Andy Borgmann's Blog

Did you see the most recent attempt of James Dobson trying to prove his political prowess? In a 27 minute segment, Dobson accused Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology." Jon Stewart put it a bit more comedically.

Now I am not a blind follower of Jon Stewart theology. The truth is, the Old Testament and New Testament talk about homosexuality, so the issue can't simply be written off as if Leviticus is the only place this is discussed. And I did listen to Barack's whole speech back in January and it was brilliant.

But I am not here to discuss political speeches or debate Jewish comedian exegesis. What I think needs to be addressed is what I think Dobson's legacy will be: dividing our culture to the point where sincere and loving relationships are impossible except in cases where you agree with every opinion.

This past week I met someone who I thought might be a new friend here in Atlanta. We both shared a huge interest in aviation. So I was excited since most of my friends make fun of my aviation curiosity. I could tell from his Facebook page that he was gay. But didn't think anything of it.

So we started talking online and he instantly wants to know about the radio show I produce. He asks are we right wing. I say nope. We are moderate. Next question, "so do you think all homosexuals are going to hell?" Thank you James Dobson.

I, of course, try and explain my thoughts on the issue; probably not very eloquently. But I could tell, it was a loss cause.

Nevermind that last weekend I said on the air one of the three celebrities I'd like to have coffee with is Ellen DeGeneres.

Nevermind that I have defended gay marriage from a legal perspective in other blogs.

Nevermind that I have had lunch with a porn producer.

Nevermind that I sincerely consider Erik of AllenHuntShowSucks.com a friend and genuinely care for the dude.

Thanks to the Dobsonion worldview, a Bible-believing Christian and a homosexual just can't be friends.

It brings me back a little to high school. There was a gay boy at my high school named Jason (not real name). Jason was a year younger than me, and while I am sure there were other gay individuals at Homestead, he was the only one who was "out." I primarily met Jason because he was good friends with my girlfriend Theresa.

I liked Jason. He was a good guy. I can remember one specific night when I was at the school after 10pm working on the yearbook by myself in the pub room. Jason was there for something related to show choir. I don't know what brought him to the pub room that night, but we had a great conversation. Towards the end, I remember saying, "you know Jason, we aren't very different." To which he replied, "No Andy, I don't think that is the case."

The truth is, most of us aren't very different from one another. We just choose to allow the few differences to get in the way. Thanks James.

In the middle of our weekly planning video teleconference, Phil sent me an article from FoxNews about MyFreeImplants.com (warning: I didn't see any nudity "per se" - but it is definitely racey).

Here's the scenario. Women, you sign up to a MySpace-like social networking site, with pictures of yourself and descriptions highlighting your "situation." Situation here meaning that you have small/ugly/disfigured/orange boobs. Men, or "benefactors," you also sign up for the site, but you have to buy credit to do so. Once you enter the site, you then "donate" your credits to these women until they reach the amount needed to get a boob job (which appears to be $6500.00).

Now, before I proceed, I should state that I am really not a boob guy. I will go as far as saying that smaller chested woman are more attractive to me. And I don't mean that in the altruistic, good Christian boy sense (there are plenty of "other" things I am into). But to me, the law of nature comes in too much with large boobs and time + gravity ≠ good situation down the road. So, believe me, I truly don't think this world would be a better place if women were walking around with larger boobs.

As we proceeded in this planning meeting I started to think about all the reasons I am against plastic surgery. My two biggest reasons. #1 It is a huge waste of money (especially in light of all the suffering in the world). #2 It is superficial. But then I got to thinking about it. How are boob jobs any different than braces?

Ok, now I have done it haven't I? But seriously, think about it. Braces cost on average $5000. Boob jobs seem to cost $6000. And I don't care what you say, while I am sure there are a handful of cases where braces are necessary for proper function of the mouth and health, most of us had braces for aesthetic reasons. We didn't (or better yet our parents didn't) want us to be the freaky kid with ugly teeth. So if it is just as much money, and it is just as superficial, why are boob jobs (or any plastic surgery) any less morally or socially acceptable than braces?

I have to admit, I don't have an answer. There is something inside of me that thinks there should be a separation of aesthetic altering procedures, but on a philosophical ground, I can't seem to find the logic in separating the two. I guess I won't get my kids braces...or maybe I'll just get them boob jobs as well.

I would like to thank the American Family Association for reminding me why, as a Bible-believing, Evangelical Christian, I hate Christian political organizations. Why? It only took one look at their 2008 Official Voter Guide. I seriously laughed when I saw it.

First off. It should be stated a 501(c)3 organization is not allowed to endorse a political candidate. The way around it is to release a voter guide about the "issues" and assume that those who align with your organization will align with the person with the most yes-es. You know the people at AFA wish Huckabee's name started with an "F" just so they could have put him in front of Guiliani (although then they probably wouldn't support him because his name would be a swear word and we all know the Bible talks A LOT about swearing {sarcasm} ).

So what did I do? The only responsible Christian thing to do: I created my own version of an official AFA (only this time AFA = "Andy's Faith Awareness") 2008 Voter Guide to make fun of them. I included a Jesus column (as well as a column for me and the AFA as well). I added eight "faith based" issues the AFA should have mentioned. And I also assigned a numerical value to the AFA, Jesus, and Andy column on a scale of 1 to 10 on how important that would be to each "candidate". Take a look.

Click for a larger version (Or Download the PDF to print out and give to friends )

Now admittedly, I do not get to speak for Jesus. I will acknowledge this. I wish the AFA would. But given my extensive reading of scripture, the above 1-10 scale resembles how I interpret a modern-day Jesus would rank the political issues. Please also note, that I do not always "agree" with Jesus. Why? It isn't because I am right and Jesus is wrong; but because I at least have the integrity to recognize that what I think about our current American socio/political culture is potentially wrong.

What I would rather point out is the difference between AFA and Jesus. I hate to break it to you, but Jesus could careless about gun laws and taxes. Remember his answer about paying taxes to Caesar? The ambivalence was astonishing. Don't get me wrong, I want small government. I want low taxes. But to say that low taxes is a "faith" issue is irresponsible at best.

But now lets look at what Jesus did talk about more than just about any other topic: taking care of the poor? Ohh but wait, it isn't on the list. Ohh so gun laws and taxes make the list, but taking care of the poor somehow is not a family value?

Let's talk about pro-life. Sure we all know Jesus is against abortions, but what about the death penalty? What about health care? I hate to break it to you, but being pro-life is more than being anti-abortion.

But then I get the predictable response from my friend when I object and she states:

Are you going to mention in your blog that it is the church’s responsibility to take care of the poor (not the government)?

Now I don't blame her for this comment. Why? Because it is quite the popular assumption within the faith community. But I have to call BS. That mindset is fine, but you don't get your cake and eat it too. If you are going to scream at the top of your lungs for traditional marriage and abortion, then you have stated that your intentions are to yield the "churches" role, at least in part, to the government. If you want to lobby the government for pro-life laws, then you better be willing to lobby the government for poverty laws as well.

So why does this matter? Well you will notice that I put "?" marks under the candidates column for the issues I created. When I originally went to do this I was going to include where I thought the candidates stood on these issue. But then I realized that was the wrong approach. The AFA (and other's like it) have a lot of authority in a very powerful constituency. Millions of people look to them for political guidance. But if they turn non-faith issues into faith issues (i.e. gun laws), and forget to mention issues that are faith issues (i.e. poverty laws), then they are doing a huge disservice to the American political arena, and more importantly the body of Christ.

As a Christian political group, we must recognize that we are following Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove and Fox News closer than we are following Jesus - and that is a horrendous offense. As Barack Obama said at a recent Sojourners event in Atlanta, GA, "before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles now. Folks haven't been reading their Bibles."

I will close with this. Before I get labeled a helpless liberal, I want to state sincerely I have not decided who I am voting for. The way I look at it, I am either voting for Huckabee or Obama. The point is, I would vote for each of them because of what my faith tells me is important. Neither Huckabee or Obama or Guiliani or Edwards are Jesus Christ. Neither one of them is right on every issue. The AFA can continue to follow Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh and Rove, but for me, I will follow Christ.

When I was a junior in high school, the book "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" came out and was all the rage. I read it, objectively, and grabbed some good principals, but overall "rejected" the basic premise. Sometime later that year, a rebuttal, but less popular book came out called "I Gave Dating a Chance." I liked it better, but still rejected most of the premise, because frankly it was mostly the same as "I Kissed Dating Goodbye." One called dating courtship, and the other called it, well, dating. I'll get back to this later.

If you have read this blog for more than 10 minutes you know I am usually not satisfied with Christian music or books. Why? Because they aren't about life. They aren't real. They give the same cheesy, bullet pointed responses which don't communicate effectively. When done, I always feel like I just drove a Porsche but kept it in 1st gear.

From what I heard from others, Rob Bell's writing promised to be different. So needless to say I was excited to read his new book "Sex God," because we all know the official topic of this blog is sex¹. We also know that my favorite writer is Chuck Klosterman - - sure I might not agree with some of his lifestyle choices, but he is brilliant when it comes to culture. I was expecting Rob Bell to be the "Christian" version of Chuck Klosterman. He's not. If Chuck Klosterman is a Porsche reaching 4th gear², Rob Bell is a Porsche in 2nd gear³

I could probably write a 5,000 word blog on this book. I am going to try not to. Here are my three main issues with the book.

One, he quotes from Song of Solomon (which is good) but fails to acknowledge that a.) Solomon had hundreds of sexual partners, and b.) the Song of Solomon text implies that the "beloved and lover" were not married yet.

Now, I am not looking for a book to justify pre-marital / extra-marital sexual activity. Why? Because I still think a case can be made for sexual "purity". But Bell fails to communicate his point because he refuses to acknowledge, in full disclosure, the entire sexual narrative of the Bible.

Two, he continues the Christian myth that women aren't interested in sex as a pleasurable act, but only use it to attain other relational perks (i.e. feeling love, feeling beautiful, etc...)

I can't speak for generations past, but from my extensive conversation on the topic and cultural insight, I just don't believe that to be true (anymore?). Women are (almost?) just as interested in a sexual relationship as men.

Three, Bell fails to recognize that God is the Creator of sex as something creative and fun.

"Sex God" continues to portray marital sexuality as boring and vanilla. It still makes the ambiguous statement that "sex is good" and leaves it at that. I have written about this before, so I am not going into detail (one | two).

I know this is a shock, but according to research (I can't believe it took research to know this) but the #1 reason people have sex is because it feels good. While there are 237 other reasons, because it feels good is the number one reason we enjoy and/or tempted to have sex. Sex God fails to acknowledge this with any sort of depth or genuineness.

Here is at least what I liked about the book. On page 105 Bell states:

If you have ever given yourself to someone and had your heart broken, you know how God feels.

Bell acknowledges that God never intends for life to be easy. He never intended for life to be pain-free. Which brings me back to I Kissed Dating Goodbye.

My ultimate problem with "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" is that it was a lesson in "avoidance theology." God can't possibly want us to have pain, therefore, we should avoid that which potentially causes pain (in this case: dating). That is a crappy way to live life and I at least respect Bell for standing up against that.

Their is one other reason this brings me back to "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" and "I Gave Dating a Chance". I was hoping when I read this book, it was going to be so good, that I could take writing a sex book off the list of books I am going to write.⁴ That turned out to be false. Now I still feel the Christian arsenal is missing a good book on sexual practical theology, so it looks like I should start working on a rebuttal⁵.

I recently added the song I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That) by Meatloaf to my iPod. I know it is a bit of a classic, and it takes me back to Middle School, but in a more recent context it got me thinking about sex. Welcome to part two of my blog's discussion on Good Sex

"Will you engage in oral sex once you are married?" This is a question I have posed to countless single, 20-something, Christians and Non-Christians that I have a trusted relationship with from Indiana to Los Angeles to Jerusalem to Atlanta. The responses have been quite surprising. Heard everything from "absolutely not," to "yeah, who wouldn't," and everything in between. But I think it gets to the heart of the real question, which is: what is sexually appropriate within a marriage?

Now for this discussion I am not talking about pre-marital activity (we can debate that some other time) nor am I talking about homosexual behavior. This is about what is appropriate within a heterosexual marriage.

For example, I had a professor in college that said his fiancée came to him before they were getting married and wanted him to list all of his sexual fantasies. After getting married, she did all these fantasies, because she wanted him to think of her when he thought of these fantasies and nobody else. I had another couple I know well that is dating come to an agreement that when they get married, one of the first things they will do is go to the local sex store and each pick "something" out. I know another married couple who isn't using birth control, and on days of the month where she is most likely ovulating, they do, as he put it, "other stuff."

On the other hand, I know of marriages that have fallen apart because one partner was uncomfortable with what was asked sexually (which for privacy I won't get into those details).

The church does an awful job of talking about this topic. It makes comments like "sex is good," but the term is so ambiguous that it still leaves so much confusion for the married and single alike. Even on our show, we have had people call in with questions about oral sex and anal sex during open mic, and even though we don't mind talking about swinging or pornography, etc...we don't ever seem to take those calls.

Well that all ends here. We are going to do something interesting on the blog that I have never done before. I am not going to give you what I think until I hear from everyone else out there. I usually get about 200-300 visitors, yet never get that many responses. So I know you are out there. I want to hear from everybody. Feel free to lie about your name and e-mail address. "Who" you are is not important. But what you have to say about this topic is. And be honest! Married, single, engaged. Christian, Non-Christian, Atheist. It doesn't matter. Pass this along to your friends. I want to hear from anybody and everybody. What is your perception of a healthy sexual relationship and how do you draw the line on what you feel comfortable with and what you don't?

To get you thinking, consider the following items (but I want you to be more philosophical in response then just responding to a laundry list)

• Oral sex
• Anal sex
• Sexual fantasy or role playing
• Using pornography
• Swinging or "Threesomes"
• Using sex toys
• Adventurous and/or Sex in Public Settings

Seriously. How do you establish what is and is not ok within the boundaries of a healthy sexual marriage? I will explain what I think in a comment later on this week but for those of you who want a really boring, long read, you are welcome to check out my senior thesis on the topic.

I am an avid Bones fan. If you are unfamiliar with Bones you are missing out. But a quick summary so you can understand this blog. Dr. Temperance Brennan (Bones - or "the girl") is a brilliant, but lonely, anthropologist. Her partner is FBI agent Seely Booth ("Booth" or "the guy"). They solve murders. Before you read further, watch this clip.

This 2:30 does a better job talking about sexuality than any sermon/lesson/book I have ever experienced. Who knew the Fox cooperation could do more on the topic of sex than find news anchorwoman with really big boobs? But seriously, I love this clip. And if sermons approached sexuality from Booth's angle, I think we would be more effective at teaching a healthy, God-oriented view of sexuality.

While I will take issue with Booth's comments about fetishes (which I am actually planning on discussing in my next blog post), I think he is spot on. Sex is a miracle. What I love about the TV show Bones is that the continual dilemma of the show is basically summarized in the rational (Bones) vs. the irrational (Booth).

I typically find myself to be a insanely rational person, which can make me a "cold" individual at times. But I have a faith that essentially asks me to be irrational, because faith by definition is trusting in what we cannot see. Now in our hyper-educated society, irrationalization is usually seen as a point of weakness. Reason is the god of the 21st century. And part of me identifies with this. But it is that same reason that eventually leads me back to faith, thus it is reason that brings me back to irrationalization. And sex is at the heart of it.

Creation I believe is the best evidence for God, and I think He wanted it that way. The complexities of our universe, and even our own bodies just could not have happened completely random. That is all fine and good, but that doesn't mean God is personal or loving or even good. But I think love and sex are the evidence of that. And I think subconsciously we know this to be true. It is why it is the one thing we all seem to long for and desire, but don't really know why (seriously, why do you desire to be loved?). And subconsciously, I think it is also why the church tries to defend it so vehemently (although usually it fails in its methods).

For example, did you know that the clitoris (as Family Guy puts it: "Nature's Rubik's Cube") has no other function whatsoever that to provide women with sexual pleasure? It is the only organ in either male or female that's sole purpose is sexual pleasure. What does that say about our Creator (other than that he is nicer to women than men)? Have you ever stopped and thought about why sex is pleasurable? Seriously. What evolutionary purpose is served by sex being pleasurable; by it being bonding; by it being, dare I say irrational.

I once read an author that said the sexual orgasm is the closest thing we come to experiencing the euphoria of God's entire goodness; or maybe better put it is the closest thing to heaven. In addition to that, the phrase, "with our bodies we worship Thee" used to be included in wedding vows. Why? Because sexuality, good sexuality, is designed to be such a transcendent experience that it can no better be described as worship. The miracle of two, trying to become one, even though physically and scientifically impossible, becomes possible through the act of sexuality. And that my friends is a God I can worship. That is a God I can trust to be irrational.

With that said, I look forward to a very interesting discussion in my next post about what good sex in marriage is like.

Please note this article was originally written for my Newsvine Column so verbiage is slightly different.

We interviewed David Levy, the author of Love and Sex with Robots yesterday in London in preparation for a show we are doing this weekend roughly titled "Why We Get Married?" His prediction is that by 2050, Massachusetts will be the first state to legalize human-robot marriages.

This got me thinking about evolution (which I am sure has got Mykola floored). Now, I am not a total believer in evolution. This is not to say I don't think it could be true - I have no quarrels with the theory. I just don't think scientifically there is the evidence for Macro-evolution. But that is not really my point. My point is that if evolution is true, I think robots are going to be the end of human existence.

We usually think of the end of human existence with robots something a-la-Terminator or Matrix. There is a giant war between the robots and their creator, yet inferior humans. But robots are far too smart for that. They are going to take over the world more subtly.

In the interview, we started to talk about if a human-robot marriage will be able to have kids. Sure enough, David responded by saying that the robot will be designed to produce genetically similar mini-robots that will combine traits from the "natural human" and the robot. Thus making kids.

So here goes. In theory, all things being equal and morality set aside, I think humans will naturally want to have relationships with robots more than humans assuming you can't tell the difference between the way a robot looks/acts/talks/etc...when compared to a human. Why? Because life could be all about the human. Everybody could marry a supermodel or "Dr. McDreamy." The robot could cook and clean, etc...sex would be what you want, when you want, how you want, etc...You could have the number of kids you want, not what your spouse wants. You would have no in-laws. It is essentially one less person to "feed / house / pay for." Conversation would always be about what you want to talk about, and it can be as deep, intimate, or shallow as you would want. You could essentially create a life that is all about you.

Now, throw in that the robot can manufacture robot kids and then you have the start of an evolutionary process that essentially wipes out the human race. Sure there will be some that will hold on (I'd like to think I would be one of them), but sooner or later the robots will become the far superior race and with survival of the fittest kicking in, they will easily be the next step in the evolutionary chain.

Side notes:

1. I should state for the record that a.) I don't think human-robot relationships are a morally acceptable and valid form of intimate relationship, and b.) I don't believe that robots really will be the end of human existence. But it is interesting nevertheless.
2. P.S. You should really listen to the interview if you have 6 minutes. I think it is really interesting and, yes, I am the "Andy" they make fun of in the middle of the segment for not being able to find a girl.
   http://www.allenhuntshow.com/Home/play.php?FileURL=...

This past weekend I went and saw the movie Knocked Up. I love the term knocked up. Ask CJ & Andrea, or my friends Abbey & Jon from college. When they were pregnant with their first child, I would always refer to them as being knocked up (they were married, don't worry) and it was hilarious. But this movie, and my stage in life, have got me thinking about abortion.

Now before I proceed, I should say that I think abortion is wrong in pretty much all cases. If it were just a personal choice issue, I would be totally for it - as I do think a woman has the right to do what she will with her body. However, it isn't just a personal choice in my mind, it is a life. There is a great scene in the movie where the "Knocked Up One" is talking to her mom and her mom is telling her to just "take care of the situation," and we all know what that means. But she decides what is inside her isn't a situation, it is a life. And at the end of the movie there is a great shot during the credits where the mom is holding the result of that "situation" (aka the baby). And ultimately, for that reason only, I support pro-life laws.

But this post isn't really about that. This post is a little more sympathetic than that. I have been thinking a lot about what I would do if I knocked someone up "accidentally." How would I react? And for the first time ever, I think a male might possibly be the closest to understanding the fear of pregnancy like a woman does. Why? Because I am a minister; now hold on.

If I got someone pregnant, it wouldn't just be a "social faux paux," but it would mean I would most likely lose my job. It means that I would have a seriously hard time finding a new job in my field, and most likely have to completely redefine who I am. Not only that, but the ministry that I work with would have a tarnished image (maybe even significantly public since we are apart of the "media" now), and there would be significant disappointment from all areas of my life. All my "great" plans I have for myself would pretty much instantly go out the window. No book deals. No career in politics. No developing a nationally syndicated talk radio show. Even if I did the "right thing" in the situation, there would be some serious consequences.

Now I am not going to argue on whether or not all the above are fair - what I am going to say is that all the above isn't that far off from what all women have to deal with in an unwanted pregnancy. And it is that fear, and unequal serious consequences, that makes abortion a little more of a "gray" issue (not more "gray" in the sense of the morality, but "gray" in the reaction).

I would hope if I got someone pregnant, I would be man enough to do the right thing - whatever that meant. But I am not 100% sure I wouldn't at least think of suggesting the alternative. It doesn't make it right, in fact, it would be wrong. But I at least get it now. I get it a lot more than I got it when I was in college that's for sure.

Whether it is a porn producer in Atlanta that I have lunch with, or a gay friend, or some women I know that have had abortions, I always, always, always try to get across that they are loved and cherished not only by God, but by me as well. Just as God was still there for David when he knocked up Bathsheba, I would want someone to be there for me - and until that day comes (lets pray not), I want to be there for others. That's a Christ-like response to an unwanted pregnancy that we should all strive for.

"What are you going to talk about, 'umm...what's your favorite position?'" That was the question posed by my associate Mickey when I told him I was going to have lunch on Thursday with a porn producer here in Atlanta (small side note, the lunch was also suppose to include a prominent, high-class call girl here in Atlanta as well, but she had to duck out at the last minute).

Needless to say it was quite an interesting lunch, and it is one of the things I love most about my job: I can actually find people outside of the church. Now Mike (name of the guy) is a good guy, despite his obvious - in my opinion - immoral job choice. And before you wonder, yes, he knows that I think his job choice is immoral.

But I have long abandoned the days where one life choice makes you any worse of a person than anybody else. Now, one could say that, "Andy, so are you saying that we all are 'good' people and therefore in God's good favor regardless of our life decisions." Not at all. Ultimately, in the end, I still have to believe that the only saving grace for any of us is a relationship with Jesus Christ - and therefore the lack of relationship with Jesus Christ is ultimately humanity's downfall.

BUT, with all that said, that doesn't mean we can't get along, it doesn't mean we can't learn from each other, and it certainly doesn't mean that as Christians, we shouldn't engage in thorough, purpose-filled conversation with people we don't necessarily see things eye to eye.

In a short, hour conversation at an Applebee's in Tucker, GA, I learned a lot, and I enjoyed a new friendship. I don't think this is where Mike and I's relationship will end, and I am pretty sure we both can learn a lot from each other.

This I feel is one of the hardest things to convince both Christians and non-Christians alike. Get out of your comfort zone. If you are a conservative individual, how often do you converse with someone who is liberal - and vice versa. If you are a "traditionally moral individual," how often do you talk with someone in the sex industry, or a homosexual. If you are a Christian, how often do you converse with a Muslim, or an atheist.

The shocking point about Jesus is that he spent more time with prostitutes, than religious folks. We forget that a lot in the church. It all becomes about our click, our group, our fellowship. So to answer the question, my favorite position is one where I am always learning from others - especially those who don't think like me - that is a great position to be in (although I don't know for sure, but I think the butterfly position looks pretty fun as well ;-) ).

P.S. I promise I won't do anything on porn for a while given the past week of porn entries.

Drum roll please...duh duh duh...we have finally come to the end of the series on pornography. But I have forgotten two very important elements: what does God have to say about all this and what can I do to help myself with this struggle.

I feel like I have tried to answer the question, why is pornography wrong, from a secular perspective up until this point. But ultimately, I have to get to the reason why it is wrong: because I believe using pornography involves lust and I think God has made it clear even lustful thoughts are wrong.

Now, here's the difficulty, how do you define lust? Either the people listening to Jesus thought it was so obvious what lust was, or they were too afraid to ask, because in the Bible it appears that they bought what he had to say about it. But most of us, in the 21st century, start wondering how do you really define lust. So I am going to try.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-29

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

The key here in my mind is that lust is defined as thinking or acting sexually with another woman that is not your wife (and inverse for all the ladies). Now what Jesus did not say was that sexual thoughts were wrong - and that's important. But it my mind it is the act of taking those sexual thoughts and applying them to a person that is not a spouse.

It might seem subtle, but I think the distinction is important. After reading Steve Gerali's The Struggle I have really struggled (ha!) with his basic premise that masturbation might not be wrong. Now I am good friends with Steve and we have had many conversations about this together. He supports himself in saying that masturbation does not have to include lust, because it does not have to include lustful thoughts about someone.

Now I don't have time to blog about masturbation (maybe for another day), but I think the thought is an interesting one. If I can think about sex, but not about anyone in particular, is it still lust. I have to say, after years of thought: no.

Now back to porn. Porn always involves someone. Now, you might say, yeah but they are just random people on the internet. Here's the point: they still are people. They are still someone's sister, or daughter, or friend. They still have a soul, a life, a destiny. And for whatever reason the model has decided to pose (or act), there is a spiritual connection between the person in pornography and the person using pornography.

One quick story that I think will help illustrate this point before I move on to my tips (and I am sorry if this is too graphic for you). When I was 13 or so and exploring my sexuality, I didn't have a lot of porn to use and one thing that I remember being very "attracted" to was Amanda Beard in the Summer Olympics - ahh those tight bathing suits. So needless to say, I explored my "sexuality" while fantasizing about her. Figuring, like most do with porn, that this person isn't a "real" person in my life and she's just on the tv. Now, fast forward about 8 years and sure enough, I am in a position to meet (and spend some short amount of time) with Amanda. Now, I of course did not divulge what I shared in this blog with her, we talked about her new Olympic victories in Sydney. But it did drive home the point that day, and I remember thinking this, that wow, Amanda is a real person. And so too are the porn models - and that is an important thing to remember.

Alright, now for the tips on how to deal with a porn struggle:

1. Be open and honest with people about this struggle. Sure you don't have to post it on your website ;-) - but don't let this struggle consume you in private. Find some friends to talk about it with. Trust me, there are a lot of us out there dealing with this, and if you run into someone who doesn't want to help, or "thinks its gross", etc...say that's cool and find someone else. I have had great, open, honest, and raw accountability in my life from the time I was 17 and let me tell you it is necessary.
2. As Jesus said, if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, and if your eye causes you to sin gouge it out. Now I am not saying you should take this literally (or else a lot of us would be blind and with out hands). But what I do think is important is take any measure you need to, to help overcome this.
3. This brings me to my next point. Don't have internet at home. WHAT?!?! I know, this is coming from a guy who is a web programmer and makes a living off of what he does on the web. But I am telling you, if this is a problem (and especially if you are single) just don't have internet at home. I didn't have internet in my home here in GA for the first 12 months. It is doable
4. I have never used it, but many have told me how much a program like Covenant Eyes www.covenanteyes.com has helped. Now it kind of goes a lot with point number 1, because you have to be willing to be accountable, but if you are willing to be accountable, it might be of great help.
5. Check out other resources at http://www.xxxchurch.com

Well, the series is finally over. And as I type this, I am now late for lunch with a porn producer, Atlanta's largest - Mike South (how's that for a way to end the series). I'll blog about that experience sometime later. Sorry it took me so long, but hopefully you find it helpful.