Wiki Discussion

[LilLamb219]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5672534&nw_show=comments

Please visit the comments section of TCL's wiki in the link above as new ideas are being presented and we need input.

Once ideas are hashed out, we bring them here for a vote and then the wiki can be changed and a new sticky put in place for our forum specific rules.

[JoeCatch]

Only 62 posts to go for me (after this one) before I can participate in that discussion! But I've suggested the following additions to the rules that Stringer has already proposed in the rules Wiki discussion thread; if somebody with Wiki thread posting privileges wants to copy and paste my suggestions over to that thread so that they can be included in the discussion, I'd much appreciate it:

a. No impugning or speculating about the motives of others. This rule extends both to other participants at TCL and to church bodies/synods. So, comments like "the ELCA wants to ordain homosexuals because they're more concerned with secular political correctness than with God's Word" or "WELS practices closed communion because they think they're better than other Christians" would be prohibited. TCL participants should refrain from making any comments about other church bodies that they're unable to back up with documented evidence. This rule should apply to discussions of other church bodies and of members and public officials thereof.

b. No broad, derogatory generalizations about "liberals" or "conservatives." Such generalizations, by the fact of their broadness, cannot possibly substantiated. These exceptionally broad slurs are never conducive to constructive debate and, in a denominational forum where both liberals and conservatives should be welcome to post, there is simply no place for it. Tossing around broad generalizations on an Internet message board never has anything but a destructive effect on the level of discourse.

For what it's worth, I think (1)-(3) that Stringer has proposed are good guidelines, and would add the following to her (2): I'd want to extend the prohibition on the "not Lutheran" label to church bodies as well as persons. In addition to banning the "not Lutheran" accusation, I'd also want to put a ban on calling the views of other Lutherans and Lutheran church bodies "heterodox," "heretical," "apostate," "un-Christian," etc.

But that's all I've got for now; I figured I'd toss it out here since I can't have any input in Wiki threads yet. I do feel hopeful about the future of TCL. :)

[Jim47]

Only 62 posts to go for me (after this one) before I can participate in that discussion! But I've suggested the following additions to the rules that Stringer has already proposed in the rules Wiki discussion thread; if somebody with Wiki thread posting privileges wants to copy and paste my suggestions over to that thread so that they can be included in the discussion, I'd much appreciate it:

a. No impugning or speculating about the motives of others. This rule extends both to other participants at TCL and to church bodies/synods. So, comments like "the ELCA wants to ordain homosexuals because they're more concerned with secular political correctness than with God's Word" or "WELS practices closed communion because they think they're better than other Christians" would be prohibited. TCL participants should refrain from making any comments about other church bodies that they're unable to back up with documented evidence. This rule should apply to discussions of other church bodies and of members and public officials thereof.

b. No broad, derogatory generalizations about "liberals" or "conservatives." Such generalizations, by the fact of their broadness, cannot possibly substantiated. These exceptionally broad slurs are never conducive to constructive debate and, in a denominational forum where both liberals and conservatives should be welcome to post, there is simply no place for it. Tossing around broad generalizations on an Internet message board never has anything but a destructive effect on the level of discourse.

For what it's worth, I think (1)-(3) that Stringer has proposed are good guidelines, and would add the following to her (2): I'd want to extend the prohibition on the "not Lutheran" label to church bodies as well as persons. In addition to banning the "not Lutheran" accusation, I'd also want to put a ban on calling the views of other Lutherans and Lutheran church bodies "heterodox," "heretical," "apostate," "un-Christian," etc.

But that's all I've got for now; I figured I'd toss it out here since I can't have any input in Wiki threads yet. I do feel hopeful about the future of TCL. :)



Ahmm, is there anything you like about TCL ;)

[JoeCatch]

Ahmm, is there anything you like about TCL ;)

Don't get me wrong; I'm not completely down on TCL. And, yes, the suggestions I've made are reflective of various unfortunate characteristics of TCL that I think need to be changed. But I wouldn't be offering any suggestions about how to fix it if I thought there were nothing redeemable about it.

Nevertheless, it has been a hostile atmosphere toward liberal ELCAers, and that needs to change. I, as a Lutheran, should not come to the Lutheran forum only to find jokes about my church body institution homosexuality as a sacrament and accusations of practicing theology with ulterior motives. But just because I see ways that TCL should improve doesn't mean that I don't like anything about it.

[QuiltAngel]

It looks to me like you are proposing that we confessionals not be able to defend our faith. Just my opinion.

[JoeCatch]

No, that's not what I'm proposing at all. What I'm proposing is that we can all--confessional and non-confessional alike-- defend our faith without referring to others' faith as "heterodox," "un-Lutheran" and "un-Christian." And without outright mockery or making unfounded assumptions about others' beliefs and how and why they arrived at those beliefs.

I trust that all of us can defend our beliefs just fine without resorting to such tactics. And I trust that nobody sincerely believes that claiming that the ELCA wants homosexuality to be a sacrament or presuming that we arrive at our theological positions primarily because we're seeking to give people excuse to sin is really defending their own faith. Casting aspersions on others' faith is no way to defend one's own.

But I'm curious, since you read me in this way, which of my proposals do you suspect is an attempt to silence confessionals in this forum?

[Jim47]

No, that's not what I'm proposing at all. What I'm proposing is that we can all--confessional and non-confessional alike-- defend our faith without referring to others' faith as "heterodox," "un-Lutheran" and "un-Christian." And without outright mockery or making unfounded assumptions about others' beliefs and how and why they arrived at those beliefs.

I trust that all of us can defend our beliefs just fine without resorting to such tactics. And I trust that nobody sincerely believes that claiming that the ELCA wants homosexuality to be a sacrament or presuming that we arrive at our theological positions primarily because we're seeking to give people excuse to sin is really defending their own faith. Casting aspersions on others' faith is no way to defend one's own.

But I'm curious, since you read me in this way, which of my proposals do you suspect is an attempt to silence confessionals in this forum?


I don't see the reason to change this. If you have acceoted your faith nand beliefs why is it necessary that we accept it as wll. No one is telling you can't post here, but if you do should we all just shy away and not reply? Is that what you want? Thats hardly discussion.

Whether one is hetrodox or othhodox is pretty well set in stone by Lutheran teachings, either you accept them or you don't. If you don't accpet them by the nature of your self professed beliefs you are hetrodox. Where is the flame in that? There is none, its just afact of life.

[JoeCatch]

No, Jim, I don't want anyone to shy away from replying. My only point is that, this being a Lutheran forum (that's not just for conservative Lutherans), I should be able to post here without having my "real Lutheran" credentials questioned. One need not accept my beliefs to refrain from insulting them or impugning my motives for accepting them, and that's honestly all I'm asking.

[LilLamb219]

What about correcting them through scripture (if they need correcting, that is)?

[Jim47]

Hmm, looks like we are getting somewhere ;)

First off, I'm pretty sure you have a report button like veryone else here, so by all means use it if you think you've been flamed, but please don't expect staff to defend you for someone saying that your beliefs aren't othodox. There has to be some way to define those accept teachings set forth by Luther and those who don't and that is precisely why we have those 2 words. :)

Othhodox:

Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.
Orthodox <LI type=a>Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Of or relating to Orthodox Judaism.
Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional: an orthodox view of world affairs.

Hetrodox:

Not in agreement with accepted beliefs, especially in church doctrine or dogma.
Holding unorthodox opinion
These definations are from the dictionary, so they must be correct wouldn't you say?

[JoeCatch]

No, I wouldn't say that any definitions are correct because they're from "the dictionary." Which dictionary? Webster's New International 2nd ed.? The OED? There are plenty of "the dictionary"s floating around out there, and most aren't worth the paper they're printed on. But I'm more of a linguistic conservative than most!

And I'm not asking that the staff defend me from anyone's slurs. I can handle myself just fine, but I'm far more thick-skinned than most. So, whereas I personally might not allow an unnecessary dig here and there to dissuade me from participating here in TCL, I certainly wouldn't generalize that attitude to every liberal ELCAer on CF.

[QuiltAngel]

So what is your definition of the words?

[JoeCatch]

So what is your definition of the words?

QuiltAngel,

My issue isn't so much with the definition of the words as it is with the fact that what's orthodox and what's heterodox is completely tradition-dependent. (And I took issue with Jim's contention that the definitions "must be correct" because they're from "the dictionary," and I still stand by my point on that issue.) The commonly held, traditional doctrines of the ELCA are (I'm sure you don't need me to tell you) quite divergent from those of the LCMS, WELS or ELS. So, in a forum that's ostensibly for [U]all Lutherans, whose commonly held traditional teachings do we hold up as the standard for orthodoxy? We could put it up for a popular vote, in which case the conservatives would clearly win easily, but I don't think any of us want to allow orthodoxy and heterodoxy to be a matter of popular opinion. So, who decides?

[QuiltAngel]

Since this forum is for all Lutherans and since there is a wide range of what it means to be a Lutheran, I think it is in the best interest of all here to fully understand what you mean by certain words of which you have a dislike for. You keep telling us we are wrong and yet, you won't give us your meaning of a couple of words. How can we understand why you think we are wrong if you won't do that simple thing.

Why don't you like the dictionary meanings? You want discussion, yet you won't discuss. Which dictionary do you prefer.

You are right, I don't need you to tell me that there are differences in the Synods. I was a member of one of the Synods that now make up the ELCA long before you were even born.

I think you protest too much. You seem to have an ax to grind with the confessionals here. It is very clear that you don't like our asking questions and clarifications so we may understand you and your beliefs better.

[JoeCatch]

QuiltAngel,

For the record, I have not "kept telling you that you're wrong;" I've merely pointed out that in my opinion there are some changes that could make TCL a better place. You've also accused me of wanting to silence all of the confessionals on this forum, and you've been curiously silent in response to my request for clarification on what suggestions I've made that have given you that impression.

I don't like dictionary meanings because most general-use dictionaries are no good when it comes to how specific groups use technical terms. It's not surprising that dictionaries aren't particularly good at that, because that's not what they're for. But, since you asked, Webster's 2nd and the OED are the best English language dictionaries. Unfortunately W2 is out of print and, because prescriptivists such as myself tend to covet it, used copies aren't cheap.

I'll grant that "conforming to traditional or commonly held doctrines" is a good enough rough criterion for orthodoxy; my issue remains with the inability to come to a consensus on whose tradition counts. In other words, a definition from "the dictionary" only works up to the point where we start trying to flesh out the content of what constitutes tradition or commonality. It's a given that much of what the ELCA teaches is contrary to the tradition or commonly held doctrines of the LCMS, WELS or ELS, and vice versa. So to say that we're heterodox by LCMS, WELS or ELS standards isn't saying anything that we don't already know. So it is with matters of whose teachings are "really Lutheran" or what constitutes apostasy, etc.

In short, since I take it as a given that conservative Lutherans find the ELCA heterodox by their standards, it just seems clear to me that such talk is unlikely to be conducive to constructive dialogue. But I'm willing to back off of the proposal of banning such language, contentious and unproductive though it often tends to be. I don't believe that ELCAers should have to put up with such accusations in a denominational forum that's supposed to be as much ours as it is the conservative synods', but so long as what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so be it. Like I told Jim, I'm still concerned that other, less thick-skinned ELCAers might be too put off by it to bother participating or sticking around here for very long, but that could be changed easily enough with more ELCA voices in the forum.

I welcome you to enlighten me on what I've written that gives you the impression that I want to silence confessionals, that I have an axe to grind with them or that I'm resistant to answering questions. I wasn't the one who started this thread, nor was I the one who originally suggested changes to TCL or its rules or subforum setup. All I've done is offered suggestions, now that those issues have been raised by others and input has been solicited, on how I think TCL could be better. If you disagree with my suggestions, that's your prerogative and that's what the discussion is for, but considering that I'm not even the originator of the proposed rule changes, why are you so convinced that I'm here to do you harm?

[QuiltAngel]

Points A and B above leaves the door wide open for not being able to defend our beliefs. It makes it possible for someone to say that another is picking on them. This then creates an environment where we can not defend our faith/beliefs as we don't know what will cause another to complain about what we say. This all started because a couple of people do not like what we have to say. Yes, I agree that some things could have be written differently, but that goes for both sides of the aisle (so to speak).

Now, many of your posts, JoeCatch, come across as lecturing and do come across as saying you are right and others are wrong. Yes, I know you state that this is what you believe.

I wrote somewhere that we should consider keeping the forum rules that are already in place and add the first one from Synger's list as well as the first sentence from the second one. I believe that by doing so will accomplish more of what everyone can live with.

I agree that what is considered orthodox will be different for each. I just found it interesting that you dismissed the meanings presented.

[JoeCatch]

I'm sorry, I just don't see how asking that people refrain from making assumptions about others' motives or making claims about other church bodies that they're unable to substantiate is a limitation on defending your own faith. It's quite possible to defend your faith without accusing someone else of ignoring God, claiming that other church bodies arrive at their positions primarily for the purpose of giving their members license to sin or claiming that another church body wants to institute sexual orientation as a sacrament on par with Baptism and the Lord's Supper. All of that is just crass, and none of it furthers discussion in any productive way or constitutes any meaningful defense of one's own faith in any way whatsoever.

Likewise, since you and I agree that nailing down the definition of terms is important, I just don't see what good comes from broad-brush generalizations. But, while I still think that my (b) is a commendable practice, I can live without it being a forum rule. I still contend that (a) absolutely ought to be, though. I can imagine no reasonable or scriptural defense of the sorts of behavior that it proscribes. In fact, last time I checked, speculating about others' motives and making claims about others that you're unable to substantiate are prohibited by Luther's explanation of the Eighth Commandment in the Large Catechism. So what's wrong with (a)? We can all defend our beliefs without violating the Eighth Commandment, can't we? Or can we?

I'm sorry that you feel that my posts come across as "lecturing." But I have never called anyone's Lutheran credentials into question for disagreeing with me, insisted that anyone else ought to change their views to conform to my own, made any derogatory jokes about anyone else's church body, accused anyone of ignoring God or made any assumptions about how and why anyone else has arrived at any of their views. I agree that debate is healthy, but I think I've gone out of my way to keep the debate on a relatively high level and focused on issues rather than personalities. And, yes, for the most part I find that the same courtesy has been extended to me. But here again, it just seems to me that your issue is more with your own perceptions of what I'm writing than with what I'm actually writing. And I don't know what to say about that!

I think I've made it as clear as I can what issues I had with the straight-out-of-"the"-dictionary definitions of orthodoxy and heterodoxy (and it seems you agree that the possibility of nailing down meanings that everybody will accept is an impossibility), and that my response was not a matter of simple dismissal. I also made it clear that I'm willing to retract that from my proposal along with (b) (but still not (a)). I don't know what else to say about any of this either!

[Jim47]

I find it really odd that conservatives are taking it on the brow here and yet none have said anything to cut down Liberals, yet conservatives are the bad guys and you continue to tell us how biased and unfriendly we are :confused:

[Jim47]

QuiltAngel,

My issue isn't so much with the definition of the words as it is with the fact that what's orthodox and what's heterodox is completely tradition-dependent. (And I took issue with Jim's contention that the definitions "must be correct" because they're from "the dictionary," and I still stand by my point on that issue.) The commonly held, traditional doctrines of the ELCA are (I'm sure you don't need me to tell you) quite divergent from those of the LCMS, WELS or ELS. So, in a forum that's ostensibly for [U]all Lutherans, whose commonly held traditional teachings do we hold up as the standard for orthodoxy? We could put it up for a popular vote, in which case the conservatives would clearly win easily, but I don't think any of us want to allow orthodoxy and heterodoxy to be a matter of popular opinion. So, who decides?




You keep complaining but you don't suggest a solution.

from Webster (I don't see much difference)



heterodox

Main Entry: het·ero·dox http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?hetero12.wav=heterodox')) Pronunciation: \ˈhe-tə-rə-ˌdäks, ˈhe-trə-\ Function: adjective Etymology: Late Latin heterodoxus, from Greek heterodoxos, from heter- + doxa opinion — more at doxology (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doxology) Date: circa 1650 1 : contrary to or different from an acknowledged standard, a traditional form, or an established religion : unorthodox (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unorthodox), unconventional (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unconventional) <heterodox ideas> 2 : holding unorthodox opinions or doctrines





Main Entry: 1or·tho·dox http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?orthod06.wav=orthodox')) Pronunciation: \ˈȯr-thə-ˌdäks\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English orthodoxe, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French orthodoxe, from Late Latin orthodoxus, from Late Greek orthodoxos, from Greek orth- + doxa opinion — more at doxology (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doxology) Date: 15th century 1 a: conforming to established doctrine especially in religion b: conventional (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conventional)2capitalized : of, relating to, or constituting any of various conservative religious or political groups: as a: eastern orthodox (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eastern+orthodox) b: of or relating to Orthodox Judaism
— or·tho·dox·ly adverb

[LilLamb219]

In speaking with one another in life, we need to know how words used are defined. Jim gave definitions from the dictionary but Joe says no to them insisting that the terms used by conservatives do not have the same meaning as the dictionary. So, Joe, please enlighten us as to how we differ in using those terms? I find this interesting.

[BigNorsk]

It kind of strikes me that I don't know of a shall we say "Lutheran dictionary". Church speak is rather involved and precise and outside of spending a few years at seminary or intense practice elsewhere, I don't know where to get it.

I'm really still struggling with the Latin phrases. Though I think I'm getting them down.

I suppose it would have a problem of even that being dated.

Anyone know a Lutheran terms for dummies reference out there?

Marv

[Melethiel]

Reading internet discussions is a good place to pick up terms. :P
But maybe we should start a thread listing common terms and the way they're understood. If it's really good we can sticky it.

[KEPLER]

No, Jim, I don't want anyone to shy away from replying. My only point is that, this being a Lutheran forum (that's not just for conservative Lutherans), I should be able to post here without having my "real Lutheran" credentials questioned. One need not accept my beliefs to refrain from insulting them or impugning my motives for accepting them, and that's honestly all I'm asking.

Just to play devil's advocate, Joe...

How are your "real Lutheran" (your "quotes," not mine! ;) )credentials any different than, say, a member of the Episcopal Church USA? And please respond on both the social and doctrinal level.

Thanks,

Kepler

[JoeCatch]

Jim and LilLamb,

I really don't know how I can be any clearer on the use of the terms "orthodox" and "heterodox." If we all agree that "orthodox" means conforming to commonly held, traditional, acknowledged, standard or established teachings, then the question is whose commonly held etc. beliefs are we talking about? As I've already stated (and again I don't know how I can be clearer) it goes without saying that the ELCA and the LCMS/WELS/ELS consider each other heterodox. My claim was not, as LilLamb has charged, that "conservatives do not [use] the same meaning as the dictionary." My point, and again I don't know how I could be any clearer on it, is that once we grant that "orthodoxy" is conformity to the established doctrines of a given tradition, then we still must deal with the problem of multiple traditions. It's when we start trying to cash out what the reference point for "commonly held" or "standard" or "established" is that we run into trouble. As I've already written, it goes without saying that we in the ELCA cite a different tradition, different standards, etc. than the conservative synods do. That's why I say it's unlikely that the use of such terms will facilitate productive dialogue, because insofar as they merely point out that our (i.e., the ELCA's) views diverge from what's commonly held or traditional or established among groups other than ourselves, they add nothing to the conversation that anybody didn't already know and, moreover, have a high likelihood of introducing bitterness or contentiousness into what are often already heated conversations. And, since I was under the impression that the purpose of the rules was to facilitate productive dialogue, I proposed that we simply agree to set aside their use.

But I've also already clearly stated that I'm more than willing to take this proposed rule of avoiding such language off the table. I'm still concerned that such language is highly unlikely to be productive, but since the conservatives and confessionals on TCL are insisting that it's unreasonable to expect to have dialogue without having such terms available, I rescinded my request that we add this rule to the forum. I really don't know how I could be any clearer. I really, really don't. And, since I have rescinded this request (in two posts now in this very thread) regarding the proposed changes to the forum rules and clarified as lucidly as I possibly can every point on which I've been asked for clarification, I have nothing more to add to this discussion.

[KEPLER]

Unfortunately W2 is out of print and, because prescriptivists such as myself tend to covet it, used copies aren't cheap.

Aah! We agree on this, at least!

I'll grant that "conforming to traditional or commonly held doctrines" is a good enough rough criterion for orthodoxy; my issue remains with the inability to come to a consensus on whose tradition counts. In other words, a definition from "the dictionary" only works up to the point where we start trying to flesh out the content of what constitutes tradition or commonality. It's a given that much of what the ELCA teaches is contrary to the tradition or commonly held doctrines of the LCMS, WELS or ELS, and vice versa. So to say that we're heterodox by LCMS, WELS or ELS standards isn't saying anything that we don't already know. So it is with matters of whose teachings are "really Lutheran" or what constitutes apostasy, etc.

Joe, those of us who fall under the "conservative" umbrella have the advantage of being able to show that our interpretation of the Scriptures and adherence to the Confessions are in agreement with historic Lutheranism, thus, our claim to orthodoxy.

What advantages can those who fall under the "liberal" umbrella claim?

In short, since I take it as a given that conservative Lutherans find the ELCA heterodox by their standards, it just seems clear to me that such talk is unlikely to be conducive to constructive dialogue. But I'm willing to back off of the proposal of banning such language, contentious and unproductive though it often tends to be. I don't believe that ELCAers should have to put up with such accusations in a denominational forum that's supposed to be as much ours as it is the conservative synods', but so long as what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so be it. Like I told Jim, I'm still concerned that other, less thick-skinned ELCAers might be too put off by it to bother participating or sticking around here for very long, but that could be changed easily enough with more ELCA voices in the forum.Hmm, I'm wondering if we could come to a consensus on appropriate descriptors (e.g., heterodox), while agreeing not to use other (likely more offensive) ones (.e.g., un-Christian)?

It kind of strikes me that I don't know of a shall we say "Lutheran dictionary". Church speak is rather involved and precise and outside of spending a few years at seminary or intense practice elsewhere, I don't know where to get it.

I'm really still struggling with the Latin phrases. Though I think I'm getting them down.

I suppose it would have a problem of even that being dated.

Anyone know a Lutheran terms for dummies reference out there?

Marv

Marv,

It's not for "dummies"...but then, you're no dummy! This is what I recommend:

Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Latin-Greek-Theological-Terms/dp/0801020646) (link to amazon)

It's kind of in the medium price range, but I would bet that you can find cheaper copies at used.addall.com or www.half.com (http://www.half.com) .

Cheers,

Kepler

[WildStrawberry]

Another good reference book is the Lutheran Cyclopedia

http://www.amazon.com/Lutheran-Cyclopedia-Concise-Reference-Christian/dp/0570032555

I don't think it's in print anymore but there are a few out there to be had.

Kae

ETA: Oh hey...lookie here...it's on the LCMS website! http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/

K

[LilLamb219]

http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/

The Christian Cyclopedia online (lcms site) is VERY good!

[BigNorsk]

What a terrible time to mention books. I just spent the evening "saving" money on my daughter's college textbooks. I did get things down to about half of what they would have cost at her bookstore. About 1/3 of buying new from the bookstore.

I don't know why United States College students have a screw me over sign painted on them. Best savings was on an edition of an economics book that was just out.. List was $150, bookstore would sell for $142, I got it for $56 but it will be cloth cover instead of hard. And it includes the newest and latest internet aids with mp3 files and such to turn economics into an exciting and interesting field of study. At least that was what the advertising, I mean description said. Course description wasn't too helpful, it actually misprinted the ISBN number, had to go to the publisher's site, look up the book and go from there. What an unnecessary hassle.

Marv

[Melethiel]

Don't mention textbooks...I just bought most of mine...I had a $300 stipend, and it's still not enough...

[QuiltAngel]

Shhh, don't talk college textbooks. My daughter hasn't ordered hers yet. She will be doing that soon. I usually figure $500 a semester. Now my son had very expensive math books while in college. Ouch!

[DaRev]

What really burned my biscuits was that I paid good money for books at sem that I only opened once to read 2 chapters. I learned very quickly how much of a money saver the library and the photocopier were. ^_^
Also, many of us bought books from the 4th year guys who were desperately trying to raise money before graduation, so some bargains were to be had.

[Melethiel]

I like to keep my textbooks. I've only ever sold back one textbook in my entire time at uni.

[DaRev]

I've kept a majority of mine. It just didn't make sense to buy or keep books that I knew I would never use again, like "Twelve Keys to an Effective Church." Puh-leeze!! :sick:

[BigNorsk]

I think a professor has a responsibility if he says a book is mandatory to actually use the book.

I can understand why limited use books are rather expensive. I didn't think it was unusual that my "Insect morphology" textbook was relatively expensive. It's a pretty limited audience. And Acarology the book was both limited in market and the number of drawings was amazing.

But introductory classes, give me a break. There is no reason a first year math book is over $30, maybe $50 with all the bells and whistles. No reason except it isn't being printed you couldn't use a text from the 1960's. Introductory math hasn't changed.

Now if you are in a graduate course on Quantum mechanics, yep, limited market and things have changed. I can understand why that would cost more.

I actually think it would be better if we used English books from a few decades ago for most classes. Seems they are so busy adding the new things they forget the foundational things.

As far as seminaries go. I think we are just about at the stage where when you enter seminary you get something like the Concordia Theological Library on cd's and that's about it for books. Of course many of us like "real" books. But there's no reason in many cases that the paper copies can't be optional. Especially now with the reader type tablets starting to come out.

If someone isn't familiar http://www.learningcenter.sony.us/assets/itpd/reader/ shows you one such reader. Instead of a laptop with say logos. You have this flat, book sized reader with your entire library in it. Major downfall is reading in the bathtub as I sometimes do when I need a warm soak, means you can drop not just one book but your entire library into the water.

But I think it's the way things are going to go. And with publishing technology going the way it is, we will see the printing of individual volumes basically by order. And you could also then order the quality of binding you wanted.

In any case, the current system doesn't have that much longer to go. I've already tried to basically opt out of the US system and so buy my daughter things like international editions or used books. Last year she actually made money on the books we bought and she got done with and resold. There is such a huge difference in price that you can buy an international edition, use it, and sell it for more than you paid for it.

Marv