Pornography or Porn Addiction - FOR MEN ONLY

Sorry ladies. This single blog entry that you are reading - I am writing as a man, for other men. There will probably be things that women will not understand here, so please, no questions from anyone other than men here. Of course, all my other blog entries are unisex, so lots of choices for the estrogen set amongst us.

OK, where to begin with this one. I guess I can start by explaining why on earth I have chosen such a strange topic to discuss, and why I am targeting men only. I would think that the answer is obvious, but perhaps it is not. It is my belief, and I believe that somehow, this can be substantiated by statistics of some sort, that the vast majority of pornography consumers are men. OK, there are always exceptions and that while I am sure that there are more than a few women who have a growing collection of porn, I think they are in the minority.

I am also targeting this towards men because I know that they can relate to what I'm saying here (at least with the struggle itself, although perhaps not with my conclusions). If you can't relate in any degree to this topic, I think you either have your head in the sand in denial, or you are vision-impaired. My hope here is to give men some semblance of encouragement and by reading this, they will know that they are not alone in their struggle with porn. Specifically, I am targeting Christian men, whose struggle would be more pronounced.

I have some other observations which you will not find anywhere else, since it comes from personal observation from my opinionated self. It is my belief that the reason why so many Asian men who are either born or primarily raised in North America are attracted to Caucasian females is because it is mostly Caucasian females that they see in porn. If you think otherwise, contact me and I'll be happy to discuss with you.

I need to warn you at the outset that while I am not going to get into any explicit descriptions on anything or engage in any visuals with words, this probably is something that you don't want to read with kids around, or at work.

I've had people with whom I have spoken with about this topic question whether this is a struggle at all. One person told me that I was "weak" because I need to take certain evasive actions to make sure I am not in certain places at certain times (like on the beach in the middle of the summer, or at a Hooter's restaurant). I concurred with him - yes, I don't trust myself and yes, it sucks that I can't go to certain places. You know why? Scandily clad women - not good for my brain, especially given my past with extensive exposure to all sorts of porn. That's how it's going to be like now, and that's how it's going to be like for the rest of my life. Now, people have also used the argument that "hey, you're just looking, it's not like you're touching." That is technically true, but let's consider that argument. How many people have had affairs that have not started gradually with a glance? Let's face it, men are vision-oriented, which is why we like the "look" of things - the new technological gadget, the new sports car, the new golf clubs, the new house, etc. Women like the look of things as well, but I would dare argue that women are not as sexually stimulated by visuals as men are. For the Christian, the argument is pretty plain and simple. Jesus says in even looking at a woman lustfully is no different than actually committing adultery, since it's done in the heart already (Matthew 6, I believe). The heart is responsible for many of our actions. Let's also consider what I just said above about a gradual progression of lust starting with visual stimulation using a Biblical example: David seeing Bathsheba bathing in public. That started what turned out to be a disastrous turn of events that eventually led to her husband's not-so-accidental death. Even Job, our model of perseverance in tough times, has been cited as saying that he made a covenant with his eyes not to look at a virgin, or young girl, something that has not been the most cited of Scripture verses. Men are indeed visually stimulated, and I don't think there is any doubt about that.

The problem with pornography addiction is that it is seldom seen as a problem, as much as something like a drinking addiction or a gambling addiction or a drug addiction has often been attributed to be. These days, it's almost given borderline comical treatment in that it is very societally pervasive in anything from print to TV to radio to any other medium of communication. Heck, a pizza shop in Winnipeg, I recently heard has started to make the headlines in that it places a large nude photo of a woman inside the pizza box (underneath the pizza). It seems to be a popular mindset that watching porn is something that you do in private that has no direct impact on others, particularly for the unmarried person, even the unmarried Christian believer. Here's where I find the problem to be: 1) you are engaged in fantasy, so the women (the way they look and act) are generally unrealistic. In real life, women (even the closest women like spouses) are not always sexually available to you, especially if you are a father with kids or have the general responsibilities most men have. 2) this is perhaps the most troubling component of pornography - it caters to the ever-increasing human need to not be satisfied with what you have, but want more. In this case, we are talking about a sexual gravitation from basic nudity to hardcore pornography to who knows what else (I don't think I need to say). How many boys started out with looking at bra and bikini photos and then move to softcore porn like Playboy, and eventually to the hardcore stuff? Related is point 3) There has been a proven link between sexually aggressive males who end up committing sexual crimes and their exposure to porn. It is my belief that every male who watches porn, who gravitates to the next level of hard-core-ness, has the propensity to commit a sexual crime if the circumstances were ideal for them to do so (such as they can get away with it, etc.). These points, of course, ignore other important aspects which relate to proper socialization and if you are talking Christian circles, marital fidelity and so forth. 4) Porn is set up for instant gratification. Real life is obviously not like that that. I won't bother mincing words here - the vast majority, if not all men, who watch porn do not watch it like they watch an amazing putt from Tiger Woods on TV. I would contend that most, if not all men, use porn to relieve sexual tension through masturbation (by the way, if you do this while watching golf on television, might I suggest that there are other issues that you may wish to deal with that are beyond the scope of this blog).

Now, here is where my conclusions will draw the ire of many people, and where I will likely differ from most people who look at this issue. I do not believe pornography addiction can be successfully treated to the point where it just goes away and never comes back. I do not believe that it can be cured. It can be controlled, but that's about it. I would liken that to these organizations who claim that former homosexuals have changed to heterosexuals through their program. I don't doubt a person's desire to change, and I don't doubt that they genuinely are able to live a new life. I am not a psychologist or a Christian minister or counsellor, so I'm sure that those folks will take me to task on my view, but as a guy who has had a lot of exposure with pornography, I can tell you that the underlying lustfulness never goes away, and yes, this is even after you get married, and yes, even after you become saved. Thankfully, I have too much love for my wife and son to want to do something that will damage that relationship. The temptation will always be there for men. And as a believer, I am conscious of the fact that pornography is not acceptable to God (Scriptural passages about avoiding and fleeing sexual immorality, etc.) and no believer should think it is harmless. Sexual immorality is discussed frequently in the New Testament because it has always been a problem in the world - always has been, and I will maintain that it will always be.

What about the people who say that they used to be porn addicts for 20 years and they are able to kick the habit just like that and attribute it to the power of God, and in interviews, they say they are clean? Well, I certainly am in no position to judge their hearts; however, practically speaking, let me concede one point - I absolutely believe that God has the power to instantly take away someone's appetite for pornography. I am not, however totally convinced that God always works like this - remember Paul had that "thorn in the flesh" which we don't know what it was? He asked God to take it away and God chose not to? From a total human nature perspective, also consider the overall picture. IF you are a celebrity or on TV, were addicted to porn, and have relied on God to help you overcome it, make a public profession what you were like before, what you are like now, and to what you attribute the change...let's say that you failed one day and were looking at porn again after a few years - then you are on a Billy Graham special when someone asks you how things are going, are you likely going to say, "pretty good, but once in a while I give into temptation?" Although that's an honest and sincere answer, you're unlikely to hear it in Christian circles. That's why my position is never that you can totally get away from it. You have to constantly have your guard up and yield to God to help you to overcome the addiction - as I believe that He is the only One who can intervene - and I'm not just saying that - I truly believe it.

Still, I take the best precautions that I am able, since God did give me a brain and some common sense to boot. I already mention that I avoid certain places, but that's not where the battle lies. The battle lies in making sure that you don't get in a sitaution where something seems very innocent and you let your guard down. There are TV shows that I avoid since I know that there are probably suggestive enough themes, and as a general rule, I rent movies rather than go to the theatre - at least I can turn it off if it's crap, and not waste as much money). I generally make it a point not to hang around other men (and yes, even other Christians) who have no problem making not overtly sexual, but innuendo-laced comments about women's looks - ie. watching a beach volleyball game or watching a bunch of girls walking by and commenting on them in ways that is probably borderline sexual. It's just not good for me. However the biggest temptation for me (and I would think for many men) is the internet, particularly the privacy and lack of trails that come with it. As an IT guy who is very well versed in technology, I can tell you that if you have a porn addiction that you want to abandon, here are things that I feel DO NOT work (just my opinion), and I will go to my grave arguing that if you are using these things, you are fighting a losing battle.

Killing/disabling your internet access. This is the stupidest thing that I have ever heard. Guess what will happen? Your appetite will only build and then you will either re-instate it, or go elsewhere for your pornography fix. I've talked with too many men who have tried this...and tried this...

Similarly, using self-imposed software tools is absolutely ridiculous. If you know how to install it, you can probably figure out how to uninstall it, and if you don't know how, or are restricted by some password that you get your spouse or significant other to set, you'll do your research if you want it bad enough and find a way around it. These types of software are good for restricting minors and kids (who I don't even think should be using the internet to begin with) from accidentally accessing objectionable material, but for the porn addict wanting to get off the porn bandwagon, it's a waste of time.

Cold turkey does not work - promising yourself that you will not look at porn is effective - until you fail and make another promise once again as a result.

Despite what is mentioned in many Christian publications about using a buddy system for accountability, I don't believe that works. You can always lie to your buddy.

So what works? Here's what I can tell you. Training your eyes. No, that is not the same as cold turkey. When you starve your eyes of things that can potentially give you a boner, what you are doing is deliberately conditioning yourself to turn away and not look at anything that you know will have potential to tempt you. I'm not just talking porn here - I'm talking about avoiding conversation or contact with the female customer at work who wears clothes that accent body parts (if you think I am being stupid here, have you actually attempted to look someone in the face only during conversation while their cleavage is leaking out and jumping out at you? It's almost impossible to do). Or choosing not to spend time with the folks who tell the sexually suggestive jokes. I'm talking about walking on the sidewalk in the summertime with your head down, staring at the pavement. This is very hard to do, trust me, but it is effective. The pressure to look will be intense, and yes, you may even have friends that think that you are gay. The best thing this will do is offer consistency in ensuring that you get into the habit of not looking. I'm not talking willing yourself not to look, simply forming a regular habit of admitting where you are most vulnerable and taking steps to counter it by not glancing in the first place. After a while, it will get easier. You may not always be successful, but it's the first important step to take. For the Christian, I would also augment that with lots of prayer (I know, people will laugh at me but I can attest first-hand the power of prayer and the fact that it does work). Pray at points when you are tempted - other Christian guys I know have done this and say it works better than you may think.

The Bible addresses temptation in something like 1 Corinthians 10:13 (I believe) where it says God does not tempt us, but that no temptation has seized us except what is common to man. And that God is faithful and if we flee or run away from it, God will put a cover above us. More importantly, God knows our limits and what we can bear in terms of temptation (that is a gross paraphrase, but it's the main points).

For the internet issues - if you are going to spend a lot of time on the internet, you need to find something to keep you busy, almost displacing your time in between doing the things that you need to do. It is no secret that I spent copious amounts of time on eBay and craigslist, making money selling stuff. But being on the internet a lot has its temptations, so instead of deliberately having dead time in between eBay or craigslist sales, I do a lot of writing as you can tell. Stuff like this blog is good to get my natural skills and talents honed, but it also keeps me busy doing something productive so I'm not sitting around searching for porn. I also participate in discussion groups and forums - I do find the internet very handy, but I just need to constantly be aware of my surroundings. I also find that being a computer geek, giving up using the computer and using the internet is completely unrealistic for me, so I play a lot of computer video games (think what you will about video games, but I'd rather have my kid playing fun video games anyday, rather than looking for porn - and yes, I realize some video games have objectionable material, but I'm not talking about those games).

In the end, I think that just like any other issue with which one struggles, it ultimately comes down to how much one wants to change, if they feel that a change is needed. I can tell you firsthand that this is not a problem without consequences and this is not a problem without lingering after-effects. It has the potential to ruin relationships and marriages and friendships, and that's hardly something I would consider innocent.

Toronto Argonauts Quarterback Controversy

You may or may not care about sports, but if you do, and follow the CFL (Canadian Football League), there's an interesting development brewing in Toronto Argonauts land.

Damon Allen (yes, brother of NFL hall of famer Marcus Allen), a CFL all-star, who has been in the league for 20+ years as a quarterback, who also happens to be around 43-years-old, has just been relegated to third string QB behind Michael Bishop and Mike McMahon (two considerably younger guys). I am shocked that Damon is still playing, but he is able to stay semi-competitive, so the argument goes - why not, just let him play until he either embarrasses himself or decides to end his career on his terms?

Yeah, but here's the thing...Doug Flutie aside, how many QBs in their late 30s (or even early 40s, which is a real stretch) can stay competitive consistently? Even if he can still play, he will have to realize that his speed, reaction time, and scrambling will simply not be what it used to be, and if he is playing against guys half his age, it is only a matter of time (and when you're 43, it is really only a matter of time) before it's time to hang up the jersey. Even in the last game he played, he was yanked for Bishop at the end of the game and Bishop played well - unfortunately, Allen wasn't able to put it in the end zone. He'll no doubt make it to the CFL hall of fame, but with Bishop playing well last game, may as well give the young kids a chance. I mean, we're not talking about the Esks here years ago who had Ricky Ray AND Jason Maas, two young skilled QBs with a long future. This isn't even Dickenson/Printers a few years back in B.C. (personally, I think they should have kept Printers on and over time phased Printers as the starting QB, as much as I like Dickenson).

McMahon played well in training camp and deserves a shot. Besides, there is nothing wrong with slowly phasing onself out and passing the torch. Look at Stevie Y. in Detroit or even Messier at the end - they weren't putting up career numbers in the end, but still had the sense to mentor the younger guys who will one day fill their shoes. And I'd say both guys are considered pretty classy guys, team-player types.

All that being said, it may be that the media is blowing this out of proportion. Never once have I heard Damon complain about the lack of play time or that he is now third-string with the playbook on the sidelines. I think that while Pinball Clemons is a really swell guy (I've met him before as he dropped by our school once when I was in theological college), he wants to be sensitive to Damon's feelings as a veteran all-star CFL quarterback. I heard Clemons on a sports-based radio talk show this morning on the way to work, and he said that Damon was disappointed, but not upset, and is willing to do whatever it takes to help the team.

Homosexuality and the Church

Well, I've been doing this for a few months and have readers in both Canada and the U.S. (and who knows where else). I see that my blogs are not searchable over Google, so I must be getting the word out. I've talked about both current issues and my own experiences, but what I really started this blog for, was to give opinion. I've decided that I'm going to start slapping down my views on several issues that, even in evangelical Christian circles, people generally try not to touch with a 10-foot javelin. One of these issues is the whole issue of homosexuality. Many people in today's left-leaning society would take me to task and tell me that there is no issue, and I'm just fanning the flames of intolerance (one of the favourite catch-all phrases of the liberal left). Worse, I would be labelled the infamous "homophobic" label for my views, which I suppose is supposed to somehow be on par with being called a racist.

Let me deal with this one first. Homophobic, is, by definition to mean that one is afraid of homosexuals. I am not afraid of homosexuals, just like I am not afraid of heterosexuals. So let's state that first. I know people who are gay, and I work with people who are gay, and hell, I found out that my old college roommate was gay - I still talk to him. I am not afraid of homosexuals. The problem these days is that if people somehow disagree with some the beliefs or behaviour of another group, they will get labels placed on them (sort of like people who point out that there is a problem with crime in black communities in urban areas - they then get labelled a racist...I tell you, there is no better way to create future racists than to alienate people to voice valid opinions (and yes, I agree, how they voice it matters). Go ahead, throw your darts at me - I'll be happy to absorb them. I've always called a spade a spade, to the chagrin of others, and that ain't going to change any time soon.

Where I draw the line on this issue is that I absolutely, unequivocally do not support what people call the gay "lifestyle". What does this mean? It means that I do not believe in gay romance, gay marriage, gay adoption - in other words, anything that would start eating away at what God has placed as His model of life-long marriage relationships between a man and a woman. Despite what many folks who choose not to have children will say, the fact of the matter is, married people do have a responsibility (obligation is too strong of a word) to procreate and continue to fill the earth. I think that is why God intended to put a woman and man together in marriage (also to satisfy each other, but as we're not doing a study on Song of Solomon, that will have to wait till another time). That is God's design. Men and men and women and women cannot biologically procreate. Men and women also complement each other in terms of personality, able to meet needs mutually (ie. women crave love, men crave respect). I don't believe such a balance can be achieved in a homosexual relationship.

Notice I did not discuss much in terms of sexuality, but I will now (THE NEXT PARTS ARE A BIT EXPLICIT SO USE DISCRETION)...some people will use the silly smokescreen that they don't believe in gay relationships because of the gay sex part - so let's be quite frank here. Gay sex can only be constituted mainly in two ways: oral sex and anal sex. The problem with using those two sex acts as the determining factor as to why the lifestyle is not acceptable, is that heterosexuals can and do engage in both, yet I don't hear incriminations raining down on straight folks. Now, it is very true that the Bible calls for a man not to lie with a man as with a woman. So basically, men should not be having sexual relations with one another. How it manifests itself is irrelevant, in my opinion. Now, if you want to know my opinion of anal sex, I can tell you - I would probably classify it as not being as "natural" as penile-vaginal intercourse. The anus is not really a naturally lubricated area, and since there is far greater chance of infection and bacteria, it's probably not the greatest place to be (and that is a generalization for men and women).

All that being said, let me generally state that I believe that many churches in North America have not handled this issue properly (with both sides of the coin). I want to focus on this, since much of the opposition to homosexuality is coming out of the evangelical Christian church. I think that churches have not thought this issue through and simply say "it is wrong!" (what is wrong?) and "that is disgusting" (which I can agree with, but I think there's a much more intelligent and logical way to discuss issues rather than name calling and belittling. Conversely, some churches have approached the issue in an effort to not offend and be compassionate and inclusive. I think this is more catering to today's "accept everyone and don't offend anyone" climate. These churches, I believe, are not looking at what Scripture is teaching.

Let me publicly state that I do agree with some homosexuals and lesbians who said that Christians oftentimes are guilty of having a double-standard for themselves and others. They say that homosexuality is wrong, yet they don't condemn gambling (yes, lottery tickets or being in the office lottery pool counts as gambling, folks!), don't condemn as strongly pre-marital sex, don't condemn relationships/marriage between Christians and non-Christians (which Scripture clearly warns against), don't condemn drunkenness, foul language amongst Christians, or even not showing compassion to the less fortunate, as Jesus taught). The same churches which would elevate homosexuality to the gravest of sins will have no problem raising their kids not to marry black people or using the "n" word freely in their social circles. All are great points, and I would absolutely agree that it is hard to take a Christian seriously who condemns homosexuality, yet has their own sins that they seem to place on a different sliding scale.

Here's how I believe churches need to handle the issue: 1) since Scripture clearly indicates that homosexual sexual relations is wrong, churches need to ensure that those who are in such relationships are rebuked (just as they should rebuke common-law relationships between men and women or pre-marital sexual relationships between men and women). 2) Churches need to distinguish that there is a difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. What am I talking about here? I do not believe it is wrong to be tempted or struggle with certain things, including homosexual thoughts. Either acting on them or entertaining them is where it becomes sinful. In this vein, 3) I would have no problems welcoming a person who struggles with homosexual thoughts as a member of my church, so long as they remain chaste (ie. do not engage in homosexual relations or sexual relations), and they recognize that Scripture teaches that homosexual behaviour is sinful). It's no different than welcoming a straight person who struggles with lust, but has it under control). Ordaining a minister who is has leanings toward homosexuality, yet chaste and recognizes that homosexual sex is sinful, is another issue, one on which I haven't come to exact conclusions, but of course, I should let you know that I do not support women in minister positions and I generally believe that senior ministers for churches should ideally be married, so I guess I probably would not support a single man who has struggled with homosexuality, as a church leader, for the same reason that I would not support a married man who struggles with undressing women with his eyes).

Some other items. One, is that the argument is made that so many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and there are so many heterosexual relationships where the woman is being abused or beaten - surely give homosexual relationships a chance. I can, of course, never conclusively say that it is not better for a woman who is in a relationship where she gets the shit kicked out of her every night, to be in a loving relationship with another woman who doesn't abuse her. But I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. No one in their right mind would support a marriage where the husband constantly physically beats the wife (unless you are from the part of the world known for suicide bombers). But I find the problem in using this argument is you are using emotions in favour of the argument, rather than thinking things through. Agree, the woman should get out of the physically abusive relationship. She can always find another man. But let's say she wants kids and as a father, I know how important it is for my son to have both a mother AND a father. My wife brings stuff to my son which I cannot bring, and I bring stuff to my son that my wife cannot bring. That is God's design. But if you are a Christian, it is good to consider what the Bible says as well, not just your own feelings. Otherwise, what's to prevent a married man who is not happy with his sex life, to go over to the other lady at church who is having marriage problems and getting it on after Sunday service, at a local hotel? Certainly, he is feeling better and is getting his sexual needs met, but is what he is doing RIGHT? Unfortunately, that is the question many Christians are not asking themselves.

There is another argument regarding monogamy, that I find is easier to address. The adherents of this argument claim that it is better to have a monogamous homosexual relationship rather than a promiscuous heterosexual one. I don't accept the premise that this has to be an either/or scenario, since I believe the Bible is clear on the fact that homosexual sexual relations is wrong - and yes, I am assuming that there is homosexual sex involved in my above example - otherwise, it can be constituted as two roommates, nothing more). I agree that being in any monogamous relationship greatly reduces chance of contracting an STD or infectious disease, but again, because I believe that homosexual sexual relations is condemned in the Bible, and I also believe that sexual promiscuity (in any form) is condemned in the Bible - the question for me is akin to asking a police officer, "what is better, me driving 160KM in a 50KM zone, or shooting my pellet rifle at pedestrians from a bell tower?" Both are wrong under the standard by which the police officer enforces, so it's a sham argument, in my opinion.

Another question that people ask that is just a set-you-up-and-knock-you-down question is whether gays or homosexuals can be saved (the questions usually comes out like "can gays go to heaven." Here's my answer on this one, and it applies to anyone in the world - and this is right from the Bible - anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour, repents of their sins, and commits to live their life from that point forward as a follower of Jesus Christ, will be saved. End of discussion.

Just last week, there was the Pride Parade in Toronto (and around the world). I notice that they have since dropped the "Gay" part out of the equation. Anyway, if you watched coverage of it (I didn't choose to, but it's in the paper nonetheless, even in the more conservative ones), you would have seen many people flaunting sexuality. For anyone to say that there is no sexual focus in the gay and lesbian community is blowing smoke in my face. If it were a heterosexual parade, there wouldn't be as crazy of a display of people in various states of undress and flaunting certain body parts. The straight community do not have bath houses and cottages where men can meet for sex very casually. Yes, there are brothels and what not, but even those are under wraps. I was downtown in the gay district years ago (passing through while doing some shopping) and I went into some bookstore to use their washroom. I'm not kidding you - there was this hole in between stalls and I was like, "what the heck is that"? Thought it was something like some toilet paper dispenser that fell out of the wall. I was mentioning this in a casual conversation with someone a few months later and they said that it was blowjob hole, and I'm sitting there thinking, "you've got to be kidding!" Whether it was or not, I haven't seen one of those anywhere else. Anyway, if you don't think that sex is paramount to the gay community, just check out gay discussion online forums - it is loaded with more sexual stuff than many straight discussion forums. I am mentioning all this to emphasize that it is this whole gay sexualization that I find abhorrent and it is this that I believe the Bible condemns. I work with a gay man, who is one of the nicest guys I know, a very gentle person who I'd be happy to hire to work on my team anyday. He is not one of those "flaunt my sexuality" gay people. It's sad to see that Christians in the past have tossed him aside since he's gay. I am angered by the self-righteousness of certain Christians who seem to think that gays are less-human than anyone else. I think it's important to note how Jesus treats people, and I will leave you with this example, which is often used, but used incompletely.

Jesus found a woman who was caught in an adulterous situation. The crowds, no doubt comprised of a fair amount of "religious" people at the time, wanted her to be stoned, as it said in the law. Jesus simply indicated that the persons who are without their own sin in their lives should cast the first stone. People dropped their stones, realizing that they have their own sinful hangups. Now, don't stop reading here!!! Oftentimes, people will use the above example to cite that we should never judge people and that we should always be compassionate, etc. The story is not done yet! Jesus then turns to the woman and his final words are important, "Go, and sin no more!" Notice that? Jesus did not turn a blind eye to her sin, even though he made the crowds realize they can't simply condemn her. Jesus command her to stop sinning. So I think this is important in how we as Christians minister to our homosexual neighbours, colleagues, friends and family. People oftentimes will say, "love the sinner, hate the sin." (which is a Biblical principle). Let's not forget that there are two parts of that equation.

Are YOU Capable of Killing Someone?

My wife and I had a fascinating discussion last night in bed before we retired for the evening. Not sure how the topic came about (probably some current news story), but in the ensuing conversation, she asked me if I was in a similar situation where someone broke into my house and started to visciously attack either her or my son, whether in the passion of self-defence, I would be capable of killing the perpetrator, if need be.

Now, I know what the Christian answer is. Of course not. The Bible maintains a non-retaliation ethic, as is evident in the whole principle of turning the other cheek. The Bible also commands us not to kill. However, the Bible also commands us to do a lot of other things, which we don't do. So let's not prop up Scripture in order to make us feel more self-righteous when in fact we don't necessarily live consistent enough lives to authoritatively say that we can always yield to what God's Word has to say. Shall we strive towards a Biblical ethic of peace and non-retaliation? Absolutely. It is the ideal to which we should seek to live out. However, that is easy to say as you as the reader of my blog and me as the writer of the same. Would we be able to think logically if placed in such a moment where you have seconds (if not less) in order to assess the situation and make a decision?

What was my answer? I told my wife that I believe that anyone is capable of killing anyone else under the right circumstances, so for myself, I would not rule that out; however, without ever being in that situation (and heaven forbid I ever get into that scenario), I can't qualitatively say how I would react. But I did tell her that there are some things that generally cause people to snap mentally, and it is under those conditions that human beings are highly unpredictable. She agreed with me and said that for her, she would probably be capable to killing someone who was knifing me to death or assaulting our son. You see, there are some abhorent things which I think transcent societal and cultural norms. A man attacking a woman is one, and anyone sexually assaulting a child is the other. If you are shocked by my wife's and my reaction on this question, seriously consider yourself in the same scenario with your spouse or child on the receiving end of a violent act, and tell me that you would simply ask them to stop and politely leave, and then call the cops. If you have enough discipline to do that when your loved ones are being victimized, then hey, I applaud your ethic. I suspect, though, that most people will probably go overboard on the self-defence.

Now, I qualified this by telling her that there are some things which under no circumstances should warrant a lethal self-defence position. If someone is robbing your possessions, or calling you names (as hurtful as they may be) or vandalizing your property, I don't believe there is any justification for any acts of violence. I believe that violence, as repugnant as that is in my mind, is borderline permissible when it comes to self-defence only. Now, what constitutes self-defence is about as broad as what constitutes good food. In discussing this with my wife, I think we both agreed that shooting the perpetrator in the back or unloading 5 bullets in the back of his head will likely not have the support of many legal communities. I also added that this is a very slippery slope, since people may claim self-defence after killing someone out of vengeance and then staging a self-defence scenario.

My wife and I further discussed the John Grisham book, "A Time To Kill", which, without giving away any plot lines, was about a gang of white young men who visciously raped a nine to ten year old black girl. Of course, it is set in the American South, at a time where racial tensions were running high (I can probably still maintain that there is still a distinct air of that there, given my conversations with a person who lives in the American south). Anyhow, you have a father who does not have a propensity towards violence try to leave it up to the legal system to mete out justice to the perpetrators. Unfortunately, with the racial climate being what it is, it does not look like justice will be done. So what does he do? He sneaks into the courtroom the night before, hides in a closet, and when the next day comes and the alleged perpetrator is being led to or from the courtroom, out comes the father with a firearm and kills the guy.

Now, my wife asked me what is different between killing that guy in the courtroom and killing him upon stumbling across him sodomizing his daughter in the woods? I told her a lot, and in fact, despite my sympathies towards the father's position, what he did was absolutely reprehensible, since it involved pre-meditation and calculation - which would of course lend itself to being murder. Stumbling across a crime in progress may cause a struggle and in the ensuing grappling, the father may have killed the perpetrator. I don't believe in that B.S. line of not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity; rather, I think that in a crime in the heat of passion, people's mental faculties are not exactly logical and as such, they may do something that they may regret...or they may not, if they need to act in self-defence.

There are some peripheral issues to this discussion that are worth exploring. One is the whole sense of trust that people have in the legal system in general. How many times have you heard of a case where damning evidence was found at a suspect's home (such as a video of a rape or torture or killing clearly committed by them, but it got rendered inadmissible due to the way it was obtained - ie. without proper paperwork or warrant) and the suspect goes free due to lack of evidence. In this case, would people do the right thing and let the system handle the situation, or would they turn into a vigilante and go after the persons themselves. That's a hard one for me to field. I am a great supporter of community policing such as the Guardian Angels (who, by the way, are not vigilantes, since they seek to work in tandem with the legal authorities). As for vigilantes...in my head, I am opposed to people taking the law into their own hands, but at the same time, my heart asks what do you do when the system fails you and a known killer/pedophile goes free on a technicality?

One other issue which my wife, in particular brought up, that was quite fascinating is the whole idea of retalitation and vengeance, and specifically how a Christian would reconcile such a situation that I described above. Well, I think I may have somewhat addressed this one above, but let me take a stab at it here. Retaliating means that you are striking back in order to meet blow for blow, action for action, but it is out of a sense that you are yielding the law, or what you view to be right/wrong and what constitutes justice. I don't think that there is any good defence for retaliation, when it is particularly clear what the Bible says about it. Second, shall we seek vengeance? Again, I believe the Bible is quite clear on this one as well - vengeance is the Lord's. Remember, while worldly systems of justice have their uses, God has an infinitely wider perspective on making sure He metes out justice. It may not be in this lifetime and even if it's not, it's not for us to decide. So I don't believe that there is any justification in retaliatory or vengeance killing. I will even come right now and say that I believe both are wrong.

I should also point out that even if you do not take a neutral position, as my wife and I do, that you still may be surprised by what will happen. Several people I talked with are so confident that they will have no problems "dispatching" the perpetrator, that it almost seems like they wear it like a badge of honour. I suspect if they ever faced that situation, their sense of certainty will be eroded quite a bit - we are not talking about knocking the perpetrator unconscious here - we are talking about taking another's live, and even in self-defence, there is a grave finality to that action which cannot be revoked.

Naturally, I do not wish this scenario on anyone, but as my wife I concurred wholeheartedly, it is certainly something worth thinking about.

Even "Nice Guys" Have Something to Hide

Being an avid listener of news and talk radio, I am glad in a way that today, something else was front and center of the news, instead of constantly hearing about the every waking movement of that wench, Paris Hilton. At the same time, I sincerely wish there was something else in the news that would have displaced yet another sad story about a murder-suicide, and one that, unfortunately, involves a young child.

Unless you have been sleeping under a rock for the past 24 hours, you will have no doubt heard about the story of famous wrestler Chris Benoit, and how it appears as if he was responsible for the strangulation/suffocation deaths of his wife and seven-year-old son. I mention this as a springboard into my rant today, which is not about Benoit or even wrestling, but about the erroneous notion that when it comes to nice people, society in general has a pretty good inkling of who they consider will fit such an image. My argument here is that not only is it damaging to perpetuate this image, but it also fosters an increased need to try to live up to it, which only drives people's closet skeletons even further. Certainly this is nowhere more evident than today's church-going Christians, but for now, please allow me to lay out my points.

One thing that was said in today's many talk shows which dealt with the Benoit situation, was how he was regarded by his friends, family and colleagues as a true family man, in a business where family is not necessarily put on a pedastal. It was referenced how Benoit invited his wife and son into the ring when he won the championship, and how they were involved in his work, through appearances, etc. All in all, his public and private presentation on his family life would lead many to indicate that for all intents and purposes, he had a rather model life outside of the ring (as model as the life could be, in comparison with the lives of other wrestlers).

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah - earlier this year, there was a case in the Toronto area (actually, in the Markham area, where I live), where two women were found dead in a quiet residential street, in what was believed to be a quiet residential home. One of the women was an account executive for a radio station in Toronto, while the other was a massage therapist (if I remember right). The massage therapist was separated or divorced from a major Toronto sports broadcaster. Anyhow, the guy charged, was the first woman's husband. When it made news and they interviewed the community, the overwhelming reaction was utter shock. "But, that family looked so happy together! They are always walking their dog and with their kids, always smiling...we never saw them argue" ...and so forth. The guy charged was deemed "a nice guy" who was "incapable of such a heinous crime". Heck, they even have inadvertent videotape of him by one of the major Toronto newspapers, who happened to be filming at the Toronto Zoo on New Year's Day - they happen to catch this guy on video (about a month before he was charged for the murders), and he said on the video something to the effect of, "it's going to be a great year for the family".

Why is it that people fall for this bull crap? I remember it was the same reaction with Paul Bernardo, the infamous Canadian sexual killer of teenagers. People were aghast back in the early 90s. "No, it can't be them!!!" (referring to him and his equally guilty wife Karla Holmolka). And the worst line, "but they were such a cute couple!" (as if that somehow disqualifies them of any ill-action towards anyone). When people conclude that a couple or a family or an individual is the epitome of what a human being should be, I think that's when the person being spoken of tends to want to continue to maintain and build on such accolades, and that, of course perpetuates the problem.

Now, that is not to say that there are not genuinely nice people out there, and yes, I am sure some people can be nice all the time. But as a discussion with one of my co-workers showed, things aren't always what they seem. She said to me one time that she has a good sense of who people are and what their personalities are like. I wanted to test her on this, so I asked her to give me an assessment on myself. She said that she does not believe that I have the capacity to get angry and lose my cool, since she has worked with me for 7+ years, and I've never lost my cool at work. She also believes that I am not the arguing type (at this point, I knew that her intuition was crap, but I wanted to keep it going to show the point). She said that she believes I am very kind and that I am "tolerant" of others. She also said that I was incapable of the standard gamut of "wrongdoing". Well...where would I start in my response? I mentioned to her my past with being a porn addict and dealer, how I got into fights when I was younger, and even after being saved, I still wrestled with lust issues. I also said that I argue all the time with people - she just doesn't see it since she's not in the manager's meetings...and yes, I even argue with my wife at home. I spank my son and don't tolerate insubordination. She asked if I swore, and I wanted to be honest, and so I told her, yes, once in a while. She was surprised. I'm not sure why, since she's getting an impression based on working with me and we work under strict professional guidelines. Of course, I'm not going to yell at people in open view in the office. Never have. I'm not going to berate people in front of our customers. And yes, to an extent, I have succumbed to the need to maintain as stain-free of a demeanour and persona as I can in the office. It is, of course, ironic that a couple of months later (only about a month ago), I had a huge blow-up in the office, where I was screaming and yelling in open view, and she was the target. It wasn't deliberate or planned, and I did apologize for an extremely short fuse, but in retrospect, I think God willed it this way to humble me at work, as well as to show others that Christians are not perfect, by any stretch of the imagation.

Speaking of which, this is rampant in the vast majority of churches in North America, and I would imagine world-wide. Is it any wonder that it seems like Christians in particular get shocked over and over again when a major (or minor) preacher or teacher "falls from grace". Interestingly enough, the non-Christians don't seem terribly surprised. Yet Christians seem to continue to hold in high regard the people who are perceived as types "you can't go wrong with". I'm sure they said that about Ted Haggard.

Where is comes from is a mistaken idealism about the fact that Biblical living means that while you try to perpetuate the fruits of the Spirit, as laid out in the Epistles in one's demeanour, even in times of failure, you don't show weakness (sort of how you won't hear too many Christian men admit that they have masturbated). As it is difficult to to live out (since as it says in Romans, we have a war being waged from Satan so we do things that we know we should do but we don't, and we don't do things that we know we should) a life that consistently shows real, tangible fruit at all times, it is sometimes easier just to cover up our shortcomings, thinking it will somehow discredit the Gospel if we show that we are in fact still fallen, frail human beings. That is not to say we should not strive to be Christ-like in all that we do (I believe we should!), but when we fail, let's be honest about it and ask for God's forgiveness and strength to continue, rather than blowing smoke in people's faces with a teflon spiritual life.

A message to Christians out there - be a little more discerning in who you consider to be your close-to-perfect people. I have always believed that someone who seems to always have their act together, who always have smiling kids, who always seems to get that job or that role or that material thing or that accolade, without showing or admitting any vulerability, struggle, or doubt, probably has something they are hiding. I am totally convinced of this. The Bible is clear that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (italics mine).

Many, many years ago, before my wife and I got married, we knew a fellow, who with his wife, seemed like the "Benny Hinn" of our social circles (and since I am not a fan of Benny Hinn at all, I want to state that when I compare people to him, I am not being complimentary). He advertised that he did not drink, did not swear, and every freaking moment, would say "Praise the Lord!" Ask my wife - I'm not kidding you here - it was that bad. Once, we were all at dinner with some other friends, and he started off with his "Praise the Lord" schtick. My wife whispered to me, "what is up his ass?", to which I burst out laughing. Yet others thought he was a godly guy who again, could do no one wrong. It came as no surprise to me when we found out that he was involved in some shady business dealings, which lost him some of his Christian friends as a result. I think over time, everyone's true colours will eventually show. The old adage applies: You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can even fool all of the people some of the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

The TV show Everybody Loves Raymond really drives this point home. If you don't watch it, I won't bother explaining all the characters, but what I do want to do is compare and contrast the two sets of parents (both in their 60s or older). Ray's parents argue constantly, get on each other's nerves, yet behind all the crazy antics and grumpiness, and sarcasm, lies a gentle tenderness and unspoken respect that can only be gained through honest and forthright communication. In the show, their marriage has lasted something like 45 or 50 years. Contrast that with Debra's parents, who never fought, who travelled together, and were kissy-kissy lovey-dovey all the time, using babynames for each other and smiles everywhere...one day, they had it with each other and got divorced and soon after, he brought home a younger woman. I think that episode really hits the nail on the head, as far as how people perceive relationships, but more importantly, not everything is always as it seems.

All that being said, I am writing this simply to provide some thoughts that you should never be surprised to hear such and such a person who was considered to be a nice guy, actually turns out to be a pretty rotten guy, or conversely, you should never be equally surprised to find out a person who has been considered a bad guy, to turn out to be a pretty decent guy. We don't know people's hearts, so let's all stop pretending that we do. I mean, you can read my blog here and get a sense of who you think I am, but in reality, do you really know? I could be a far-left leaning socialist liberal, for all you know, and I am just doing this to sabotage the growing conservative movement. I could be a closet homosexual hiding behind a guise of "married with children", a heavy gambler, a perpetual drug user. I could have a ton of money in the bank that I obtained through organized crime. The cops could be knocking at my door any minute, and you won't see blog updates in weeks, as I am in jail. You don't know any of this from reading what I wrote. I could be a closet schitzophrenic who otherwise covertly talks a mean talk of theology and seems like he has an aptitude for computer technology. All this can be easily put on (the movie Primal Fear makes this point brilliantly).

So next time we see someone who looks like they have it all together (or don't), let's not be so quick to draw conclusions one way or another. I believe everyone has something to hide - some just hide it better than others.

Why I Believe in Capital Punishment

It's been said that capital punishment or state-sanctioned executions are barbaric and it is a shame that countries like the United States still have provisions in many of its States for the use of executions for crimes such as capital murder. This has cropped up in the last year or so with headlines which talk about lethal injections which have gone awry to other "botched executions". While I'm sure you have your opinions, I certainly have mine, and to summarize, I think that society in general (especially the more liberal-leaning segments as of late) put the wrong focus on things. Unfortunately, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-found-guilty criminals seem to be a social experiment with the softer segment of our society who somehow believe evil can be rehabilitated. Worse are those who choose to use the Bible to tout the fact that everyone should be given a second chance. While spiritually this is true, and I suppose practically it may be true as well, the fact of the matter is, consequences have actions. This is clearly seen in Scripture with those who choose certain paths reap the consequences of those paths. The cause and effect relationship is quite prevalent here. The thief on the cross may have believed in Christ on his death-bed, but he wasn't spared the punishment for his crime. Despite David being a crucial person in the lineage of Christ, David was still human and David sinned with Bathsheba, and there were tragic consequences as a result. Repentance may make things right with God, but God still allows you to face the result of your actions. There are a number of proverbs which deal with cause and effect. And the old adage "you play with fire, you get burned" is quite accurate.

So, this takes us to the issue of those who have been found by a court of law to be guilty of murder, child rape, etc. Yes, I know, I know, it has been shown (especially in Canada) some cases where people were incarcerated for decades, only to be found innocent later. And society does tend to find people guilty when charged, rather than presume their innocence until proven otherwise. But I'd say that there is less on the line in Canada, since it's not someone living or dying that we're talking about - they just lock them up for "life" (and "life" in Canada is considered about 25 years) , unless you're talking about a case like Paul Bernardo (if you haven't heard of him, look him up on the internet - he was found guilty of truly heinous crimes - and there is videotape proof of his crimes, which thankfully has since been destroyed or locked up somewhere). Bernardo has shown a pattern and tendency to be a predator - I don't believe that he will ever change. Someone is not right in his head. Even if it was psychological, does that make it right that we should just lock him up and pay for his food and such? My, what nice treatment he gets, even if he is confined to a 6 x 8 cell for 23.5 out of 24.0 hours per day, in isolation in Kingston Pen. Too bad his victims, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, both teenagers, were not afforded the same courtesy. And his ex-wife's sister (also a teen) was not given the same basic minimum human treatment. I say, let's fry Paul Bernardo's ass now.

I've also heard the argument that "what if someone is executed who is innocent?" Has that happened in the U.S., the current world champion of capital punishment? Not to my knowledge. And...the case that was closest to this occurring (in Virginia, I think)...after the guy was executed (and he swore up and down that he was innocent right up until the point he was lethally injected or electrocuted, or whatever they did to him), forensic DNA researchers confirmed that yes, he was guilty. This was, of course, after tons of left-leaning organizations petitioned for the commuting of his sentence.

How many more convicted criminals (we're talking murders and rapists here) were released after serving time, only to reoffend? I'm telling you, there is no rehabilitation for these people. You can cut their nuts off, chop their arms off, yank out their legs by their feet, but their hearts will still be wicked, and they'll think of some other way to hurt someone. Now, I know what you will tell me - Jesus can save these people. Absolutely he can. But just like the reckless person who was promiscuous before accepting Christ, and had previously contracted HIV, faith in Christ will not change what consequences you bring forth. The Bible says you sow what you reap. How true is that? Years ago, shortly before I was married, I followed a case on the news of a lady in Texas (I think) - Tanya Faye Tucker, or something like that - she was a convicted murderer, and she gave her life to Christ. While I don't know her heart, I have seen her in interviews and there is something about her which I believe shows a genuine conversion and newfound faith in the Lord. But guess what - they executed her anyway, and in talking with my Christian friends at the time, they were horrified that I thought that the State made the right decision. Recently, there was a guy in Tennessee, I think, who killed a cop back in the early 80s when he was young and stupid. He also became saved, and his life was changed and lots of people attested to this (this was the guy who for his last meal, wanted pizzas delivered to other inmates in other jails). He also was executed. I support that execution, since, as a believer, he is not beyond the laws of the land.

The only executions that I would support is for criminals found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in cases of murder or child rape. I would not support, for instance, what Saudi Arabia has as its criteria for executions, or recently in Iran, where you can be put to death for possession of pornography. I think essentially, for me, it comes down to the old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth scenario, so my philosophy is life for a life. You murder someone in cold blood - off to the gallows with you - I don't care how you try to justify it. The vast majority of people in this world do not commit murder in their lifetime. You victimize a child sexually - off to the gas chamber with you - I don't care how abused you were as a child or how you cannot control yourself. You, my friend, are, as they say, SOL.

Cruel and unusual punishment during executions - botched executions, etc: Well, this is a tougher one. I agree with humane executions - at one point, I favoured letting a death row inmate incur the wrath of the family of the victim (so if they choose to shoot you like you shot their family member, that was fine with me...or strangulation or whatever else). But that just breeds a sense of vengeance, and vengeance is probably not a good reason for the state to execute someone. Executions should be done simply because it is just, and that there are dire consequences for crimes like first degree murder. Still, does it matter if they can't find the vein or if the prisoner suffers somewhat? They'll be dead in a short time anyway, so who cares? Again, they didn't afford any courtesy to their victims, so there ya go.

Other stuff: For those who make the deterrent argument, that it is not a deterrent. I haven't drawn firm conclusions to this point as of yet, but I will say that I believe the "executions are not a deterrent argument" to be a red herring, since I suspect that those who argue against capital punishment would still do so if there was conclusive proof that it was a deterrent, and that more lives can be spared. Similarly, the same people that play the race card, saying that there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by poor black men is, are, I suspect, putting on a smokescreen, since they would still be against the death penalty if it was 100% white men on death row. Anyway, I am not sure whether there are any deterrent effects in capital punishment, but it doesn't play into my arguments anyway. I am undecided on this point only because I know from experience that severe fines and so forth do have a deterrent effect (ie. speeding tickets, etc.); however, the U.S. has had capital punishment for a while now, and they seem to be as homicidal of a country as ever - but then again, they have a much larger populace than most countries and also have a large number of poor people. But again, deterrence has never been part of my argument, so there's no point in working out my thoughts here on the subject.

This argument can go on forever...but there's my 2 cents.

The Passing of Ruth Bell Graham

It is with great sadness that I read about the passing of Ruth Bell Graham very recently (June 14, 2007). For those of you who don't know who she is, she was the late wife of evangelist Billy Graham, for whom I have the utmost respect, and whose books and sermons were instrumental in the initial and ongoing growth of my Christian life (I have most of his books). Billy Graham is one of those people who is respected inside and outside of Christian evangelical circles. The reason for that is simple. He preaches the same, unfiltered, not-watered-down, straightforward gospel message, and has maintained a consistent lifestyle inside and outside of the spotlight. He has never been in any scandals, and lives a humble life, serving the Lord in all he does. Many of today's Christian leaders, who seem to focus more on style, rather than substance, can take a lesson on humble leadership from Billy Graham.

However, I strongly believe that Mr. Graham did not exemplify such a life alone, and while God certainly had much to do with putting the conviction and gifts into Mr. Graham, I also believe that God puts others in one's life in order to stir up or influence onself. As a guy who has been almost married for 10 years, I can tell you up-front that my wife has had a tremendous influence on me. I no doubt believe that Ruth Graham Bell had heavy influence on Billy Graham - in fact, if you read their biographies, it will become very evident. Remember, Billy Graham was on the road a lot for preaching engagements and speaking tours and holding evangelistic crusades. Ruth Graham was instrumental in raising their kids to be godly people and make a difference in the world, which they have done and continue to do through their own kids (look at how Will Graham, Franklin's son, is now carrying the torch for speaking to youth crowds and such). My wife was able to see Anne Graham live last year, when she came to Toronto, and was very encouraged by the message (I also heard Anne Graham on CFRB as a guest of agnostic host John Moore, as well as on several local Toronto secular programs. She continued the Graham family's tradition of simply stating the gospel message, no additives or preservatives added). If you ever hear Anne Graham Lotz speak, you'll hear the affection and utter respect she has for her mother, who simply and humbly raised her kids to love and serve God without distraction. If you hear Franklin speak, or read any of Franklin Graham's books, you'll also see that he owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to his mother for passing along Biblical wisdom and living a consistent godly life, to him.

Mrs. Graham was also extremely knowledgeable in her Bible, and that made her a well respected resource for others who had questions, and such - I read excerpts from some of her writings about 10-15 years ago and you can just tell that she knows her Bible very well. Still, despite her knowledge and devotion to God, it never got to her head, and she wasn't trumpeting to be an evangelical feminist or anything like that. Nor did it distract her from the real business of practising what you preach. I read one time a few years back that Billy Graham almost always ran all of his sermons by her to get her input and would implement suggestions by her. I really believe that without Ruth Graham, there would be no Billy Graham, in terms of the well-respected preacher that he is today (even though he is more or less retired from the preaching circuit).

I found it particularly interesting that the casket in which Mrs. Graham was laid to rest, was built by prisoners (in prison for life) at a state prison. These prisoners had become believers over time and built the casket as a token of their respect and adoration of Mrs. Graham.