(urth) Dionysus

[António Pedro Marques]

James Wynn wrote:
>    More coming. But I'll answer these questions right now:
>
>> Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> Also, doesn't it happen afterwards that the Neighbours turn over Blue
>> to Horn in return for certain considerations, in his capacity as
>> representative of the human race on Blue? If Horn is really a
>> Neighbourm how is this agreement legitimate?
>
>> Roy C. Lackey wrote-
>> If the entity who
>> represented all humans was a Neighbor, not a human, then he was not a true
>> representative of the human race and was not qualified to speak on its
>> behalf.
>
> It is ONLY legitimate _because_ HORN is _more_ than human.
> He-Pen-Sheep's people were in proximity to the Neighbor's on that island
> for decades, but there was no attempt to cut that deal. You might as
> well ask why it is legitimate for merely human Horn to to cut a deal
> with the Neighbors on behalf of the whole human race. The answer is, it
> wouldn't be. But it _would_ be if Horn were more than human and if you
> understand the concept of the "Mediator" -- I already explained that
> this is both an orthodox and gnostic Christian concept:
> /"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man
> Christ Jesus.” ~Timothy 2:5/
>
> HORN, the resurrected Horn, is the only being in the universe that is
> 100% human and 100% Neighbor. He's the "Neighbor-man" as He-Pen-Sheep
> called him. This is why he alone can receive the planet from the hands
> of the Neighbors and why he alone can make an agreement with
> them--perhaps the Bible term covenant or testament better--on behalf of
> the humanity.
>
> You don't have to go too far _to go too far_ when comparing Severian to
> Jesus. But in the case of the Rajan, it keeps slamming you in the face.
> He's much more of a legitimate CHRIST-figure. Not equivalent to Christ
> as Aslan is, but none-the-less.

And regarding the mediation view, I honestly don't think it works (no 
offense intended). Christ's sacrifice could be made for Man because it was a 
sacrifice. Not a deal. In a deal there are obligations for both sides, and 
that's why it can't morally be done in your name by someone who is more than 
you. A man who is essentially more than other men can't in good conscience 
accept obligations on their behalf.

Now you might say the deal was essentially free, but that's another matter, 
begging for reframing of the discussion.