Dr Rick

...that's from the WSV (Western-saddle version); in the ESV (Englis-saddle version), E 1:11 reads: "When upon me you see yourselves, then it so", a clear demonstration of the inerrancy of the gospel and a vindication for the faithful that believe the wholey neigh

Though controversial, many IPUologists believe that the first pinkoptics, Ferriers, was probably inspired in the second century, I.P.U.D., and that Equestrians and Lariats were copied from it sometime later.

For instance, while Equestrians 1:13 says "It is so.", Ferriers 4 1/2 says "So it is.", and Lariats 9% says, "No, it isn't.", leading St. Howdy Doody to famously utter, "huh?," for which he and all the members of his stable were martyred at the stake around 1238 I.P.U.D. That so many people would die horribly for Her, or if they were really blessed, get to kill others and their babies for Her, is proof of the IPU's existence, wisdom, and mercy.

SMEM's (St. Mr. Ed mythers) point to the impossibility of a talking horse and the complete lack of any contemperaneous records of His existence, but the fact that we have a written record translated and improved countless times by so many people claiming to have known someone that heard about Him from someone else is proof enough for all but the most skeptical.

Some question how His gelding could be required for our salvation, or how his gonads could have miraculously reappeared 2 days later, but we know this happened because it was prophesized that his testicles would reform 3 days after he was cut, and 2 wholy mares (in Equestrians) or maybe 3 wholy mares (in Lariats) visited his stall and saw that the gate was open and his saddle was gone; proof positive of the "Greatest Tale Ever Told."

So while there may be some minor inconsistencies in the gospels, they can usually just be ignored or rationalized under the influence of peyote. The fact remains that there is an IPU, and no one should ever compare her to any of the thousands of other unverifiable and contradictory myths.

Rick

GeoTheo

K,
I understand now. I posted before I had read your response. I understand a counter example now. I agree that it doesn't counter experience and history also. To me it seems like it refutes arguements that seek to prove the existence of God as an entity somewhere in space. One problem I still see with it though is that it is possible to use the ipu as an explanation for unexplained things. Sort of like an "IPU of the gaps argument" but these things may very well be the result of God.
But thanks for the insight. I think intuitively I've always felt that you can't outright prove the existence of God. That's why I prefer this forum over EoG. Some people are really into it though.
There are things such as experience and other subjective things that prove it to me, but I don't use these in arguments to other people.

GeoTheo

No that wasn't what I was thinking. If you are interested here is what I was thinking:
People think of God as the highest thing that there is. Also, scripture reading greatly affects Christians emotionally, spiritually, etc. Then there is the whole thing of Jesus Christ, trying to emmulate him, other things like prayer etc.-that make up a person's "relationship with God."
So my main point was that people are inspired by their concept of God but no one is inspired by the IPU. So I wondered what all the hub-bub was about. The only thing I could see was that both are invisible. Now I understand the concept and what type of arguments it is designed to refute.
Thank you

K

Geo Theo:

I'm glad to have helped.

I would also like to say that I have the utmost respect for you taking the time to post an acknowledgement. A person who is able to change a position in light of new evidence is most certainly a thinker and not just a regurgitator of the arguments of others.

GeoTheo

Well thanks K.
I believe in God, but I believe a lot of arguments for the Existence of God are weak. So, no use supporting those arguments. I do change my mind based on new information. I at one point rejected my belief in 6 day creation due to the facts of biology, geology, genetics etc. So I am not a fan of ICR any more because they try to promote Christianity with false info. I guess trying to prove the existence of God with faulty logic would be akin to that.
Ted

Biff the unclean

Here, here!!! I second that, good show!

keyser_soze

Please continue on with the Greatest Tale(tm), because you obviously have access to books I don't. I follow the pinkness also, but in my splinter sect(the biscuits and jam brotherhood), the IPU is female, and so I am curious about some things?

Koyaanisqatsi

The IPU is female to some, male to others, and androgynous to a select few with the right cash. He/She/It is the trinity of all; separate, yet nutrasweet at the same time.

Those who understand this, understand this and those who do not, do not. For it is written in Jodhpurs 2:24: "Let he who is without sin and pays the man at the gate the five bucks, have the first ride."

Koyaanisqatsi

True, so perhaps we should first agree upon the version we shall be using. I suggest we turn instead to the more "reformed" N.I.V.V. (New International Velvet Version), which sought to translate from the original Bareback as passed down from stable boy to stable boy, debutante to debutante of old, directly into English, yes?

Thus we have E 1:11 actually read: "If and/or when you look at me and see yourselves, then soooo? How is that my problem? Duh! ."

Here, the glyph must remain in its native Bareback, not having an english equivalent that does its translation adequate justice.

Agreed, but bear in mind that a later dating of Lariats, especially, does not necessarily discount or otherwise contradict the Lesson of the Lass and the Lasso found in Ferriers, though it is arguably more complete. I contend that the author of Lariats offers no real contradictions, but instead fills in the missing information from Ferriers that, because of its earlier dating, was surely well known to the original IPUtians and therefore no need to go into as much detail as the later author of Lariats sought to reconcile for historical accuracy.

Thus, what is left out of an earlier manuscript and put into a later one only attests to the growth of the movement and not obvious fraud.

I think Schmenck & Bland said it best in their seminal, "IPU. E-question?"

I had read a slightly different scenario in the Burnt Stall Scrolls that I think illuminates this to some degree. St. Doody did indeed utter the enigmatic, "huh?" at that moment, but he was actually referrencing The Braying Song, from Donkeys III of the Old Tenement, South Side.

If you have your Concordance handy, you'll see what I'm alluding to.

Ahem, brother. A-hem!

Indeed. The transferrence alone from kinetoscope to analog and now, finally, to DVD is introvertible to all but the most stalwart of A-IPUtians. Boy will they be made to look the asses upon Derby Day!

And don't forget that in Ferriers, there is the figure of the Scruffy Man with brogue accented tongue who tended to the holy manure. The word "scruffy" is used thirty six times throughout the pinkoptics and always to describe something unkempt and, one might even argue, filthy, just as archeologists have proved must have been the case for any member of the holy stable!

Or mesculan or even strong drink around the dinner table at five, agreed. Though, I must admit, I still have problems with the ommission from Ferriers and Lariats of the gruesome story of the Horn and the Handmaiden briefly hinted at in Equestrians in the Joke from the Bar Counter.

I had heard that Sneek, et al, was working on the infamous Lost Fragments Now Recovered While Drunk One Night In My Basement and that therein might lie the punchline lost for so many centuries.

Indeed! Only the power and the glory of the fiction found within shall set one free. No other fiction the world over has the power and the way, ahem.

Dr Rick

The NIVV?! Sweet Mr. Ed., I'm a IPU scholar! You are responding to the 20th century fundamentalist and YEC (Young Equine Canter) hermeneutic! They are not representative! May I suggest spending more time with the actual works of Barebackers, et al., usually found in dusty, old stalls?

A "literal" reading is not taking a text at face value in the face of absurdity, a literal reading is taking a poem and reading it like a poem, or a narrative as a narrative, or prophetic literature as prophetic literature. In other words, an ancient text written in a strange, fogotten dialect by a superstitous person thousands of years ago can only mean what I think it means, and anyone that says differently is just stupid.

I implore you to leave-off pop-IPUology for a time and look for the answers among the true riders.

Just accept what I say as the truth, because I think I'm really smart, and I can throw-out all sorts of obscure references to texts of questionable authenticity and meaning.

Don 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones to not believe in me, it would be better for him to have a huge halter hung around his neck and be fed fewer oats.
Lt 9:42 If anyone causes one of these little ones to not believe in me, it would be better for him to have a huge bridle tied around his neck and to be fed fewer oats.
Fe 17:2 Look, how many times to have to tell you? If anyone causes one of these little ones to not believe in me, it would be better for him to have a huge bridle and a huge halter tied around his neck and to be fed fewer oats.

Are you the least bit familar with the works of Hoof, Stifle, Mane, and my 6th grade teacher? :banghead:

This is just a "for example." For example, you assume the first two chapters of Equestrians make very definite statements and so on. You must stand corrected. They make very definite statements that the IPU, being pink, is invisible. They do not, however, make any definite statements as to how that was done. It is not a story of riding so much as it is a story of the IPU coming in media res to subdue the chaotic deep and still look really good while doing it. This very IPU who controls chaos, is the very IPU who will lead the people into their land (stables) and hold fast to Her covenant, etc. That is the point. It is not a shodding manual, nor does it ever claim to be. Its statements about grass are not scientific, they are pastural. Once again, you are not dealing with the fundamentalist, canter-hermeneutic here. You must deal with the actual text, if you want to say anything meaningful to me about interpretation. And that, my friend, requires real work.

Don 26:24 The Great Colt will go as it is written about him, but whoa to that by whom is not! It would be better for him if he had never been broken.

I find that historically it is somewhat difficult to demonstrate that Doody thought he was the "Brayer" of the original prophesies, though how you interpret "Brayer" factors into this, of course. We do know that the belief that Doody was the Brayer started extremely early. As Hoofman noted, "My cousin typically identifies Doody as "Brayer" an awful lot" (1): the term occurs more than 140 times in the seven pages of his extant coloring book. Since he draws in the color orange, there is no catechetical explanation for his or the tradition's use of the instruction that we find in the later pinkoptics.

Further, belief in Doody's brayanic status was certainly widespread but there is at least one problem that I am aware of. All the pinkoptic authors (and those before them and after) clearly believed Doody was the Brayer but when we get right down to it the pinkoptic evangelists could cite little direct evidence of such claims. If Doody did claim to be the Brayer, he did so only to his stable boys and maybe to someone else that asked him. You are surely familair with the "Who do you say I am?" question and the "Shut-up; I'm being burned just for saying, 'huh?'" response. There are other texts which seem to make it unlikely that Doody ever used the term. If he had a habit of it the Gospels would contain more direct evidence.

U. R. Poope has put forth persuasive comments against the notion that doody used the term "Brayer" to refer to himself (2). Actually, Poope thinks that Doody's self-claims may have been higher than Brayer: "Not only Brayer, but Jockey of IPU; and not just in a corral, but in the pasture of the IPU" (see Poope, p. 242.).

I found U.R Poope's whole chapter (You are wrong, and I am right) on this to be informative and challenging (pp. 238-248).

[1] Hoofman, P. U.: Who the Hell are You Calling Irrational, Mo-Fo?!, pages 908-1256, Pink Ministries Publications, 1956

[2] Poope, U.R.: Who do You Think I'm Talkin' About, Dolt?
pages 238-248, Real Pink Ministries Publications, 1957.

I hope that you finally realize how really smart I am.

Rick

www.ihaveawebsitesoIcanbefos.com