Lyrics for the g_orey of ….?

Guess who's lyrics these belong to?

I’m so dope I’m impressing myself
Challenging rappers of my status dogg is bad for your health
It’s like swallowing rat poison straight of the shelf
Or slitting your wrist then changing ya mind
But ain’t no one around to help, dudes hear spit they like holy Toledo
Cuz when it comes to this rapping, I’m the one like Neo
I’m Jackie Chan, bet a hundred grand I could take out five
of ya man’s with one wave of my hand
Your whole caravan get smacked right in front of ya fans
I’ll have screaming “No Mas” like Roberto Duran holla
They call me Boney Soprano, Young Luchiano, Bone Guevara
Raps Sammy the bull Gervano, I’m sick wit tha flow
Lyrical tactics and back flips, spitting ridiculous mathematics
Like it’s gymnastics, when I die, be sure to place in my mic in my casket
And tell the world that I was fantastic, and that’s it!

For the answer please go to Real Clear Theology blog where Dr. Svendsen has a very interesting discussion on rap groups, rap lyrics and how they might not square with anything recognizable with the gospel. Now, I know that many, many will object saying:

1. You don't understand the nature of rap music.

2. You need to be relevant to today's culture.

3. You are not spiritual.

4. You cannot judge the artist.

5. Look at all of the converts he is bringing.

6. There is nothing wrong with showing yo lifestyle to the world to show how much you are blessed.

…among many other objections.

However, it really comes down to two questions: How much is too much and do the ends justify the means? We are much more pragmatists than we care to admit, buying into this whole "all for the glory of God bit;" when in fact, what we are trying to do is fit is into the patterns of a secularized mindset.  Dr. Svendsen really took a lot of words out of my mouth, so I advise you to head over there and take a look. Oh, and about the above objections:

1. Yes I do. But at the expense of being relevant, how much is too much. Please look up the fallacy of the beard on this one.

2. See answer 1.

3. Err, this doesn't nullify the argument and my spiritual thermometer is broken and therefore cannot visibly be seen. :/

4. Yes I can. What I cannot do is judge the artist unrighteously while I have a huge hummer coming out of my eye. <– it's all about the bling.

5.  Ends do not justify the means. Also, what kind of idea will people get when they "come to the kingdom of God?" Can they believe that they are emissaries of God to shoot people with a Holy Ghost machine gun?

6. Again, who is the one that is supposed to be impressed here: God or the rest of the world? I vote for A and if all you are worried about is how people in the world perceive you then we have misplaced our priorities.

Enough of me. Go to his site. 

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Where Do the Candidates Stand on Life?

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Thomist Spotlight | Étienne Henri Gilson

From Gifford Lectures 

Biography

Étienne Henri Gilson was born into a Roman Catholic family in Paris on 13 June 1884. He was educated at a number of Roman Catholic schools in Paris before attending lycée Henri IV in 1902, where he studied philosophy. Two years later he enrolled at the Sorbonne, graduating in 1907 after having studied under many fine scholars, including Lucien Lévy Bruhl, Henri Bergson and Emile Durkheim.

Gilson taught in a number of high schools after his graduation and worked on a doctoral thesis on Descartes, which he successfully completed (Sorbonne) in 1913. On the strength of advice from his teacher, Lévy Bruhl, he began to study medieval philosophy in great depth, coming to see Descartes as having strong connections with medieval philosophy, although often finding more merit in the medieval works he saw as connected than in Descartes himself. He was later to be highly esteemed for his work in medieval philosophy and has been described as something of a saviour to the field

From 1913 to 1914 Gilson taught at the University of Lille. His academic career was postponed during the First World War while he took up military service. During his time in the army he served as second lieutenant in a machine-gun regiment and was awarded the Croix de Guerre for bravery upon relief from his duties. After the war, he returned to academic life at Lille and (also) Strasbourg, and in 1921 he took up an appointment at the Sorbonne teaching the history of medieval philosophy. He remained at the Sorbonne for eleven years prior to becoming Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the College de France in 1932. During his Sorbonne years and throughout his continuing career Gilson had the opportunity to travel extensively to North America, where he became highly influential as a historian and medievalist, demonstrating a number of previously undetermined important differences among the period’s greatest figures

Gilson’s Gifford Lectures, delivered at Aberdeen in 1931 and 1932, titled ‘The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy’, were published in his native language (L’espirit de la philosophie medieval, 1932) before being translated into English in 1936. Gilson believed that a defining feature of medieval philosophy was that it operated within a framework endorsing a conviction to the existence of God, with a complete acceptance that Christian revelation enabled the refinement of meticulous reason. In this regard he described medieval philosophy as particularly ‘Christian’ philosophy.
Gilson married in 1908 and the union produced three children, two daughters and one son. Sadly, his wife died of leukaemia in late 1949. In 1951 he relinquished his chair at the College de France in order to attend to responsibilities he had at the Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, an institute he had been invited to establish in 1929. Gilson died 19 September 1978 at the age of ninety-four

His works include: La liberté chez Descartes et la théologie (1913); Le Thomisme (1919, trans. 1924); Etudes de philosophie médiévale (1921); Saint Thomas d'Aquin (1925); Introduction a l'etude de S. Augustin (1929; trans. 1960); L’espirit de la philosophie medieval (2 vol., 1932; trans. 1936); La théologie mystique de Saint Bernard (1934; trans. 1940) Christianisme et philosophie (1936); The Unity of Philosophical Experience (1937); Réalisme thomiste et critique de la connaissance (1939); God and Philosophy (1941); L’Etre et l’essence (1948; trans. 1949); La philosophie de saint Bonaventure (1953; trans. 1965); Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (1955); Painting and Reality (1957); Elements of Christian Philosophy (1960); Le philosophe et la théologie (1960; trans. 1962).

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Relationship Between Science and Religion Topic of Public Lecture at the University of Dallas

University of Dallas Press Release 

Vatican Astronomer Guy Consolmagno to Deliver Address on March 6

(Irving, Texas – Feb. 6, 2008) – The University of Dallas will sponsor a public lecture by Guy Consolmagno, S.J., distinguished scientist and major interpreter of the relationship between science and religion, on Thursday, March 6, 2008. The lecture, “How Scientists Think About Religion,” will be held from 3:30 – 5 p.m. in the Gorman Lecture Center, Room A, on the University’s Irving campus located at 1845 E. Northgate Dr. in Irving. The lecture is free and seating is limited.

“Bro. Guy is both a first rate scientist and a man committed to living the faithful, reflective, religious life of a Jesuit brother,” said Dr. William Frank, professor of philosophy at UD and lecture organizer. “He is a living witness of the compatibility of scientific inquiry and Christian faith. It is an important part of wisdom to understand that compatibility of faith and reason.”

Consolmagno has been an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory since 1993 and is currently the curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Castel Gandolfo, one of the largest in the world. He has coauthored five astronomy books: Turn Left at Orion (Cambridge University Press, 1989); Worlds Apart (Prentice Hall, 1993); The Way to the Dwelling of Light (U of Notre Dame Press, 1998); Brother Astronomer (McGraw Hill, 2000); and God's Mechanics: How Scientists and Engineers Make Sense of Religion (Jossey-Bass, 2007). He has also published more than 100 scientific papers.

Consolmagno obtained his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Earth and Planetary Sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his Ph.D. in Planetary Science from the University of Arizona. After taking his vows as a Jesuit brother, he studied philosophy, theology, and physics before his assignment to the Vatican Observatory.

The public lecture by Consolmagno, sponsored by the University of Dallas Departments of Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, is part of a three-day visit to the University of Dallas. In addition to the lecture, he will be leading discussions in selected classes and meeting with students and faculty.

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Book Spotlight: After Aquinas | Versions of Thomism

This guide to the work that has recently appeared on Aquinas reflects the 1990s revival of interest in his work. The author brings together a range of views that hitherto have appeared in many different books, articles, and periodicals.

Found Here:  

Digg It!

no comments yet.

ARCA Article: Mitt Romney & Mormonism | The facts!

"Just the facts ma'am" sounds archaic and cliché-ish, but is critical to evaluate a position, idea or statement based on the facts. Sound bites, clichés, emotional charges, and personal opinion run amok whenever there is a political race for the presidency. Consequently, these very elements obscure the precious essential facts surrounding our candidates. Whatever ideas you have, whether they are economic, public or foreign policies, etc., you have to evaluate them to see if they carry serious consequences to the christian worldview.

However, this process is rendered useless when there a false dichotmy between what is rendered to Cesar and what is rendered to God. This could be largley due to the misunderstanding between the separation of church and state ideology in general and Christian naivette in particular. As I have mentioned before, Artistotle's remarks about what is virtuous or right is found in moderation; and while on one extreme we have a Christian nation (Theocracy) and on the other we a striclty secular one (false humility, isolationist), I think that our interaction with politics should be specifically that, interacive. Interactivity is the middle ground between isolationism and dominionist ideas. Now, how much this influence should be and what it contains are subject matters that could be further developed. 

Nevertheless, we must recognize that many ideas have consequences and we would be amiss to think that these ideas could become part of a political candidate and not have any effects whatsoever on his constituents. While all candidate have ideas that carry some effect on any particular religious belief, let us take a look at one of them to see how his specific ideas about ethics, religion and politics play out when analyzed through the lens of a Christian worldview. This is where Apologetics Resource Center comes in. I think that Craig Branch does a very good job of pointing out specific differences between the Mormon (Mitt Romney) & Christian worldview and the impact it has on us as Christians. I invite you to spend some time and read the article carefully, especially when it comes to the statistics. Let me point out some notable quotes from this article to wet your appetite:

…But along came Jerry Falwell and The Moral Majority. Conservative Christianity and conservative politics became a major focus of time and hope for Christian influence in culture. The concept has some legitimacy. There has been a neglected theological dimension of the role of the Church or believers as activists in shaping our culture. It is important to note that the baseless cliché, “you can’t legislate morality,” is without merit. All laws and ethics are based on someone’s morality.

So Christians work to influence lawmakers and even to become lawmakers, but not to make the country into a Christian theocracy. Our first priority is to see people converted to Christ via the gospel and to prioritize the spiritual kingdom, realizing that the Law can restrain evil (and provoke it) and can have some positive effect on the consciences of image bearers of God, but cannot convert people. Our priority and ultimate goal in the Kingdom is to make disciples of Jesus Christ, minister to those truly in need, and to promote mercy and justice. Our ultimate and proximal trust is in the triune God – not the Republican or Democratic parties. 

To complicate the issue more, there are a number of evangelicals who have openly stated that Romney’s faith should not be a factor. Chuck Colson, Ralph Reed, Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, and others have all said, “We are electing a Commander-in-Chief, not a Pastor (or theologian)-in-Chief.” Incredibly Pat Robertson had Romney come to Regent University to give the Commencement address last year! Fundamentalist Bob Jones III of Bob Jones University endorses Romney. The Roman Catholic conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity naively proclaimed that since Romney said he accepts Jesus Christ as his personal savior, it should be enough.

But it is precisely because of these perspectives that we need to seriously discuss this issue. Let’s take a moment to lay some foundations and to clarify and define the issues for this controversy.

More  

You can also look at Ray Ciervo's excellent article on the same issue here  

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Christianity Today Q&A: Barack Obama

In this piece Obama clarifies his beliefs as well as some clarification as to whether he was a muslim or not. It seems that religion and immigration will be the deciding factors in this election. The Q & A was conducted by Christianity Today and it is found here: Q&A: Barack Obama

Here is a quote:

 Evangelicals have come to believe often times that Democrats are anti-faith. Part of my job in this campaign, something that I started doing well before this campaign, was to make sure I was showing up and reaching out and sharing my faith experience with people who share that faith.

Digg It!

1 comment.