i used to wonder why did you bother
Pretty okay last couple days. That pastors breakfast I went to was good despite how tired I was. Chip Ingram is pastor at Santa Cruz Bible Church and he was the key speaker there. He's really good. I just wish I hadn't been so tired. It was kinda funny sitting next to my pastor and struggling to stay awake but failing some of the time. I did manage to win one of the raffle drawing things there and won a bunch of books...I probably left the breakfast with 300 bucks of free books...and not all of them are crap. I tell you, once I get my own place and some bookshelf space people are going to think I'm the most well-read mofo they know. Of course I won't be, but I can be like the Great Gatsby and have my volumes of books.
I genuinely enjoy going through Bible stories and drawing lessons from them more than I do taking a concept and drawing from various portions of scripture to teach on it. I believe the word for what I like is "expository" teaching. I don't mind the other way...but I am realizing that for me at least, this way seems to encourage more Biblical literacy, and an understanding of the text. Not to mention the fact that if you only teach with scattered verses you downplay the importance of context and the overarching narrative that is the Bible - and therefore lose much of its richness, if not the whole point. So of course it's likely a balance is necessary between expository and thematic - right now I'm simply enjoying expository.
I took an interesting "Battleground God" test yesterday. The test analyzes the logical consistency of some of your beliefs about God and you take hits and/or bite bullets based on the continuity of your answers. Pretty interesting. I did well, thankfully, as the test stated: "The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent."
I took the hit when I agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but in a later question implied it was okay to believe in God in the same instance. I don't think the God question included a lack of argument in favor of God as a qualifier - but it is still something to consider. I am sure there are some things I irrationally find it harder to believe in than other things. For instance, people can be totally convinced that they see ghosts or aliens but I just about never believe them. Or when people start talking about faith healings or "signs and wonders" I often attribute that to hysteria. Do I have good reason to do so or do I simply dismiss beliefs that are in realms I've made my mind up on while believing on the inside that I'm open minded and rationally sound in my own head? (run-on schmun-on)