First there was the news, back in September, that an award winning British film about the British Unitarian, Charles Darwin, was not going to get U.S. distribution rights because it offended people on the religious right.

Why would it offend? Because it suggested Darwin might have moved from his Unitarian Christian theology to more of an agnostic one. According to a British newspaper the film’s producers say the American religious right waged a campaign against its distribution.

Too bad, because I think the movie looks pretty interesting.

Not all religious denominations have trouble with Darwin. The Roman Catholic church finds nothing incompatible with Darwin’s contributions to science and religion. The title of the story called “Vatican Gives Darwin a Big Birthday Hug, Leaving Creationists on the Fringes,” almost sums it up.

Protestant fundamentalists on the other hand, have an entirely different take. But theirs is a minority position according to…

An artist's rendering of Joseph Smith's first vision

Karen Armstrong, a popular historian of religion whose bestselling A History of God brought her to national prominence in 1993, is back in the news. Her new book, The Case for God, revisits some familiar  territory in a stimulating survey of Western religious history, but this time Armstrong packages her message in an admonition to both conservative Christians and bellicose atheists, mutual antagonists in the cultural skirmishes over religion.  The Wall Street Journal recently commissioned Armstrong and Richard Dawkins, the most outspoken of the new atheists, to respond to the question, “Where does evolution leave God?” (one wonders why they did not also include an informed representative of conservative religion in their symposium).  The two answers were published together, and they make a most interesting study in contrast. Armstrong uses the platform to reprise the argument of her new book:

In the past, many of the most…

We just finished up this year’s theological symposium on science and theology on the Concordia Seminary campus. Presentations on quantum physics, ecology, and neuroscience (free videos of which will be up on the Seminary’s iTunes U site shortly) and other issues have left my brain oozing, but also with a couple of observations….

When we brush away the misconceptions about both science and religion, we are left with two kinds of human knowledge that can be mutually enriching. There were more than a few times when talk of scientific discovery led my mind into new and exciting theological territory. It is truly tragic when misunderstandings on both sides cut off the dialogue between the two. So much of the terrain between the two is still uncharted.

Second, one of the faculty presenters, Dr. Rick Marrs, in referencing an article by Barbara Bradley Hagerty in USA Today, picked up on a distinction between secrets and mysteries.…

Concordia Seminary’s 20th annual Theological Symposium is September 22-23, and this is the issue at hand. “Science and theology” isn’t necessarily anything new, although the dialogue between the two has often been tenuous at best. But the “new questions and new conversations” certainly is. The symposium will walk the cutting edge of where science and theology intersect today, as well as the ethical implications that these intersections leave us with.

Behind all this is the attempt to get beyond the stereotypically American preoccupation between evolution and creationism. There are simply too many interesting questions out there on which both science and theology can provide answers that are mutually beneficial and enriching. And it is on those questions that we will be focused September 22-23.

To do that, the primary plenary speakers will be leading scientists from diverse backgrounds:

Benjamin Schumacher on “Elusive Reality: Quantum Physics and Theology.” Dr. Schumacher is a physics professor at…

Bountiful harvest www.partnerone.biz

OK admittedly the title is a bit tongue in cheek. But we should ask the question: Why did the Creator create Sin? (this is a bit of a diversion but I prefer the attribute Creator instead of the word God, (although in some cases language dictates using God) in that it is a bit more gender neutral. The word Allah would be even more preferable (if it did not connotate so many misunderstanding in so many people) because it is not only gender neutral but plurality neutral, i.e., there is no Allahs form of this word. The ‘Al’ is the ‘The’ in Arabic :) (four the’s in a row eh). ‘La’ in Arabic means ‘no’ but I haven’t been able to find what ‘lah’ would mean although it has to be close to ‘la’. Etymology suggests the meaning ‘The Undefinable’ for ‘Al Lah’ which does capture the deepest sense…

http://stlouis.missouri.org/parks/tower-grove/images/treesflowers

The first time I saw the brilliant color change of fall was at Penn State University. The flaming red colors were very impressive. But I prefer the fall colors we have the mixing of reds, yellows, greens and browns producing a wide variety of exquisite hues bright and dark. A feast for the eyes.

Fall though always is a reminder of the passage of time and somehow feels a more appropriate time to take stock and think of how to improve ourselves. And it brings to mind a small chapter from the Qur’an and its reminder to in our struggle to self correct and improve firstly and mainly ourselves and also perhaps a little the

http://stlouis.missouri.org/parks/tower-grove/images/treesflowers

environment around us.

IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MOST GRACIOUS, THE DISPENSER OF GRACE:
(1) CONSIDER the flight of time!
(2) Verily, man is bound to lose himself
(3) unless he be of those who attain to faith, and do good…

I am a Christian. I don’t believe in reincarnation, but I have heard that “half of the world” does, and that a rising number of Christians are toying with this idea. I would like to find out what our readers think about the possibility of reincarnation.

I will give a bit of my reasoning here, but I will probably add more in the comment section.

First, I just don’t there is scientific evidence for it, but how much of an argument is this? Has science really studied this well? Most studies are pretty biased before they begin. Perhaps reincarnation could be inferred if we found a handful of people that had knowledge of past events to which there was no historical connection, events that occurred before they were born that they could describe in detail. But one could not prove where this knowledge came from. Perhaps they read about it somewhere, or…

A very odd story in the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch Friday committed the journalistic sin of “burying the lede.”

The story was - ostensibly - about the investigation of John Freshwater, a public school teacher who was teaching creationism and disparaging evolution in the classroom.

But in the seventh - yes seventh - paragraph, the reader comes across this:

The report confirmed that Freshwater burned crosses onto students’ arms, using an electrostatic device, in December.

According to the investigators hired by the school district, eighth graders taught by Freshwater frequently had to re-take classes to unlearn what they’d learned about biology. The investigation began after Freshwater refused to remove a Bible from his desk after being ordered to do so by school district authorities.

The Dispatch story says “all of the students” interviewed by investigators reported being branded with crosses. Freshwater told the investigators that the brands were not crosses, but X’s, according to the story.

While Freshwater…