making the connection for Ken
Silva’s latest post on Rob Bell and this video from CNN:
And in fact, one of them explains, “And [Rob Bell] just basically says sexuality is connecting, like, creation to the Creator.†Just curious; if human sexuality is connecting creation to the Creator, then where would Jesus Christ fit in to this “positive message†from the “pastor without all the answers†which is “not focused solely on what’s right, and what is wrong�
Um, last time I checked, Jesus is God — and God is The creator. Is it really that hard to make the connection?  Or is is just getting harder to get some real juicy headlines?  I am so glad we have a right reverend, such as Silva, to give all the answers to those of us who are without all the answers.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Sex is not a venue for connecting with the Creator, faith in Jesus Christ is the only way of “connecting” to God. These types of “reaches” emanate from the western obsession with sex. Again we have been reduced to sex even in church.
Prayer, witnessing, God’s Word, fasting, and all these are now somewhat passe. You hold a conference on sex and you will have a stampede.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Bell doesn’t say that sex is a way of connecting to God. Sex God actually talks very little about the physical act of sex. Bell says that people are made for intimacy with God and that they often try to fill this void with physical intimacy with others. Ken’s post just further proves he has no idea what he’s talking about.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Yeah… what Phil said…
Seriously, Sex God - apart from the title - has more to do with our relationship with God and our relationships with each other than it does with ’sex’, particularly the way sex is treated in pop culture.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:31 am
To be fair, Ken was commenting on a comment, not on the book. And his critique of the comment was bang on. Maybe the comment wasn’t an accurate description of the book, but that’s a different matter all together.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:23 am
I don’t see how Ken’s comment is anything but a non-sequitur.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
ianmcn,
could you explain how his critique of the comment was bang on? If you listen to the clip, the “like” was insignificant. So, you could basically say the quote was “sexuality is connecting creation to the Creator.” Which is a very important thing. When we realize that God created sex and has a very specific time and place for it with his creation, then it changes all the rules.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Man, I want to be able to get away with responding to titles of things instead of actually interacting with the materials as a whole (we see this here with Sex God, elsewhere with the gods aren’t angry)
It makes me suprised that he did a little more work (but still missed the point) on Velvet Elvis and we didn’t just get articles about how much of a sinner and false teacher Elvis was and how painting on Velvet is inappropriate for Christians because they didn’t do it in the Bible..