(urth) Indescribable Christ?
ryan.bonneville at gmail.com
Fri Feb 6 06:56:11 PST 2009
>No doubt Stanislaus meant that Christ's divine nature is in this sense
>unknowable. As Jeff observes, part of the point of Christianity is
>that Christ is not simply divine, but possesses two natures. Christ's
>human nature, in and of itself, is as describable as any other human
It's also a pretty sloppy way to do literary analysis. Christ's divinity is
attributed to Him and explicated by means of a textual analysis. There is
no reason at all that we could not perform a comparison with Severian.
> In fact, saying that God exists, is good, wise, powerful
> etc is in a sense untrue - all those words do not describe God
This is nutty. I'm not really interested in getting into a theology debate
- we've had enough of that lately - but if we take this to be true, then
talking about God simply makes no sense at all. We're doing literary
analysis here; ruling out of bounds a discussion based on the ineffability
of one of the points of comparison probably means we need to change the
point of comparison.
We are comparing Severian to two beings/a being whose nature we grasp
primarily through a text. There is nothing the least bit problematic about
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Urth