Matt Fradd's Blog, page 17

Get Back Into Reading With These 3 Tips

Did you used to love reading, but then dropped it? Many people have, especially with social media taking up more of our free time.

If you want to start reading again, the following tips will help you ease back into this pleasurable pastime.

 

1. Start with fairy tales.
Fairy tales are a great way to retrain yourself to read. They’re delightful and don’t require as much brain power as other forms of literature.

It’s traditional to start youngsters off this way, then graduate to poetry and the classics. After treading this well-worn path, read C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. They both draw upon the millennia-old traditions of storytelling, so you’ll appreciate these authors better if you know the books that fed their imaginations.

2. Listen to audiobooks.
Stories were originally passed on orally — whether around a campfire or from a grandparent in a rocking chair. There’s a power to oral storytelling that you can’t get from a book.

Many excellent books are available in audio form. This can be a great transition from not reading to consuming books. After listening to an audiobook, go and read the actual book. You’ll already have the story’s pattern in your head, which will make it easier to follow the text.

3. Create a dedicated reading nook.
While there’s something to be said about being able to read anywhere, a good reading environment goes a long way. Place a comfy chair in a quiet corner of your home. If you own enough books, display them on an attractive bookshelf, surrounded by inspirational decorations.

Few things are as delightful as sipping a good beverage as you read. Make sure you have a side table handy for your drink of choice.

Reading is simply too valuable a pastime for us to let it disappear. We’re all too glued to our phones. Let’s make some time to put them down and pick up a book!

The post Get Back Into Reading With These 3 Tips appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

“SHOCKING” Differences Between Men and Women

“Women are more sensitive than men.” What’s your reaction to that statement? Many today find it offensive because it’s a stereotype.

But as with many gender “stereotypes,” there’s a lot in science that backs it up. Men and women are VERY different, and that difference goes right down to the way we sense and process the world around us.

In an age where gender is supposedly fluid, it’s good to reinforce just how biologically different men and women are. Let’s look at a few surprising features unique to each.

(Note that many of these differences are generalizations. While it’s true that they predominantly apply to one sex over the other, they don’t apply to every member of that sex.)

 

Hearing
Both men and women excel in some aspects of hearing. For example, both men and women have microscopic hairs in their inner ears. But a woman’s vibrate at a far greater intensity than a man’s. This makes women more capable of hearing nuances and inflections in the human voice.

Women are also able to multitask more than men. They can listen to several conversations simultaneously. On the other hand, many men become functionally deaf when engaged in another activity, such as reading. Men only use one hemisphere of the brain when listening. Women use both.

Men exceed in pinpointing the origin of a sound in three-dimensional space. Of course, this came in use through much of human history, as men were predominantly the hunters.

Smell
Women have 7 million more cells in their olfactory bulb than men. They can discern between scents with much greater accuracy than men can. For mothers with sons, that’s why they walk into their sons’ rooms and plug their noses while their sons protest that they don’t smell anything.

Sight
Women discern colors better than men can. That’s why they can much more accurately pick out colors like fuchsia — a color many men simply call “pink” or “purple.”

Empathy
Women tend to have more empathy than men (again, we’re talking about generalizations here). There was a funny experiment that highlighted this. Scientists took a room full of boys and girls, put up a wall, and made a baby start crying on the other side of the wall.

The scientists put an intercom system in so that the boys and girls could hear the baby crying. You could click a button to talk to the baby or press the mute button to “silence” it.

The girls all chose to talk to the baby to comfort it. The boys? Easy, they just hit the mute button to be done with all that crying!

There are real neurological differences between men and women. No matter how often society tries to convince us that these differences don’t matter, they do. Maybe instead of running away from the identity God gave us, we should fully embrace it and discover how to best use it to serve His kingdom!

The post “SHOCKING” Differences Between Men and Women appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Let’s Be Honest: Trans Identification is a Social Contagion

For most of human history, you didn’t hear much about men claiming they were women or vice versa. Sure, you can find a few cases here and there, but nothing like what you’ve seen over the past decade.

Today, the number of people identifying as transgender is increasing at an unusually rapid rate. One doctor compared it to the multiple personality craze of the 1980s and ’90s where, all of a sudden, many more people were claiming to have that condition.

This begs the question, why this sudden sharp rise in trans people? Is it because there have always been lots of trans people who kept their identities hidden?

That’s unlikely. The trans movement is taking off because it became trendy. That’s why it’s so prevalent among adolescents. Researchers such as Dr. Lisa Littman and Abigail Shrier have a lot of findings that back this up. We recommend checking out some of their work, especially Shrier’s book “Irreversible Damage.”

“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition” was published in 2013. According to the manual, the prevalence of gender dysphoria in adult males was .005% to .014%. That’s a very small number! For adult women, it was even lower: .002% to .003%. Through much of the early history of transgenderism, you mostly saw men who became excited about the prospect of appearing as a woman. Hardly any women claimed to be men.

Look now at the number of men and women coming out as trans. The statistics are anywhere from .6% to 3%. That’s an astronomical rise in just over one decade!

In addition to more people identifying as trans, there has been a massive inversion of the sex ratio. Now it’s largely teenage girls during the same time that social media has become more popular.

Don’t be pressured into thinking that the rise in trans identification is due to people discovering their “true selves.” As humans, we love joining the crowd and embracing the latest fads in a desperate attempt to stay relevant.

Let’s just hope and pray that this trend doesn’t last. God made each of us male and female for a reason. It’s only in embracing God’s plan for us that we will find true peace.

The post Let’s Be Honest: Trans Identification is a Social Contagion appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

My Heated Debate On Masturbation with Dennis Prager

In my recent conversation with Dennis Prager, the subject of masturbation came up.

Prager said that since masturbation is nowhere condemned in the Old or New Testaments, this serves as evidence that masturbation is not a sin.

This is what is called an argument from silence, where a conclusion is based upon silence or lack of evidence. Such arguments aren’t always illegitimate, but they are notoriously weak and inconclusive. The Bible also does not condemn insider trading and chattel slavery, for example, but Prager would condemn these as sins.

Prager also responded preemptively to something he suspected I might bring up—the sin of Onan:

Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”

But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also (Gen. 38:6-10).

This passage involves the Hebrew custom of levirate marriage, according to which, if a man died childless, it was his brother’s duty to marry the widow and father children who would be legally regarded as sons of the dead man. It is called levirate marriage since levir is the Latin term for brother-in-law, and the woman’s brother-in-law is the biological father of the children.

Onan did not wish to father children for his dead brother, but he did want to have sexual pleasure from the widow, so he practiced coitus interruptus to avoid inseminating her—allowing him the pleasure of sex with the woman but preventing him from fathering children for his brother.

This passage has been used by many Christians as a prooftext against deliberately rendering the sexual act infertile, which includes masturbation.

However, Prager made the case that Onan was punished not for “spilling his seed” but for violating the levirate marriage custom.

At the time of my discussion with Prager, I wasn’t equipped to respond to this objection in the heat of the moment, and so I addressed his objection from a natural law perspective. Namely, we can know by reason what sex is for (union and procreation), and to deliberately thwart the end of sex is a perversion.

While it can be tricky to discern the nuances of what was in the mind of a biblical author writing 3,000 years ago, if I could engage Prager on this again, I would make these points:

1. Prager Is at Odds with Other Jews
Prager is at odds with the respected Jewish commentary, Bereishis: Genesis which states:

[Onan] misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving of death (5:1677).

2. The Penalty Is Far Less Severe in the Mosaic law
If Prager was correct and Onan was struck dead by God for refusing to give offspring to his deceased brother’s wife, why isn’t the death penalty applied to other cases where a man refuses to fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law? The penalty announced by the Mosaic law isn’t death but merely public humiliation. If a man refuses to perform the duty, then:

His brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, “So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.” And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, “The house of him who had his sandal pulled off” (Deut. 25:9-10).

The fact that the Mosaic law required public humiliation for failing to fulfill the responsibility—but Onan was put to death—indicates that Onan was guilty of more than just failing to fulfill the responsibility. There was something immoral about the sexual acts that he performed with the woman.

Thus, the text says that “what he did [i.e., the sexual acts with coitus interruptus] was displeasing in the sight of the LORD.” It does not say “what he did not do [i.e., give children to his brother]” was what earned him death. The latter failure would only have warranted public humiliation according to God’s law through Moses. The way the text presents matters, it’s what Onan did do, not what he didn’t do, that caused his death.

3. The Use of Graphic Language
Hebrew contains several ways of referring to the sexual act—to “know,” to “go in to,” and to “lie with.” The first of these is the most decorous and normally refers to lawful, wholesome sexuality (e.g., “Adam knew Eve his wife,” Gen. 4:1). The latter two are more blunt and can refer to both lawful and unlawful sex.

In Genesis 38, we go beyond these simple descriptions, and we are told the precise details of what Onan did: “When he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground.” This unexpected intrusion of the graphic details of what Onan did calls attention to the specific thing that he did wrong. As Fr. Brian Harrison notes:

If the inspired author, while knowing the same historical facts, had evaluated them in the way most modern exegetes would have us believe he did (with moral indifference toward Onan’s contraceptive act as such), we would expect quite different wording. “Spilling the seed,” being irrelevant to the author’s interest and purpose on that hypothesis, would not even have been mentioned. Instead, we would expect to be faced with an account stating more discreetly that, even though Onan took Tamar legally as his wife, he refused to allow her to conceive, so that God slew him for his “hardness of heart,” his pride, or perhaps his avarice (in wanting his brother’s property to pass to himself and his own sons) (The Real Sin of Onan).

4. Natural Law
We also should consider what happened from the perspective of natural law—that is, what a reasonable person would conclude based on human nature.

One way of applying this to the current situation is to simply ask, “What are human genitals supposed to do? What’s their function?”

The answer is obvious. They have two functions: eliminating waste (urine) and facilitating reproduction (directly, through the transmission of semen, and indirectly, through uniting the spouses). These are their obvious, proper uses.

Therefore, if you’re doing something else with your genitals—or if you deliberately keep them from fulfilling their proper uses, as Onan did—then you are misusing them by definition.

5. Protestants Should Agree With Catholics
If you’re a Protestant and belong to a denomination that interprets the Onan incident the way Prager does, there’s no reason you can’t change your mind while remaining a staunch Protestant. These Protestant reformers agreed with the historical Catholic interpretation as well:

The exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her—that is, he lies with her and copulates—and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him (Martin Luther, Commentary on Genesis).

The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring (John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis).

Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, and the memory of the brother that was gone, refused to raise of seed to his brother. Those sins that dishonor the body and defile it are very displeasing to God and evidences of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord and destroy their own souls (John Wesley, Commentary on Genesis).

6. Conclusion
Fr. Harrison offers a good summary of the situation:

A purely historical awareness of the unanimity of Jewish tradition on this point highlights how implausible and anachronistic is the view we are criticizing.

That view involves the gratuitous suggestion that the ancient author of Genesis 38 was a lone “liberal” who, in contrast to every other Jewish commentator until recent times, was unaccountably permissive about unnatural sex acts while at the same time, paradoxically, showing himself (and God) to be unaccountably severe in regard to infractions of the levirate marriage custom.

The witness of Christian as well as Jewish tradition on this point should be emphasized. That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Genesis 38:9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of the twentieth century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of Western culture and its exaggerated concern for “over-population.”

Sad to say, these preconceptions have since become entrenched as a new exegetical “orthodoxy” that no longer can see in this scriptural passage even a trace of indignation against intrinsically sterile forms of genital activity (ibid.).

 

The post My Heated Debate On Masturbation with Dennis Prager appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Assisted Suicide and the Left’s Plan to Control Language

Today, assisted suicide is becoming more widely accepted and legal in many parts of the world — something that would have been unthinkable not too long ago.

How did this happen? Part of it was through the manipulation of language. Anyone who has read George Orwell’s “1984” knows the power of changing language to control minds.

Let’s take a look at how assisted suicide has become more widespread by Leftists rephrasing the debate to change minds.

Assisted suicide
Assisted suicide is when a patient kills him or herself with a doctor’s assistance (euthanasia is when the doctor directly kills the patient). This phrase was used for a long time — even up until the last decade as more places began legalizing the practice.

But there was a problem with using this phrase. You can’t sell suicide. The vast majority of people don’t see suicide as positive. That’s because many people know someone they love who is (or has been) suicidal and whom they’ve desperately tried to help. They didn’t want them to commit suicide because it would break their own hearts.

Leftists decided to move away from the word “suicide” to phrases that could better sell their agenda.

Medical aid in dying and end-of-life care
Don’t both of those phrases sound nice? After all, who wouldn’t want medical aid on their deathbed? If someone asked you if you were against medical aid in dying, you’d feel compelled to say “no,” otherwise, you’d sound heartless.

But while “medical aid in dying” and “end-of-life care” once made you think of palliative care, now they often mean a lethal injection.

This is just one of many examples of the Left trying to change language to change minds. We see it with the LGBTQ agenda. We see it when abortion is called “women’s reproductive care.”

Maybe it’s time we take George Orwell’s warning and recognize that we’re being duped by simple changes in the way we speak. And let’s make sure we’re using our own language to clearly (though prudently) speak the truth to a world becoming more consumed by the Culture of Death.

The post Assisted Suicide and the Left’s Plan to Control Language appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Is Technology Ruining Your Friendships?

We are more connected to each other than ever before through texting, social media, and video chat. Yet, so many people still feel lonely.

Friends who used to spend time together in person are often opting for hanging out online.

Is this a good thing? Here are some ways that technology may actually be harming your friendships.

You may not appreciate your friends as much.
If you see someone in person on a regular basis, you feel a void if he or she goes somewhere far away.

You may feel sad and alone. But on the flip side, that void is one of the best ways to confirm that your friend really exists. Just imagine if he or she left for a year and came back and you said, “I didn’t even notice you were gone!”

In your friend’s absence, you can sit and appreciate just how much he or she means to you. Hopefully, that also leads you to pray for this person. Prayer is the best way to unite with another person, and it doesn’t require physical proximity.

You don’t put as much effort into communicating with a friend.
Texting can never beat a hand-written letter. With a letter, you are sharing something that is uniquely your own — your handwriting. And it takes effort. It’s a labor of love.

Texting is less so. First, sending a text isn’t actually your work, but the work of tech billionaires. They are the ones making it easier for you to send your message.

When we text, we fool ourselves into thinking we’re the ones doing something. Unlike physical handwriting, a text doesn’t show as much of your personality since you’re not styling the letters.

The other problem with texting is that you have communication without collaboration in a common work. What do we mean? When you’re with another person, conversations bounce off each other in real-time. With texting, you may wait hours (or days) for a response.

Nothing beats being in the same room with someone.
When you’re in the same room, you’re seeing the other person in the flesh. On a video chat, you’re just viewing a representation of his or her likeness. You’re looking into a camera, not your friend’s eyes. A technological middleman has come between you and the other person.

This is not to say that texting and video chats are bad. They serve a purpose, but we can’t let them replace in-person conversation. We are each made in the image and likeness of God. Let’s enjoy that likeness in each other often, without a device coming between us!

The post Is Technology Ruining Your Friendships? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

What Should Spouses Do for Each Other?

When people first get married, they make typical sweet gestures, like giving flowers and chocolates.

But after years of marriage, their needs change. Those earlier romantic actions may still bring a smile to your spouse’s face, but if you hand over a bunch of flowers and walk out of the room while the kids are screaming, she may think, “What on earth am I supposed to do with these?”

There are more practical things you can do to show your spouse you love him or her. Here are a few.

 

 

Emphasize acts of service.
Deal with the children. Make dinner. While it’s fine to have certain defined roles, you should go above and beyond to share the load. Sticking too rigidly to your prescribed tasks could place an undue burden on your spouse.

Ask what you can do to show your love.
Sometimes you have the best intentions and jump in to “help” a spouse — only to find you’re making a situation worse.

Clear communication will help you avoid this. One example: Tell your spouse, “When you do (this action), I know it’s you loving me.” You’ll be surprised at how much conflict can be avoided by this simple gesture.

Don’t forget to pray for each other.
This may seem obvious, but in the heat of the moment, it’s easy to think about your own uncomfortable feelings. You may forget to pray or decide you don’t feel like it.

But saying a quick, quiet prayer should be one of the first things you do. Just don’t use that as an excuse to avoid physically helping your spouse! Prayer should lead to action.

Much of married life is learning to sacrifice yourself for the other person, even in times of stress. That’s how we imitate Christ’s love for us. And even then, we don’t have to go as far as He did. You’re not dying on a cross for the sins of the world, so you can certainly shoulder your share of the household responsibilities.

The post What Should Spouses Do for Each Other? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

What Is Vladimir Putin REALLY Doing?

Russia’s assault on Ukraine has been going on for over a year now. Many people have rightly condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin’s murderous rampage, which has killed thousands of innocent civilians.

But why is Putin really doing all of this? Our friend Deacon Nicholas Kotar — who comes from a family of Russian immigrants — offers some insights.

First, a word of caution about reports coming from the Russian government.
Government officials lie about virtually everything. If they’re actually telling the truth, you can’t ever tell.

To be able to discern the truth, you need to have a lot of historical context and talk to people who were in the room when decisions were made. And even then you’re probably only getting tidbits of the truth.

Putin is clearly making it difficult for others to discern his motives.

It’s not just politics — it’s values.
According to CNN, the Russian Orthodox Church cited opposition to the LGBTQ community as one reason for Russia’s invasion. That’s a highly questionable statement, although it contains a nugget of truth.

What the Russian government IS doing is drawing a red line to stop the spread of a certain style of liberalism it detests. Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone and test case for the spread of a system of values that is mostly embraced by the elites, not the regular people.

Because there is a lot of money coming in from the West, there is an inherent tension between the elites of Ukraine and the elites of Russia. What Putin probably thought at the start of the invasion was that he would go into Ukraine and ordinary people would accept him as a savior.

It seems that he thought he was liberating the people of Ukraine from their leaders and the values those leaders espoused. But that’s not how things turned out.

The West is tying aid to Ukraine with the acceptance of its values. Many Ukrainians are looking to the West to save them, not Putin.

This war is merely a continuation of the age-long conflict Russia has been waging with the West. It goes back centuries.

It’s a very complicated and difficult conflict to understand. Be careful about jumping to conclusions based on what you hear in the media, even as we stand strong in condemning Russia’s inhumane actions.

Neither side is going to back down. The conflict goes way too deep. Let’s take up arms in the form of our rosaries and beg God for an end to a war that should be unacceptable in a supposedly “civilized” world.

The post What Is Vladimir Putin REALLY Doing? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

How the Medical World Is Creating Lifelong Patients

We’re in the grip of an ideology that refuses to see the truth. Many proponents of transgenderism try to shut down debate by labeling their opponents “bigots.”

Many businesses and organizations are siding with transgender advocates. Some are probably doing it out of pressure. But others — like the pharmaceutical and medical industries — have another compelling reason for supporting transgenderism: money.

Yes, transgenderism currently provides a lucrative flow of cash for the medical field. Here’s how.

Gender transitioning carries a heavy price tag.
“Medical care” for transgendered individuals is now a multimillion-dollar industry. Soon it may be in the billions.

Let’s say a man wants to transition to a woman. What process does he go through? He’d have his testes removed — basically, castration — and his body wouldn’t naturally produce testosterone anymore.

Five years later, he may regret this decision. He would then become a lifetime patient, continuously receiving testosterone to feel like a normal man again.

But if he wants to continue being “female,” he’s going to need testosterone blockers and estrogen supplements.

In both cases, he’s looking at lifelong medical care, which carries a heavy price tag. Medical and pharmaceutical professionals get to line their pockets with lifetime payments from this one man.

If a woman wants to have a phalloplasty (construction of a penis), that surgery can cost anywhere from $40,000 to $100,000. Typically, the first surgery is not successful, so more are required — sometimes surpassing a dozen!

We should feel compassion for people who undergo these horrific procedures. They must be experiencing an incredible amount of suffering if they’re being driven to endure surgery after surgery, hormone treatment after hormone treatment.

The medical world, on the other hand, has an incentive (now) to side with the transgender agenda. Let’s stop pretending they’re all in it to support human rights. Many are in it for the money. Simple as that.

But they will also listen to their shareholders. The lawsuits have started flooding in, and they are increasing in number. The investors are starting to wonder where the tipping point is.

The medical field will continue to follow the money. But they may soon be shocked to find that the lawsuits outweigh the money they glean by making their drugs and performing their surgeries.

Maybe, then, sense will return to them. We can only hope and pray.

The post How the Medical World Is Creating Lifelong Patients appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Why Philosophy Isn’t Enough, According to St. Thomas Aquinas

Philosophy helps us uncover some of the deepest truths of existence. The Church even teaches that we can know the existence of God and obtain limited knowledge of some of His attributes from reason alone.

Why, then, do we need theology? After all, knowledge of God is the highest knowledge of all. If philosophy affords us a glimpse into God’s nature, what can theology offer?

St. Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher, but in his “Summa Theologiae,” he argued that theology (knowledge of God based on divine revelation) was still necessary.

Here’s why.

Theology reveals truths that our reason could not discover.
Isaiah 64:4 says, “The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee.”

We are directed to a goal — communion with God — that we cannot grasp intellectually. And many truths about God can’t be discovered by reason alone, such as the Trinity and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. God reveals these truths that exceed our reason so that we can arrive at the supernatural goal He calls us to.

Theology aids us in knowing even truths that we could discover by reason.
St. Thomas says, “Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation.”

We acknowledged that certain things about God — such as His existence — can be discovered by reason. But Original Sin darkened our intellect and weakened our will, so these truths are not always obvious to us. Revelation is the light shining in the darkness to show us what our clouded minds have trouble perceiving.

If we didn’t have divine revelation, St. Thomas says, the knowledge of God attainable by reason “would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors.”

We see this in other religions that don’t enjoy the divine revelation we have in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Although there are elements of light and truth, they’re mixed with many errors. This shows how difficult it is to come to an accurate knowledge of God without divine revelation.

It’s important to note that revelation doesn’t interrupt or contradict reason. It raises it beyond its normal capacity. Ultimately, philosophical truths can never be in disagreement with theological truths. If there’s a contradiction, you’re doing your philosophy or your theology wrong.

We are beings called to a supernatural end surpassing our reason. Thankfully, God hasn’t left us in the darkness. We have philosophy to get us started on the right path, but revelation is what will get us to our destination.

The post Why Philosophy Isn’t Enough, According to St. Thomas Aquinas appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.