<div>>No doubt Stanislaus meant that Christ's divine nature is in this sense</div>
<div>>unknowable. As Jeff observes, part of the point of Christianity is<br>>that Christ is not simply divine, but possesses two natures. Christ's</div>
<div>>human nature, in and of itself, is as describable as any other human<br>>nature.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>> In fact, saying that God exists, is good, wise, powerful<br>> etc is in a sense untrue - all those words do not describe God<br>> correctly.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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 that.</div>