see them as a threat. This is mostly based on fear. I want to bridge the gap between theists and atheists.

To help theists understand why I have my own problems with the majority of the atheists, I need to explain that atheists also have “gods” that dictate to them what is right or wrong. Whatever they place their trust in is what they will defend in the same way that theists defend their gods.

If they are trusting in money, then everything becomes about getting money. If this means killing, lying, or stealing, then they WILL do it at the first chance. This can lead to the destruction of many lives. The worst part is that all the work people do at earning money will be completely irrelevant when they die. This is the greatest tragedy of all.

With the knowledge that money does not exist, but life does, it only makes sense to be pro-life rather than pro-money. A pro-money position usually becomes a pro-death position.

As far as whether a creator named God exists, I will let other people fight about that. In daily life, I do not see God, but every day I see the words “In God we trust” . It is written on the paper and metal people refer to as money. There seems to be a relevance between God and money.

When humans choose to murder other humans or other animals. They often say “It is okay to kill because: money.” or “It is okay to kill because: God.”. What then is the difference between God and money? What is it that people put their “trust” in.

The fact that I am not 100 percent sure that God or money exist outside of human brains means that I cannot trust in either. I cannot serve God or money. What then do I serve?

I serve relevance over irrelevance, truth over falsehood, good over bad, life over death.

I trust in what I have seen with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, and touched with my own hands.

By these rules I have chosen, I am convinced that even if I don’t stay an atheist, I will stay pro-life.

Why Scott Klusendorf is relevant

Scott Klusendorf is a pro-life activist who trains other people to defend the pro-life view. I like the way that Scott can use philosophy and science to explain what is wrong with the thinking of pro-choicers. This means that I don’t have to figure out how to do it all by myself. In fact, I doubt that I could do it better than Scott.

I have read two of his books: “The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture” and “Pro-Life 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to making Your Case Persuasively.

My pro-life activism is different from the majority, but I still am making a “case for life”, and I need to “make my case persuasively”. I may spend the rest of my life trying to explain what is wrong with legalized murder, but I think that it is one of the most relevant things I can do.

I will gladly support what Scott Klusendorf does because we have a common goal. I have my own plan to end abortion, but I can’t do it alone. I think that different pro-lifers can help each other see the flaws in their own reasoning so that we are all more effective.

Why pro-choice Christians are irrelevant

For a long time, the majority of those who claim to be Christian have also called themselves pro-life, but recently, more of them identify as pro-choice. What has happened? Is being pro-life or pro-choice the correct position for Christians?

What standard are Christians going by? Some say they are going by the bible, then they are picking the verses they like and ignoring other verses that disagree with them. Basically, they are pro-choice about their bible, which means they can pick verses which support a pro-life position about abortion, but that they can also find verses to support a pro-death position just as easily.

Many Christians have heard “Thou shalt not kill.” because it is mentioned in the bible six times.

Exodus 20:13
Deuteronomy 5:17
Matthew 5:21
Matthew 19:18
Romans 13:9
James 2:11

Sometimes it may say either “kill” or “murder” depending on your translation, but they are the same thing. Anyone who kills someone intentionally has either not read or has completely ignored the commandment not to kill. The problem with the bible is that it tells us that even God kills people when he feels like it. When people kill someone, they only need to say that God told them to do it.

When thinking about the murder in the bible, I think first of all the animal sacrifices. If you aren’t aware of the animal sacrifices, start reading Leviticus. I think the idea of animal sacrifices explains why sheep, goats, and cattle don’t like Judaism or Christianity.

But people ignored all that because they believe that humans are the superior creation of a God that has given all humans permission to kill other animals when they want to. Since I see other animals as being equal to humans, I disagree.

But to those who think that human life is special and should not be killed, what do they do with the biblical God who kills humans when he feels like it? What about the flood of Genesis 6? What about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19? What about the plagues God sent on Egypt in Exodus 9?

Even if you say that God had to punish people for being evil, wicked or sinful, you have to explain the death of the innocent too. There is no way that every single animal deserved to die. Aside from that, without a solid moral standard, there is no way for anyone, not even God, to decide who is evil enough to be killed.

Now that I have learned enough to understand that the bible is not a standard of morality, I see how Christianity has accepted relativism. To most of the Christians, it doesn’t matter what you say, what you believe, or who you kill. Whatever happens must have been God’s will.

I don’t claim to believe the bible, but the “Thou shalt not kill.” commandment is one that I happen to agree with. If people had obeyed that rule, Jesus never would have been killed.

When people say that the crucifixion of Jesus, or the sacrifice of animals were good things, then I know that they are not pro-life. The reason I fear them is not because they call themselves Christian, but because if they heard the voice of God telling them to kill Chandler Isaac Klebs, they would do it without hesitation.

The flip side is, people who spend their time and money doing what they can to protect life are not part of Christianity. I want to support pro-lifers no matter what religion they claim to be part of. It is the actions of these people that shows what they really believe.

I want to inspire people to think before they say things like “Abortion is a gift from God.” or “Abortion is God’s will.”. I see this as a problem for theists and atheists alike. If there is a God, then he, she, or it must show up and respond to these claims.

The world has become very confused about basic things such as life and death. If you don’t believe me, just try listening to abortion debates. Also here are some links to show what is happening.


Obama Thinks Abortion Is God’s Will



Why Easter is irrelevant

I have been unable to make sense of the holiday known as Easter. Some think it is a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Other people think it is the time to buy chocolate eggs and rabbits. I have nothing against eggs, rabbits, chocolate, or resurrection, but I don’t see the relevance of them to a special day.

Is it possible that the day known as Easter is nothing more than an excuse people give themselves to eat candy or go to church? When I want to do something, I do it. When I don’t want to do something, I don’t do it. I don’t need a special day once a year to do something.

If you want to hide a bunch of eggs in the grass and search for them, you can do this on any day in a location that has both grass and eggs. If you want to eat rabbits made of chocolate, you can buy them at Hy-Vee. If you came out of your grave three days after being crucified, I would like to know how you did it.

No harm comes from celebrating Easter, but I don’t see how doing rituals once a year helps anyone. I prefer to eat eggs rather than hunt for them. I would like to know what it means to other people. Is there a link between eggs, rabbits, and Jesus?

Easter appears to be a celebration of life. I don’t need a special day of the year to appreciate the relevance of life. I am pro-life every day of the year.

Why creationism is irrelevant

Most of the time, creationism refers to the belief in the creation stories in the book of Genesis. I don’t have a problem with people believing this if they want to, but I will explain why I do not.

Chapter 1 of Genesis describes God creating things by just speaking. It does not explain who God is talking to. Also, I don’t think that this God is involved today in the world. I can’t prove or disprove whether God exists but I can be sure that God has not given me answers to the questions I have. I do not expect humans to give me the answers because I would expect God to be able to speak to me directly and answer all the questions I have. Until this happens I have no foundation for believing anything other that what I can see, hear, feel, taste, or smell.

I can say nothing about creationism except explain that I don’t believe the biblical creation myth. I don’t know if the earth was created or why someone would want to create it or the life on it.

But the main problem I have with the book of Genesis is that it is full of things that are irrelevant and false. For example, God told Adam that the day he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he would die. This is not true according to the story. Adam and Eve both ate from it. Later on we find out that Adam lived 930 years and that Eve lived to be at least 130 years old to give birth to Seth. Adam didn’t “begat” Seth by himself.

Here are quotes from the King James Version of the book of Genesis to show the contradiction about death.

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” – Genesis 2:16-17

“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” – Genesis 3:4-7

“And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years:and he died.” – Genesis 5:5

The only way that all these verses can be considered true is to admit that God was wrong and the Serpent was right. Aside from that, no knowledge of good or evil came from eating the fruit. All they learned was that they were naked. Nakedness is irrelevant to good or evil.

Why evolutionism is irrelevant

I have nothing personally against evolution. I think that the theory of evolution may explain some things. I know that the Chihuahua and Great Dane are both types of dogs. I have read that they are descendants of the Grey Wolf. I am fine with this and I think there is a chance that it is true. I also see that there are amazing examples of extreme physical change in living things. For example, the way tadpoles slowly become adult frogs. Even I have evolved from tiny baby, fetus, or clump of cells into an adult primate.

I am not very interested in knowing everything about how each animal evolved. I know that I don’t have billions of years to witness it all and I think that most of it is irrelevant. I do not think that everything about my mind or emotions comes from my ancestors. I think that the majority of who I am and what I do comes from the experiences I have every day.

While I think that genetic evolution is true, I do not think that it in any way is relevant to morality, religion, or my own life. I can’t take the credit or the blame for what genes I got. I had no control over what sexual things my ancestors did before I was conceived. I just have to make use of what I have.

I also don’t think that evolution explains the origin of life. I don’t even need to believe that life had an origin. Maybe life has been evolving over an unlimited time. I don’t think that people should make assumptions about things in the past that can’t be tested. I think some things are unknowable.

Why relativism is irrelevant

The word “relative” means the same thing as “relevant”. This in itself is not a problem, but the term “relativism” is the name of a moral philosophy. It means that what is good or bad is “relative” to the opinions of the people involved in a situation.

Someone may believe that lying is bad, but then say that it is good to lie if it saves the life of someone. It is hard to come up with an example of how telling a lie would be good. Even if someone can come up with a situation like that, I know that I could not lie to protect myself or another person. If I am aware that telling the truth in response to a question could have a bad result, I can stay silent.

But relativism also implies that there is no standard of truth or morality. If morality is just a matter of opinion, then I only need to say that my opinion is that there is an absolute morality that has always existed. Someone could tell me that I am wrong, but then it is their word against mine. If two people say completely opposite things. One of them is true and the other false. Pretending that something is true and false at the same time is a contradiction. A person can only do this if they are confused, dishonest, or have not yet noticed the conflict.

Just because something is true does not mean it is good. It may be true that an act is bad. There may be an action that is good but that no one has had the courage to do.

Why the Trinity is irrelevant

A trinity is any group of three things that are relevant to each other. This applies to a triangle, a three leaf clover, or a pizza cut into three pieces. Synonyms of trinity include trio, triad, and triplet. You can guess that if a word starts with “tri”, it has something to do with the number three.

Most of the time that someone talks about a trinity, they are referring to the “Holy Trinity”. In Christianity, the three parts of God are referred to as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is one of the teachings of Christianity that I never saw the relevance of. God could have three parts, but it is also possible that there is a fourth part of God that is named Bob. It is not possible to prove or disprove this theory but anyone is free to believe or disbelieve in Bob as they choose.

In case anyone asks why they have never heard of Bob, my guess is that Bob is an introvert who is not interested in showing himself to the rest of the universe. I am 99% sure that I created Bob in my own image, but since I can never be absolutely sure of this, I will not waste my time debating with anybody about the existence of Bob.