Do we have to have it in verses?
Moderator: All Things Mods
Do we have to have it in verses?
Why can't our gospel be in somethng like different colours for different important bits, for example?
Re: Do we have to have it in verses?
But what of our colorblind brethren?
Anyway, having verses allows us to quote scripture just like everyone else. (Nef Yoo 3:16 is my favorite.)
Anyway, having verses allows us to quote scripture just like everyone else. (Nef Yoo 3:16 is my favorite.)
- Qwertyuiopasd
- Admirable Admiral Qwerty
- Posts: 12884
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:38 pm
- Location: Wouldn't you like to know
- Contact:
Re: Do we have to have it in verses?
The only coloration I can think of in the bible is having Jesus' words in red, or otherwise standing out. But we have no such Jesus figure, so I'm not sure what we would set in bold.
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple'
Any statistical increase in the usage of the

Re: Do we have to have it in verses?
I'm gonna do a bunch of highlighting in my book. I suggest you do the same.
Re: Do we have to have it in verses?
Ok, maybe not in colours. How about we have something organised like it in sentences, not verses. Or important bits.
And if we're doing 'The Gospel according to x', it should be replaced by 'What Happened according to x'.
And the 'Saints' should be the 'Ones touched by the Noodly Appendage.'
As per to the rejection of dogma, these do not have to be followed.
And if we're doing 'The Gospel according to x', it should be replaced by 'What Happened according to x'.
And the 'Saints' should be the 'Ones touched by the Noodly Appendage.'
As per to the rejection of dogma, these do not have to be followed.

Re: Do we have to have it in verses?
Umm... that's essentially what we're doing. Most are just numbering the sentences, and calling them verses. Only a few, like St. Jason,branabus wrote:Ok, maybe not in colours. How about we have something organised like it in sentences, not verses.
branabus wrote:And if we're doing 'The Gospel according to x', it should be replaced by 'What Happened according to x'.
And the 'Saints' should be the 'Ones touched by the Noodly Appendage.'
As per to the rejection of dogma, these do not have to be followed.
The rejection of dogma is an important doctrine.. I'm sure we have it written elsewhere in the book that this book is not meant to be taken literally. "Gospel" and "Saint" already have religious connotations that are recognizable to the layperson, even if they're not quite what we mean. I would keep them so that this will be recognized as a religious text of sorts, and because "What happened according to X" makes it sound like a boring historical tome, which in turn implies some degree of historical accuracy. Most of the tales are allegory, I think.
I would not switch out the words out to clarify their meaning as we use them here. Besides, I think we'd all like to have the reader spend some time thinking about the implications and assumptions one makes when using those words

Re: Do we have to have it in verses?
The only individual whose sainthood I would argue for keeping is St. John the Blasphemist, mostly because, IIRC, he was canonized according to Discordian principles before he joined the church of the FSM.
- Qwertyuiopasd
- Admirable Admiral Qwerty
- Posts: 12884
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:38 pm
- Location: Wouldn't you like to know
- Contact:
Re: Do we have to have it in verses?
I have no problem lifting terms directly from other religions for two reasons.
A) A lot of religions come from pre-existing religions, and borrow terms liberally.
B) Part of the point is to not take oneself too seriously. We should operate as a parody religion in some senses.
Though "parody religion" probably isn't the best term, since it sounds much more offensive than we really are.
A) A lot of religions come from pre-existing religions, and borrow terms liberally.
B) Part of the point is to not take oneself too seriously. We should operate as a parody religion in some senses.
Though "parody religion" probably isn't the best term, since it sounds much more offensive than we really are.
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple'
Any statistical increase in the usage of the

Return to “Scripture and Lore”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests