Selfishness is Supreme and Another Family Dies. The Backlash of Pursuing Happiness.

I deeply appreciate Switchfoot's sentiment in their song titled Happy is a Yuppie Word. Not what you would call an uplifting song, but the message throughout the song holds true. This chasing after the concept of happiness is really something that was popularized in the 60's and 70's and used as a marketing tool in the 80's with the Yuppies. It is a fruitless and fleeting pursuit that does hurt the people around you, despite what the selfish promotion would claim.

I have a friend of a friend of a friend who's family is being destroyed today. Not trying to assume I understand the circumstances leading up to where they are today, but I can guarantee you, it is this prevailing ideal of happiness played a huge part in it. Happiness depends on circumstances and external events... things that are not dependable and strangely, remove any personal responsibility and accountability for one's self.

Without revealing too much, the mother wasn't getting what she wanted from her husband, reconnected with an old boyfriend, and decided the old boyfriend would give her what she wanted better than her husband. How they had reconnected and the dangers and pitfalls associated with social networking sites are great topics for a different post. What really matters is this mother is taking her children, uprooting them from the life they have had for the past few years, the friends they made, and most importantly their father. She is taking them to another state to live with her and the new boyfriend (who incidentally is leaving his family as well).

The thought process of this mother is along the lines of "it is my time to be happy" and that "the children would want her to be happy". So basically, theses children who have already been doing poorly at school and having personal difficulties because they know there are problems with their parents, have been stressed and other issues. Now these children are supposed to take upon themselves adult issues and perspectives. So the children are expected to desire more for the parent than the parent is to desire for their children. Isn't that backwards? Isn't that expecting the child to have maturity beyond their years? And the parent relinquishes their maturity and responsibility.

I thought that once you have a child, your job is to provide for that child at least for the first 18 years. The adult's responsibility is to that child and to the child's well being, physically and emotionally. When did that change?!? At what point did the parent no longer need to put their child first? The child did not ask to take on that position. You may say, neither do all parent's ask to take on that responsibility. The problem with that kind of thinking is that the parent's decisions resulted in a consequence. You cannot always choice your consequence, but you certainly are aware of the chance of pregnancy being possible when you engage in certain behaviors. So let's not once again play the victim but instead this time step up and accept our responsibilities like big people are supposed to do.

Please don't hear what I am not saying. I am not saying that we cannot be happy. On the contrary, Christians are supposed to be filled with joy. Joy is outside of circumstances and is about accepting personal responsibility. Joy is about choosing your outlook on a given situation. Joy is maintaining proper perspective and seeing the good and hope in a situation. Sure, you can be happy as well because the circumstances allow. But be happy because of the contentment you have in what you have and what God provides. Don't go around expecting other people and the next great thing to make you happy. Don't relinquish your responsibilities and your control to others. Don't chase after the illusive rainbow that moves as you move. Life takes work, but the rewards are worth it.

So put your trust in God and His promises. He is faithful and He will not let you down. His Word gives us the secrets to this thing called life. And it only makes sense.... He created the game, so His rules are going to be the ones that work best. Put other people first. Put other's needs ahead of your own, knowing that God will reward your efforts. What you will find out is what so many before you have found out, you will have joy and peace and contentment and know a love more satisfying than anything you have known on this earth. Chase after what truly fulfills and never fails.

And most importantly, if you are finding yourself heading down a path you never thought you would be on, open your eyes to all who are truly affected by your decisions. Pray for perspective, seek sound Godly counsel, and mirror your decisions as closely as you can to the sound and proven principles of life. And then step up, accept your choices and responsibility, and make the changes inside yourself needed to benefit the ones around you. Despite what you may be thinking now, you will get more than you ever hoped for in return.

Making a mountain out of a monkey

By now you may have heard some of the rumblings about the Ida fossil. The title links to an article from off of Crosswalk.com regarding the situation.

I am not sure how much you may or may not know about evolution. It is important to know that evolution has two components: Micro and Macro. No one disputes in the slightest that Micro-evolution, that type of evolution that accounts for changes within a species like a new bread of dog or changes, is real and occurs. In that respect, evolution, Micro-evolution that is, is a proven, undisputed fact.

The challenge is that practice Darwinism (which many would go as far as classify as a religion) don't want to approach things in the pure scientific manor that they claim. For example, I believe every scientist will agree the importance of defining terms clearly so that everyone is aware of what is being discussed. This is not the case with Darwinist. Darwinist will use the term evolution without specifying what they mean. Often, Darwinist will confuse the issue (intentionally?) with this strategy of jumping from discussing Micro and Macro issues but only using the term evolution. For example, Darwinist will state that evolution is a proven fact when they are referring to Micro-evolution. Then the same Darwinist will begin discussing Macro-evolution without clarifying that they had changed terms and meanings. It is equivalent to only using the term temperature but then move from Fahrenheit to Celsius to Kalvin and back or to only using the word distance when you may mean miles, yards or feet without clarifying what you mean.

So now that we are talking about the same thing, I believe there will be a better position for understanding.

What Darwinist have been attempting to do for the last 150 years was prove the theory of Macro-evolution was more than a theory. The evidence has been hard to come by and they have had many seemingly big victories that have been highly publicized, only to find out what they had were just hoaxes or frauds (see article from Time Magazine) that seem to not get as much media play. In fact, there are several examples proven as hoaxes that are still found to be used as proof in science text books in today's classrooms.

The Ida fossil is the recent hope for Darwinism. The fossil itself has been withheld from the public for years and has not had time for peer review of the findings. Nevertheless, there are those that are quick to hold it up as the latest 'Holy Grail', although you are not allowed to say 'Holy' as being a Darwinist also means that you are a Secular Humanist (which is an entirely different subject). I am not saying there are not people out there who think they can be Darwinist and not Secular Humanist, but again, if you look at the definition of terms, that is what it means.

Besides the points made in the article, there are some very glaring gross generalizations that were implied. I thought the missing link was to be a transitional form from ape to man. If I understand the assertion, this lemur relative is allegedly a transitional form from one animal type to a primate. That is a huge leap to be taking if you are going to say that because there is a transition from prosimians to anthropoids that there is a transition from ape to man. If this kind of generalization were applied in any other area of science, the scientist would be called reckless and irresponsible. But the point of Darwinist is not to prove science, it is to prove a point and hold to a faith.

What is sad is the practical application of Darwinian theories has already been seen and continues to this day. Carl Marx was a huge Darwin fan and supporter. So was Adolph Hitler and his scientist who practiced eugenics; the founding principle of Planned Parenthood.

If you consider yourself in the slightest a feminist or support of woman's rights, I strongly suggest you read (for yourself) the beliefs of Darwin and his colleagues about the superiority of the male mind over the smaller, less effective female mind. The same goes with civil rights where Darwin's theories supported that the African American brain was more like an animal than a person. Or even gay rights. This is not me, the Christian, this is Darwin. My God tells me He made everyone and that they are special to Him and should be treated with respect, dignity, and love. Even if I don't agree with them, I am to pray for them and give them food when they are hungry and a drink when they thirst. It is not my job to decide that someone is of a particular skin tone or financial status or genetic desirability that they should live or die or how they should be treated.

The question still goes back to the fact that we have so many fossil records of so many different animal types, but there is a grossly obvious lack of the transitional forms in general. These transitional forms are the very proof Darwin stated in his theory that would be needed to prove his theory. Darwin wrote that if these transitional fossils were not found, then his theory would break down.

Darwin and the people of his day didn't have the technology we have and thought the cell was something simple. We know today that it is one of the most intricate and complex things we know of in existence. Even the simplest forms of bacteria are astounding atheistic scientist who simply are losing their faith in Darwin's theory.