Quiz-time (again!)

Okay, a little light relief for this belated start to October's posts.  Some fairly straightforward questions on characters from the Bible.  One clue - each answer begins with a vowel!  Correct solution in a few days' time.

1.   He introduced his brother, Peter, to Jesus.

2.   This man was deceived by one of his twin sons.

3.   Telling a lie about the money raised from selling some land cost this man a lot!

4.   This person was appointed as spokesman for his brother when they were used to free a nation from slavery.

5.   This woman's husband was struck dumb until their child was born.

6.   Who was the prophet who had to hide from an angry queen?

7.   In the year that this king dies, a famous prophet had a wonderful vision.

8.   This woman became queen after having been chosen in a beauty pageant.

9.   The shortest book in the Old Testament is named after this person.

10. This king was almost persuaded by the testimony of the apostle Paul.

11. He caused heartache to his father by leading a rebellion.

12. This man was a criminal who ran away - but returned, a changed man!

13. The boy, Samuel, told this man about a voice he heard.

Good place to stop (I am not superstitious!).

I wish you well.  :-)

GOOD Friday?

It is, at first sight, a strange way by which to refer to the day that commemorates someone dying the particularly cruel death by crucifixion.  Why would anyone refer to such a day as "Good"?

The answer to that question is, of course, to be found in the identity of the One Who hung on that particular cross, on that specific day.  This was no common criminal - even 'though He died a criminal's death.  This One was Jesus of Nazareth - not only, as the inscription proclaiming His 'crime' proclaimed, "King of the Jews" but, in fact, the Saviour of mankind.  

Of course apart from using it as a piece of fashion jewellery, the world (i.e. those who live as if God does not exist) despises the cross, and the One Who hung on the cross.  As the Old Testament prophet, Isaiah, wrote - centuries before the crucifixion of Jesus - "He was despised and rejected by men; a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from Whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we esteemed Him not." (53:3).
 
Why did He die?  It was not because He had no choice in the matter.  As God the Son, He was able to ask: "Do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once send Me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matt. 26:53).   No, the reason for His death was, quite simply, your sin - and mine!  His death substituted for ours. He was the sacrificial “... Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). This Lamb is none other than God the Son Who, as Paul was later to write, willingly “... emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And, being found in human form, ... humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” (Phil. 2:7-8).
 
Remarkably, even God the Father “despised” Him as He hung on the cross, for God is holy and sinless and, for our sakes had “ ... made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (II Cor 5:21).  It is not so many years since I first noticed that 'be' that I have emboldened, and the reality of it suddenly became clear.  Jesus not only “... bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.” (I Peter 2:24).  He actually became sin - sin in all of its blackness, and vileness, and heinousness, and accursedness.  When I did realise that, I also realised that it was at that moment, in time, that the Father, in His sinless holiness, turned away from the Son.  It was at that moment, in time, that Jesus uttered what is referred to as “the cry of dereliction”: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt.27:46).

The chorus of one of the old Christian hymns - with better theology than some of its modern counterparts! - goes like this:
“So I'll cherish the old rugged cross, 'til my trophies at last I lay down.  Yes, I'll cherish the old rugged cross; and exchange it, one day, for a crown.”

On this Good Friday, do you cherish the cross, and the One Who hung on it?  Do you?!
 

Human Rights - for whom?

"Tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime!"  That, if memory serves me well, was one of the meaningless mantras spouted by former-PM, Mr Tony Bliar (still not a typo!).

I would like to think that, as a disciple of Jesus, I would uphold the basic human rights of anyone - although it would appear that many folk consider their 'human rights' to be synonymous with 'whatever they want'!  However, the Human Rights legislation introduced by the Bliar government (did no-one at the time notice that Mrs Cherry Bliar - who, in my opinion, is just as obnoxiously greedy as her husband - was/is a QC who was an advocate of that legislation, and who has made a fortune in legal fees out of it?) is something with which this country could do without.

A failed asylum-seeker (i.e. his case for seeking asylum in this country was regarded as ineffective) mows down a 12-year-old girl, while he was banned from driving (and was uninsured), and flees the scene of his crime. A man who, it is reported, had run up a series of motoring offences and was convicted a second time for driving while banned three years after killing this young girl. A man who also had a string of criminal convictions including drugs possession, property damage, harassment and burglary.

He later turns himself in - the only positive aspect of the situation - and is jailed for four months!   And now, two senior immigration judges declare that he may remain in this country because, in the intervening period, he has fathered a couple of children, and to deport him would infringe his human rights!

I would like those two judges to visit the father of the young girl, for whose death this man was totally responsible - even 'though it was he who, apparently, had to make the excruciatingly difficult decision to turn off her life-support system - and explain to him the extent of his human rights, and those of his dead daughter.  Along with many others, I often wonder how these judges, whose lives are spent in a world that is obviously different from that of the vast majority of the British public, can bear to even look at themselves in the mirror each morning.  As Dickens' Mr Bumble would point out: " "If the law supposes that ... the law is a [sic] ass—a [sic] idiot." (Oliver Twist).

Perhaps Mr David Cameron would also like to visit the father!  In a pre-election pledge, the current P.M. wrote to him, promising reforms that would ensure “that rights are better balanced against responsibilities”. He said the Human Rights Act would be replaced by a British Bill of Rights.  However, like the promise of a referendum on the EU, this appears to have become a casualty of actual government - or perhaps it was sacrificed to appease the pre-EU, lefty Liberal Democrats?!

But if the human rights of a 12-year-old are not considered worthy of consideration by the British legal system, then the human rights of those as yet unborn is considered as unimportant by European law.  A woman who had to travel from the Republic of Ireland - and she isn't even Irish; she is Lithuanian! - is considered to have had her human rights violated because she was unable to have an abortion in the Republic.  The European Court of Human Rights, sitting in Strasbourg, has criticised the Irish government for failing to implement legislation that would have permitted the abortion to take place because the mother's own life was at risk.  It may astonish some to know that, given a straightforward choice between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child, I would be prepared to sanction the abortion.  However - and it is a big 'however' - such situations are, thankfully, rare in the extreme.  In fact, according to the newspaper reports to which I have access, this woman's life was not in danger!  She was concerned - even afraid - that her pregnancy would bring about a relapse of cancer; and that there might be a risk to the unborn child if she went to full term.  That, I would contend, is a long way from her life being at risk!  I would also want to ask her why, if she had such fears, she had not taken adequate contraceptive precautions to ensure that she didn't become pregnant?

It used to be said that, in civilisations such as the Roman Empire, or the Aztecs of South America, human life was cheap.  It would appear that we have not really moved very far forward - at least as far as the human rights of some are concrened!