--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > It all comes down to whether we see him as a Saint or not. If not, > > > his motives are crass and selfish, or at best well intentioned > > > fumbling, and everything he does clicks into place with that > > > perspective. On the other hand, if we see him as a Saint it all > > > clicks into place also. > > > > I see him as a man who is sometimes crass and selfish, and > > sometimes a saint with compassionate and magnanimous motives. > > Both ordinary and extraordinary. > > It is the limitation of some people that they > cannot conceive of those they have put up on > pedestals of being capable of being both crass > *and* saints, at the same time. In their minds, > a being can only be one or the other. Their > limitations in this respect should not prevent > those of us who have *no problem* conceiving > of such a thing from doing so. > I think it really comes down to what we consider "a Saint". True, humans are capable of the entire spectrum of behavior, from near complete purity to abhorrent evil, and everything in between, as you mention above for example, partly crass, partly pure.
However there are those few precious individuals on the planet who are completely sinless. For them it is not a matter of where we put them; rather their subjective nature is so much a part of their objective purity that the two are to even the most scrutinizing observer, indistinguishable. To me those few are worthy of the label "Saint". It is a very very small group, and would probably be so on any inhabited planet, for once the rules are perfected, its time for the next game, the next challenge somewhere else.
