There is a single assumption that must be accepted before any critical analysis of this topic can be initiated - God, if it exists, must be rational (logically consistent). In the absence of this assumptions, all discussion is moot, since man is incapable of discernment in a universe where anything goes.
If God is rational, than a literal interpretation of any major religion is rendered invalid. This would lead us to conclude that these religions are utterly useless (perhaps mere attempts to control the masses), that they provide some measure of wisdom via a metaphorical interpretation, or some combination of these two possibilities.
I personally believe that this latter, balanced view is most likely closest to the truth; as I have personally derived much benefit from religious scripture from a metaphorical/mythological standpoint, but clearly see the hand of man in some of the dogmatic traditions.
Whether man is rooted in an eternal consciousness which survives death, or he merely slips into oblivion upon his demise, the prescribed approach to life remains the same. He is bound by the consequence of moral law, and it behooves him to behave as inspired by Love in the grandest sense, or at the very least, by the principle of non-aggression/self-defense (respecting and honoring the consent and innate freedom of his brethren and himself).
I'm not so sure on your first paragraph. Logic, reason or rationality, whatever you would like to call it, is a linear process that is dependent on time in order to be understood as we understand it. But, a Creator implies a Creator of time, who would therefore exist outside of time, and therefore outside of logic or reason. Though, I do not think that necessarily implies that God doesn't make sense. If you think of how our sense of logic, our desire to make sense of things, would manifest in a realm without time, it seems to me that an ever-present understanding- and/or curiosity, would be a good guess at how that would take shape.
I have wondered also recently what exactly constitutes self-defense? Our enemies may not attack us directly very often, but they are experts at influencing us to harm one another, or at building technology that will bring negativity to our lives in one regard or another. At what point does it become a matter of self-defense, I wonder. Because if we just keep going about our lives for another decade.. I'm not so sure they'll be ours anymore.
Yes, that seems a better way to describe it. If God’s thought/intent/perspective were applied to (or reduced down to) the limitation of time and space, we would expect that it would express in a logical fashion; though, absent this constraint, it’s not appropriate to describe this quality relative to if/then cause and effect.
I share your ponderings on defense. A recent conversation with a friend lent some insight... we were discussing the matter of punishment and revenge. If it would be just to use force on an attacker during an act of violence, is it just mere seconds later when his victim is beyond salvation? Must we catch an aggressor in the act to justify the use of force?
I think this nuance is beyond our current, tenuous understanding of cause-and-effect morality; however, from my current perspective it seems reasonable to suppose that if a person is threatening violence by word or deed, that it is just to stop them pre-emptively. This is expressed threat I’m talking about, not just a hunch - pulling out a gun, saying “Gimme your wallet or I’ll cut you”, gathering people and weapons while promising imminent attack, etc.
Afterward is a little trickier. Second chances sometimes yield heroes of justice and freedom, great teachers, or healing hands. In this case we’d be looking for honest repentance, which is never certain. All in all, we yet have much to learn. The bottom line is that moral law is a last-resort set of guidelines - acting from Love in earnest is the true moral position, and even this must be coupled with wisdom lest we risk paving a road to hell with our intentions.