The human mind naturally tends to make (and remake) religion into familiar terms, while resisting the

wholly other as such. As David Hume explains, the human mind is naturally drawn to what is familiar to
itself; considerably more effort is required to hold onto the notion of pure divine simplicity without
adding ornaments. Sociological phenomena such as father-son relationships and the role of a son are more
familiar than the Son as Logos and agape.[1] The resurrection is typically thought of in supernatural
physiological and historical terms, rather than as whose meaning is distinctly religious and, furthermore,
is part of a religious narrative. The Trinity as existing in reality metaphysically is easier to understand
than the Trinity as transcending reality, as its source rather than its substance. God as the first cause of
the Big Bang is easier to grasp than God as the source or condition of Creation. These all-too-easy
category mistakes are particularly problematic in that they obscure religion as distinctly religious.
The essay is at Christianity as Distinctively Religious: A New Species?