Oliver,

You seem to be making a habit of quoting scripture to Christian contributors, meaning to rebuke, and that is well and good at any time – particularly where humility is lacking.

I wonder why you string these two particular quotes together to make your point though?

In the first instance, there is the high and mighty King Nebuchadnezzar (the tree), about to be humbled for his unwillingness to acknowledge Daniel’s God. Nebuchadnezzar’s vision is fulfilled – the tree is cut down – leading him finally to declare:

“And those who walk in pride he is able to humble” (Daniel 4:37).

Good so far.

This is the story of a proud non-believer, coming not only to humility, but to belief. In fact, from this we learn that humility is a pre-condition for belief. Humility before God, not man, although like the King N, we need to learn both.

The second quote, about the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, shows us the humanity of Jesus, how to answer temptation and a bit more besides.

In each of the three challenges set up by Satan, Jesus responds by quoting scripture (Deuteronomy); eschewing the temptation of ruling over the world (the easy way) or forgoing the suffering.

Satan offers “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor” but Jesus answers:

“Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only”. (Matthew 4:10)

One of the big take-aways from this passage, is that Jesus adeptly answers Satan’s quotes from Scripture, with more Scripture.

Where Satan relies on the words alone, out of context, without meaning, Jesus is able to respond with real substance, that is faith, trust and submission to God’s will as revealed in Scripture, which is at the very core of His ministry.

So, the lesson for today is…. ?

KatieO,

Thank you for your helpful and informative post.

There was not meant to be any great depth to the citations and my remarks were a mild chide to Trav for his hard tone towards TR.

The two quotes simply mean that only on a Flat Earth can one see all things from a high altitude. The Earth is a globe.

I do appreciate the text was written for the ancients and that the author was not aware of the shape of the Earth.

Nursel:

I read your article "Not another wave of Islamophobia please!" of 17 December 08. So you are an atheist of Muslim background.

My position is that the West can live with Islam if Islam is prepared to be tolerant and pluralist. A good part of Sufiism fits this (like that of Gus Dur, former President of Indonesia), but not the forms of Islam coming out of the Arab world and Pakistan.

Calls to replace secular democratic government with shariah rule are obscurantist madness to be resisted by force. Rule "by God" is tyranny by mullahs. This is not an "orientalist stereotype of oppressive, violent and misogynistic Muslim men and oppressed and subservient Muslim women" but FACT.

You are doubtless right when you wrote of the great diversity of Muslims ( http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8300&page=1 ). But the ignorance of the Koran and Hadiths by very many Muslims is truly disturbing. If they did know their own theology, they would see that, taken in terms of its own theology, Islam is absolutely incompatible with Western civilization. YES I HAVE read the whole of the Koran, and a stack of books about Middle Eastern, Arab and Islamic history and theology, as well as Christian history and theology. Unfortunately the ignorance of many nominal and cultural Christians today about their own theology is also lamentable. But at least our theology includes "Love your neighbour [NOT JUST OTHER CHRISTIANS' as yourself" and "God is love".

The BBC News of 1 June carried an article "Egypt mufti issues fatwa on use of WMD" which began

"Muslims should not use weapons of mass destruction and possess them only as a deterrent, a top Islamic cleric says. Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa said using such weapons would violate Islamic teachings AS MUSLIMS AS WELL AS NON-MUSLIMS COULD BE KILLED. ...."

Charming. Muslim lives are the issue, not the lives of Dhimmi trash.

Wonderful news today that the proposed Islamic school at Camden has been finally rejected (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25579342-5006784,00.html ). I don't want to see this country trashed. Islam is NOT a legitimate part of Australian society

['TR, I think your religion of science, reason, and humanism is one of the most stupid ever invented - some great technical advances, but at what cost to humanity and the earth! I am a Christian but if I had to choose another religion, yours would be at the bottom of the list.'

John, you are entitled to your opinion. You just so happen to be wrong in an objective sense. But so what.]

TR, you missed the point of my post (the bit you didn't quote), which was that no matter how much I look down on your beliefs, I think you should be free to form organisations and hold meetings centred on your beliefs without me running around trying to stop you.

Sorry if anyone (Trav) thought I was getting personal.

John, in a free and democratic society any citizen should be able to oppose anything they like provided that they have good and rational grounds. So please, if you don't like secularism then say so by all means. I for one won't get offended.

On the other hand, the 'racism card' played by various Islamic communities is nothing short of emotional blackmail. Communities like Camden WILL be changed forever in that their long standing culture WILL be surplanted. That's OK if the external culture is sensitive and open-minded. That is, an accomodation can be reached based on mutual respect. However, it is to state the obvious that Islam isn't sensitive and open-minded. It is a monolith intent on maintaining its own exlusive purity according to the inflexible dictates of the Koran + Hadith.

There are good and rational grounds for opposing some religious schools and institutions.

Glorfindel,

Whilst I’ll agree, Islam, as currently depicted, has an ugly shop front, the Sufi strand you mention runs far deeper through this religion than most imagine. Sufism, rather than a mere sect of Islam, is heir to its ancient mystical tradition - within both the Sunni and Shia branches of the faith. This tradition, albeit often dormant in the face of the hard-liners, is deeply threaded through the power structures of many Muslim countries. For the Islamists, fundamentalists like the Saudi Wahhabis and the Taliban, the Sufis are the deadly enemies who draw on practices atypical to the Quran.

The expansion of Islam outside the core areas of the Middle East certainly has some parallel to the crusades waged by Latin Christian Europe. Sufi orders led the armies that conquered lands in Central and South Asia, and in Southeastern Europe; the piety and mysticism of the brotherhoods then won the local populations over to Islam. They presented an Islam that incorporated local traditions and worship styles, including Christian saints and Hindu gods – not so unlike the pope ordained soldiers of Christianity.

The Sufi the tradition actually provides an effective bastion against terrorism - much stronger than anything the West can supply through military means alone. Our best hope for global peace is not a decline or secularisation of Islam but rather a renewal and strengthening of this faith, fully embracing its spiritual and mystical dimension. I agree with George, there is something within Islam worth preserving and it needs to evolve.

Organised Sufism, where it exists, has the aim of integrating traditional scholarship with contemporary issues affecting Islamic belief in a modern and secular society, whilst retaining its integrity - again, not so unlike Christianity.

Sufism is the antithesis of extremism, through their council (SMC) they totally condemn, inter alia:
• Muslim extremists, bin Laden and his affiliates, Omar Bakri and Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri etc.
• The Nazis, oppressors of many and of the Jews.
• Christian-Irish extremists engaged in fratricide.
• Christian-Serbian extremists, oppressors of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosova, and
• Extremist Jews attacking innocents.