Do we have to have it in verses?

[branabus]

Why can't our gospel be in somethng like different colours for different important bits, for example?

[Edd]

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.)

[Qwertyuiopasd]

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.

[Ham Nox]

I'm gonna do a bunch of highlighting in my book. I suggest you do the same.

[branabus]

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.

[Ham Nox]

Ok, maybe not in colours. How about we have something organised like it in sentences, not 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,

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

[Edd]

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]

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.