Another Debate

So I wasn't planning on making this a thing I do, but after listening to only part of another GOP debate, I feel like writing some more. (I did watch the whole thing; I just wrote things down while watching it.)

Anderson Cooper: I was surprised to see him as the moderator. I don't think he was really cut out for it. He did a poor job of keeping any kind of order; people were jumping in all over the place, and he interrupted quite a lot with his own snide remarks. He also seemed to be gunning for certain people, giving some people all the time they wanted and cutting other people off.

Perry: Most of the time, I can't stand him. He comes across as so artificial and actually not very informed. But I gotta give him credit for taking on Romney on immigration, even though I think he got skewered with it just as bad. I would be thrilled if he could keep throwing doubts on Romney and take himself out of it as well. I think he may have ended up making Romney look better though by the end of it. :/

Cain: His plan got hammered at the beginning! I was really happy to hear him talk about something other then 9-9-9 when the healthcare thing came up. He gets points for owning up to his former position on TARP in my opinion. He seems like a very up-front person, but he also seems to have a hard time getting across what he's trying to. Thankfully for him, most people don't seem to care if you can explain it, as long as it works.

Paul: He did really well with the Latino question, and I'm glad he had more of a chance to talk later on. I'm not sure that I completely agree with him on the March on Wall Street thing . . . . But that's probably because I'm not sure how things work. It seems to me though that if President Obama was the one that sanctioned what the FED was dong, then some of those people are definitely at fault, because they voted for him. If the FED did it all themselves, without help from the administration, then Paul is right. I just don't know which one it is.

Bachmann: She did WAY better this time, in my opinion. I don't know if it's actually seeing and hearing her, or what, but I liked her a lot more this time around. I thought her appeal to moms was a little weird. That didn't seem like a debate forum thing, but whatever. I also think she's advertising for herself a little too hard.

Santorum: I didn't like that he got so fired up with Romney. Saying Romney was out of time was not a good thing; that wasn't his job. I think he'd have done better if he'd kept his cool, but he obviously has a big problem with Romney's less-than-open approach, which I have to agree with. He did a really good job emphasizing family with the Latino question - I would bet that he would get a lot of Latino votes for that because of his references to family and faith (and his being a Catholic). I think he has a problem with referring to the other candidates specifically though. I don't know if he's doing it on purpose or what, but I think he'd serve himself better to answer questions in the positive (I would do X) rather than the negative (They brought this on us).

Gingrich: I love how he called out Romney about Romney not getting that idea from him. That was great. Also, his address to the Latino community was very well done. I really liked his answer to the faith/religion question. I think he did slightly better with it than Santorum even. I also think he did better in this debate than the last one.

Romney: The more I hear about him, the worse he seems. I think the only reason he could get anywhere is because he's really the only one with charisma. He's got the salt-and-pepper hair, a good voice, it takes a lot to get him upset, and he has the ability to make himself look like the one who's been wronged. And he's a politician - he can speak well without saying much but sounding like he knows exactly what he's talking about.


Overall: The only two people that I really, really, really don't want to see win it are Romney and Perry.

Politics

There was a debate recently amongst the Republican Candidates that I would have known nothing about had my brother not posted something about it on Facebook. But he did, and I had time and I took the opportunity to read the transcript from said debate. There were a few things that struck me from the debate itself and from a few articles about the debate. Most of these people I know nothing about other than what I can remember from listening to the debate, so bear with me. I may be way off on things.

The moderating job didn't seem to be done very well. The guy even forgot that Romney came before Santorum. Thankfully, Santorum caught it and passed the spotlight to Romney, but Romney had to rub the poor PBS guy's face in it a little before continuing.

The winners and the losers seem to be determined by who got to talk the most. In the context of Proverbs, this bothers me. Romney did a lot of talking; he seems popular; from what was written, he seemed to have the easiest time communicating his ideas and thoughts - other people seemed to stumble around for words a bit - and from what I read today, he doesn't seem like he'd be terrible for our economy. However, he did a lot of talking, and I find that I can't sum him up at all. There's nothing I can say, "He is definitely for (or against) X." That makes him seem very much a politician and that makes me not trust him.

Santorum is for family. That was obvious when he said, "Families that have two- that have a husband and a wife working. . . ." He didn't want to say families that have two "parents." I wished he'd said more without mentioning Cain. He also seemed to be for cutting taxes, which sounds good to little ole me.

Ron Paul (It seems weird if I just called him Paul. . . .) seems very informed and unpopular to the point of everyone paying attention knowing that he's the "unmentionable guy." He gets included in appearance but he's not in the In Crowd. I can't remember anyone asking him a question; he got lumped in with the "Winners" by virtue of asking worthy questions; and basically was ignored (as far as I saw) in the reports on the debate. He was also the only person mentioned in the fact-checkers article that didn't say anything wrong (unlike Santorum, Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and Huntsman), if you trust the people who wrote the article.

I'd never seen Cain, nor heard him speak before, but I was very turned off to him. He had one tune, and he didn't seem to understand it very well. He seemed to want simplicity in a complex situation, and I don't think he's going to find it. I was a little surprised about him, because I'd heard a lot of talk about him, and he was nothing like what I expected. He was nit-picky and overall didn't seem very gracious. The question wasn't about the morality of beer as opposed to pizza; it was about taxing food.

In my opinion, Bachmann should get out of it. I think she's a smart, classy lady, but she didn't seem to have very much ability to say what she wanted to. She was difficult to understand and she went back and forth from being, "I'm a mother of 28" to "I'm a lawyer." On the one hand, she seemed almost too down to earth, and on the other hand she struck me as being very legally minded. Maybe it was an off day for her or maybe I just didn't get her. I don't know.

Huntsman didn't seem to be taking it seriously and therefore, I found it hard to take him seriously. He also totally spaced on the point of how (I think it was Romney) wanted to repeal Obamacare and how that worked. I liked how Santorum jumped in and explained it for him. Hehehehe.

Gingrich didn't seem to be there for himself. He seemed to be there to say, "Yeah, he's right about that. You've got that right, Bachmann. Listen to so-and-so." It was slightly confusing, and yet refreshing. He didn't seem to make any overtures for his own bid, rather boosting other candidates that he thought were correct, as well as taking shots at people like Bernanke. He seemed more interested in making sure that the people listening were getting correct information than trying to market himself. I liked it.

Perry also seemed to get a lot of talking in without saying much. He seemed focused on getting a good leader for the country, but he didn't want to share his plan for the country - which made him not seem like a leader. There were a couple of other red flags that come up with him that made me think twice.

Overall, I like Santorum for his graciousness and Ron Paul for his very "this is the way it is" take on things. I dislike Cain and Romney makes me wary, though Perry worries me even more. Gingrich, Huntsman, and Bachmann I have a hard time thinking that they're really going to do much.

Life with God is Exciting

It really is. We've been going through Esther in our Ladies' Bible Study recently and it's been very cool. Normally, I'm not a big fan of Esther. I like how well it shows that God is in control, but I don't really identify with any of the characters and I don't like the lack of mention of any people who are definitely "the good guy."

Now, as a rabbit trail, let me say, I hope that Esther and Mordecai were true Jews and spiritual children of Abraham as well as physical ones; but I don't see any definite evidence of that, as everyone who's paid attention knows there is no mention of God, prayer, or anything else that would lead to that.

Back to my point though, life with God is seeing growing bills and shrinking paychecks and waiting with wonder at how God is going to save us. What Esther (no matter what her spiritual beliefs were) is He putting up to deliver His people? What or who is He going to use next to get us through another week, another month, the next year?

And that's exciting. It's like a beautiful, lazy summer evening spent with family and friends, sitting out on the lawn looking up at the sky waiting for the fireworks to start. Or sitting at the airport waiting for the plane to land so you can see your beloved again.

There is the other side to it though, the harder side. What am I trying to hold onto? What worry do I have that nags me? What thing am I wondering, "What do I do, what do I do" about?

I've had a few of those recently, and it's really hard to really give things over to God and say, "I don't want to keep trying to grab it. I can't hold it up; I can't fix it; I don't even know how to try to fix it. But I don't want to make it worse by hanging on. I don't want to make it worse by worrying and filling myself with anxiety until I finally do something stupid out of desperation." It's an interesting thing - giving it up is a lighter weight than carrying it around; but it's a harder thing to do sometimes.

Anyway. Life is exciting. It's rough and it hurts and it's long; but God is gentle. He binds up the broken-hearted and He gives rest to the weary. And it's exciting to see how He works.

As Long As They're Healthy

"Are you hoping for a boy or a girl?"
"Oh, I don't care. I'll be happy as long as they're healthy."

I think these words get a sort of silent kudos. "Well good for them. They're not going to be disappointed because of the gender of their child. Good for them, they're not being sexist." But that's only one side of what it's saying.

I wonder how many people have said these words, heard these words, anticipated saying them once they got pregnant. I also wonder how many have actually thought about what the words are saying on the flip side.

The flip side is, am I not suggesting that I won't be pleased with them if they're unhealthy? That I might possibly love them less because they're going to make my life even more difficult? That it's hard enough getting up x amount of times in the night without having to deal with some other problem? That we hardly have the money to deal with a normal birth without having to worry about a day spent in NICU? Will we bemoan the events that brought a less-than-perfect child into our lives as our responsibility?

I'm not saying it's wrong to wish good health to your baby - we pray for it all the time, and I fully believe it's a good thing. We don't wish ill on people. But you wouldn't say, "As long as it's a boy" if you want a boy. You might pray for a boy, but you wouldn't hang your happiness on it. So why would you say, "As long as they're healthy?"

Is God's arm too short to help us with the physical or mental care of a child? More, did God say of us, "As long as they're healthy?" Has God not chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty? Hasn't He used a myriad of people that were not perfectly healthy or perfectly formed?

I wonder about these things because I know people who are in the process of adopting. And in that process, they get asked, "Will you take a child with special needs? Will you accept blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy, autism, etc. etc.?" Would you? Would I? Or do we only want the healthy ones? Are they no longer blessings if they're not healthy?

If God gives me a blind baby, dare I be disappointed with the gift that the Master Potter has formed for me? Dare I say, "Why hast Thou made them thus?"

Just something to think about.

As to the Lord

Been thinking a lot recently about my attitude in life and why I do things and the main reason why I complain about having to do things. Mostly, I've been thinking about Colossians 3:23, a well-known verse. "And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as to the Lord, and not unto men."

Why do I clean the church? I don't like cleaning. It's nice that it gives us some extra money, but that's not enough for me to be HAPPY about cleaning the church. But I can reason, it's the church building, we don't have a lot to give financially; this is something I can do. I can give some of my time, if not more money, to help the running of the church go smoothly.

Okay, so what about cleaning our apartment? What about putting time into making healthy and yummy dinners? What about when my husband, as he did today, asks me to do something that I really don't want to do? What about when someone asks me to babysit or house-sit or whatnot? I can come up with reasons to do it all, but none of those apply to making me HAPPY to do them. They just get me through it. Normally, I take the approach of giving myself a guilt trip until I stop complaining about it because I know, "It's the right thing to do" and "I need to be a friend" and "I don't have anything better to do at that time."

The only way I clean the church with a happy heart is when it's for God. The only way I gladly answer the phone when my husband asks is when it's because, in submitting to Zack, I'm submitting to God. The only way I look forward to doing the laundry is when I'm thinking that in doing such a menial household task, I'm able to do part of what God wants of me in taking care of my husband.

The interesting part is that if I don't think about why I'm doing things, I'm automatically doing them for me. I clean the church for the money; I clean the apartment so I can stand to live in it; I do the laundry because I'm out of clothes. It's all about me unless I purpose to do it with God in mind and for His glory, so that I can do it happily in the hopes that someone will notice a difference and ask "How??" And then I can answer honestly that it's because it's not for me; it's the daily worship I can give to my God.

It's been harder than normal lately. I'm not sure why exactly.

Randomly, a little girl came to the door the other day, handed me a paper and said, "This is about God and the number three." I smiled at such unexpected words, thanked her, and then we said "bye" to each other. I opened the paper up which was addressed to "You Guys" and it said: Jesus is Awesome!

It was a little thing but it made me very happy. :)

Friendship and Encouragement

I'm not good at making friends. Partly because I've never needed to (I had family); partly because I just don't get it. How do two people who just don't have that ground layer of really enjoying each other's presence ever have a real friendship? Oh, sure, we can get along and talk to each other and even have good times, but they're never the go-to person; they're never the friend that you tell your secrets to. They're a "going shopping with them or without them doesn't change the enjoyment level of the shopping" type of friend. Then there's people like my mom, where shopping is a hundred times better with her.

Maybe I just expect too much from friendships and want them to all be deeper than many can be; maybe my definition of real friendship is too narrow. I'm not sure.

More and more though, I'm desiring to be an encouragement to people. But I don't know how to be. I don't know how to talk to people I don't know. I don't know how to START friendships, although, I THINK I'm okay at keeping them going.

So, the question is, how can I either learn how to make friends, or be an encouragement without being a close friend to someone? I feel like I'm an easy person to get to know - as long as someone is asking me questions. Or through something that's not actually directed at them - like this blog, for instance. But people don't just want to get to know me, haha. Why would they? So how do I learn to initiate?

Obviously, it's something I need to start praying about. But it's also something that I'm very open to suggestions about. So if you have any, please share.

Of All Men Most Miserable

This is a topic that has been on my heart and mind for some time. I read the verse today in my daily Bible reading and it struck me again. After some consideration, I decided it was an opportune time to blog about it.

The phrase above is found in I Corinthians 15 in which Paul is making his defense for the resurrection. To sum up (because I'm sure all my regular readers know it very well), he says that if there is no resurrection, Christ is still dead, and we have no future hope; if Christ is dead, we are living our lives to serve a god that doesn't exist, and once we're dead, there's nothing more. Serving someone who doesn't exist with no hope of reward for it = most miserable.

I've heard this phrase applied to other things, and I've come to believe it is a gross misapplication that elevates something to the same height of importance as whether or not Christ is still dead (and therefore, whether or not He is God, and whether or not God exists at all). For the most part, I've heard this phrase applied to the argument for the KJV that if we do not have the exact words of God, we are of all men most miserable.

So I ask you, of those tribes around the world who have no Bible in their possession because there is no Bible in their language or because of lack of sufficient funding to buy such a Bible, are they of all men most miserable? They have no written word of God, but due to the work of the Holy Spirit, they've become children of God. Children of God are of all men most miserable???

No. Resoundingly, no. It is a saddening thought to me that someone would elevate the earthly possession of a thing to the same height as whether or not Christ is alive.

Whether or not I own a Bible, have the opportunity to own a Bible, or any other detail about the Bible - even if I thought my Bible were FULL of errors (which I don't) - it STILL would not effect my salvation and therefore, it CANNOT be so weighty a matter as make me of all men most miserable.

Now some could argue that if we don't KNOW that we have the exact words of God, that therefore we can't KNOW that Christ is risen. Guess what. We weren't there to witness it; we can't KNOW, and yet, we know. By faith. In our fallen selves, we can't KNOW any of it is true anyway. In our fallen nature, there is no reason to believe that Christ is alive - resurrection from the dead? What are you, crazy?

Yet we know. Why? We've been changed! Owning a Bible does not make a person's faith stronger. It just doesn't. You don't get suddenly more Christlike by having a Bible in your home. The Bible is a wonderful, wonderful gift. It is not on par with Christ's death. Without Christ's death, the Bible would be useless. But even without the Bible, Christ's death is NEVER useless because that's not the only means of spreading the Good News!

If all we had were verbal traditions passed down from generation to generation of what happened, do you think that people couldn't get saved? Sure they could. Why? Because the written word is not necessary. How can I say that? Because there wasn't one in Corinth when Paul went there and shared The Word with the people. But God had much people in that city, thus, they were saved!

In conclusion, saying that we need SPECIFIC information in order to know a thing is bizarre. That's like saying I can't know how old I am if I've never seen a calendar. There are seasons! Much more generalized things, but they still keep time very well.

Please don't misunderstand my feelings and very high regard for the Bible. The Bible is precious and it's full of information and wisdom and exhortation. It is beautiful and lovely and deep and a very useful gift from God. However, it is NOT as lovely as the reality of what happened. Christ came, lived, died, and rose again. Without THAT, I am most miserable.

Trying to Discover the Truth About Healthy LIving

Due to some friends and family being suddenly (or just perhaps just more vocally) aware of what they're eating, I've become more aware of it. I've read warnings and informational blogs, watched videos, and done more reading. I find it interesting, but I'm by no means studied on the subject.

At first, I was very skeptical. Partly because I was raised that way. We ate hot pockets and TV dinners and hotdogs and ramen noodle soup. (Not most of the time or anything; they were just present in the house and there was rarelyanything against them. In fact, I liked quite a few of them quite a lot.)

Eventually, I decided that it was something I had to make up my own mind about and started taking things a bit more seriously. Since I'm now the one buying the groceries, I'm the one responsible for whether or not we're eating healthy or not. Nothing like the weight of responsibility to force you to look into something.

My problem with this whole topic is not an unfamiliar one. The problem is that whoever I listen to, I'm listening to someone and really know nothing myself. It's all, "I heard" or "I read." It's never, "I know because I've seen, because I've done the math, because I know the chemistry." This is a problem because different people say different things; who do I trust? Some people say, "Don't eat butter; it's fattening and bad." Other people say, "No, no, BUTTER is fine; it has good fats; it's margarine you shouldn't eat."

So is butter bad or good? Are the extra calories in one thing that has good fat worth eating it? Or do you eat the fewer calories and bad fat?

Seriously.

And then there's the thing about microwaves. I've heard multiple times that they're bad, bad, bad and should never be used for anything. They change the molecular structure of your food and it takes all the nutrients out. (No one ever mentions where exactly the nutrients go. . . They dissipate I guess?? Do we breath them later then?) Microwaves are apparently extraordinarily powerful; if only like in "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" we could get a microwave to change non-food into food, rather than the other way around.

But here's my question. . . . Microwaves do not change the taste or aroma of the food, so how much is it actually doing to the food? If I microwave something for ten seconds, does only part of it change and the rest is okay? When it's really hot, is that how I know that it's now nutrient-free? I have a difficult time thinking that one second in the microwave and the food is no longer food. Presto change-o! Why? Well, that sounds an awful lot like magic, and a lot less like technology.

Change takes time. Even powerful radiation takes time. People don't contract radiation poisoning immediately if they enter a contaminated area. They have to be exposed for a certain amount of time, depending on their circumstances. The longer the time and the higher the radiation, the more severe the case. But what is that time with a microwave? (And you'd probably have to know for each power of microwave. For instance, ours is only 700 watts; we can't microwave a lot of things because they require 1200 or 1500.)

I'm not a health nut. I like icecream in specific and desserts in general way too much to be a health nut, not to mention Chinese food. . . . (Orange chicken - Mmmmmmmmm.) But that doesn't mean I don't want to be healthy. In fact, I think I have one up on a lot of people because I've always loved fruits and since hitting my late teens have developed a taste for a variety of vegetables.

However, I see a lot of gaps in the arguments that are made against certain things. They seem to be all or none. "That food is evil1 NEVER partake! NEVER drink soda; if it's regular it uses corn syrup; if it's diet, it uses Aspartame." Really? I can't ever drink a glass of Root Beer? Or even on a lesser side, which one is better of the two? If I need some caffeine because I'm going to be driving and there was no way around it, what's better to buy, the diet pepsi? or the regular?

These are the things I'm more interested in, but they seem to be the things that no one is addressing. Instead, it seems to come in the extremes of never and always.

And it makes me wonder. Is it worth looking for the answers? Is it worth spending the extra money for organic milk? (It's double the price. . . That's not a small change, especially on a tight budget.) Does it really matter if I eat butter or margarine, since really I don't eat it that much anyway? Honestly, if it were just me, I wouldn't change it because I eat so little of the stuff. But Zack eats it, too.

I know people who'd say no, don't worry about it. And I know people who'd say yes. The problem is, I'm not sure which one I am. And the people I know who'd say "no" have a lot of health problems that the people who say "yes" say their way can help with. . . . I don't want to be on daily doses of drugs when I'm forty. I really don't. If eating differently can keep me off medication? That's something I'm very interested in.

Why Get Depressed?

The above has been a topic of some confusion and speculation that I've heard on different occasions. Why have so many preachers and missionaries struggle so much with depression? What are their reasons? What brought it about?

I offer two possiblities, two reasons why people who are closer to God might be drawn into depression - and not because of bad things. It's kind of interesting: Our sin nature can twist all the good things God made and use them for evil; but God can always straighten them out again and use them for good. But that's a different topic.

1) They took sin seriously. Look at the Apostle Paul, how much he hated what he had been, and the many things he said about himself. Chief of sinners, wretched man. I believe that the closer people are to God, the more seriously they take sin, the more they understand just how awful it is - the more they see it the same way that God does. They see themselves more clearly and therefore, they see more sin within their lives, and they see sin as far more terrible a thing than most. The world downplays sin, says it's not evil, laughs it off or even applauds it. Sadly, Christians have a tendency to become calloused to sin, and the only remedy I can see is a close relationship with God. Walking with Him makes a person see things more and more as they are and less and less with the blindfold of a sinner's eyes. As they draw closer to God, the Light of the world illuminates and the scales fall away.

Whether this applies to their personal lives and failures or frustration with their ministries and the lack of commitment from those around them or the flippancy with which sin is treated in the world and in the church, is irrelevant. The point is that when we see things as they are, it's easy to be overcome with the extent of depravity and fall into depression. For Martin Luther, a man who possessed a very sensitive conscience, this was a struggle.

2) They loved God. Consider, if you will, that feeling of absolute joy and gratitude that filled your heart when you first believed. Consider the happiness and the flood of love that was so overwhelming and think about how much that love spurred you to want to give your all for the Christ Who saved you. Now He gives you a task and you're excited because you're loving Him with all your heart and strength and mind. And you reach out to do that task. . . and you fail utterly. You think of the disappointment you've just caused Your Father; you mull over the great price that had to be paid for that failure; you consider how grieved the Spirit is, how much you have (or could have) hurt those around you, those other ones who are precious to the Savior, how your action or inaction has brought shame to the body of Christ and pulled down the work of God.

Inevitably, you grieve. You confess. But there is a danger. Not with the grieving, I don't think. Being sorry, truly, deeply repentant, is good. Grief can cause determination. Grief can lead to a closer walk with God, a better rein on the sin nature, a more prayerful life, a better attitude in service. Real, true repentance followed by the joy of God's forgiveness is the initial burst of flame that ignites a Christian's heart in the first place. Holding your failures in front of your eyes is a good reminder to be watchful, to be careful not to think that you stand on your own - to remember that it's through Christ's strength and by God's will that we do this or that.

But that danger I mentioned comes, I believe, from the inability to accept God's forgiveness when asking for it, when confessing, when grieving for the sin. It becomes, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" Instead of drawing nearer to God in the warmth of forgiveness and the renewed state of fellowship, the rift remains because we feel unworthy or because we feel defeated. Then, the lack of fellowship sends us into a spiral of depression. Depression debilitates and leads to apathy.

And those, I think, are two reasons why people who are close to God, who we might think should not have a problem with such things, could very easily struggle with depression. Men who are outwardly successful in their ministries, men that we look at and admire for all they accomplished for the glory of God. It is interesting that no matter how close we get in our relationship to God on this earth, that there is always a level for sin to enter in. The Christian who is far from God and close to the world may experience the sin of apathy and a flippant attitude toward sin; the Christian who is striving to serve God with all they are falls prey to the sin of depression because they hate themselves for failing.

We are never safe in this world, but something was very simplified for me in church this morning. I knew it, but not like this, not this clearly, and I certainly had never realized that Christ had said it. And I, being a lover of simplicity, found it quite a lovely thought.

"If ye continue in My Word, then are ye My disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:31-32 What I hadn't realized before in this way was that continuing in the Word is what reveals the truth, which is what makes us free. In other words, when we stray, we fall. When we follow, we're free.

How simply Christ said things. How complicated we sometimes make it.

Just a Thought

I find it interesting that I feel the need to pray most often while I'm reading the Bible. . . . Usually right smack dab in the middle of a chapter/section, which tends to bother my obsessive compulsiveness. . . . And that's just one more thing I have to submit. Maybe it's God telling me that I'm not being flexible enough in other areas either. That my OC behavior is getting out of control.

This has happened many times (the feeling that I need to pray NOW while in the middle of reading), but I've never really thought about why.

Another thought: I was in a book study back in Michigan and we talked a lot about prayer and Bible reading and how important it is to do it regularly, and keep your mind focused on what you're doing and not let it wander. To a degree, I agree. But isn't prayer a conversation? And pretty much a one-sided one? If prayer is a conversation, then why can't you talk about whatever pops into your head? Why does prayer have to be so structured? The Psalms aren't structured like that. They go back and forth and here and there. They ask questions; the writer addresses themselves and God in the same breath.

I go off on rabbit trails when I'm talking to Zack. Why is it wrong to go off on rabbit trails when talking to God? Are there things I'm not allowed to bring up to Him? That's a ridiculous thought.

I wonder these things because it seems like people want to put rules on praying, and I don't know why. Because we're to reverence Him? But we're also supposed to be able to climb into His lap and say, "Hi, Daddy." And you can do both at the same time. Do you realize that little children speak to their parents in a very scattered way? They'll talk about what they did two minutes ago and then what they did five days ago without a pause. How is it wrong if we do that with God?

Praying is difficult enough for me. Most of the time, I'm not a big talker - with anyone. There are days, of course, where I won't shut up, but most of the time, I don't say a whole lot - I'm a listener. I think this is why reading the Bible is so much easier for me. I love reading the Bible. It's God talking to me. That's why I love hearing preachers - there's something in the message God wants me to hear, for now or something that will get lodged in my brain and come up later.

Basically, I don't think there's anything wrong with letting your mind think about different things, as long as your focus is on communicating with God.

In case it's not clear what I'm talking about, I'll give this example: Women have the tendency of thinking about several different things at once, which means while I'm reading my book, I'm thinking about what I'm going to make for dinner, and when I'm going to sweep the floor, and how warm/cold it's going to be so I can pick an outfit for church tomorrow. Some would say that praying while thinking about all those things is wrong, or at least, improper - not best.

I disagree. Because that means that I can't talk to God about what I'm going to make for dinner and I can't wonder to Him what the weather is going to be like. It's not like God can't keep up with all of my thoughts, like Zack might get lost if I spouted all that one after the other. If I could think a thousand things at once, then He can hear them all too and follow without any issue. So if I'm praying for God to heal someone who's ill and thinking about my daily chores and what I need to do next, I don't think there's a problem. After all, what better Person is there to ask for help in arranging the order of my day so that it's the most efficient? Who else can give me the idea of what to wear because He knows exactly what the temperature is going to be and how I'm going to feel in it? If I can pray for my friend and pray for myself in the same moment (or very close to it), does that make either prayer mean less? Do you have to spend a certain amount of time praying/thinking about a subject for it to be fervent? Is it bad to pray in a short sentence for something pray about three other things and then come back to it? Don't we speak that way all the time?

Here's another question: Does prayer have to be in words, thought or spoken? From Romans 8, I tend to think no. Which means that while I've been typing this and not really had the proper brain power to word a prayer, have I actually, in my heart, been praying for my brother who needs a job, because he's been in my thoughts and on my heart the entire time? Does that count? What constitutes prayer? If you can pray and drive, can you pray and type? How much of your brain/emotions/heart has to be in it for it to count?

I think people make rules about prayer that just aren't there. Prayer is a wonderful gift. I don't think we should try to block it in so much. It has to be done this way or that way; it must last this long; you must pray when you get up in the morning or before you go to sleep. Why?

How can we hope to determine these things without Scripture specifically telling us? Maybe I need to read some books on the subject. . . . . In closing, I stress that these are just my current opinions and not learned ones at that. Just experiential ones.