Skip to main content

Visiting the prisoners

   Some people have wondered if they should have been visiting people that they knew were prisoners. One place in the Scriptures that gives us the affirmative on the question is Matthew 25:31-46 when Jesus describes the Final Judgment. The whole passage is recommended reading, but I will point out to everyone here the snippets that are relevant. Jesus said about the righteous (in Matthew 25:38-40), that they will say, "When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You? ’The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." Then He described about the unrighteous (in Matthew 25:44-46), that they will say,  "Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
   The answer is "yes," obviously people should be visiting the prisoners. If there is a controversial case, then all the more is it the case of the matter that you should visit the prisoner. Apply the Golden Rule. If you were in the middle of a difficult problem, then you would require more help or attention. To the extent of the difficulty is the extent that someone needs others to help. I think it's safe to say from those verses that it is a dividing line issue. 
   Cases might become controversial if the defendant actually has a defense to provide the court, meaning his or her imprisonment then looks even more unfair, causing more opposition even. If they have no defense, they actually committed the crime, and the case is not controversial, the above verses still seem to indicate that people should visit the prisoner.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument

   There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood.  Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered.  Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam).  In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus.  That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this.    The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nice Dissenting Opinion on the Fairness of the Criminal Justice System

   I was recently having a conversation with someone about the possibility for unreliability and/or unfairness in the criminal justice system. I was reminded of this quote from a Supreme Court case which is from Justice Harry Blackmun's dissenting opinion. The case was Darden v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 168 (1986). Obviously he's talking about the Supreme Court level, but if this could be said about their accuracy, then how shall we communicate about fairness at the trial court level? "JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Although the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant only "a fair trial [and] not a perfect one,"  Lutwak v. United States,   344 U. S. 604 ,  344 U. S. 619  (1953);  Bruton v. United States,   391 U. S. 123 ,  391 U. S. 135  (1968), this Court has stressed repeatedly in the decade since  Gregg v. Georgia,   428 U. S. 153  (1976), that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

This performance of "Lowzer" is better than the other performance of "Lozer"

   So I uncovered and uploaded another different "live" performance of the Sullivan's Dog song "Lowzer" from our days of performing (notice how I play with the spelling on purpose to upset people who take things too seriously?) Please disregard my complaining in the previous post about the vocal balance in the other version and about it being the only surviving version. Praise God this other version exists so people can hear a version closer to how it should really sound. Oh yeah, for those who don't know, I am the guitar player on the left hand side who is difficult to see, but I am not the bass player on the left who can be prominently seen. My playing can be heard quite well in the intro, though.      And the video URL:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T10OtiZFOZA&feature=youtu.be
Post a Comment
Read more