Donny Pauling Donny Pauling Follow Donny

She’s not mine

Donny Pauling Donny Pauling Follow Donny
By Donny Pauling
Image

Editor’s note: Donny Pauling is a former, highly successful porn producer. He left the industry after experiencing a dramatic conversion. You can read more about his incredible story here.

November 8, 2012 (DonnyPauling.com) - When I speak, I have a goal to open up everything I’ve got, pouring my heart out and giving away all emotional energy to the audience. At the end of the time I talk I’m almost always exhausted, but happy. My style isn’t to “preach” at people, but rather share the mistakes I’ve made and what I’ve learned from them. Each listener is free to eat the meat and spit out the bones: take what applies to them, toss what does not. I’m convinced this is what God wants me to do.

Prior to taking the stage, I have the same very simple prayer I pray: “Your words, God. Your words.” I want to share the things He wants me to share, and nothing more. I’ll never doubt the passage in scripture where we’re told He can use all things for good… because I see the truth in that passage every single time He gives me the opportunity to share what He’s done in my life. Not long ago, I produced a product that tore lives apart in numerous ways. Now, He uses those experiences to start processes that put marriages back together, free people from perversion, even bring people to the place where they surrender their lives to Him for the first time. It’s sometimes so overwhelming that I literally sit in my hotel room and cry joyfully afterwards. I look in the mirror and can’t understand why the face I see is one He’s chosen to use to do this. It’s very humbling.

I’m very blunt in what I say, and try to be “real”. This often results in people sharing things with me that they’ve likely never told anyone… or at most very few others. For example, in one church a man walked up afterwards and asked to talk a bit. He needed to know how to forgive himself. The conversation started with something like, “After hearing what you said this morning, I’ll bet you’ve heard everything.” I nodded my head affirmatively to encourage him to say what he needed to say. He proceeded to tell me things he’d done to animals. Inside I thought, “Well now I’ve heard everything… I guess I hadn’t before!”

As I listened to his story, I learned he was deep in counseling and had come clean with his wife, who’d forgiven him. The major issue he faced was forgiving himself. To be honest, I didn’t much feel like talking to him. My stomach felt a little queasy. I was shocked and a little angry at the things he’d said. But I also had to remind myself that plenty of people feel the same way towards me when I share some of the things I’ve done. I kept praying silently in my mind while he spoke, asking God for words to give to this man. When the words come from HIM, I can tell by watching the face of the person I share them with – faces light up… that’s the best way I know how to describe it.

I reaffirmed a few things he’d told me: “You’ve asked God for forgiveness? You’ve been forgiven by your wife? You’ve been in counseling, and are continuing with that?” The first question is really the only one that mattered, yet each of them was answered with a ‘yes’, and I felt God wanted me to tell him this:

“God has given you an amazing present, gift wrapped with a beautiful bow on top of it. Inside the package is something called ‘grace’. If you can’t let go of this guilt it’s like you’re pushing God’s gift back at Him and telling Him you don’t like it… that it’s not good enough for you. Just accept his present, my friend.” The huge smile on his face let me know this is indeed what God wanted him to hear. The thing is, I also needed to hear those words, as I sometimes have problems forgiving myself, too.

Funny how God works like that.

One morning after speaking, a good-looking teenage boy came up to talk to me. He was very real with me when he told me about his struggles with sex: “I don’t have a girlfriend, but lots of girls like me so I sleep around a lot. It’s fun, but I know it’s not God’s ideal for me. How do I stop?” As always, I mentally asked God what to share with him as he spoke. I could tell this kid was a bit on the aggressive side, and fist fights were probably something with which he was familiar.

I asked, “If you did have a girlfriend, I bet you’d be willing to fight for her, wouldn’t you?” His chest inflated, masculine posturing at its finest.

“Of course!” he grinned.

“Well, in fist fights wounds heal quickly. Black eyes go away. In a few days it’s not a big deal anymore, and nothing to brag about. But what if you could fight a REAL fight… one that IS worth bragging about? Let’s say it’s two years from now when God brings into your life the woman of your dreams. Right now, with all the sleeping around you’re doing, you don’t really have anything special to offer her, sexually. But what if you could walk up to her and tell her, ‘The last two years I’ve been fighting the hardest battle of my life for you, for the thought of you, and I didn’t know you yet’? Isn’t THAT a fight worth winning? Keeping yourself sexually pure for her is the way you fight.”

A smile spread across his face. I challenged him to fight a battle that would actually test his worth as a man… to see as God’s daughters the girls who were so easily ready to give him what wasn’t his to take, and to fight for them, too, even when they weren’t willing to fight for themselves. When a girl threw herself at him, he could truly be a Knight in Shining Armor if he turned the opportunity aside, reminding himself that she isn’t his… that God has someone special for him (and for her) if he’d just wait patiently. They say every man needs a battle, and his would be fought not just for himself, but for all the girls willing to sell out so cheaply for a bit of his attention. He got it.

I try to remind myself of similar things when I walk around. I try to make a habit of bouncing my eyes up to the face of a beautiful woman, and often repeat “not mine” in my head or even verbally. She’s not mine. God has her set aside. She’s not mine. She’s His little girl, and she needs me to fight for her by keeping my eyes where they should be. Her Daddy God is always watching, and I really don’t want Him catching me visually molesting her. Any animal is capable of giving in to lust. Be a man, Donny. Be a real man.

I remind myself of these things often, and each successful battle fought brings more strength for winning the war.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook