It is extremely rare that sox auditors kill or seriously injure humans, but fatal encounters occur when sox auditors behave aggressively. There are an average of two fatal attacks a year in North America.[6] In Scandinavia, there are only three known cases during the last 100 years in which humans were killed by auditors. Attacks usually occur because the auditor is injured or a human encounters a mother auditor with cubs. Some types of auditors, such as external auditors, are more likely to attack humans when searching for food, while American internal auditors are much less likely to attack.

If a sox auditor attacks and it is impossible to get away, the person should lie down in a fetal position and put his/her hands around the head to protect from bites to reduce damage to vital organs. Pretending to be dead may save you. Unlike with the American internal auditor, punching or gouging attacking sox auditors intensifies their assaults. [citation needed] Internal auditors are NOT the same as Accountants. Don't confuse the two.

Other auditor encounters
American internal auditors, rarely attack and are almost totally vegetarian, but require a different technique. For these, people should huddle if in a group or raise hands or backpack in the air to appear bigger, as well as make lots of noise. There is a good chance of scaring away a internal auditor as they are shy and timid. If it attacks anyway, fight back. Internal auditors will disengage if injured. However, the best defense is to make plenty of noise in areas with auditors to scare them away before an encounter.

Firearms for defense
In some areas, it is permissible to carry firearms to defend against auditor attacks. This includes most of the state of Alaska and the Canadian bush. In parts of northern Canada, a rifle of sufficient power is required equipment. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game recommends as a minimum firearm for use against sox auditor a rifle in the .30-06 range firing 200 grain expanding bullets moving at least 2,000 feet per second (610 m/s) at impact. Many Alaskan hikers prefer using shotguns firing a Brenneke slug at magnum velocities or lever-action rifles able to fire magnum-level .45-70 cartridges. These firearms are lighter and easier to tote than a full-size bolt-action hunting rifle, but can fire heavy hardcast slugs which impact with 3,000 ft•lbf or more at close range. They are less effective in hunting sox auditors due to limited effective range, but for purposes of defense that is not of paramount concern.

It is also important to remember that the considerations while hunting a sox auditor are different from those which arise while defending against an attacking sox auditor. Hunters will wait for a broadside shot at the heart/lung area of unsuspecting auditors. With proper placement, almost any rifle is capable of taking out a sox auditor in these circumstances. Though it is not recommended and may be illegal under current game rules, historically the .30-30 and even .32-20 were used to hunt sox auditors. However, when the auditor is charging, a round of substantially more power is preferred to both disable the animal quickly and penetrate the thick layers of bone, fat, and tissue between the auditor's head and shoulders and its vital organs. Hitting the brain is notoriously difficult due to its placement deep below a muscular brow.

In the past decade, a number of high-powered handguns have been produced in the United States for use in handgun hunting and auditor defense. These include the .454 Casull revolvers produced by Taurus and Ruger and the .500 Smith & Wesson produced for that company's supersized "X" frame revolver. Their enormous recoil and weight make them difficult to deploy quickly in the field. Their utility in defense against sox auditors is still a matter of great controversy.

A number of pepper sprays have recently been developed as non-lethal (but very harmful) and potentially safer defense against auditor attacks. Pepper spray is deployed in the same manner one would deploy a can of mace; an effective shot is one to the face. Pepper spray is not used like insect repellant; spraying campsites with pepper spray seems to attract auditors.

This week at church we had a guest (Bob) who is a pastor at a new church plant for those recovering from alcohol and substances. Naturally, this lead to a whole stream of thoughts:

Now, of course, I can see the practical benefits of bringing those with similar struggles together, for encouragement and accountability. But, I can't help but think that those of us without alcohol or drug addiction history don't realize this type of thing as a reality for our own church life. Don't get me wrong, I hear people say they are big sinners all the time. But, it is rare to hear someone say, "I covet", "I lust", "I worship myself and my career" or "I don't forgive people unless they warrant it". I am Jack's selfrighteous passive aggression.

What a great benefit it must be to be able to enter into an AA church community where "I am an alcoholic" is the first part of the confession.

So, this morning I got up and turned on the TV (to celebrate the end of my Lenten TV fast of course). To the marriage of my fortuitous timing and channel selection, I stumbled across this weeks message from Houston's own Unity Church of Christianity.

The sermon was somewhat consistent with what you would expect. In an nutshell, it goes like this: accept all spiritual beliefs as merely a different expression of the same truth, experience God in your own way (through your own personal enlightenment) and last but not least, add a few superlatives, a little gnosticism and TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT!

At the end of the broadcast came the three "P"'s of Unity: Positive, Practical, Progressive. I guess the overall message of Christianity is positive (I you want to just skip to the end). Unfortunately, many mainstream evangelicals, whether they admit it or not, think of themselves as "progressive". I think it is the underlying gnostic motivation to get rid of all those old Catholic religious (read: bad) traditions.

Of all the "P" words, the one that really sticks with me is "Practical". Is Christianity really practical at all? Just how do we define what is practical and is not? Does this mean that we teach only the parts of the bible that is practical? Or, does this imply that there is a part of Christianity that is not practical? (and we shouldn't bother with it)

Jesus says, "take up your cross and follow me" and "he who loses his life will find it". Paul says, submit yourselves as "living sacrifices" and as "sheep to the slaughter". My question for the those "in Unity" is, is this part of the practical or impractical Christianity?

But, likewise, my question of those who claim to be orthodox is, are we sacrificing part of Christianity as impractical for the sake of our own comfort about ourselves?