I believe in prayer. I believe that the Bible tells us to pray. I believe that God still performs miracles. I believe that when He performs miracles in our lives, it's not because we are more loved by Him than other people are, but it's only through His grace--the same grace by which He saves us through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
But lately, I've been pondering a certain aspect of prayer as it pertains to miracles. Have you ever noticed how quite often, prayers are requested for people who are in some sort of need of physical healing?
I've noticed that many, many prayers are requested (and hopefully are actually prayed) for people, even when the people are critically ill. But then I've noticed something else--it seems as if the moment a person actually dies (I guess except for if someone is praying that life-saving procedures such as getting a heart re-started), the prayers seem to focus on comfort and peace for those who have survived the death of the person who'd been being prayed for.
In the book of 2 Samuel, chapter 12, David stops praying for his son's life once he learns that the son is dead. Maybe that's why we generally stop praying for a person once that person is dead.
But The New Testament gives several accounts of the dead being raised to life. Are we implying that once a person dies, all hope is gone? Is that Biblical?
Or are we simply acknowledging that if a person dies as a Christian, he or she is much better off being with Jesus than being here and subject to suffering and pain in this earthly existence?
Just wondering...
Monday, December 17, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
The Presidential Campaign
A few months ago when I watched the first Republican Presidential debate between (I think) at least 9 candidates, I was surprised by how many candidates there were and by how many of their names I didn't know. I think I knew the names of almost all of the Democratic candidates.
I've done two things since the debates for both parties began a while back: I've watched at least parts of debates from both parties, and I've come to the conclusion that as a whole, the Republicans more closely stand for the things I stand for.
Another surprising thing to me was that after watching the first Republican debate, I really kind of liked what Mike Huckabee had to say and how he handled himself. But, especially at that time, I didn't think much more of it because he wasn't one of the (as the media called it) "top-tier" candidates. But at least I after that first debate, knew Huckabee's name, and I knew I liked most of the things he said. At the same time, I've seen enough political debates in my lifetime to know that on any given ocsasion, any particular candidate can have a good showing or a poor showing. So I made a note in my mind to keep an eye on how Huckabee did the next time I saw him in a debate.
Again, I was surprised at how well he did the next time. I'm not saying that his was the "best" showing of the debate, but in my opinion, he deserved to at least be taken seriously, and I was a bit bothered that the next day's media reports basically gave the most recognition again to the so-called "top-tier" candidates. Many comments in the media about Huckabee over the next few weeks would point to the idea that he is simply "unelectable."
So, let's fast-forward to the past couple of weeks. Suddenly, Huckabee is running neck-and-neck for the lead in the polls in Iowa--the first state to voice for its choices for the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates.
Suddenly, I started to think about Ronald Reagan. In late 1979, he was considered by many people to be "unelectable." Even by the time he was officially nominated by the Republicans to be their candidate in the 1980 election, many people thought Reagan was too conservative to ever be elected in the general election. But not only did Reagan get elected, he was elected by a significant margin, and was re-elected by an even larger margin 4 years later.
So, why can't the same thing happen with Mike Huckabee as we look towards the 2008 Presidential election? I believe it is possible that the same thing can happen. I believe that we ought to look closely at this man and his candidacy and judge it on his merits rather than looking to see if the media and the current polls consider him to be a "top-tier" candidate.
It seems to me that his campaign is gaining some momentum, and I for one, am taking his candidacy seriously. In fact, although I'd never contributed financially to any Presidential candidate's campaign before, just the other day I joined "Team Huckabee" by sending in a contribution of $20.08.
I say let's give Mike Huckabee a fair chance. As of now, I believe that he is the best candidate out of any of the Democrats or Republicans who is officially running for President.
I've done two things since the debates for both parties began a while back: I've watched at least parts of debates from both parties, and I've come to the conclusion that as a whole, the Republicans more closely stand for the things I stand for.
Another surprising thing to me was that after watching the first Republican debate, I really kind of liked what Mike Huckabee had to say and how he handled himself. But, especially at that time, I didn't think much more of it because he wasn't one of the (as the media called it) "top-tier" candidates. But at least I after that first debate, knew Huckabee's name, and I knew I liked most of the things he said. At the same time, I've seen enough political debates in my lifetime to know that on any given ocsasion, any particular candidate can have a good showing or a poor showing. So I made a note in my mind to keep an eye on how Huckabee did the next time I saw him in a debate.
Again, I was surprised at how well he did the next time. I'm not saying that his was the "best" showing of the debate, but in my opinion, he deserved to at least be taken seriously, and I was a bit bothered that the next day's media reports basically gave the most recognition again to the so-called "top-tier" candidates. Many comments in the media about Huckabee over the next few weeks would point to the idea that he is simply "unelectable."
So, let's fast-forward to the past couple of weeks. Suddenly, Huckabee is running neck-and-neck for the lead in the polls in Iowa--the first state to voice for its choices for the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates.
Suddenly, I started to think about Ronald Reagan. In late 1979, he was considered by many people to be "unelectable." Even by the time he was officially nominated by the Republicans to be their candidate in the 1980 election, many people thought Reagan was too conservative to ever be elected in the general election. But not only did Reagan get elected, he was elected by a significant margin, and was re-elected by an even larger margin 4 years later.
So, why can't the same thing happen with Mike Huckabee as we look towards the 2008 Presidential election? I believe it is possible that the same thing can happen. I believe that we ought to look closely at this man and his candidacy and judge it on his merits rather than looking to see if the media and the current polls consider him to be a "top-tier" candidate.
It seems to me that his campaign is gaining some momentum, and I for one, am taking his candidacy seriously. In fact, although I'd never contributed financially to any Presidential candidate's campaign before, just the other day I joined "Team Huckabee" by sending in a contribution of $20.08.
I say let's give Mike Huckabee a fair chance. As of now, I believe that he is the best candidate out of any of the Democrats or Republicans who is officially running for President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)