Go Not to the Right Nor to the Left
by Tara Chapman
Ye shall observe to do therefore as the ETERNAL your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. ~Deuteronomy 5:32~ (See also Deut. 17:20; 28:14; Josh. 1:7; 23:6; 2 Chr. 34:2; Prov. 4:27)
Here are just a few examples of how people go either to the right or to the left, rather than having a straight mindset:
1. What makes a homosexual. The furthest left view is that a person is "born a homosexual" and "cannot help it." The most extreme right view is that genetics has nothing to do with a person being homosexual.
The TRUTH: There is ample evidence now that genetics does play a role in many cases of active homosexuality. I discuss this in my book Genetic Heavy Metal Toxicity. However, genetics also often plays a role in habitual stealing, compulsive gambling, alcohol- and other drug-addictions, compulsive lying, tendency toward suicide, and so on. It's funny, though, that I don't hear people saying, "He can't help it that he stole your car," and "He can't help it that he lies and abuses alcohol," and "It's just in their genes. They were born that way." Yet, that's what we hear from leftist people concerning practicing homosexuals. The truth is that we are ALL born with one or more major weaknesses/tendencies toward certain sins. Sins DO run in families. There's no doubt about this. And there's no doubt about certain people having homosexual tendencies and even looking homosexual, which isn't much different than the people who look like child molesters or anything else. Chances are those people HAVE those tendencies. So many times I've seen people who both look physically and act (spiritual/mental personality) like other people I know. Again, we ALL have certain sin tendencies. So, for the far right people who totally ignore the evidence that there are genetic tendencies for many homosexuals, I say you're just as bad as the left, because when you ignore solid evidence (concerning ANYTHING), how do you expect to get people to believe you where you ARE correct? Now, where the right is correct on this issue, is that people do NOT have to be homosexual, and they can overcome their sin, just as any other sin. We should not be making genetic excuses for homosexuals anymore than we should for those with genetic tendencies to steal, lie, abuse substances, or commit other sins.
2. What women’s rights are in society. The left view on this is that women should be able to do anything and everything that men do, that she’s free to have as many sexual partners as will take her, that she has the right to hire a professional hitman to knock off her unborn child, that she should not be tied down to--and be too intimate with--her infant by breastfeeding, that she doesn’t have to respect her husband and submit to his final decisions (within reason, of course, as she should not submit for wicked things, such as murdering others upon his request, etc.), and so on. The far right view on this is that a woman has no rights and that her husband’s posession of her equals the status of material possessions, or at a higher level, the status of animals or low servants. She may have to have nearly 100% of her skin covered in public, including the better part of her face. She may be beaten or divorced by her husband for any reason.
The TRUTH: God made man and woman differently. It’s true that they should be treated equally, as far as treatment and value as a human being. This does NOT mean that women should be able to do everything men do. There are some things that women have no business doing, or where some things are concerned, very few women should be doing. People who go bonkers about this don’t stop and think of the other side of the coin. There are some things men have no business doing and that only women should be able to do. Where you have good men, there should be women willing to be just as good and properly carry out their own unique roles in this life. What I see today is a major failure by both sexes in mainstream society. In a marriage setting, at least ONE person must decide to take the first step in changing and quit playing the blame game. In most cases, once the one person changes, the other person will eventually make changes, too. Women in society should not be hidden, as if they’re to be shamed or treated like low-class property (as in the case of material possessions). It’s true that non-married women are the property of their fathers and that married women are the property of their husbands, BUT there are property classes. A wife or daughter should rightfully be top-class property that have deserved rights. Pets, and even livestock, have certain rights, according to our Creator. Wives and daughters have all the more rights.
Now, if a dog has a loving, kind, and protective owner, that dog is usually very loyal and appreciative of its owner and loves him (or her) back. So, if a wife belongs to a loving, kind, and protective husband, should not that woman be loyal, appreciative, and loving toward him? Well, it’s certainly not difficult for me to answer. I have such a loving, kind, and protective husband; and I happen to tell him every day that I’m blessed to belong to him, that I’m his, and that I love him. He would die for me. He’s bent over backward to treat me like a lady. As a matter of fact, that’s his biggest nickname for me—“Lady,” short for “Sweet Lady” or “My Lady.” I could write an entire paper of why I’m so glad I’m in his guardianship. So, what if a husband is not like that? Well, mine hasn’t always been. I wasn’t always deserving of the title “Sweet Lady,” either. I decided to change. And he has changed, too. Women--married and non-married--have certain rights and certain equalities with men. But, they certainly don’t have the “rights” that the far left claims, which has greatly contributed to an immoral and weak society. As one lady, Sidonie Gabrielle Colette, said, "The woman who thinks she is intelligent demands equal rights with men. A woman who is intelligent does not." I know why the intelligent woman does not. The intelligent woman knows society works best when men and women play out the separate roles they were meant to by their Creator. Women actually have it best when this is done, and the intelligent woman knows that.
3. Food, drugs, and healing. The most extreme left view is that the government should pay for medical care (so-called "healthcare") and is the best decision-maker concerning the people's diet and medical treatment, even forcing people to take vaccines and other drugs and treatments against their will and not allowing access to health-giving food. Concerning alcohol and other drugs used not only in medicinal settings but also for religious services and recreation, the far left view is drunkeness and other heavy drug use is a good time and that there's nothing wrong with it. The most extreme right view is that a person should never employ the use of any doctor or hospital and should never use any drug, with the most extreme people being against even herbs in their natural form and alcohol, even when alcohol and herbs are used in moderation for recreation, religious use, or health benefits.
The TRUTH: The left view totally strips people's rights and raises taxes. It leaves people without the right to refuse certain medical treatments for themselves, their spouses, or their children; it robs people of the choice to grow or raise, buy, and eat health-giving food; and it disallows certain drug (even natural herbs) and other treatment choices. If a person does not want toxic crap coursing through their veins, attacking their immune, nervous, and other systems; and interfering with their DNA and reproductive cells, then that person should not have that forced upon him or her and his or her children. A person should not be forced to have his child undergo chemotherapy and/or radiation for cancer. A person should not be forced into a caesarean surgery to deliver a child. A person should not be forced onto dangerous anti-psychotic, anti-depressant drugs, ADHD, sleep-inducing, or other dangerous pharmaceutical drugs or be forced to give them to his or her child. If a person wants to grow his or her own vegetables and/or raise his own livestock and/or hunt his own meat, then a man-made government has no right to deny a person of this. He or she has the God-given liberty to choose these sane choices for his or her family and to take the responsibility for his family's health. A person should be able to also buy organic meat, fruits and vegetables, and organic raw milk. A government has no right to decide a person cannot drink raw milk because of the (small) risk of bacterial contamination, especially since pasteurization and homogenization makes the milk dangerous EVERY TIME (the former kills enzymes and some vitamins, and the former disperses the butterfat into smaller molecules throughout the milk and leads to scarring of the arteries). A government has no right to impose strict regulations on a small farmer's garden or a person's backyard garden. This is all so wrong! It's also wrong to have an extreme left view on alcohol and other substances that can be classified as drugs. When abused, alcohol and other drugs cause short term and long term negative consequences to oneself and others. It's very wrong and detrimental to be a drunk, glutton, or other substance abuser.
On the other hand, the extreme right would love to see alcohol banned for all purposes, including moderate responsible use (recreational, religious, and medicinal). They love that cannabis ("marijuana") is currently banned. They'd rejoice to see caffeine banned. They are extremely anti-doctor and anti-hospital, even in life-threatening situations. The most extreme are even against naturopathic doctors. They also go so far to oppose all medicinal herbs. Oddly, it seems to slip their minds that EVERY substance that we take into our bodies produce certain chemical reactions. Many things are considered as both a food AND drug (the drug being in the food). They are against every psychoactive substance, including the commonly used alcohol, THC, and the most popular worldwide--caffeine. I don't know where these people draw the line. These are the people you read about that martyr themselves or their children because of their extremist beliefs against lifesaving medical care. These are the people who promote some spiritual-only healing, as if physical healing is sin and has no part in the life of a Christian. Ironically, I don't hear any of these people promoting a spiritual-only food diet. I guess that's just too much of a risk to see how long they can go without physical food without dying. Fasting is awesome, but depending on God to keep a person alive indefinitely without food would be a stupid doctrine indeed with a lot of blind faith. Equally stupid is the doctrine that physical naturally-derived drugs do not play an important part in treating, healing, and maintaining both physical and mental health. Believing God uses spiritual healing every time is also blind faith. These are the people who want to strip people of their right to medicine, surgery, and safe (when used wisely and in moderation) recreational and religious psychoactive drugs.
Both of these extreme groups want to add their own control over everyone else by saying their way is right, and neither are giving it a biblical balance based on God's Law of liberty.
4. Exposure to sunlight. The far left view is that a person can go soak up all the rays he or she wants, without any care for one's skin. The far right view is that the sun should be avoided like the plague and that one should slather on toxic lotions and cover up and shade most of their skin when they must be in the sun.
The TRUTH: The sun is very important for all life on earth, and that includes humankind. Despite popular belief, those with a decent amount of sun exposure have a lessened risk of cancer than those who get very little exposure. The sun produces a substance on the surface of our skin that is then soaked up by our skin and transformed into "vitamin D." The sun also draws out toxins to the skin's surface. This is probably a major factor in people getting skin cancer from excessive sun exposure, especially when the people are highly toxic. A healthful diet, including plenty of antioxidants, is very important. Then the sun works to a person's benefit. Excessive sun exposure will age the skin and drain a person's energy. But, those who are not getting plenty of sun exposure are also robbing themselves of good health and are actually significantly raising their risk of cancers. Furthermore, those people who are using sunglasses (I used to be a fanatical sunglasses wearer) are blocking the beneficial rays of the sun that the eye needs to receive, while not protecting the glasses wearer from the harmful ray. People who wear sunscreen lotions are soaking up all sorts of toxic chemicals through their skin and putting a load on their liver, while also blocking vitamin D production. These are the people at the highest risk of skin cancer.
5. Trade with other nations. The far left would to block all trade with other nations, while the far right has a serious infatuation with trade and would rather hire other nations to manufacture the goods of even our own nation and have them imported, rather than have our own people produce higher-quality goods ourselves.
The TRUTH: First of all, I want to make it clear that a nation must use wisdom in deciding with whom to trade goods and services. What is the other nation's government like? What is their people like? How does the government treat its people? How is the importation of their goods going to affect our nation? What are the benefits? What are the risks? What kinds of plants and animals does that nation have that could be transported accidentally or deliberately to our nation that could establish themselves here or mix with our plants and animals, resulting in major catasrophe-causing adulterations? What influence are their goods going to have on our people's physical or mental morale and health? What effect(s) will it have on our nations economy and productiveness?
Will we be benefitting the other nation in a hospitable way with our goods? Will we be affecting their physical and mental health and morale in a positive way? Will we be helping a "good" nation or a "bad" nation? A nation has excessive trade when most of the available products are imported, rather than made at home. A nation has excessive trade when a nation's businesses outsource its work to other nations whose people make inferior products and that have a poor health code or are wicked to their subjects (their citizenship, their people). So, they may be even more wicked to other nations, deliberately including highly toxic substances in their products that they export. A nation has excessive trade when its own people lose their drive for invention, production, and quality and when the people lose their means to make a living.
On the other hand, when trade is totally forbidden, we miss out on benefitting from other peoples' (nations') wonderful talents and quality workmanship, and we lose the opportunity to benefit other peoples (nations). We are stripped of the right to communicate and trade with other peoples who are "good." The answer to international trade is BALANCE and wise discretion and to not neglect the support of our own nation's healthfully-grown foods and quality-made products, at the same time avoiding supporting the farmers and businessmen in our nation who have strayed from morality and quality in the name of greed.
6. Killing an unborn child (embryo or fetus). The far left claims that women have the fundamental right to kill their unborn children for any reason. The far right claims that in absolutely no situation can a woman have her child put to death, even when it's the most pro-life choice.
The TRUTH: To be considered truly pro-life, a person must make a decision of what is the most life-giving option. In nearly all cases, this means that an unborn child's life is not ended. In ALL cases, this means that no child is killed through such "procedures" as partial-birth abortion. There is NO life-threatening situation for a woman that necessitates the killing of a child who can be born and probably live. Natural birth is much safer for women than partial-birth or any late-term abortion is. This is MURDER. If a woman truly has a serious situation, such as having cancer and needing to try to cure it, then induction of labor or caesarean delivery are more than possible. With the greatest care, most premature babies born in the later weeks of pregnancy will live. Birth defects are not a valid reason to kill an unborn child. There are people who have accidents all the time that lower the standards of their lives. I don't see many advocating that we kill those people, and most of the people themselves do not wish to be exterminated.
Really, the only valid reason for the termination of a pregnancy (which results in killing an unborn child) of which I'm aware is that of an ectopic pregnancy. In at least 99% of cases, untreated ectopic pregnancy results in the death of BOTH the mother and the child. An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy in which the unborn child implants outside of the uterus, usually in one of the fallopian tubes. The uterus is the only organ that God designed to be able to properly nourish and deliver a child. When an embryo implants itself in the uterus, the mother has a way of transporting nutrients, fats, proteins, and carbohydrates to her child. They are transported by her bloodstream to the child's bloodstream (without their blood ever mixing). The baby also transports its waste products back out to the mother. When the placenta detaches during labor, after the delivery of the child (in a normal labor and birth), the woman is left with a wound where the placenta was attached to the uterine wall. The uterus is designed to contract and shrink, helped by the sucking on the breasts of the newborn child, which releases more of the hormone oxytocin that causes the contractions. These contractions shrink the uterus and blood vessels, cutting off the bleeding of the uterus where the placenta was attached. The fallopian tubes or other organs do not function in this manner and would lead to the bleeding out of the woman, ending in her death. Furthermore, the uterus was the only organ designed to grow to such a large size and with muscles that are able to support the weight of a full-term fetus child. After only a few weeks of pregnancy, the human embryo baby grows too large for the fallopian tube, and it eventually ruptures, causing the hemorrhaging fatality of the woman, and thus also her unborn child.
I've only seen ONE case of where an ectopic pregnancy resulting in full-term healthy babies and a surviving mother, and it was truly a MIRACLE. I saw it on a television program that goes by a name such as Medical Miracles or something similar. The woman had triplets, and her tubes ruptured, and the babies grew in various places outside of her uterus (one may have been in the uterus). Although she had to make visits to the ER and had to spend all her time in the hospital toward the end of her pregnancy, she somehow survived the pregnancy, and her babies survived. The delivery was very tense and scary for everyone involved. The babies had to be delivered via cesarean, obviously. They were not sure what do do for the woman, though. They were afraid to manually detach the placentas, because they didn't know how they were going to stop such bleeding that would result, but they didn't want to leave the placentas there, either, because of the risk of infection. They didn't know what to do. They started closing her back up when one or more of the placentas detached on their own (to the best of my recollection). It was a very big deal, and the woman bled a lot. Miraculously, they managed to keep her alive and get the bleeding eventually stopped (there was a lot they had to do, and they may have had to do a hysterectomy, but I can't remember). This was one of those rare miracles.
Almost 100% of ruptured ectopic pregnancies end in the death of mother and baby. The solution is to surgically remove the little embryo from the fallopian tube, thereby saving the life of the mother. This becomes even more crucial when the mother has other children at home for whom she needs to care. The more pro-life position, then, is to save ONE of the lives, rather than losing BOTH lives. The mother's life can usually be saved. If this sounds insane to some, let me bring up another example. There have been some cases of twins born where they share organs. I remember two little twin girls that made the national news, where each had half a heart. The parents had an option of saving one of the girls' lives by doing surgery and taking the one half of the heart from one little girl and transplanting it into the other twin, joining the two halves properly. The only other option was to let both girls die. Now, NO ONE in their right mind wants to be faced with such situations and decisions, such as ectopic pregnancy and twins that share organs where one can live or both can die. It's hard to decide to sacrifice one life to save one, but when the only other option is for BOTH lives to perish, I think the more pro-life decision is the ONLY decision that ends with someone still living. Pro-life is definitely the right way to be, but in rare cases that can mean the loss of life. I want to say in conclusion that ectopic pregnancy is rare and has certain risk factors, most of which can be avoided by a healthful lifestyle and not using certain conception control devices. Likewise, the risk of genetic defects in children, including twins sharing organs, are greatly lessened when a person is living a healthful lifestyle, especially a healthful diet. Maybe one day medical advances will make it possible to transfer the embryo from the fallopian tube to the uterus, giving it a chance of survival. But, until that day comes, if it ever does, a person in that situation has a choice: mother and baby die, or mother lives and baby dies. And in my opinion, I believe a woman shouldn't be sentenced to death by a law that forbids removal of the child embryo from the fallopian tube or other non-uterine location. The baby is going to die in the same manner regardless of the choice.
7. Our relationship with the earth and the honor it does and/or doesn't deserve. The far left is fanatical in its honor of Mother Earth and holds the honoring of the created matter (maternal=motherly) in higher regard than the Creator, our Father in heaven, who owns--"holds the patent"--(paternal=fatherly)--and created the earth. The most extreme right actually dishonors the Father--the Most High God--by the lack of honor/respect toward our Mother Earth, evidenced in the harsh abuse and lack of care by such people.
The TRUTH: Both of these extremes are wrong. There are those who do worship the earth and some of the creatures on it, including the worship of trees in the belief they re the dwelling places of some sort of spirit personages--sprites or whatever. These people do give the earth a goddess position and go overboard in their respect of the earth, such as saying no trees should ever be cut. But, then the people on the far right hold just as equally downright stupid beliefs, as if continuously pumping out enormous amounts of petroleum that pollutes the air and water and goes into manufacturing non-biodegradable and toxic products to pollute the land is morally great! They strongly support overlogging and deny the fact that we are overlogging--cutting down entirely too many trees. I've seriously read the words of such supporters and their unbelievable statements and weak explanations that cutting down the trees at the rate we're doing so is a good and beneficial practice! The so-called "Christian" right views recycling, growing hemp, and instituting "green" technologies that use wind and solar energy as a form of earth worship. Give me a break!
Taking part in earth goddess worship rituals and revering trees as homes to sprites is definitely a transgression against God, but honoring our physical mother (all flesh was formed from the earth and returns to the earth--recycled) is expected by God. It's an important part of the 5th commandment. Are we to think taking care of our own physical bodies is self-worship and transgressing against God, or rather is trashing our bodies and exhausting our bodies' natural resources the transgression? Apply this principle to the earth--the mother of our physical bodies and the one our Father God provided to nourish and nurture us with water, food, and delightful blessings of nature. Think about this, and you'll see the folly in both the extreme leftist earth worshippers and the extreme rightist earth abusers.
The right things are to follow all of God's agricultural statutes, to avoid overproduction of non-biodegradable products, to practice reusing and recycling, to make use of earth-friendly (and people-, animal-, and plant-friendly) technologies, and to focus on quickly-renewable and vastly-useful plants such as cannabis hemp and some species of bamboo. And finally, remember the sabbath day--a memorial of creation--by thanking our Father for giving us an awesome mother for our temporary physical needs and pleasures. The children of God look forward to having immortal spirit minds and immortal spirit bodies, but the best children know that they should respect their temporary physical bodies and the physical mother body on which we temporarily dwell, until that time of change comes.
There are endless examples of how people go to the right or to the left, rather than staying set on God's commandments and walking the straight path. These 7 were just examples that I chose, because they are popular topics in our nation and other nations. Stay focused on God's Law of Liberty, don't add or take away, be zealous toward the Law, but also learn where we have mercy in certain cases. Look for my upcoming article, "Moral Absolutes or No? Why Both Extreme Views are Erroneous in an Imperfect World."