Martin,

Neural networks: The notion of neural clusters is posited by neuroscientist and thinker, Susan Greenfield. There are pages of journal and university press citations in her book, “The Private life of the Brain”. The Mind and Brain dichotomy goes back to at least Descartes.

Large networks form in the brain and foster rigidity of thought. Say, if a friend dies a thought about that friend might hang-in there, hang-in there and hang-in there. People obsess. Same for some neuroses. Pharmaceuticals can break up the networks. The Prozac was tongue in cheek remark. I sure Sells is not neurotic.

We all probably have times when large neural clusters lead to minor obsessive behaviour. Rigidity is a sign.

Gospels: Many gospels do fit into history based on earlier lore teachings traditions, oral traditions and fabrications spanning c.50-150. Some reserachers claim an early Quelle document. Paul’s letters were also early, as was Mark, written c.80 in Southern Syria. It is hard to pick a start point for Christianity because it evolved. Personally, I think Hadrian renaming Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina, and, exiling the Jews to places like Pella significant. Non-Jew Jews could get back-in to worship.

Terms: Resurrection, Bible, Jesus these terms are too specific, these terms assume a position. Is not better to see how the terms fit in with broader theocrasia. Study the forest not one tree. Sells see Christianity is but one tile in the mosaic.

Question: “Being one of the historic monotheistic religions…” Aten came from Egyptian panoply. Yes, we can discuss Akhenaten as a historical person and Thebes as an historical place. Did the Cult of Aten exist historically. I think, yes. Is there, except in a virtual sense, a God called Aten, I think, no.

Challenge: I am a little tired up with my own cultural research, which must take priority, but I am happy to work through say one question around a week, provided Sells reciprocates by answering mine at the rate. Maybe, I can develop my comment on Aten, answering your question.

O.

/cont.

Oliver once upon a time many people smoked, so many people smoked that it was socially acceptable. Somewhere in the deep dark vaults of my (virtual) memory I recall a voice advising people should smoke in moderation as chain smokers - the smoking extremists take the pleasure of the puff too literally , which is comparatively to the social norm –unhealthy. Meanwhile even for the moderate smoker lungs are filling with tar and not hard wiring for a life in an environment of perpetual virtual (metaphoric as opposed to imagined) bushfire.

Well said though Oliver, I have lent out my brain anatomy book but I recall there is mention of enlarged something or rather that deals with love, chocolate and spirituality, what ever the neurological geography it is there. I guess your question Oliver is this evolution (which would be deliciously ironic in the Christian case) or a case of brain damage? This part of the brain after all kills as the organism may addict to chocolate at heart disease and diabetes creating volumes. We could also blame it for 9/11 and the Oklahoma bombing not to mention an army of pathetic stalkers. The upside is the revenue generated by the celebrity cult.

Keiran I love your use of the term “teddy” to describe god. What a crazy etymology, Teddy Roosevelt animal exterminator to stuffed bear toy to stuffed bear toy fetishised with personality symbolic of god belief. The world would be a better place if the superstitious worshipped Whinny the Pooh instead of Jehovah/Allah. At least then the self claimed “spiritual” could live peacefully (and snugly) in secular society without the need for abuse and bombs.

West,

Suspect that in broad terms the evolved brain is flexible to meet the varied demands of its environent. If the ecology stimulates neural growth in one or another part of the living the living brain, guess it is a bit like watering this tree in the garden more than others. With obsessions large networks are built (Greenfield et al.)making it harder to be mentally nimble, as conditioned.

This is at a bit of tangent, but it may be relevant. There is case where a child had one of two eyes covered during a critical period of neurological development. Covered for some minor reason. Both eyes and peripherals were anatomically absolutely okay. What happened was the part of the brain responsiblee for one eye "took over" the part of the brain for both sides. The child was blind in one eye, because the brain did not recognise one eye. Point is, the brain attends to its environment and grows or does nor grow, accordingly.

Martin,

"Dedication to [A PERCEIVED] reality is more difficult in the short term if it challenges long nurtured world views." - Agree.

More so, in traditional societies. With a PERCEIVED reality all one can do is make a tentative commitment to that perceived reality, which will be "confirmed at some indeterminant time in the future" (Polanyi). That PERCEIVED reality can be held as a positive or negative heuristic, and, within reference groups, will be defended against external challenge (Lakatos). Just the same, the Sciences would contend that the PERCEIVED reality be testable and falsifiable.
The requirement for a Newtonian-style definite answer is now becoming less important, as realities blurr (e.g., QM).

A traditional society is more likely to leverage, say, classic writings than a New World society. Almost tautological cause-and-effect; being affixed because, it is affixed, or, progressive because, it is progressive.

Langsyne affinity is a societal axiom, I am presently developing for presentation to the academic community in the near future.

See, one can attempt answers.

Martin,

Trust the first week '07 is proving interesting and productive.

I am still very busy put still be able to look at this sight once a week.

In an earler post you mention than my questions are "arcane" to theology. This should make its easier for a theologian to answer my points. Herein, I my points are taken fron anthrolopy, history, behavioural science and the study of civilisatons. The interdisciplinary apprach draws a mozaic from Sumer (6,000 BCE) until now. To THOSE multi-disciplines Christianity is an object of study without emotional commitment, like analysing a soil sample. The Mosaic has a pattern, wherein, Christianity is a just a few tiles and the historical Jesus (if he did exist) was one tile (now discoloured) tile. Because of theocrasic borrowings from other religions Christainity IS NOT differentiated. There many tiles of the same colour and have silmilar discolourations. Sells, seems to recognise that a tile one readily substitiute for the Jesus/trinity tile/few tiles or from else where in the Mosaic, but, does not seem to see that this ability makes Christianity similar to those tiles.

You say as mentioned in the above context my several posts on arcane. These are not arcane to be me, given my limited knowledge, perhaps. For example, history states that the clans in Hebrew times were tribal that there were several tribal gods, say from the Canaanite Baal. That the tribal gods were the members of a Council. Moreover, the tribals tended to have their favoured god which they literally married (like Nuns in the RC church)have reproductive connonations for fertility, human and crop. Idolatory was workshipping an other tribe's god, and, was something akin to adultry. In a sense each god had its "chosen people". Yet, the OT, except for a few passages put a totally different spin on these relationships, first within the OT, and, between, the OT and NT. History states the

Cont...

[some loss because of the word limit]

Architecture states Yahweh was married to Asherah (Armstrong). This all does not fit with the OT and NT being infallible and complementary, nor, the nature of the godhead's divinity, nor, the unchanging nature of a perfect god.

Martin, if there are acceptable known answers to “arcane” questions, please explain;

" relationship of the divinity of the godhead as stated between the OT and NT, without dismissing* El and the NT Trinity, or, the Council of El being a Hebrew fabrication, 'because the BIBLE "does" say that (Psalm 82)' ".

-- *If one dismisses Psalm 82, it becomes the thin end of the wedge and that wedge cuts through the OT, NT, Nicaea, up to the present day.

-- *If one accepts Psalm 82, it has the same effect. Either, monotheism or the infallibility of the Bible is on the chopping block, it seems.

My take with Sells is, that there is nothing special about the architecture of the Christian gods. He wont say how Yahweh is differentiated from Middle Eastern tribal cults, nor, how Jesus is differentiated from Messiahism or Alexandria/Roman gods of those times. It is all much of a muchness,

-- Sells, I feel you should replace your "close -in" lense with a "wider angle lense”. Soon, I will run out of metaphors! You will see the patterns, if you stand back. It is my coaxing towards a more valid process, not an attack.

-- Martin, It would informative to work through those "arcane" answers, known to you, but not me. Thanks

I think this is where we part company Oliver,

You doubt the existence of an historical Jesus - a position that credentialed, serious historians universally reject. This puts you in the same category as those who endorse the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and the Bermuda Triangle.

Holding such blatantly uncritical positions is not going to encourage Sells or anyone else into thinking an answer to your questions will be anything other than a waste of their time. 'Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio' (nothing is more hateful to wisdom than excessive cleverness)

This bloke puts it best; a great thinker who knows deep in his bones both unbelief and belief. Prof. J Budziszewski.

'Escape from Nihilism'
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9801/budziszewski.html

Look, for what its worth:

Of course Christianity is going to look like mere mythology, just another piece in your mosaic, if you presuppose the truth of the doctrine of religious pluralism.

". . religion is revelation. In other words, it is a vision, and a vision received by faith but it is a vision of reality. The faith consists in a conviction of its reality. That, for example, is the difference between a vision and a day-dream. And that is the difference between religion and mythology. That is the difference between faith and all that fancywork, quite human and more or less healthy, which we considered under the head of mythology. There is something in the reasonable use of the very word vision that implies two things about it; first that it comes very rarely, possibly that it comes only once; and secondly that it probably comes once and for all. A day-dream may come every day. A day-dream may be different every day. It is something more than the difference between telling ghost stories and meeting a ghost." GK Chesterton

A link on the difference in the character of YHWY to other deities of the ancient near east. www.tektonics.org

The relation of mythology to the Incarnation: I suggest looking into CS Lewis and his treatment of myth with the heuristic 'preparatio evangelica'.

Blessings for 2007