Bad apple morality

[Maine Progressive]

It is true that one bad apple can and does spoil the barrel. The ethylene gas of one spreads to the rest and initiates spoilage. But is the metaphor true of the Christian positions on morality? Is it true that the entire barrel must suffer in order to rid it of the danger? (Metaphorically speaking). Does a population containing a small number of bad actors require every action needed to root out the bad no matter how much the rest suffer for it? Must the poor endure every indignity and burden of red tape to prove they need charity? Must the poor prove again and again that they are physically or mentally unable to work? Must the poor demonstrate puritanical economic restraint to prove they are worthy of economic assistance? Must the poor accept the distrust and disdain of the general population on the basis of containing a few bad people within? (Or is it more likely that the poor, having no political power beyond the ‘toxic empathy of the liberals’, make excellent targets for self-righteous judgement by the rest of us?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is true that one bad apple can and does spoil the barrel. The ethylene gas of one spreads to the rest and initiates spoilage. But is the metaphor true of the Christian positions on morality? Is it true that the entire barrel must suffer in order to rid it of the danger? (Metaphorically speaking). Does a population containing a small number of bad actors require every action needed to root out the bad no matter how much the rest suffer for it? Must the poor endure every indignity and burden of red tape to prove they need charity? Must the poor prove again and again that they are physically or mentally unable to work? Must the poor demonstrate puritanical economic restraint to prove they are worthy of economic assistance? Must the poor accept the distrust and disdain of the general population on the basis of containing a few bad people within? (Or is it more likely that the poor, having no political power beyond the ‘toxic empathy of the liberals’, make excellent targets for self-righteous judgement by the rest of us?)

Where in the world are you getting this snow-job of Leftist rhetorical questioning and meandering referential equivocation?

Biblically speaking, the Christian position of morality within the pages of the New Testament reflects neither what we find predominantly on the Left nor on the Right in today's world. But somehow, too many folks seem to be convinced that it can be, and definitely is, only one or the other.

 

[Neogaia777]

It is true that one bad apple can and does spoil the barrel. The ethylene gas of one spreads to the rest and initiates spoilage. But is the metaphor true of the Christian positions on morality? Is it true that the entire barrel must suffer in order to rid it of the danger? (Metaphorically speaking). Does a population containing a small number of bad actors require every action needed to root out the bad no matter how much the rest suffer for it? Must the poor endure every indignity and burden of red tape to prove they need charity? Must the poor prove again and again that they are physically or mentally unable to work? Must the poor demonstrate puritanical economic restraint to prove they are worthy of economic assistance? Must the poor accept the distrust and disdain of the general population on the basis of containing a few bad people within? (Or is it more likely that the poor, having no political power beyond the ‘toxic empathy of the liberals’, make excellent targets for self-righteous judgement by the rest of us?)

People who you are describing who do this (which isn't everybody) hate us mostly because they are jealous, and have to find reasons to justify that that doesn't paint them as wrong, or being the bad guy, etc.

But if they had to live our life, I don't think they could do it and stay sane, and they seem to forget that. They also wouldn't ever get to do/have/enjoy everything they do get to do/have/enjoy that they get to in their time off, and they also seem to forget that also, etc.

They think not working and being on assistance is so glamorous, when it's quite the opposite of that really, and they also don't seem to get that, etc. And sure, there are probably a few bad apples among us even that might be able to work/function normally in some kind of work environment without struggling with our issues, but I don't think that's most of us though.

They really should think a lot better or a lot more before envying the rest of us though, etc. Cause it's not an easy existence for most of us, etc. I think they'd completely lose their marbles, or go insane if they had to live like the rest of us, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Maine Progressive]

Where in the world are you getting this snow-job of Leftist rhetorical questioning and meandering referential equivocation?

Biblically speaking, the Christian position of morality within the pages of the New Testament reflects neither what we find predominantly on the Left nor on the Right in today's world. But somehow, too many folks seem to be convinced that it can be, and definitely is, only one or the other.

Sigh. I am so sad I do not meet your high standards. I'll try to live with it. However, might we start with the Beatitudes. How might you tear down that bit of 'snow-job Leftist' principles. Or Romans 12:20. Or James Or Micah 6:8 etc. etc. Just asking. I'm not going to enter an argument over it. (I’m limiting my responses to one. More mansplaining feels like discounting your kindness shown by offering a comment.)

 

[Maine Progressive]

People who you are describing who do this (which isn't everybody) hate us mostly because they are jealous, and have to find reasons to justify that that doesn't paint them as wrong, or being the bad guy, etc.

But if they had to live our life, I don't think they could do it and stay sane, and they seem to forget that. They also wouldn't ever get to do/have/enjoy everything they do get to do/have/enjoy that they get to in their time off, and they also seem to forget that also, etc.

They think not working and being on assistance is so glamorous, when it's quite the opposite of that really, and they also don't seem to get that, etc. And sure, there are probably a few bad apples among us even that might be able to work/function normally in some kind of work environment without struggling with our issues, but I don't think that's most of us though.

They really should think a lot better or a lot more before envying the rest of us though, etc. Cause it's not an easy existence for most of us, etc. I think they'd completely lose their marbles, or go insane if they had to live like the rest of us, etc.

God Bless.

Thank you so much for these heartfelt thoughts. It hits home.

 

[Neogaia777]

Thank you so much for these heartfelt thoughts. It hits home.

Just being honest, but, you're welcome though, k.

God Bless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sigh. I am so sad I do not meet your high standards. I'll try to live with it. However, might we start with the Beatitudes. How might you tear down that bit of 'snow-job Leftist' principles. Or Romans 12:20. Or James Or Micah 6:8 etc. etc. Just asking. I'm not going to enter an argument over it. (I’m limiting my responses to one. More mansplaining feels like discounting your kindness shown by offering a comment.)

Y'know, some of us actually listen to Randal Rauser as well as to a lot of other Christians from within various slices of the Church and critically weigh the issues from various perspectives.....................................

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is true that one bad apple can and does spoil the barrel. The ethylene gas of one spreads to the rest and initiates spoilage. But is the metaphor true of the Christian positions on morality? Is it true that the entire barrel must suffer in order to rid it of the danger? (Metaphorically speaking). Does a population containing a small number of bad actors require every action needed to root out the bad no matter how much the rest suffer for it? Must the poor endure every indignity and burden of red tape to prove they need charity? Must the poor prove again and again that they are physically or mentally unable to work? Must the poor demonstrate puritanical economic restraint to prove they are worthy of economic assistance? Must the poor accept the distrust and disdain of the general population on the basis of containing a few bad people within? (Or is it more likely that the poor, having no political power beyond the ‘toxic empathy of the liberals’, make excellent targets for self-righteous judgement by the rest of us?)

From my perspective you aren't describing "the Christian positions on morality". You're describing a very narrow view of certain political idealogues.

The Christian position, at least going by what's written in the New Testament (and the Bible more broadly), as well as the historic moral witness of the ancient Christian tradition, is that it's the poor who must be cared for and that the wealthy have a moral obligation to depart from their wealth for the sake of those who are lacking.

A huge example of this can be found in St. Basil the Great's Homily against the rich, where he argues that those who hoard their wealth are thieves for their wealth ought to be used for the sake of the poor.

A Christian position on morality is that a society ought to be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. The kingdom of God is not about wealth and power; but love and mercy. Every Christian ethic must be anchored in the Cross of Jesus Christ.

 

[Maine Progressive]

I very, very much agree with your statements. Exactly on point for Christianity. "I am describing a very narrow view of certain political ideologies" who pretend to be Christians. This narrow set of 'Christians' who believe that any action of the government to relieve poverty should never be supported because the government will never do it the 'Christian' way and the government will not vigorously root out fraud and cheating which is endemic to all non-Christian people, especially the poor, so 'Christians' ought to oppose that. I think we all know that every Christian ethic must be anchored in the Cross of Jesus Christ. It just makes me sad when that same ethic can be twisted so easily to cut loose from that anchor. I admire people like yourself who can so plainly state this basic meaning of the Kingdom and the Cross. Thank you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I very, very much agree with your statements. Exactly on point for Christianity. "I am describing a very narrow view of certain political ideologies" who pretend to be Christians. This narrow set of 'Christians' who believe that any action of the government to relieve poverty should never be supported because the government will never do it the 'Christian' way and the government will not vigorously root out fraud and cheating which is endemic to all non-Christian people, especially the poor, so 'Christians' ought to oppose that. I think we all know that every Christian ethic must be anchored in the Cross of Jesus Christ. It just makes me sad when that same ethic can be twisted so easily to cut loose from that anchor. I admire people like yourself who can so plainly state this basic meaning of the Kingdom and the Cross. Thank you.

And the reality is the fraud and corruption can and very much have been committed by Christians throughout history. We can't play a "no true Scotsman" card. Real Christians have done really bad things. From a purely ordinary sense, that's just part of the human project--sometimes people are terrible, and what religion, philosophy, politic, or ideological convictions might be doesn't change that. From a theological perspective, we'd call that the Old Man doing what the Old Man does (i.e. sin)--and is why the Old Man must always be put to death within us.

What becomes relevant is how do we bear our witness, in the world, to the Crucified and Risen Christ; not by declarations of our personal of how pious and humble we are, but by humbly carrying a cross.

 

[stevevw]

I think all humans are sort of infected with sin that makes the whole batch bad. Not that there were any good apples to begin with. Only that inherently all apples or humans have a fallen nature that causes them to be bad and therefore if unaided and transformed will be bad or infected by nature.

Secular ideas about human badness makes some people inherently good and others bad. There are different classes of good and bad. Which is a subversion of Gods good creation and our fallen state where all are sinners regardless of who you are or what identity group you belong to.

Modern identity politics which is now the new morality sees everything through the lens of oppressor and victim. Those determined as victims due to a percieved disadvantage are the Pure ones. Those outside this are the evil ones. Inherently bad due to their identity.

This is literally cultivating the exact opposite of all people are sinners and that there is Grace, forgiveness and transformation of sinners by Christ.

But this is to be expected. When God is taken out of the picture and humans try to be the gods in creating their own world order they will naturally do the opposite of Christ.

 

[com7fy8]

It is true that one bad apple can and does spoil the barrel.

The Bible says, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." (Galatians 5:9)

But, also, it is written >

"Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice." (Ephesians 4:31)

So . . . even though it is possible for one bitter person to get everyone else bitter, it is possible with God to put away that bitterness, so it does not spread.

"looking carefully, lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled." (Hebrews 12:15)

So, the Christian morality is that you become an apple which can not be spoiled by a bad apple. Because you are living in God's love which can not be spoiled by evil > as it is guaranteed >

"Love suffers long and is kind," we have in 1 Corinthians 13:4. Plus, love "bears all things" and "endures all things" (in 1 Corinthians 13:7). And so, in God's love we have His own immunity almighty against howsoever evil things would corrupt us > as it is also written >

"And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?" (1 Peter 3:13)

Plus, we have how an obedient Christian wife "without a word" can win a disobedient husband > 1 Peter 3:1-4. Included in how she does this is she has "the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (in 1 Peter 3:4) In the "incorruptible" beauty of God's gentle and quiet love, she can not be corrupted by the bitterness and other disobedience and abuse of a wrong husband. Plus, because she is in power of God so superior to her husband's power, she can spread her spiritual good to affect him to become obedient. Because >

"He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world." (in 1 John 4:4)

After all, if it is possible for inferior Satanic stupid stuff to spread to change people, then surely we in God's love can spread His affect . . . of His grace to change people's character so we are strong and pure in Jesus and His way of loving > and 1 Peter 4:10 to me shows that every child of God is able to minister this grace >

"As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." (1 Peter 4:10)

Therefore >

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:24)

With God, we have "good" which can overcome any evil, at all. And so, if I can be affected badly by an evil person, this is my own fault: I need to trust Jesus and receive however He corrects my character so I am safe in sharing with Him in His love > as is guaranteed to every child of God >

"Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17)

This is possible with God, and basic to what happens while we obey God . . . I mean obeying how God in us is succeeding >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

"Therefore submit to God." (in James 4:7)

This is guaranteed; so we are wise not to accept and excuse less.

 

[Maine Progressive]

I think all humans are sort of infected with sin that makes the whole batch bad. Not that there were any good apples to begin with. Only that inherently all apples or humans have a fallen nature that causes them to be bad and therefore if unaided and transformed will be bad or infected by nature.

Secular ideas about human badness makes some people inherently good and others bad. There are different classes of good and bad. Which is a subversion of Gods good creation and our fallen state where all are sinners regardless of who you are or what identity group you belong to.

Modern identity politics which is now the new morality sees everything through the lens of oppressor and victim. Those determined as victims due to a percieved disadvantage are the Pure ones. Those outside this are the evil ones. Inherently bad due to their identity.

This is literally cultivating the exact opposite of all people are sinners and that there is Grace, forgiveness and transformation of sinners by Christ.

But this is to be expected. When God is taken out of the picture and humans try to be the gods in creating their own world order they will naturally do the opposite of Christ.

Thanks for these thoughts. Sorry to respond late. Yes, identity politics is a poison. It causes all of us to paint with a broad brush. I find myself doing it. I've implied that conservative Christianity is intrinsically 'bad'. Obviously, that's stupid. And wrong. And I apologize. I hope I can convey the opposite. First, we definitely all are sinners. And our only hope is in Christ our savior. And that salvation changes lives. But thinking any charity which excludes that message will be blind to sin's influence is a mistake. When we oppose government or secular attempts at philanthropy simply on the basis of 'they aren't the Christian way' or worse 'they are deceived by their secular blindness and, having taken God out of the picture, will end up doing the opposite of Christ.' Is that not identity politics? 'It must be wrong because God is not in it'. I don't know. All I know is if an unbeliever is doing good, whether an individual, or non-Christian philanthropy, or any government, I'm going to support it. Just the same as I will gladly support, and do support, Christian charities. Their identity is not important. (I’m limiting my responses to one. More mansplaining feels like discounting your kindness shown by offering a comment.)

 

[stevevw]

Thanks for these thoughts. Sorry to respond late. Yes, identity politics is a poison. It causes all of us to paint with a broad brush. I find myself doing it. I've implied that conservative Christianity is intrinsically 'bad'. Obviously, that's stupid. And wrong. And I apologize. I hope I can convey the opposite.

You are sort of correct in that within identity politics Conservative Christians is one of the identities. As soon as its labelled a group its an identity. Therefore engaging within that arena regardless of belief and truth people will have to play by the rules that the world creates within identity politics.

In other words a Christian will be conformed to the world and not the world conforming to Christianity.

First, we definitely all are sinners. And our only hope is in Christ our savior. And that salvation changes lives. But thinking any charity which excludes that message will be blind to sin's influence is a mistake. When we oppose government or secular attempts at philanthropy simply on the basis of 'they aren't the Christian way' or worse 'they are deceived by their secular blindness and, having taken God out of the picture, will end up doing the opposite of Christ.'

Yes because the world without Christ sees good works as the measure of being good. It naturally follows that if good works is a sign of being moral then virtue signalling those good works is part of promoting self or the group as good and worthy. This is the new morality.

It gets to a point where just virtue signalling is equivelant to good. But in all this its really the promotion of self and humans as the gods of their own world. Who determine what and who is good.

As opposed to Christ being the opposite. Being quiet about good works because its to glorify God and not self. To put others above self and even sacrificing ones life for another.

I think the greatest modern is 'Pride'. The uplifting of self and the making of self as the greatest good above all else. The defence of this in the name of individual rights.

So its not the obvious sins that most people know are bad. But what Satan intended all along. Decieving us that we can be like God and even greater than Him.

Is that not identity politics? 'It must be wrong because God is not in it'. I don't know.

I think its the ultimate identity politics. Even spiritual identity politics. It is assuming the ultimate identity of Christ. To substitute His identity (if you could call it that). Perhaps His truth. But to substitute that with a human made identity that wants to be like Christ. Copy Him in good works as a substitute for His redeeming sacrifice.

All I know is if an unbeliever is doing good, whether an individual, or non-Christian philanthropy, or any government, I'm going to support it. Just the same as I will gladly support, and do support, Christian charities. Their identity is not important. (I’m limiting my responses to one. More mansplaining feels like discounting your kindness shown by offering a comment.)

Yes I think we have to support what is good if it aligns with our Christain ethics and worldview. Sometimes it can get complicated and its hard as we are talking about what is often a secular world government who is not necessarily going to be aligned with God.

So long as we understand the seperation I think we can navigate this. I see a good government as one that supports freedoms such as belief and upholding human wellbeing. At the very least the basic human needs like food, shelter and health ect.

They don't have to be Christian to uphold such things as I think all humans inherently know this. God installed governments as His institution to allow people to hear the gospel and be saved. Paul says we should obey our rulers even if we disagree and pray that they may be God fearing.