How lovely!

Do you suppose there are those who are as offended by that as a levite or pharasee might have been 2,000 years ago?

Ruth
What an amazing claim St Botolph's makes. So different to the commentary on the floods In England as provided by clerics such as the Bishop of Carlisle (which would suggest the congregational members of St Botolph's might single-handedly be responsible for the deluge).

Great, isn't it? I'm sure the Bishop of Carlisle would not be found hanging out there.

I think the only offensive thing about it is the ending of a sentence with a preposition!

'with whom Jesus mixed' is probably considered a bit clunky these days (though the alternative makes me grimace). Having learned Latin as an adult I have realised just how much I value 'whom' I hope it doesn't go the way of the apostraphe, but....perhaps I am just tied to linguistic-norms that are out-dated.....Better a preposition than a proposition?

Oh I use 'whom' as much as possible!

And I'd be quite happy with a proposition - it's been a while!

To whom it may concern, a proposition is always preferable to a preposition.

I like it!

I too, embrace 'whom', as it seems they do at St Boltoph's, although I expect for me it has more to do with supper-time grammar lessons than Latin.

Never fear, Vicky, those of us defending the sacred grammar and holy punctuation shall struggle on! Now is that ending with a preposition or a proposition?

Hmm, interesting use of the potentially interrogative 'shall'. Definetly a proposition to forming a community bound by an understanding of sacred syntactical order? (Oh dear, I think the rain is addling my brain. If it carries on, I'll be forced to design my own blog.)
(ps I do like propositions, you know, just that these days they normally mean trouble

At least you're getting them.

Hi revruth.

It is a witty advert. I'm not surprised you highlighted it.

You are the first churchy-official-Christian person whose blog I've come across, and I have an itching desire to talk religion with you. MAtters religion interest me a lot. I'm sorry if usng this thread for this persuit isn't so good, but I dont know where else to do it. Perhaps you'd like to make a new thread on this issue??

The thing is a program called "The Doomsday Code" By Tony Robinson. I'm sure you know it, or of it. The number of things raised in that almost 2 hour documentary could take years to get through but the specific thing I'd like to know right now is this... the actual sequence of events relating to the end of the world (gosh, what a lovely cheery post this is!).

It appeared that US Christians (US ones in particular) had ideas and sequences/stagers about the end of the world e.g. “the rapture” and so forth, that seemed to be innovataions or in conflict with actual understanding or Gospel on these matters. Could you please clarify what key events are supposed to happen and also what is the Churches understanding of the mark of the Beast supposed to be?

Thanks.

Lw