Tauridical Charities with Religion Atop

Tauridical is a play on words with Juridical. This essay is about the relationship between Religion, Charities and the Nation State.

Transcript

1. A brief history of a personal adventure through the thickets of modern-day religions had masquerading around as secular charities. A letter arrives with the good news of a kerugma, saying what every other charity expounds upon, about how their cause shall change the world for the better, someday soon.
2. The Kingdom Hall of Jehovah sic Witnesses, Undisclosed Address of the Above, Nottingham Dear Householder, My name is T, and I am one of Jehovah‟s Witnesses. I have not been able to speak to you personally, but I have some important information that I want to share with you. Many are concerned about the situation that we are experiencing due to the global pandemic. Do you think that we will ever see an end to suffering and to death? I volunteer to help people learn about the Bible‟s answers to such questions as, “How do you view the future?” What is God‟s Kingdom, living and present, from a time forwards into forever? Where can we find answers to life‟s big questions? In the Book of Isaiah, chapter 25 verse 8 says, “He will swallow up death for ever; and the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will wipe away the tears off all faces.” Chapter 33 verse 24 confirms it thusly, “And no resident will say: „I am sick.‟” All these can only be accomplished by means of God‟s Kingdom. I enclose a tract that will explain more; and you can visit the official website of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, at jw.org, which is available in over one-thousand languages. Please feel free to get in touch with me at the above address or by email: undisclosed@gmail.com. Thank you for your time, keep well and stay safe. Yours faithfully
3. Having no date and with an addressee being anonymously put, this is the letter that arrived one day, as does advertising by the bucketful. Had Mister T endeavoured to speak to me personally? No. The sentence could just as well suggest how that would never happen, commended as best to leave such interactions by their being impersonally put across (or to simulate a kind of impartiality towards). The “living and present...” was added by me. The content of the letter has remained unchanged but for other, littler adornments had along for the ride with the trills and mordents of punctuation. A sovereign is a king, and that king, to these witnesses, is a man who has been anointed with what is dubbed a chrism. It is usually a spiced and pungent oil of a special recipe, to be poured atop a head enough to trickle down one‟s beard. The man could go seen by being a hereditary peer of a house in which his significant other lives. Here, though, kingship appears confused for that of a god renamed from once when long ago by being if Yahweh of the Canaanites. Both the Septuagint and Hebrew do not prefix the lordliness of a god with a title as ascribes Kingship in this way, though a prefix added by the New World Translation of the passage despite this. Anointments are usually accomplished by whichever an archbishopric hand does to crown a king as the one and true, as did for prophets to. And shall no inhabitant as residential to so such a kingdom say how sick they are? Is it the same for an inhabitant to not say something as it is for no inhabitant at all to be found saying a phrase which denotes the individually as personal an absence of wellness? If I am not sick, it does not necessarily denote how everyone else isn‟t, either. Who is the resident as subject to a king in a land, as of whom all other subjects can attest to the same state that they‟re all a part of ? Shan‟t there be anyone other than subjects abiding in this land, lest fated for those as outlaws had rent apart from that state? Here‟s the crux: can a religious denomination be congregated into a charity had registered with the statehood or governance of a home nation, but where the former unjustifiably denigrates the latter? The Aramaic can tend instead to use epithets as god-names that are scripturally different. To mix-and-match is to alloy or to embroider what the pen in scribal a hand has written. Nondisclosure of some of this letter‟s exact details wasn‟t an original feature, had put in by me only for this publication.
4. What is a charity? What difference is there between an organisational company of members that are generative together of a pecuniary profit for themselves and any shareholders, and a body, however small, as has incomings and outgoings that financially breakeven in a non-profit way? Some bodies have revenue streams whose main branch feeds beneficiaries that are members of the public, with a need especially fed that nothing else does or can. Is it as right, then, for any such other a body alike to charitable ones, being needful of especially feeding themselves as their vulnerable beneficiaries? When a charitable body registers a point of contact with them, with the Charities Commission in the home nations of England and Wales, is that only for the usage of pre-recognised officers who could discreetly be admitted contact by being authorised members of that Commission? Is it then the case how other unauthorised sorts of communiqués are held as inadmissible by being seen as indiscreet, even if this channel is utilised by members of the public to raise concerns about the outer workings of that body towards everyday Lilliputians, whether such matters prove by being actionable or not? In short, can they as contact us as can we, them? Are charitable ends only one-way, if not allowing for two-way or bipartisan a correspondence between the body and if beneficiaries who cannot ever answer back as had orphaned Oliver Twist when infamously to the workhouse‟s Mister Bumble? The late Nineteenth Century yielded, from out of an earlier „Second Great Awakening‟ and from the „Restoration Movement‟ that had followed, sprung spry as if by resurrection to, Adventism‟s darling buds of May as on whose leafy twigs sang the nightingale of Jehovah‟s Witnesses. Odd how they, as Brethren to Love‟s own citadel, its named after where their founder began his series of depictions in chalk if across the pond from old London town, found a faith akin to those as kith to a pearly king. A Delphic oracle had been re-established in, dreamt as the New World, the hyperborean Americas. How does or how should one converse with a charity had enwrapped about with storm clouds? Being itself dubbed as an act of “safeguarding”? Adventism has several denominations, however by being derived from are Jehovah‟s Witnesses as denominational to whom or to what? North Americans pride themselves in individual freedoms had won them, unfettered from having instead to kowtow to what would trump them on the say-so of a larger collective responsibility.
5. Here is the text by email that I sent, using my own nom-de-plume for privacy‟s sake; and to then have this straightway delivered to Mister T, as by way of a reply:- David Philips <davidphilips937@undisclosed.com > Wed, 23 Dec 2020, 20:11 Please do reply or correspond with me should you wish to. D. P. Below is the text of the attachment in full. Is that somehow un-Christmassy of me? Given the beliefs of the congregational volunteer to whom I‟d volunteered an answer as few would, I didn‟t think so. Dear Mister T, I enclose as an attachment to this email a PDF response from me to you, after my receiving your second-class post a few days ago. It mightn‟t be quite what you expected back, though it is polite and respectful of what you say you stand for presumably in a religious way. Some people define “religion” as without content or all about form as opposed to how they apprehend themselves by contrastingly being spiritual.
6. Thank you very much for your introductory letter which proved dateless and nameless insofar as the addressee was concerned. Did you send these out en-masse when to every such householder as myself, than to a particularity of people whose occasion of name might have aroused suspicion how their personal details had fallen into the hands of His Witnesses, “He” being whomsoever or whatsoever or howsoever overhead a presence has knowledge of what lies hid in deep and troubled waters? You wrote that you had not been able to speak to me personally. Your letter was mailed by post in much the same way as mass advertising is, where they also have a desire to share information they deem important enough to spend money on. You’d spent time on your blandishment; fair’s fair, so they say, and thereby do I into an exercising of that right you have second-hand afforded me upon this reciprocation of correspondence with you, however when either way uncalled for. Cajolements had canvassed opportunistically like this are usually what I see as a semi-unwarranted intrusion on both my liberty and privacy; wouldn’t you? Granted how we have undertaken an unwitting handshake across the space that divides us, shouldn’t we try into our bridging whatever the gap is betwixt us? What is the gap across from one another that has long been held as unbridgeable? Is there an Us? Nevertheless, should I to purchase a hand of bananas, whereunto might I? A loaf of bread, or a shoulder of lamb, or hammer and nails; whereunto as might I? A greengrocers; a bakers; a butchers; an ironmongers; and so whereunto should I as have a similitude of commerce in these of such matters as are herein under discussion? Long, hard and bitter experience has shown how it is nowhere, and that commerce of such a sort cannot be afforded by coinage of silver had long lost from out of whatever once a treasure horde it formed however smallest a part of. I am made to feel like the widow whose tiny mite of a coin is poured scorn upon by those who have that much more to put into the temple treasury coffers. As Christmas-so-called is the merest pretext had for commerce to be about selling us Santa Claus when courtesy of Coca-Cola, you too are just as unable to speak to myself as is any child to that inhabitant or denizen of Lapland. No answers from him shall ever be forthcoming than by colluding parents to pretend he has. Those as denizens to anywhere are not natives there, but are by law permitted a subset of rights to lands not their own. Not able to own land, they are permitted to live on this promontory as affords them a home from home. The Diaspora of Jews is an example, both before settling upon Canaan and after the Roman decimation of Judaea. Words are often strange creatures of context. Israel is a good example. It is a niche within which Israelis speak of their homeland or motherland. Within lies almost a Neo-Platonist universe of mitochondria, the nucleus and cytoplasm, whereas without the bounds of its membranous cellular wall lies another world altogether. What goes encapsulated within is not so without, even should for the one to live amongst the other. Occasionally there are transactions between the two, absorbed into the verity or a verisimilitude had thought of by one as one without as necessity of reference to the other except by obscurely dark hints as dint to tell of the untellable. In remaining extrinsic of nothing, one pole among a pair of opposites is only one when proves the obviation of the other as that other’s ignominious detriment. Am I right in saying that your leaders don’t know about your letters had sent out like sheep among wolves? You can’t have penned what you’ve had printed, to the innumerable persons you have been unable to contact personally? You won’t have sent letters to everyone in a scheme of apartment blocks had when supervised by whoever it once-upon-a-time was as one of His Witnesses. Some here, from that time forwards, have seemed to be earmarked like branded and corralled sheep apart from a herd as are themselves kept surplus and beneath contempt than they. I imagine the cost of postage and stationary goes borne by you, then; pre-printed tracts aside? I can’t imagine that your leadership would have any such truck with those who should come to you by invitation than must when rather for you to collect up vagaries of vagabonds from under hedgerows or wherever else does for weeds to chokingly grow unchecked. Just who are the tares against whoever is the wheat?
7. Your leaflet attests to “our world” and how should for the future to go seen. Whose world’s that, then? Ours as of us; and us as we in the plural; and we from being together something other than them, do you mean? Just who or what are they against whomsoever or whatsoever should be how we? Does a land full of kings have meaningfully for there to be even a king there as inhabitant? We can’t all be kings, lest there is no king as stands apart from his otherwise as kingless a herd. In that selfsame way, not all of us can be Israelis as part and parcel to their particularity of encapsulation alike to no other than to themselves and any as affiliate to them. Your leaflet asks “how do you view the future?” Wow, what a time to be asking that, since almost a year of a worldwide pandemic of corona-virus ID#19 had with those of its peskier variants we have as now to suffer from at the season to be jolly! You couldn’t have chosen so merrier a moment in history! Why do events that histrionically should come with a health warning go only to bring out the best in semi-conspiratorial an internationalism of proselytising? Didn’t a teacher or rabbi indicate strongly his dislike for doing what you appear outright to be contradicting on purpose: the “new world” phishing for proselytes? Rabbinical Jews once did whatever it took in Late Antiquity to bring Gentiles to book; perhaps to say that neither jots nor tittles should change the typeface of the letter of Hebraic law is an example made of it by having one’s tongue in one’s cheek, firmly lodged there in either ironic or sardonic a mood. The joker in the pack has the last hurrah. By the way: Hebrew letters in scrolls laid out, of lines like ploughed furrows of holy writ, had to have marks added in and around each letter, to signify how to say aloud the sequencing of letters into words of gutturals and consonants inconspicuous of vowels without them. Native speakers, born Jews, did not need these flags except as semaphores had waved at Gentiles converted to Judaism, to encourage the strangers in their midst to speak holy writ in an otherwise foreign tongue. Your leaflet gives the casual reader a multiple choice question about how goes viewed the future. Shall it be the same or worse or better? Adverts suggest that their products or services are either better by formulation than they were before, or by being better than their competitors. The word “safer” is similarly put to suggest a tendency towards an absoluteness of safety that is being relatively reached degree by degree. Each degree onwards can be as small as has for infinitesimally to tend towards the absoluteness of an end to a series of such steps. Isn’t this what forever is? Yet progress implies regress, where better implies worse should for there to happen occurrences of however many or few steps in a series of changes when either way to. Better cannot progress in an absence or a vacuum of what could later become regression again into an earlier state of play called worse by relative comparison with its uptown cousin. There cannot be a king without subjects in a land otherwise to drily grow fallow without the tillage of a populated kingdom to be about doing what the crown commands them to. No taller a tower can ever claw at skyward heights had long ago untrammelled till then, without dashing its singleness of language into the corollary of so ruinous a babble thrown landward again. I know that much of this will probably seem hard for you to take in. Easier for me, maybe, to speak this personally to you, about an important matter I am taking appreciable time into sharing with you like this. The monograph is nearly at an end. You won’t be examined on it and there’ll be no marking or ceremony where a doctorate is given in certification to you. Ah, what a relief, we both sigh! And as well we should. Sincerely yours, David Philips
8. Dear Mister T, Am I now becoming a semi-unwarranted intrusion on both your liberty and privacy, by my writing this to you? It is not known whether my earlier email to your address was sent to you and received by you, never mind for you then to have replied to its content. If you have no idea what my first sentence is hinting at, you probably hadn‟t received an email from me or that it was blocked or filtered-out at your end. I hate thinking that people are just being rude by default as a norm, in wanting at first to address someone and then to not correspond with them. Having done some research on your religion, after your initial contact by letter, I now know your leaders are very much in on the act to which you‟re a volunteer. I have been also doing research on other groups to include a variety of Freemasonry that their more orthodox brethren look down upon. I wrote to them:- “I do understand the difficulties that bodies of faith to a lineage of tradition have towards free exchange of view with those who are themselves either corporeally or organisationally part of other, different bodies, or who are incorporeal in ways unexpected or uncalled for by tradition.” Isn‟t it polite at least, or by having manners or the civility to, to say „thank you for your reply but there shall be no correspondence with you‟? I‟m at least thanking you for an opportunity afforded by your initial contact as has precipitated research on a Pennsylvanian movement of the century before last. Momentarily turning back to hear a call made to me from behind, like fishermen as then to heed the call away from their nets, doesn‟t necessarily require argument or discussion or dialogue or persuasive rhetoric from at least two conversationalists to, to approvingly achieve what so much can do by apparently so little. Have a happier year this year than many did the last. D. P. No response was forthcoming. Solomon the king was not going to permit an audience with him or with anyone from his cortège. The Great Disappointment would only prove into still casting a long shadow from back when having prophesied how light would forever dispel darkness from both lands & minds. Than to ignore the whole, sorry saga so far, I sent another email to our reluctant prophet, by ensuring a response in return by its being “in the king‟s name” to which he, at least, is presumed subservient...
9. As a goad to a stubborn ox that would otherwise refuse to budge, an answer was elicited by my poking the beast in its eye enough to cause it to charge down a hillock towards me, horns akimbo. Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 at 2:21 AM Subject: Re: In the King‟s Name Thank you for replying to my letter. I was having some technical problems on my desktop. However I did not write you to cause an argument. I enclosed a tract with a question with three, possible answers. If upon reading its content you would like to know more, please then go to our official website where you‟ll get a wealth of information in over a thousand languages. I have slightly tidied up the text, though only slightly. The ox seems in a rush to get back up the hill to better grazing, where the grass is proverbially put out there by verily being greener on the other side. Assuming the reluctant prophet had not received the aforementioned attachment from an email that I had earlier sent to him, what argument is he referring to? What cause as thereunto by either party? Do charities by their existence and the nature of their tenure cause argumentativeness, effected from an accelerant had added to the mix as endeavours to burn down their houses of apparent ill repute? After a year of a bat SARS corona virus having emerged as a jet-setting party-animal, to render that emergence before of Ebola as a poorly-drawn cartoon version of itself, we as humans have been left with the crumbs to have fallen from the parasitical table we had most of us unwittingly sat at. Human-to-human interactions, surely, cannot be excused from, or excuses made them, for instead a series of transmissions without as yet a vaccine to stop up their multiplicity of Shrek-like earfuls? Why commune with the incommunicative? Was I wrong in thinking that perhaps here was a person with initiative otherwise had missing downwards from a worldwide organisation‟s pyramidal top? Tranches of door-to-door salesmen for Yahweh are therefore out of the question for the foreseeable future. Witnesses as congregated charities state a provision of help as well to other charities and voluntary groups; in order to do what as by, and on whose terms? To help show up a modern-day Zeitgeist for what it is? Is this brand alike to how Buddhist Hinayana isn‟t Mahayanist, and so thereby a religion in itself, than by its acolytes proving both sectarian and heretical to other movements? separated from purely a sectarian role played by its acolytes here than there?
10. I had again to write to Mister Stubborn Ox, just once more before giving up for another path forwards by my writing to the organisation of which he had put in for a volunteer canvasser by being. Rope and switch have done little to have the ox budge an inch. I have now to determine what should to become of so such a hoo-hah as this. I suspect how the silence of the grave of whoever will receive the indelibility of a mark to say he‟s gone away, shall be resounded by the whole haunted cemetery I‟m in. I‟m a little confused about what you wrote very kindly in reply to my latest inquiry. Google‟s mailbox, though enhanced by them to sort incoming mail into categorised folders, seems apparently prone to lose track of leftover, uncategorised items. Are you thanking me for the email entitled “In the King‟s Name” in regards to your initial letter? I did receive and carefully read the tract enclosed with that letter. Were you thanking me instead for the earlier reply as my email having an attachment of an Adobe PDF document with more information I was sharing with you? I don‟t know which, because you then say, “However I did not write you to cause an argument.” This suggests you did receive and read the Adobe PDF attachment. No-one is asking you or telling you to agree with me. I didn‟t expect you would. It is merely a sharing of views across a neutral space between. Is that wrong of me? Your emailed response sounds to me as if it‟s a polite way to at first say, “thank you for your reply” but implied afterwards for a now curtailment of correspondence. Redirecting me to a website as bespeaks something impersonal in over a 1000 languages goes against the grain of the personable sense of your initial contact by letter. An alien from another planetary world would also be confused by their redirection over to what amounts to a relatively dehumanised „wealth of information‟ on tap. Information is like the news on several media platforms, its being factual reportage that has no meaning other than its hollow factualness. It is soulless data in reams. Still, salvation and its being worked towards is an earthly pursuit for earthlings, having nothing at all to do with interplanetary beings as are otherworldly somehow. D. P.
11. Dear Trustees at the Nottingham Central Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I never expected to be having now a pen had scribbling ink about one of your volunteers. I presume he is a volunteer amongst the members you have congregated together under the auspices of the worldwide Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. His name is Mister Thomas Newton. His letter that I received was addressed from your location in Nottingham at Abbotsford Drive; his letter, though, declined to mention the merit of that position in full, his avoiding how off-putting might go seen the centrality of where or what had taken to contact householders in their vicinity. The letter took on the garb of a personal, one-to-one introduction written to whoever might be the householder where I live, sent by post to my address. Second-class postage was used, though unknown from when, for a letter accompanied by one of your corporate tracts from Pennsylvania. I carefully perused both. At first I was impressed by the personable sense of the act, proved rare in my long experience of life. Religious are not known for being so forthcoming about matters that appear all too difficult to broach between strangers. I wished to reciprocate the act back, since I thought that was the idea; he had included his own email address as a mailbox capable of both receiving and responding to incoming inquiries or to perhaps a possibility of points raised hopefully in the same spirit that his intro had arrived by. To some, the queries had put in the way that they were, are akin to something in another language which many are no longer fluent in. When in Rome, so they say, do as the Romans do. Some Jews, as did Britons when long ago to, took to become Romanised than to oppose the invaders for the sake of bellicosity. Perhaps I proved too fluent in not unrelated sets of languages which I mixed together into a reply by email. Perhaps I flummoxed the poor man. He should have said, but decided far rather to remain taciturnly aside. Nothing was heard back by me as by way of at least a polite acknowledgement of receipt. I admit to being disappointed, but no less than might I for advertised goods bought online unmet towards their adequacy. I wrote again by email, and a reply was then grudgingly forthcoming into saying very little in return. I struggled with why. What had I done? What I hadn’t done is ever to ask for such a chance as this to find out more about whatever it was I was now supposed to find out more about, through means left to me to find out more about. I was redirected to a website where a wealth of information could be gleaned, so he said, in more than a thousand languages. It was a shame he couldn’t speak mine. If abroad in China as a tourist, an Englishman should better assume a wish to learn at least pidgin Mandarin Chinese, than expect the locals there to struggle with foreign an elocution as if his, the lingua franca. Charities have a task to put themselves into the public eye, as a mote to become a plank across of either interest had expressed in their work, or of offerings of extra funding had from unrealised sources until then. Last year made the uphill task one when earlier up a molehill to one now up a Himalayan mountain. Volunteers at the job should contribute a way forwards and not backwards, in their not causing through promotion of their charity a deflection against the latter’s best ends. Mister Newton appeared uninterested in a job had given him to promulgate a message abroad. His act proved mechanical as if a machine might have done better at pretending alacrity through artificial intelligence from being applied thereunto. He seemed to show application in his penning a letter with his handwritten signature, only for that to be where it took to terminate. Henry John Heinz, from a time when your own religion became incorporated as an act of its founding, founded his now famous canned foods manufacturing base in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. As a token of genuineness, his tinned baked beans became accompanied with his signature, by saying how he was to be as trusted as should his 57 varieties of canned goods. He was quoted as having said: to improve the quality of a product on the shelf, you must first improve the quality of the produce on the ground. I’ve slightly misquoted him in order to raise some point as appertains to how your religious shelf of goods can only be realised by what on the ground can sustain it from the roots up. Unless Mister Newton was simply following through, on imperatives had issued from above, he’s only retrograded an attempt to have your work seen in a better light as by besmirching such workmanship into disrepute. Was he alone though? Over several years here, groups of your witnesses have sporadically arrived whereabouts am had I to live, in an apartment block of twelve domiciles where went doors unheard being rung than mine. Campaigning systematically in sequence, than by blanketing the totality of a large city with advertisements of you and your work and how to contact you, resources can be better equalised to the task by targeting persons of interest through information beforehand had gathered to flag them for later follow-up. Nottingham Central Congregation homas Newton Abbotsford ewto n ewton
12. I wouldn’t mind my having become an entry in a ledger of anything other than blacklisted individuals as are surely too many for books in a world belittled by their bulk, but for a fish had on, though as yet uncaught, to undergo being let off the hook! Had I bitten through the line? Had I nibbled at the wriggling bait on a hook? Than disfavoured across into being caught and landed, had I been favoured instead with an escape from a fate perhaps fish have little capability of comprehension about? Some fish become thought of as then and into forever uncatchable, remaining so as if proving too deep or too big a beast than should have a line thrown them across the wrong side of the tracks they’d hailed from. To distribute religious literature isn’t like its forecast had broadcasted by a weatherman on television; what he does is more like preaching a message to the public, about how the jet stream, air and ocean temperature differentials, and bulges or troughs of atmospheric pressure tell of an interplay interpreted across, from unsaid their till now, into verbiages put together from out of the lexicon of meteorology. Job was asked how clouds were not themselves role-players as witnesses when to or of Jehovah. He, like Mister Newton, took to have been affrighted by the notion, into struck his when temporarily dumb. I have no argument against your organisationally as charitable an overview, but instead with how a certain individual proved hardly the man of the hour. And what of Job’s three friends as came to sift wheat from chaff, only to find their moneychanger’s tables overturned? Organisationally, you are registered as a charity with the Commission in England and Wales, presumably as having to because of your owning or leasing land or property. Than a business corporately, you are financially a body together of resources directed towards charitable ends that the Commission has keep upon an overview of. Articles of religion but for societal sets when secularly to intersect with them, are assumed to promote the virtue of charity as the greatest of a three to include faith and hope among their number. Yet this is arrived at from a mistranslation scripturally of a technical term for love, to have become by another pen a word derived from charismata, i.e. gifts. What’s your gift remiss of its having to be paid for? Besides simony I understand that it’s disallowed for you to accept monies from the general public, as oppositely are for other charitable bodies to. Might it be imagined that your gift of prophecy as edifies, than of an unknown tongue as couldn’t by interlocutions, is one perhaps of insurance? Than to sell a policy, you gift it to whosoever can accept it in the same spirit by which it was given. The trouble is that insurance protects against loss through accidents, provisioning the policyholder with that which adequately compensates for the loss. Accidents are not expected to happen as a matter of course, in ways that can be predicted, though accidents shall and do happen. An accident as shall be predicted when soon to happen, instead to parties other than the policyholder, is the insurance you either underwrite or are as agents to. There is then what assuredly promises an exemption from a singularly divine and extraordinary accident as dashes worldly-wise Humpty Dumpty, so that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men cannot put Humpty together again. An incorporated body of insurance brokers is not what is normally thought of as a charity, in this or in any case, religious or not. Not only is the provisioning for and the purveyance of such a policy an act of dissent against a futureless world, it is contradictive by nature from permitting conversational commerce with evermore a once paradise lost, between the dissenting soothsayers and the mutton had sold as lamb until soon for such herded sheep to be finally led wholesale to slaughter. I commend you at least for being much less opaque than are others as tributaries to a Christianised river of faith as flows worldly through several lands, by outlining if maybe a contentious case as have I; yet, those as thematic variations, who wouldn’t as ever dare do likewise, do inversely so, lest should sooner befall doom upon their obscurant collegia. Wheat is wheat, and chaff is chaff, had winnowed when one from another by the elemental agency of air. And may never the twain shall meet, either here or in the hereafter. Faithfully yours, D. P. ewto n
13. Accompanying the aforesaid document‟s attachment was a short prefatory note as an email had issued to what is the registered charity had twinned with a religion. On the Ides of September in 1895, bade a founder of this religion to beware of organization. It is wholly unnecessary, said he, given that there is only one rulebook, the Bible, as is all that is needed; neither seek to do what would permit the binding of one‟s own conscience, from ditto into having beforehand fettered others‟ as consciences. How can a conscience be unbound unless to free it from itself, than to free it to itself and its expression of itself? To the trustees or to whom this may concern, I hate having to do what I‟ve never done in my life before, till now, which is to submit a complaint about a charity. You‟re charity number 1066204, are you not, registered with the Charities Commission for England and Wales? From recently being contacted by one of your volunteers (to be responded to as pamphleteers?), the way in which your charitable ends were put across to me by that volunteer is something no charity, however religious in function, should or would do to those who are citizens of a city, or as members of the general public, or in kinship to mankind. Communication is a two-way privilege and not a one-way passivity of avenue into people‟s homes as a shortcut thereunto. Please find attached a two-page letter as an Adobe PDF document that outlines the case in more detail. Perhaps, after reflection, I better understand why an email address to have belonged to the volunteer was volunteered by him as information. Online business transactions need their point of contact with the customer, or for the customer to have a point of contact with whatever organization has wares to put forward into the public domain. Might for there to be a problem with the transaction, this email address can be used to smooth any problems with the transition of a product or service across to an awaiting customer; though, not that I had been awaiting this communication from your organization at any time until after it took place. It cannot be stressed too much that I‟m expectant of a reply from you by email as merits the seriousness of a situation to have arisen, given how a member of your team has gone & become completely unresponsive. Than the cause, I am the effect to have come from a cause shown too problematic for me to ignore. Without undue prejudice, David Philips. From Zion‟s Watch Tower, an early publication of the religion, followed by my query in the last sentence.
14. Has a charity as a congregated religion—registered as such by being locally situated as a body, its if singly among several others had registered as abiding in the same city—been seen as acting in either responsible or accountable a manner as reflects them best? To themselves in vanity‟s mirror, maybe! Shall there ever, as hasn‟t yet, be a response as accounts for their actions towards members either of the general public or of mankind (assuming that to be identical to planetary humankind)? Secularist society has afforded this group a significance of privileges they seem so wont to abuse or misuse. This makes a mockery of charities anywhere; or are charities themselves a mockery by inference? Religious charities, though maybe not all when registered in otherwise had acting towards strings of some common purse as a heart upon which some would vulgarly wish to pull, can indicate that, for a body such as theirs, having access to the public for funding is prohibited them!—nevertheless, they‟ll still put out the begging bowl as a box of loose change that any attendance of non-members, as prove not of the body, shall feel is a ritual obligation on them as incumbent upon their occupancy of a pew. Am I blaming any religious movement than I am a charity for being a charity? Perhaps blame should be far more properly apportioned to the Commission for Charities in England and Wales. Religion‟s the unlikelihood of a cartoon that shows up what charities are in if an amplified form of subtleties by which they play at masquerades. How many bodies as these are façades or fronts put up for anything other than what they‟ve registered as, and in reality as thereby an affront to what true charity is? What is true charity, with what is truth about something as renders it true? True, how & by whom? What is charity if not kindness in action than gainsaid by being acted out with lukewarm words? Faith and belief should not be confused together into an amalgam of themselves. Belief is hardly a virtue, given what is asked or begged to be trusted in as would beggar belief. Faith is placing a trust in fish as proves truly a fish, than could for belief‟s blind bet had placed on truth‟s snaky poseur to. Charities are in the business of having hold over handouts of money that purchases nothing other than hope for a future, no less than banknotes to promise to do as by a God in whom they trust. Distributive dissipation of risk across a plethora of individual units as avoids needing to call on higher accountability when acted out at corporate level. Such a plethora of too many chefs is like the Lernaean Hydra of whose heads there is that tenfold an augment of them, in lieu of every sniping tentacle had snipped & lopped off. An ethicality of brownie point scoring against the Clapham omnibus man, as should then go if worse when lauded as self-aggrandisement. The Red Cross says: your kindness is powerful; and so it is as they say, however going implied by them as only when through themselves to.
15. Is it a sheepdog or is it a wolf, had blacker than sin? Or does the boy who cries “wolf!” simply need a prescription for a pair of glasses had ever when worn to his day job from now on? Light is no match for a waft of air as conveys heedfulness to either the boy’s ears or nose.
16. So, what‟s the upshot of all this? How might I have wished for far less stale an air as miasma had said from being the wellspring of plague that we all seem so hell-bent on breathing across to one another? Is it when easier to commune with the incommunicable to which or to whom the incommunicative are worshippers?
17. A twelfth-century Buddhist monk adapted an earlier Taoist work into a Zen classic, writing verses with accompanying woodcuts as illustrations that have been remade again and again; assuming then that a maxim, better known from more recently, backdates to say: imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The Ox-herder‟s Fable is hardly the Ten Commandments; just as do the clouds to go east as the Moon goes west, so says a verse of the work adapted by P‟u Ming from the late 16 th to early 17 th century. A lad finds he has forgetfully lost an ox he did not even know he had, until tracks left by it are followed to a lair the recalcitrant beast is headfirst hiding in. Who could have lost so telltale a thing that big? Like pulling at his own teeth, the lad isn‟t at first able to shift the animal out of its nosing about in that dismal hovel it calls if home. But the lad nevertheless coaxes the ox to seek with him pastures anew. Oddly, the beast „mirrors‟ the lad, one to another, as rope and switch are eventually no longer needed between them, wherever should for the one to be leading the other on to esculent delicacies anew. Arriving, the two have become one, and then the one becomes nought, in having returned to what‟s too from being when at first the forgetfulness of having lost something one didn‟t even know one had. A proverb says how Nature abhors a vacuum. Nothing in nature emerges from out of nothing, so never by proving when aught for naught, being magically conjured as if fully-formed from out of the void! How hard is it to remember whatever forgetfulness had mislaid by all too easily in reverse of the same process to recover it; and so, how much harder must it be, by at having when then to recollect that one has forgotten that one has forgotten, never mind about what one has absentmindedly lost sight of ? Guo-an Shi-yuan