Can a GOOD TREE bear BAD FRUITS & Can a BAD TREE bear GOOD FRUITS?

Question:

Can a GOOD TREE bear BAD FRUITS & Can a BAD TREE bear GOOD FRUITS?

Which is more common, the 1st or the 2nd?
:-)

is it Nature/Genetics or Environment/Experiences (or something else) that determines a person's CHARACTER?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: If you were literally asking about trees, I'd say both--unless the bad tree is dead, in which case it can bear no fruit at all. Yet, even here, we can apply a metaphorical, philosophical, psycholological concept. All of the things you mentioned contribute substantially to the "behaviour" of a person. But. Not ALWAYS. Let's just take someone who is psychopathic, sociopathic, whatever, & comprehensively examine their environment/experience & so on, from the start. Say that we can conclusively determine there were absolutely no "influences" that made this person who they are. Why, then, are they who they are? Conversely, let's consider someone who has no "abnormalities" but was brought up in what society perceives a negative, destructive environment.
Why are they "good" fruit? Now, what might be considered a logical progression of thought, we look at genetics. Without getting into a bunch of technical jargon, genetics don't always follow us like bright or dark, "inborn" characteristics. Nature, then? Can we imagine anything other than "nature?" Nature, in contrast to its synonyms, is the most emphatic about INNATE & irrevocable aspects of a person; "inherent" traits. I would say, from my experience, that the "majority" have been influenced by environment & experiences. But this doesn't determine their character, rather, the lack of it. Bad fruit or good fruit, however one wants to determine it--the person who is the opposite of their environment has more "character." This word has many scientific or technical uses, but may be OVERUSED. I feel a disconnection between the tree, & the fruit, & especially "character." Also from my experience, I've seen that it's far too easy to place "blame" when a person is who they are, & "reasons" & "excuses" fall very short in exploring the individual. Think about this?