The "Orange" Book

[Mike]

Your criticisms of Bullinger's written work perfectly frames your discussion here and all of your subsequent points - they're your preferences, choices and opinions.

As you've already stated you've come up with this and as we already know, for years you've stumbled through (and I'm being kind here) trying to get a head of steam going to coherently put forth just a foundational statement of what your point is. That took months and months of some of the weirdest and blatantly duplicitous posting I've ever seen or read to get to. I actually took breaks from your threads for months, checked in briefly, and checked out because the same discussion was going on, usually punctuated by your 1. being away sick, 2. being away working 3. it raining 4. it being sunny...and you're trying to get caught up.

That's my opinion though - so don't challenge me as I'm not here to offer a logical argument on this, I'm just presenting my opinion. Please feel free to read this though, no problem.

So fine. So what's the big whoopdee doo then? Well, there isn't any really. When you describe Bullinger though it clearly shows the choices you've made and why. You want to do "the work" now, but you weren't willing to do it then and apparently your choices are the same - E-Z Read, E-Z Road.

Many of the "old grads" you talk about did just the opposite - studied Bullinger, read Bullinger and enjoyed Bullinger. How to enjoy the Bible was an easy read. Not for you though. You wanted, needed and kept to the E-Z read versions.

That's fine. It was your choice. It is your choice. But all of this sarcasm about "pointy heads" is ridiculous. Revealing, but silly.

Hi socks,

The reason I give what's happening in my work life etc is to explain my absences in the face of many people addressing me and waiting for responses. Some get pretty testy in the wait. If you had many posters onto you with many demands you'd know what I mean.

Another reason for such reports, that is my stay-at-home-sick is to explain just the opposite: my presence. I did a bow out here at a time when the new rules were just being formulated due to a great NEED for them to be re-formulated, and I knew I was a big part of the reason for such a need. It was my presence here that prompted a lot of less-than-civil responses to me and general behavior that was severely taxing Pawtucket. I had been given a chance to state my message, and he was paying a price for it so I bowed out with gratitude to him. ...............then the rules were changed, and the atmosphere here changed..... then a thread appeared a few weeks ago the Paw might be done. This time it was situations other than me that were weighing him down, and it looked like GreaseSpot as we know it was going to end. I decided, on a pertinent thread, to chime in with a possible last stand. Then I got sick, and my addiction to posting got the best of me. I was mentioning my health situation to explain why I was here without giving away my disease. BTW I'm looking for a 12 Step program that deals with on-line addictions.......... "Hi. My name is Mike and I'm a Postaholic..." Maybe some Internet web site that has on line meetings and discussion boards....... .... ... .. . .

***

So you think I was “blatantly duplicitous” ??? Deceptive?

Yikes! I don’t think so. Maybe you got the wrong word to describe your feelings?

There were times when I defied the abuse I was getting, but I was VERY open and honest when and where I posted my message. If you could give an example that might help me. I think you may be referring to where I would refuse to let people push me around. There I could be pretty feisty. I hope so.

***

Now this Bullinger stuff....

Check the context from whence it appeared: waysider had said to my saying the PFAL saved my life: “You might have tried Bullinger's How To Enjoy The Bible. It was readily available long before The "Orange" Book.”

I responded that there was no way it could have done that in 1971.

That was my main point, but then I went on that it’s still a bit of an arcane book.

Then I mentioned that it was a tad out of the mainstream: it is for people steeped in traditional Church of England theology, in a stuffy foreign land with customs of speech vastly differing from ours, and it is in language about a century old. Those factors seem to make it not so usable by the common man, especially young people today. It’s way out of style.

[Ham]

Have you ever tried to read that book? ...ALL the way through?

I read it probably three or four times through..

I agree with Socks.. it was an EASY read.

even the stuff that herr vicster didn't bother to elaborate on..

the dumbass limb coordinator here (long ago) forbad people to even own a companion bible.. it was above his "scholarship".. and he was the ABSOLUTE BEST the vicster himself "trained"..

too many "inconsistencies" to explain.. like the gross plagiarism of his "master" I suppose..

[Mark Clarke]

.......... "Hi. My name is Mike and I'm a Postaholic..."

Hi, Mike!

:)

[socks]

Hmmm...tell that to all the people that are buying the book, Mike. I know of quite a few people, non-Wayfers who don't have any problem adjusting to that style. Point being though, it's been put up on the board before - Bullinger didn't spring out of the ground from nothing. His product grew from others. So, anyone who's interested in adding to their knowledge of the bible is going to deal with reading some things that aren't written in breezey language and one-night reads. That's the nature of the beast - if anyone's going to truly check VPW's work, "research" the bible and "make it their own", they're going to need to go to where the knowledge is - not choose the knowledge they like to read - and do the work. Prayerfully, slowly, with time and reflection allowed for growth to occur in the ways that the spirit of God opens it to each of us, as we're able and ready to learn.

Christ made salvation available, but he didn't make Christianity easy. Effort is required if we're going to make our lives we've been given a product of what God has provided us with, there's work to be done. We can't change what's been done in the past but we can prayerfully and faithfully do our best, as was once said, for "his highest".

I accept that not everyone will be able to or even need to do everything the same way. In the end, all the knowledge accumulated means little without the glue that puts it together. Nothing can replace the opening of our minds and hearts as God can and will do. So you can read anything you want. But I reject the idea that anyone avoid anything because it's hard, arcane, written or old english or isn't stylish enough for them. That's b-s--t. I'd be a liar to say anything different or less.

Which goes to duplicitous - yes, my perception of your posting history is that you haven't been straightforward, straight up, and forthright. That may be your own ability to say what you mean, clearly.

On the other hand, you keep at it. One way to get better is to keep trying. No one should prevent another from trying to improve themselves, so don't think I'm knocking you. I don't agree with you, on quite a few things but that's par for the course. I don't agree with a lot of people, still like them. Like I said, big whoopdee doo.

[socks]

To be fair, Mike, this board posting environment doesn't do much towards being forthright and straightup, when the volume of words has to be measured in tons. There's too much going on at the same time. That's my opinion of course and may not be how others take it. A topic is like a nail, it has to be hit straight and repeatedly to get into the wood. I myself don't always contribute to that, so I shouldn't complain. I add to the dust ups as much as anyone.

When you say "Then I mentioned that it was a tad out of the mainstream: it is for people steeped in traditional Church of England theology" it sounds deceptive. It sounds like you're saying, it's not for us, it's out of style, no wonder people didn't read it.

But people did read it and gained a great deal from it. Really, your insistence on knowing the minds and activities of the "old grads" and forcing their activities into your box of conclusions is silly. Wouldn't it be better to pose the question straightforward, without the "ever try reading it - the whole book", which sounds like the assumption is, well, of course no one did. It's too hard to read, and if you did, what a pain!

I'm offline for a few days, so stay well all.

[Tzaia]

The whole idea behind PFAL and "How to Enjoy the Bible" was to introduce people to a method to use when studying the Bible. VPW borrowed heavily from Bullinger and others in developing his method.

Based upon this method, VPW came to different conclusions than mainstream Christians. Funny thing is that none of these things change the basic tenants of the Christian faith except for the non-trinitarian thing. It all just becomes points of disagreement.

His basic premise is that they have to agree. What amazes me is the lengths that he went to in trying to get the scriptures to "agree" when they clearly don't. I used to believe agreement was necessary, but now I don't. The reason why I don't is because studying with that in mind keeps me from the bigger picture and the simple truths.

I used to defend the logic, but once I saw the level of discord it creates, I had to let it go.

So Mike, my only rule of faith and practice is to love God and love others in an agape kind of way. Those 2 things make everything else pale in comparison.

[Mike]

So Mike, my only rule of faith and practice is to love God and love others in an agape kind of way. Those 2 things make everything else pale in comparison.

That's admirable. I try to do that too.

************

But people did read it and gained a great deal from it. Really, your insistence on knowing the minds and activities of the "old grads" and forcing their activities into your box of conclusions is silly. Wouldn't it be better to pose the question straightforward, without the "ever try reading it - the whole book", which sounds like the assumption is, well, of course no one did.

I think you're reading more into my comments there than I intended.

Yes, a lot of people read it now, but if they're grads then they already know what Bullinger's getting to before he gets there. Grads have had a Bullinger primer in PFAL.

I wonder how those never exposed to PFAL react to "How to Enjoy the Bible" ?

My hunch is that if it weren't for PFAL then Bullinger's Companion Bible and all his works would have stayed in relative obscurity or even slipped off the map entirely. I think VPW popularized Bullinger.

I could be wrong on this, but if statistics were to be taken of all Bullinger purchases, I wonder what percentage would be PFAL grads, or once degree of separation from a grad.

I know this, there were no Bullinger people out in the streets in 1970 rescuing hippies the likes of me. Bullinger did not inspire any kind of mass movement that landed in the pages of Life and Time magazine. I doubt if there was ever a Bullinger meeting that had 10,000 plus people in attendance, year after year for over a decade.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mike

[waysider]

My hunch is that if it weren't for PFAL then Bullinger's Companion Bible and all his works would have stayed in relative obscurity or even slipped off the map entirely. I think VPW popularized Bullinger.

If God had wanted you to find Bullinger without PFAL, I'm pretty sure it would have been within his ability.

Edited January 15, 2009 by waysider

[Mike]

That's very possible, but it seems that FOR ME it would have taken more from God's budget.

It's always this way with "WHAT IF" scenarios. It's very subjective. I can't claim to know anything here for sure.

I just know Bullinger was a difficult in many places read FOR ME, even often where I knew exactly where he was going with his prose.

I had an even MORE difficult time with his "Witness of the Stars" and his "Number in Scripture." They had my head spinning. Maybe it's just me, but I loved A. Conen Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes" stories, written about the same time and same country. I read all of them twice in Jr High, but Bullinger was much more difficult FOR ME.

[waysider]

it would have taken more from God's budget.

God has a "budget"???

[leafytwiglet]

God has a "budget"???

Just for all those Moon Pies.