Am I a Good Person?

A question was asked in a recent comic strip as one character spoke to another, “Okay, Marcus, you don’t drink or smoke or cuss, but is it the absence of bad behavior that makes someone good, or is it the presence of good behavior?” I was surprised at the depth of the comment, particularly since both characters on that day’s strip are teenagers. Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ ” And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. (Luke 18) All too many of us are like the rich young ruler. We want to inherit eternal life by simply avoiding doing evil things. I hear people in church all the time saying that they do not do this or do not do that, as though that, by itself, is sufficient to ensure eternal life. As the comic strip asks, “… is it the absence of bad behavior that makes someone good …” That does appear to be the way that most who call themselves Christians would answer. Like the rich young ruler, they would say, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” In answering the rich young ruler, Jesus dealt with the question of what it means to be good. In essence, His answer was, “… the presence of good behavior.” If you look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan, it becomes even more obvious that merely the absence of bad behavior is not sufficient to make one good. Both the priest and the Levite have gone down in history as being bad rather than good. Their failure to take action was interpreted as evidence that they were not good. Their attitude was like that of Cain, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4) Neither the priest nor the Levite did anything wrong. They did not beat the traveler. They did not laugh at the traveler. In fact, they simply and deliberately did not get involved with the traveler. This is the perfect example of the absence of evil. I am sure that on the Sabbath, they went to the synagogue or the Temple and stood there in the complete conviction that they had not committed any evil. And, they would have been technically correct. To use more modern secular terminology, the priest and the Levite would have argued that they only had a negative duty. That is, there was no requirement to become involved, and there might even have been a duty to not become involved so as not to become unclean by touching the blood of a person (see Leviticus). Neither priest nor Levite could have served at the Temple, for a time, if they became ritually unclean, particularly if they handled the blood of someone who soon died. They would have claimed that their only duty was to avoid evil behavior. But Jesus argued that in order to understand the Law correctly (for both the parable and the encounter were asked and answered in the context of the Law), we have a positive duty towards people. That is, we have an obligation to do an act, to act, on behalf of others. The rich young ruler ended up not being considered good, because he failed to act. The priest and the Levite were not considered good, because they failed to act. Only the Good Samaritan is considered good, because he acted. This has eternal implications for us. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, our Lord says: Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ … “Then they [Ed.: the unrighteous] also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. All too many in our churches consider themselves to be complying with the Gospel demands simply because they commit no evil. That may be true, but if they also commit no good, then they are not in compliance with the Gospel, as Jesus preached it. Jesus more than once made it clear that we have a positive duty with eternal implications. This means that we are expected to commit acts of good. Absence of evil is not proof of good. Rather, the presence of good works is the proof of good.

Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ ”

And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.”

So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. (Luke 18)

All too many of us are like the rich young ruler. We want to inherit eternal life by simply avoiding doing evil things. I hear people in church all the time saying that they do not do this or do not do that, as though that, by itself, is sufficient to ensure eternal life. As the comic strip asks, “… is it the absence of bad behavior that makes someone good …” That does appear to be the way that most who call themselves Christians would answer. Like the rich young ruler, they would say, “All these things I have kept from my youth.”

In answering the rich young ruler, Jesus dealt with the question of what it means to be good. In essence, His answer was, “… the presence of good behavior.” If you look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan, it becomes even more obvious that merely the absence of bad behavior is not sufficient to make one good. Both the priest and the Levite have gone down in history as being bad rather than good. Their failure to take action was interpreted as evidence that they were not good. Their attitude was like that of Cain, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4) Neither the priest nor the Levite did anything wrong. They did not beat the traveler. They did not laugh at the traveler. In fact, they simply and deliberately did not get involved with the traveler. This is the perfect example of the absence of evil. I am sure that on the Sabbath, they went to the synagogue or the Temple and stood there in the complete conviction that they had not committed any evil. And, they would have been technically correct.

To use more modern secular terminology, the priest and the Levite would have argued that they only had a negative duty. That is, there was no requirement to become involved, and there might even have been a duty to not become involved so as not to become unclean by touching the blood of a person (see Leviticus). Neither priest nor Levite could have served at the Temple, for a time, if they became ritually unclean, particularly if they handled the blood of someone who soon died. They would have claimed that their only duty was to avoid evil behavior.

But Jesus argued that in order to understand the Law correctly (for both the parable and the encounter were asked and answered in the context of the Law), we have a positive duty towards people. That is, we have an obligation to do an act, to act, on behalf of others. The rich young ruler ended up not being considered good, because he failed to act. The priest and the Levite were not considered good, because they failed to act. Only the Good Samaritan is considered good, because he acted.

This has eternal implications for us. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, our Lord says:

Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ …

“Then they [Ed.: the unrighteous] also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

All too many in our churches consider themselves to be complying with the Gospel demands simply because they commit no evil. That may be true, but if they also commit no good, then they are not in compliance with the Gospel, as Jesus preached it. Jesus more than once made it clear that we have a positive duty with eternal implications. This means that we are expected to commit acts of good. Absence of evil is not proof of good. Rather, the presence of good works is the proof of good.

I always laugh, because the same people who condemn for lack of perfection benefit so much from conditional support all their lives. But “just” being good leads to further efforts. Being good and being told it’s never enough leads DIRECTLY to frustration and, all too many times, rejection of Christianity altogether.

Jesus taught what to teach, but He also taught HOW to teach, with mercy and gentleness and love. Not obeying that instruction has shattered the Christian world. Millions hate Christians because of how they’ve been treated by Christians - not because they hate Christ’s teachings.

Christians deny this, but it’s not only obviously true, but has led to the monstrous political hate organization known as liberalism, that even accepts openly murdering Muslims over Christianity. And Christians condemn them and wonder how it could happen.

Well, if an important teaching from Jesus was ignored, rejected or twisted, then how could revulsion NOT happen? When you think of Jesus, do you see Him angry, going through an accounting worksheet of your life with a red pen and checking off things saying, “you’re damned here, here, here, here...”? Because that’s EXACTLY how people who reject Christianity see most Christians.

I think when Jesus comes back, he’s going to look at Christians and say, “Is that how I treated you? Well, is it?”

The author ends up in a ditch of his own by the end of the piece. He acknowledges that Jesus spoke in the context of the Law, to those under the Law. Why is he applying those teachings to those who are not under it (Christians)?

I also find it strange that he assumes most who call themselves Christians would be in agreement with the rich young ruler. Aren’t Christians, by definition, those who have realized they’re lost sinners and cried out to God and put their faith in Jesus by believing the good news? How does such a person think they’re “good”?

After one is saved, they can rest in the goodness of Christ, being clothed in Him. Works that God accepts can flow from this acceptance (and should), but remove that acceptance and you’re back under the law with the author of this piece, talking about “compliance with the Gospel” and threatening eternal consequences for non-compliance. “The man who does these things shall live by them” is the righteousness that is by the Law. Not faith.

These men build their teaching from the synoptic gospels and letters written primarily to Jews. Why don’t they build it from the 13 (14?) letters Paul wrote primarily for Gentiles, where the risen Lord CONTINUED TO TEACH? “My gospel”, Paul called it.

In answer to the OP’s pondering question:

I’ve been a rat, a dirty rat, a stinking rat, and worse, and i had fun doing that, then.

I’ve also been one to buy meals for homeless folks. Give money to those who can use it more than I. I’ve given clothes to those who needed them. I’ve given ear to those who needed someone to talk to, to make their hurt more bearable.

Do i say that i am ‘good’? No. Do i say that i am ‘bad’? No.
Why? Every second of every day that we wake up, is filled with choices, and it is those choices, and the ripple effects, that make us who we are, as we are, at that moment.

I can say that i have ‘reformed’ from a lot of my ways of years past, and that i acted stupidly in some cases, in those days. Does that make me ‘good’? No, but i can take those times and experiences, and hope to help others not go down those paths, although i know they might by divine plan.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.