# Urth Digest, Vol 51, Issue 44 *The Urth list — 1 messages, 1 voices, 20 Nov 2008* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### David Stockhoff *20 Nov 2008, 21:15* Let me clarify my thought. I meant that it's almost as though Wolfe read Tertullian (or the debate he was part of) and and responded to him by deliberately constructing a character according to those severe Christian prohibitions /as though they were precise specifications/: a Christ figure who is everything Christ's followers cannot be. Why these specifications and not others? I think this goes beyond "sin" and repugnance, neither of which is mentioned here. It's a question of temporal authority vs spiritual authority, at least. But we knew that. > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:54:21 -0500 > From: "John Watkins" > Subject: Re: (urth) Severian as reverse Christ (or something) > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Message-ID: > <93d4039f0811201154v58204796p2fadecf2753008b9 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Naturally it's applicable to Severian. Wolfe makes it pretty clear, I > think, that he finds Severian's profession to be repugnant. > > Severian's journey, unlike the journey of Christ, is out of great sin into, > well, maybe not exactly virtue, but into lesser sin. He's a better person > at the end than at the beginning. > > > On 11/20/08, David Stockhoff wrote: > >> Recent lurker, first-time poster. Please excuse any formatting offenses! >> >> As part of blog discussion on another topic, someone sent me a link >> regarding the historical development of Catholic positions on torture: >> >> http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html >> >> And the following caught my eye (the middle part): >> >> >> *A1. Tertullian (3rd century).* This early representative of patristic >> thought follows the radically pacifist tendency of not a few Christians at >> that time who tended to take the Gospel's 'counsels of perfection' as >> universally binding precepts. Certainly, in Tertullian's judgment, any >> complicity in torture — either ordering it or personally applying it — is >> definitely ruled out for a disciple of Jesus. Arguing that no soldier, after >> converting to Christianity, should continue in the army, especially given >> its pagan character, he asks rhetorically, >> >> "[S]hall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become >> him even to sue at law? And shall *he* apply the chain, and the prison, *and >> the torture*, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own >> wrongs?"*1 * >> >> In similar vein, discussing "what offices a Christian man may hold", he >> refers to a recent case wherein a Church member had the opportunity to >> receive high public office as a magistrate. Tertullian argues that it would >> be morally impossible for this man to satisfy both the Gospel's demands and >> those of Roman law, for that would require him to abstain not only from all >> public pagan sacrifices, oaths, etc., but also from "sitting in judgment on >> anyone's life or character, . . . neither condemning nor fore-condemning; >> binding no one, imprisoning *or torturing no one*".*2 >> * These are the earliest known explicit Christian statements on the >> morality of torture. >> >> >> I have no argument to make here---I merely find the references to binding >> etc.very applicable to Severian. It's almost a summary of his daily routine. >> (Recall that "lictor" means "he who binds.") >> >> Can Christ not be a Christian? >> >> David Stockhoff >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> ---