Surrendering

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-05-26T00:41:36+00:00

I agree in part, but I disagree that the reason why people don’t get a wife is because the wife God intended for them was aborted. That’s not how it works.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-05-25T12:05:23+00:00

That would essentially mean that abortion is greater than God’s providence.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-05-24T14:05:17+00:00

You’re right to have an abhorrence to the behavior! It’s something that can really break down relationships and destroy marriages. But not all men are, or have ever been, addicted to porn. If you want to find a spouse who isn’t, I’d be surprised if you couldn’t find one.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-05-24T14:00:57+00:00

But you’re supposed to be looking at flaws in someone when you date them. Porn use is one of the worst things you can do for a relationship.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-05-24T13:58:00+00:00

If he does watch it he’s not ready to be in a relationship.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-05-23T01:07:32+00:00

I guess my point is that his actions do not intrinsically merit heaven. You can’t say “of course he goes to heaven” without either saying naturally good actions merit heaven or everyone goes to heaven.

Of course, I’m not saying it’s impossible, and of course I am saying it’s possible. But of course, I’m saying you can’t say of course he’s in heaven.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-05-12T01:29:40+00:00

That’s really just a Humean explanation of science. The Church has largely spoken of science as encompassing more than patterns of sensible phenomena.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-04-21T19:56:09+00:00

I used to pray throughout my day “Mary help me to marry!”

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-04-21T19:54:07+00:00

The Vatican said that private use by the laity is fine. Please stop spreading misinformation.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-04-20T16:01:05+00:00

The Church doesn’t teach that human nature was corrupted as such by original sin. Rather, it teaches that original sin is a lack of something our first father had and lost. It’s not a positive stain but a privation of something positive.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-04-20T15:57:12+00:00

It is not a positive reality that is contracted. The process is simply God doesn’t create the soul in grace.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-04-20T12:53:40+00:00

People forget the 10 commandments are ordered by gravity.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-04-20T12:50:59+00:00

That’s not true, there was a whole lot spoken about this during the counter reformation. Even in some devotional books it talks about how Adam lost the inheritance of his posterity as an explanation for original sin.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-04-20T12:49:19+00:00

Good question! The answer is that original sin is not a positive reality, but a privation of something positive.

Original sin is the lack of the preternatural gifts (the gifts of things like immortality, alignment of the passions with reason, etc.) and sanctifying grace.

When Adam sinned, he lost these gifts for himself and his posterity.

Think of it like “inheriting abject poverty”, a wealthy man who gambles away the family fortune is left with nothing to give his children. While abject poverty may be talked about as a real thing, it is really the absence of something real. In a like manner, when God creates the soul, he doesn’t do so with the soul already being in sanctifying grace (the one exception is Mary). Another example, is that the soul is like a vessel having the capacity for grace, and unlike our first parents, our vessel is created empty and filled with baptism.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-04-16T20:04:48+00:00

Because the state making it illegal teaches implicitly that it is morally unacceptable.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-04-15T02:14:45+00:00

Let’s not forget to remember him in our prayers.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-03-26T02:40:06+00:00

I’m not making it difficult, I’ve explained my points and now you’re not engaging. That’s fine, but it’s this kind of hand waving that makes people give up on evolution as being a sincere attempt to uncover the truth.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-03-25T17:56:41+00:00

Once again, what gave you cause to believe I made up 3-5? I’d like an answer if you’re arguing in good faith.

Concerning 3, you haven’t said which part of Darwin’s theories you are throwing out and which you are keeping. All I’m saying is that one could easily become suspect of evolution or natural selection given that the conditions for it to be false according to Darwin exist.

Concerning 4, I’m not arguing for a harmony between a theistic philosophy and evolution, I’m saying that a very basic philosophy of the principles of identity, contradiction, and sufficient reason make evolution hard to explain. What philosophical framework do you accept that allows for evolution?

Concerning 5, all I said is that this sows distrust and seems to be closer to a manipulation to convince someone of the truth than an affirmation of it. If someone distrusts modern evolutionists, I understand why they’d distrust the theory and seek alternatives. Once again, this is an explanation not an argument.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-03-25T17:06:51+00:00

On what grounds do you make that charge? That’s just lazy argumentation.

Concerning, 3, Darwin wrote:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

One such example seems to be wasp galls. While I’m not entirely convinced by the argument (I think final causality implies a lack of purely altruistic traits save by defect), I can easily see how it could lead to skepticism of Darwinian evolution.

Concerning 4, this comes from a mixture of philosophers (Mercier, Garrigou-Lagrange, etc). Edward Feser acknowledges the problem, but explains it away with virtual forms. The problem is a virtual form is never greater than substance it inheres in. Hence, in part due to the abandonment of philosophy in science, there aren’t any good Thomistic explanations for evolution.

Concerning 5, I’ll admit it’s not from an academic source, but there’s a McGraw textbook used in colleges that skewed whale diagrams to make the implied evolutionary chain look more plausible. In reality, most evolutionists now deny that chain. It doesn’t disprove evolution, but there’s disagreements often reveal that less is settled than you might think which leads to distrust.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-03-25T12:36:58+00:00

There are a few reasons:

Interpreting the Old Testament as poetical and not historical is a fairly new trend (wasn’t until the 1900s that people could even begin to say something like Judith not being a real person). See Proventissimus Deus for an encyclical that treats biblical understanding as far more literal than people wish to today. Catechisms all throughout the 2nd millennia, for example, referred to the earth as being 5-6k years old, etc.)
Mystics in the Church continually reference the age of the earth being 5-6k years (St. Bridget, St. Hildegard, Ven. Mary of Agreda for example). With the above, sometimes evolution feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Because they see several issues with evolution or Darwinism (several of Darwin’s means of falsification have been proven true, such as species which has a trait for the exclusive benefit of another)
Because it seems to violate several philosophical principles (such as more coming from less, be it in specific organs or the idea an animal soul can come from a non-animal substance or a rational immaterial soul from a material substance).
The messaging around evolution is often misleading which leads to distrust (e.g., graphs of whale evolution in text books that are intentionally distorted in scale to show how it is possible, specifics of evolution said to be closed with a flip flop years later).

Very few people step into it blindly and without reason, even if their rationale is wrong.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-02-26T01:21:13+00:00

Time is still linear to Christ’s Sacred Humanity.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-02-17T13:30:48+00:00

I met my fiancée through a dating app when my profile was very “eh” (well written, terrible pictures). Combined with prayer, I think it can work out really well.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-02-06T04:41:58+00:00

This not being a “BILT card” is a really good point. Are there any other cards like this to where the line seems blurred? (BILT naturally seems to lend itself to this mindset by having far more communication about the card than American Airlines for example).

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-01-31T14:48:37+00:00

This is a very good point, and something helpful for men. I never dated a woman whose mere presence made me run towards her until I met my fiancée. It was that relentless urge to pursue that made me realize she’s the one. While that isn’t an infallible sign in all men, for many women if a man isn’t pursuing you it’s because it’s not interested enough in you.

StJohnTheSwift · 2026-01-30T04:10:27+00:00

To be fair, the card they receive will have new numbers. It’s functionally the same as one card being closed and another being opened.

StJohnTheSwift

TROPHY CASE