Ron Paul is not just the best candidate for president that we have to choose from right now, he's one of the greatest presidential candidates ever to run for office in the history of the United States.

Why the entire American Christian church hasn't yet embraced Ron Paul as their presidential candidate of choice, I cannot figure out. Ron Paul has such a huge following ofdevoted fans, like myself, that he is on his way to win the republican primary. 

These coming months will prove to be some of the most critical moments in our nation's history. It is a time to rise to action inspite of the muffling of the bugle call and to pray to God for discernment. We have to fight the North American Union!

 I don't know about you, but I don't need the 6 o'clock news to tell me what's important, I know that stopping the North American Union and protecting our liberties is important!

1) Is believing in two mutually exclusive beliefs possible? Or is it really believing in nothing.

2) Is it morally wrong or unjustly intolerant to subscribe to mutually exclusive beliefs?

3) Should social and cultural norms/morals ever inform our beliefs? Or should testable evidence (and perhaps experiential evidence) be the sole basis of our faith?

I think these questions determine the validity of postmodern thought. I wonder if the verb "believe" has evolved into a word that means "to associate with." That would explain why so many people subscribe to multiple mutually exclusive beliefs as a mere semantic miscommunication.

I've heard some people get angry at those who believe their own belief system to be true and every other belief system to be false. This is the very nature of mutually exclusive beliefs. I cannot believe that something is a circle and a square at the same time. It is a circle or it is a square--it's not both. The soundness of discussion is riding on this core issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------

In this case I'm defining Mutually Exclusive as a belief system that inherently implies the falsehood of all other belief systems, necessitating a choice between the two possibilities.

Protestant Christianity is clearly exclusive of all other belief system:

Galatians 1:8, 2

Corinthians 11:4

Isaiah 43:10-11

------------------------------------------------------------------

I speculate that it is possible to hold to two mutually exclusive beliefs because someone may choose to ignore or be ignorant of conflicts between the two systems. However, it is not reasonable to hold to two mutually exclusive beliefs. Those who say things like "all religions are equal," at their core, do not actually believe in the validity of any well-defined belief system (especially with regard to historicity) but rather, it seems that they believe that comparing religions is like comparing genres of art, one is never absolutely superior to the other. However, the moment belief becomes a matter of fashion, it ceases to be belief at all.

Is it unjustly intolerant to believe something that is mutually exclusive? Of course not, and to say that it is is to misunderstand the meaning of tolerance. I think that in general the postmodern pockets of our society have equated tolerance with equal rights. It's always good to promote equal rights (I think?) but it's not always right to be tolerant.

Social and cultural norms/morals should never inform our beliefs. How can anyone build their faith on such a weak foundation? Norms change over time, but the truth is the truth is the truth. It never changes in actuality, though from our perspective, being subject to time and limited knowledge, it may appear to change. When the Egyptians were placing fresh “bricks” on the pyramids truth was truth, and today that same truth is truth.

Empirical evidence and tacit knowledge gained by experience seem to be our only option when it comes to rationally discovering truth. But even opinions on science seem to "change" frequently. I think history, archeology, paleontology, etc. are probably the best sources of reliable information when it comes to testing religion. Granted, many of the experts in these fields would direct  a searching heart toward macro evolution and biogenesis, however, the true facts do not point to these atheistic conclusions, rather they point directly to God. It is a great assurance that the natural world agrees with the spiritual world on matters of truth. Neither one can deny the inherent truth that is as permanent as days gone by. Reality proclaims the name of its creator, the One who exists, the exclusive God who exclusively has rights to all of creation and all jurisdiction and all glory.

Does omnipotence really imply an ability to do that which is conceptually impossible such as creating a rock too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift? If we ask that classic question, aren't we really asking God to count to infinity plus one? We're asking something infinitely strong to create something stronger than itself--to do something we perceive as conceptually impossible. And then we're applying our concepts of what is conceivably possible to the whole experiment. It sounds like circular reasoning to me.

It's possible that I simply do not understand this allegedly logical argument on account of ignorance. But the argument seems so abstract and questionable that I choose to dismiss it.

If we are creatures designed by God to operate within a universe that has a natural element to it,....perhaps we are like two dimensional beings trying to understand a three dimensional God with two dimensional logic. If being omnipotent truly means being able to do anything and everything--which I don't think it does in a literal sense as opposed to a conceptual sense--then perhaps God, being the author of physics and logic is therefore transcendent over such things.

The Bible is clear that God is the fair Judge of all and that morality is based on His moral standards and precepts--He makes the rules, basically. The life-long process of conforming to God’s standards of morality and throwing off my human inclination to be self-serving and sinful is called sanctification. It’s a process of becoming more like God, not in the sense of gaining His authority and power and exultation, but in the sense of gaining His characteristics of integrity and unbiased, abundant love and His forbearance and humility and patience, mercy, forgiveness, righteous jealousy, etc. The following is a passage from the Bible that describes sanctification as the process of becoming Christ-like.

Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, {and} abusive speech from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its {evil} practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- {a renewal} in which there is no {distinction between} Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:1-11 NASB)

The one who says, "I have come to know Him, " and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in [Jesus] ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (1st John 2:4-6 NASB)

Now, if the Bible says we’re supposed to emulate God’s (Christ’s) righteousness, then it’s important to know what God is like and what He wants us to be like and has designed us to be like:

For there is no partiality with God. (Romans 2:11 NASB)

And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9 NASB)

My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with {an attitude of} personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, "You sit here in a good place, " and you say to the poor man, "You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool, " have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? (James 2:1-4 NASB)

If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, " you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin {and} are convicted by the law as transgressors. (James 2:8-9 NASB)

The Greek word for partiality, “prosopolepsia” is the same word used in all four of the above passages.

So what I mean by the Bible being impartial is that it teaches that every race, gender, social class, etc. is equally valuable and ought to be given the same good quality/standard of treatment and respect that we (Christians) would give to Jesus himself. Here is a passage from Matthew that addresses this idea:

[Jesus is speaking] 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me {something} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me {something} to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' "Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You {something} to drink? 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, {even} the least {of them, } you did it to Me.' "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me {nothing} to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:35-46 NASB)

When did the church lose sight of its civil and moral responsibility to be politically proactive?

  Generally speaking, the church has, in scattered places remembered it's call to be spiritually proactive. What I mean by "spiritually proactive" is actively pursuing God's glory and the expansion of His church as opposed to passively, complacently, and comfortably reacting mildly to the self-destruction of the unsaved people of this world without sufficient evidence that we are appropriately moved by their demise. 

 When did we forget that being spiritually proactive includes being appropriately politically proactive? We need to wake up to political trends and recognize our quiet, gradual loss of liberty. We need to get mad! --for the good of every fair-dealing and unfair-dealing citizen of this country, made in the image of God. I have a right to be upset. I have a right to feel indignation and surrogate indignation for my future children and their children!

 Why are we sitting in the deep chairs of complacency, rubbing nervous thumbs and whispering a thousand "oh dears" over the foul language of our neighbors when we should be at arms because our country is going to shit. I am one man who is determined to break this spell in my life and the lives of those who will listen. I am an individual who will step on toes to save lives. 

 Today is the day to step out of hiding. Now is the moment to turn our eyes, with urgency, off of ourselves and onto Christ and to prioritize His glory and to act of the sanctification we received and are receiving by the agency of the Holy Spirit to be salt in a decaying system and light in an distracted country. With our eyes on Christ and our self-exaltation purged, we are equipped to break the norms of communication methods and defy the laws of mass-media physics that deny us an equal voice with Rupert Murdoch.