Celsus

"Exploring alternatives to Christian origins"

Well maybe if I'm bored over a weekend or something I'll take a stab at it. But right now I'm doing everything but reading up on seminar materials for tomorrow (in which I eviscerate our tutor for giving us outdated rubbish on resource conflicts in international relations).

Edit: Oh yes and those arrows have to go. I'm sure you've got them in your book somewhere, no reason for them to be on the cover.

KrisK10

Celsus,

Yep, the arrows are on pg. 5 of my intro (viewable on Amazon.com (or via: amazon.co.uk)).

The only thing wrong I see with "Exploring alternatives to Christian origins" is that my book is not really "exploring" nor is it looking at "alternatives" (in the plural). Instead my book fully commits to one, and only one, explanation for the origin of early Christian belief (defined by 1 Cor 15:3-7) within very specific identified presuppositions (e.g. Jesus existed plus others) and invites the reader into that inquiry. Maybe there is still a better solution?

Good luck with the seminar materials and thanks for inputs!:wave:

Kris

Celsus

Oh I guess "An alternative explanation of Christian origins" would suffice, though if you want to maintain the hedge, you can keep it as "Christian origins reconsidered" - it's unusual enough to have 2 subheadings. Your publishers are a bit crap aren't they

KrisK10

I sort of liked the "Inquiry" word but "An Alternative Explanation of Christian Origins" (I changed the word "on" to "of") is shorter, sounds good, and is representative of the contents. I like it! Thanks!

Kris

Celsus

Oops edited it after you did. Anyway, good luck with the book!

KrisK10

Thanks Celsus. -- Kris

DCHindley

Here's the way I see it ... Internet anonymity has pretty much destroyed it as a medium for serious exchange of ideas.

I first belonged to Prodigy (very early 1990s I think, when I figured out how to get a modem to work with my early version Epson Equity II desktop - two 80186 chips instead of one 80286 chip), then CompuServe discussion groups for a couple years, and finally graduating to Internet discussion groups (Crosstalk2) in 1995. We all used our real names and I think because of that the discussions were courteous and informative, even when the parties' points of view were miles and miles apart. It was like heaven for me.

It was when AOL started allowing members to have up to 5 anonymous e-mail "screen names", and suddenly the Internet became flooded with the rudest crudest folks I had ever encountered. Trolling became high art for many of the worst of them. In fact, JG started his moderated Crosstalk2 list when Harper Collins closed their original unmoderated Crosstalk discussion group on account of the trolls (they didn't have the resources to moderate a list).

It wasn't just anonymous e-mail accounts permitting folks to be on their worst behavior, it was deceptive web sites and disinformation galore. It is now at he point where 95% of everything on the Internet is fake, put there to spin a (usually wayyyy out) POV, scam you, insult you, steal your identity, and fool or scare naive people into believing Obama is the Antichrist, or that J P Holding is going to lynch you.

So, I don't like it when folks hide behind pseudonyms, and I check out what exactly these organizations are and who runs them so I don't get spun by a right (or left) wing special interest group with questionable motives and backers.

I'd much prefer to deal with a J P Holding, an everyday guy with strong (or is that "wrong?") opinions but at least honestly held ones, rather than Josh McDowell backed by Campus Crusade for Christ, which borders on mind control cult to me (I think I actually saw JM speak at my college in 1977 - the evangelical girls at our school idolized him like rock star groupies, and I also once spoke to one of his assistants flying back from some mission to the Russkies, who seemed a little too confused and lost to me to be part of a great missionary endeavor).

DCH

Flagg

Sarfati.