I believe that his soul may be in danger.
I wrote as follows:
Surely, you've been on this Earth long enough to realise that 'truth' is ephemeral.
First we had God. He was followed, after a 14,000,000,000 year-long gestation, by Jesus. He said, " ... I am the truth ..."
Many mortals came after.
Bishop Ussher declared that the world was created on 23rd. October, 4004 BC, (by the Julian calendar).
Darwin caused uproar.
Thomas Malthus said we should be extinct by now.
Richard Dawkins confounded everyone with 'intelligent design', while Noel Edmonds engaged in 'cosmic ordering'. (He needs it.)
NOW even the Pope confesses to fallibility! (We all knew that, anyway.)
The only absolute truth, according to nobody else but me, (in whom I have complete faith), is as follows:
If you wish to parenthesise a complete sentence, perhaps as an afterthought, the final full-stop belongs before the closing bracket.
See below:
(Otherwise, truth is nothing but myth, legend and superstition.)
It would silly like this: (Otherwise, truth is nothing but myth, legend and superstition).
3 comments:
I have had the odd occasion when I wondered where the truth must be. I am pretty sure that the full stop would be inside any quotes, but brackets, well, they need to be stopped like the apostrophe. I do use them, but the whole business of language is governed by lies. It is the property of the confounder who loves to, well, confound us.
What sort of man would ask that we follow them if he didn't have any better idea of where he was going? Yet, it is plain that he may comfort some with his "will of the whisp" ideas, and there may even be some benefit from having a faith.
My faith is shattered once more as it is said that there will be no animals in the Kingdom of Heaven. Of course I think that means no room for those humans that remain proudly as the animals. This is said to be because we have bigger brains and the capacity to know better.
Put yer stops where you will. I'll sort it out anyway!
It should be pointed out that Richard Dawkins is a vociferous critic of (un)intelligent design...
Richard Dawkins is certainly a vain fellow. This is very evident in his scrawls where he seems quite unable to get over his own cleverness. I'd say he's a smart-a-s- with no humility.
Post a Comment