$2 Whore

I recently took the time to attend an MCC - type "church" service.  The purpose was to see where these types of congregations are 'at'.  Upon leaving the service & visiting some friends, one of them joked that I smelled like a "2-dollar-whore" (whatever that is).  Why?  It was all the cologne that clung to me.  The interesting thing is: I hadn't put any on (just a shot of musk on my crotch after showering).  So why did I stink like the perfume isle at the Dollar Store?

It was the service.  A service that freaked me out -- not only in the shallowness of theology, but the preoccupation with the gay/AIDS subject, & all the touchy-feely occasions that were made to violate people's personal space.  Because I'm a fairly good look'n guy, -  I've  learned to watch people with my peripheral vision to check out what they're 'checking out'..  What I saw was some of the guys in the congregation eying me as I sat there, -- guys that I wouldn't desire a physical relationship with (much less be smeared with "10,000-flowers perfume" & kiss). Yet during the "greeting" phase, many of these men seemed to think it ok to step into the personal space of a complete stranger (me) to hug (yes, I've been in other churches where the hug thing goes on - which I tolerate), but several of the men decided that a kiss was in order too.  I made sure that my posturing made it clear that a "kiss" was not in my constitution.  Paul wrote that we are not to use our freedom in Christ to indulge in the "sinful nature", -- yet this is exactly what I feel was going on -- that the context of a "church service" was used as a smokescreen by certain people who wanted to take liberties that would not be permitted in other contexts.  While nobody can be sure of the intent of another; -- I do know that Paul wrote that there should not be even a hint of sexual immorality among the congregation -- but what I experienced, stunk of it, -- evidenced by the fact that I stunk of other's perfume after leaving.  I think I know the difference between a greeting, & being hit on. 

I was told that the service is called a "liturgical" format.  This means singing, responsive reading, scripture reading, standing, sitting, standing, sitting (& did I mention standing & sitting).  Each time we stood & the music started I almost expected someone to take a chair away the the person left standing would have to leave.  After about 45 minutes, I kept hoping they'd take my chair.

What was absent (other than God), was any type of expository on the Scripture.  Oh, a section of Scripture was quoted -- but there was no follow up on it.  No dissertation!  I can't remember the last time I was in a service that honored God with so many lips but so little spirit (well, OK ... I can ... It was in a Baptist church)Perhaps the conclusion I ended up with was that I was as uncomfortable in this "gay-friendly church" as I was in some fundamentalist circles.  One being anti-"gay" as the picketers shown on the right; -- and the other extreme being as  "pro-gay" - without seeming to censure inappropriate behavior.  Both types share the same folly: Both fail to divide the issue properly. And both suffer from a reprobate mind.    Amos wrote that a time would come when men would hunger and thirst -- not for food/water, but for hearing of the Word of God.  Ironically, with a televangelist on every other channel -- we are quickly reaching a point when lots of people talk about God, without sharing God's message.  I believe that this is ultimately due to an unrepentant spirit.  One type refuses to repent of a history of hate & prejudice under the guise of "morality"; -- While the other refuses to repent of acts that lead to death.  The Spirit of God, who leads men into all truth has been poured out on the nations in this covenant; -- But the first part of the gospel message is "REPENT"!  Ironically, both extremes talk about "repentance", yet neither seem able to do so. 

Evil tends to dominate because it does not recognize boundaries.  Evil is pushy.  This is why it is necessary for men of conscience in authority to call it into account.  It is a shame to offend people under the guise of Godliness.  What would a women think if she attended a church & during the greeting she was bombarded by strange men who wanted to hug & kiss?  Why not just go to the bar?  At least there, most people ask before taking such liberties!  Likewise, a man who goes to a "gay" church & is assailed by touchy-feely-kissy men during "greeting" leaves with the impression that he's been hit on.  Do these "gay" men really think that another guy believes for a second that they shut their dick off during the "holy service"?  Nope.  The "hug" is really a "hit".  And a kiss?  Totally inappropriate.  And what does a guy feel is the "agenda" of those who "hit" on him in a church that does not call the BPT to account?  His sense of masculinity feels threatenedAnd bear in mind -- this article is the experience-summary of a Kinsey-6 G0Y.

So, this is my 1st impression of a "gay affirming" church.  I intend to visit on another occasion to see if my 1st impressions are conformed by a second witness.  This article will be appended after such time.

- G0Y GUY

2nd visit: "No change to report..."

Jonah:

That guy swallowed by the whale & spit up on the beach 3 days later: I can empathize w. his attitude.  But because the way the story is told by so many empty-heads, -let me clarify a few things to make the account of Jonah seem less preposterous:  The nature of the Hebrew language might give an impression about being "swallowed" by a whale that leads the undiscerning to believe that Jonah ended up in the whale's stomach.  He didn't.  Whales BREATHE through a blowhole.  According to the account, Jonah was cast over the side of a boat during a storm.  This would have put Jonah on the surface of the water.  Since whales breathe air, this position put him in the very position he needed to be in order to be INHALED by a surfacing whale ("dag").  It is no stretch of the imagination to envision a man being accidentally inhaled by a whale during a storm -especially during a time when the seas were filled with whales (several millennia before the advent of modern whaling). Upon being inhaled, Jonah would have slid downward toward the whales lungs through a network of ever narrowing -dividing bronchi until he was stopped at a bronchial "Y" junction with one leg down one bronchi & one down the other with the point of divergence acting as a "saddle" - so to speak.  Every time the whale took a breath, Jonah's air supply would have been refreshed.  (Because the concept of "belly" in Hebrew simply implies on the "inside or deep-within", this adjustment in perspective does not violate the wording of the account.  I felt that this clarification was necessary because too many times, -men of reason are subjected to the idiocy of religious zealots who butcher the message of scripture with a compete lack of common sense.).  After 3 days, that whale probably had a raging lung infection due to Jonah's presence (where do your think Jonas was 'relieving' himself?)! And that infection probably caused the whale to beach.  My guess is that the whale beached during high tide on angled terrain, -so when the tide went out - gravity caused the whale to roll sideways allowing Jonah to slide back in the direction he had come in and egress.  I now return you to my regularly scheduled rant...     

Jonah HATED Nineveh.  How prophetically-ironic that the whale would beach him there.  The way I figure it: Jonah must have really been burned by Nineveh sometime in his past.  He found out that God was going to wipe them out & he made sure not to intentionally interfere with divine providence.  I feel that way on many occasions; --  Having been raised by a bunch of religious bigots who couldn't litigate their way out of traffic court -- but they want to read the likes of Leviticus with a form of smug arrogance that paints them in the same light as a bunch of Pharisees who wanted to lecture Yeshua about picking grain (for recreational eating) on Shabbat. 

Not welcome by the "gay" community because of my aversion away from anal-play ... I did something that is probably uncharacteristic of most people in my situation.  I decided to pursue a walk with God regardless of what I kept hearing by religious people.  I kept putting Scripture between my ears (where it belongs).  It took a long time (a long time) for God to resnap the chalk-line of my understanding around on the Gay thing to where the Scriptural boundary is (as opposed to where so many merely say it is).  I suppose it's because I had to reason it out from the Scriptures for myself - as opposed to reading someone's book on the issue.  When I finally "understood" the entire picture, I was quite overwhelmed that such a mind job had been pulled on the entirety of Christendom --a group that I have come to realize often consists of a bunch of self-absorbed bigots sitting around trying to be "right".  In other words, many so-called "Christians" would not like the real Yeshua/Jesus - nor would they accept his claim of Messiah any more than the religious elitists of His day did. And that irony is probably the cause of the biggest fraud in the last few millennia.

So, this website happened.  It's here for (2) primary reasons I suppose:

  • Clearly explain to people who were in my type of situation - what the Scriptures really say on these related issues; and provide a glove across the face to those preaching the same dead messages I heard growing up; - Messages that can't change a man's stature an inch & are nothing more than arrogant, hypocritical & failed appeals to make yourself acceptable before God through a bastardization of Moses' Law.  It can be reasoned that Jesus taught that those preaching ex-gay messages were 2-fold children of hell (So I don't expect such as those to repent.  Nineveh's fate awaits...) 
  • Reach out to other guys/g0ys who desire a relationship with God but are hung up on the whole "gay" preaching things.  I have not been able to find a doctrinally-sound church that will not hate such as these for merely existing - but if I do stumble onto one ... I'll let you know.  The good news is that your walk with God is exactly that, & doesn't require a human being wearing a holy-dress to make the connection for you.  Acts 2 my friend.

When this site was assembled - I wanted to include content that made the self-righteous run away in legalistic mortification -- without actually being obscene. Naked men! OMG! (Can you imagine the scandal that would break out if fundamentalists had babies that were born naked?)!  Or, - naked sex among fundamentalists (as if)!

"So standing in God's presence (or at least on His planet), the fundamentalist, glancing over at the NON-REPUBLICAN,  (& checking his own posture to make sure his erection was tightly contained) - wrent his best Goodwill-suit-jacket & declared "God have mercy on that sodomite over there!  Oh what a wretched man that he is! Who shall deliver him from his body of death...Hmmm - maybe Moses...". 

Part of what helped me off the prude wagon was a realization that God thought orgasm up.  Hmmm.  He's also the One who designed "naked" in the 1st place.  Then there's that "love" issue that fundamentalists & liberals are forever trying to remove from sex.  They try to work such propaganda among same gender couples by associating sex with the anus.  Some day - the "Moral Majority" is gonna be shocked to discover that lesbians - for the most part - lack penises!  God is not the God of PRUDE; - He's the God of BALANCE.  Jesus drank wine ... but not by the barrel (Although that event where his perfect timing tapped an underground river of the stuff lets ya know that when the party is important - he's an unequaled helpmeet to the host.). 

So - in the interests of not being a 'prude', there are risqué images & stories on this site that all attempt to relay a basic message: Love has perspectives that are not traditional & do not violate the covenant of grace.  The other message they relay is: "Some people find prudes, fundamentalists & arse-pounding propagandists all equally offensive.

Is the site theologically perfect in all respects?  Well, unlike the theologically perfect publications of fundamentalists (that's a joke ...BTW), -- no, I'm sure that somewhere we're out of line here.  Hey, at least I'm up front with it.  Hey: We're not out picketing "Harry Potter" - see ... we noticed that it happens to be filed in the "FICTION" section.  I've noticed that many fundamentalists don't seem to read the labels or simply don't know the difference between FICTION vs. NONfiction (which is pretty obvious once they begin lecturing).  So ... if you happen to be reading the G0Y STORIES (all potentially fiction, & some true - but we're not tell'n which is which) ... and somebody has an orgasm not authorized by whatever law you think should be used to determine such things; ... Then relegate the story in your mind to the "FICTION" pile.  If you read the P or K words (PhUCK \ KhUNT) in a manner not consistent with fine literary taste ... please forgive the author's style.

Like Jonah: I got the message. This website contains the primary points.  My message is the same: "Repent - purpose in your heart to accept the will of God instead of rejecting it."  And that message is one that need to be received 1st by many so-called "Christians". 

It is written:

Isa 11:3b This king won't judge by appearances or listen to rumors.

Joh 7:24 "Stop judging by appearances, but judge with righteous judgment!"

2Co 10:7 You judge by appearances? If any of you thinks you are the only ones who belong to Christ, then think again. We belong to Christ as much as you do!

Gal 2:6 Now those who were reputed to be important added nothing to my message. (What sort of people they were makes no difference to me, since God pays no attention to appearances.)

...Connect the dots...

Gal 3:27-28 For as many as were baptized [or, immersed] into Christ put on [or, clothed yourselves with] Christ. There is no Jew nor Greek, there is no slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek,.... Not but that there were such in being; and in the churches of Christ, for the primitive churches consisted of both; but the meaning is, that there is no difference between them, the middle wall of partition being broken down, and that, in the business of justification and salvation, it signified nothing whether a man was a Jew or a Greek; he was never the better for being a circumcised Jew, nor never the worse for being an uncircumcised Gentile; both by nature are equally sinners, and stand in need of the justifying righteousness of Christ, and the regenerating grace of the Spirit. The Gospel was equally preached to both, and was made useful to some of the one and of the other; and who, believing in Christ, had a right to the same ordinances and privileges of the Gospel, and shared in the same blessings of grace.

There is neither bond nor free. There were such persons in the world then, and in the churches too; nor does the Gospel dissolve the civil and natural relations and obligations men are in and under to one another, it confirms and secures them; but the sense is, that God, in calling, justifying, and saving men, is no respecter of persons, as being high and low, rich and poor, bond or free, servants or masters: he calls, justifies, and saves men of every station and condition of life; and bond slaves and servants called by grace are Christ's free men, and have an equal right as those that are free to all the immunities of the Gospel: in some Heathen nations bond slaves and servants were not admitted, only freemen, to be present at the sacred service, and worship of their deities (r); but the Gospel makes no such distinction of men in its doctrine, worship, and ordinances, which lie open to all ranks and orders of men:

there is neither male nor female; among the Heathens (s) also females were not admitted to some of their sacred rites and ceremonies; and among the Jews the males only were concerned in many things both of a civil and religious nature; no female might be heir to an inheritance with a male (t); females had no share in the civil government, nor in the priesthood; males were to appear three times a year before the Lord, and, according to their oral law, women and servants were exempted (u); the mark of circumcision, the sign of the covenant made with Abraham and his natural seed, was only upon the males; but now under the Gospel dispensation there is no distinction made between male and female as to divine things; as they are alike called by the grace of God, they have the same right to Gospel ordinances, baptism and the Lord's supper, and to every spiritual privilege.

- (Now what do you suppose becomes of a concept (I.E: "Sexual Orientation) that depends on their being "male and female", - when suddenly ... there is no male & female?)!


The apostle's design is to show the common right of believers, of every nation, condition, and sex, and to encourage the Gentiles, and demolish the pride, vanity, and boasting of the Jews, their men especially, who valued themselves upon these "three" very things which the apostle here makes no account of; as that they were Israelites and not Gentiles, freemen and not servants, men and not women; and in their public prayers they give thanks to God in this form,

"blessed be the Lord our God, the King of the world, that he hath made me an Israelite; blessed be the Lord, &c. who hath not made me a Gentile; blessed be the Lord, &c. who hath not made me a "servant"; blessed be the Lord, &c. who hath not made me a "woman";''

Instead of which at last the woman say,

"blessed be the Lord, &c. who hath made me as he pleased (w):''


for ye are all one in Christ Jesus; being alike chosen in him, united to him, redeemed by his blood, justified by his righteousness, regenerated by his Spirit, the children of God by faith in him, and heirs of the same grace and glory, they make, both Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, male and female, as it were but one new man in him; one body, of which he is the head, one spiritual seed of Abraham and of Christ.

(r) Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dierum, l. 2. c. 14. Aurel. Victor. de orig. Gent. Rom. c. 8. Aristophanis Thesmophor, & Bourdin in ib. p. 782. (s) Alex. ab Alex. ib. Aurel. Victor, c. 6. (t) Maimon. Nechalot, c. 1. sect. 1, 2. (u) Misn. Chagiga, c. 1. sect. 1. (w) Sedor Tephillot, fol. 2. 2. Ed. Basil. fol. 4. 1. Ed. Amst. T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 13. 2.