I'm not sure if I should

respond to your post now or wait until later when you have finished all your thoughts? As I recall all too well, that's one of the problems with religious debate boards, that no one wants to listen and hear out the other person's reasoning.

I would like to mention, although you may have checked this out, that some of the signatories endorsing the new 95 Theses include both Mennonite and Baptist churches. I am not sure why the writers used the name of Yahweh as opposed to just plain "God." It seems an unnecessary affectation. I have read and reread the 95 Theses by now, and the signatories.

As I said, I won't get into this any more than you want to, and I don't know if I should respond but the 95 Theses and the ideas that are presented in them are so vast that it seems that maybe it is better to address them one at a time. Maybe, if you are interested, we could start from one and then discuss what we agree and disagree about the first, and so on.

Maybe I should first, for the benefit as well of whoever is reading this, state that most of the ideas presented in those 95 Theses are not new to me. They have been a part of my understanding of the gospel of Jesus from the time I was born and are traditional Mennonite ideas that have existed since Menno Simons walked the earth some 500 years ago. I am not entirely sure what the writers mean by some of the things that they say.

I think that patriotism of a country is not a good thing. I think it is a very bad thing - anything that divides the body of Christ is a bad thing. You cannot serve two masters. The kingdom of God has nothing in common with any of the aims of the kingdoms of this earth. I am in full agreement with the part of the 95 Theses that patriotism is idolatrous and the true religion of the US, that more often than not, completely displaces Christ.

I am not at all saying that all American Christians are guilty of this. When Elijah was hiding in a cave and terrified for his life, and in despair, thinking he was the only prophet of God left, God told him, 1 Kings 19:18: Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

One thing I have noticed in discussions with Americans is that they think that their patriotism is the same as patriotism in other nations and that other nationalities feel as patriotic about their countries as they do. Myth is a powerful thing and the American myth particularly powerful, in part because it is so new. From the words on the Statue of Liberty, to American history books, everything is written in a way designed to elevate the US and promote the idea that America = whatever is good about the world.

It is not just an American idea - it is a western idea, that started with Great Britain who also believed that they were superior and their idea of civilisation was superior to every other form of government and that they had the God-given right to invade other nations under various guises, like civilising the natives and bring Christ to them. That was the official mythologised version of Great Britain's expansion, of which today, the US is the inheritor.

The reality of what Great Britain did and how it oppressed people far more than bringing them Christ or their version of civilisation is different from the myth. They served their own interests. The only civilisation they were ultimately interested in bringing was the civilisation that allowed them to have high tea in the desert - served by natives suffocating in a Briton's idea of what was considered civilised attire.

And at the height of its powers, Britain's power was taken away from it. At the height of their arrogance of saying that the sun never sets on the British Empire and after winning a very bad war, the second world war, Britain has been reduced to not very much of a power at all.

There are a lot of similarities there to Rome, who started out with ideas of democracy - the same Rome that many believe will be the seat and power of the anti-Christ, that is the model on which Great Britain based their empire, and that is the model on which the US has based its power. Evil doesn't always manifest itself as something ugly. It is much easier to point the finger at obvious evils like child pornography, or serial killers than it is at an insidious evil with a sunny face and claims that it only wants freedom for everyone.

The west doesn't treat people very well at all. Some treat people better than others but mostly it is all show and no substance. The powers that be do not want the entire world to be clothed and not hungry. They do not want everyone to be equal, to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If everyone had that, who would serve those in power? Who has power if all have power? Powerful people or nations need servants.

America is a young country. Europeans who have been through many wars, many times, over many centuries, and have been on the 'right' side and on the 'wrong' side and every side in between, don't automatically assume that that wars are about spreading democracy and justice.

Just as we have different spiritual accents, people in other countries have ideas about what they consider justice that are not in line at all with what the US considers justice. Democracy, in theory is about whatever people in a particular area want, not what others think they should want. Justice and democracy are not in fact the aims of any government - the aim is always self-interest.

Canada fought in the first and second world wars long before the US ever joined in. WW2 is traditionally seen as a 'just' war. But neither the US nor Canada nor Great Britain joined in that war to save the Jews from Hitler. The US joined that war because of Pearl Harbour. Self-interest. Canada, in those days, did whatever the Mother England told them to do. I am not at all saying that it would have been a good thing if Germany had won the war or that it wouldn't have mattered.

But from my point of view, the God who has the power of life and death, who created the sun and the moon and the stars and mysteries we cannot even begin to comprehend is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matthew 3:9) How can the same Jesus who told us not to worry about how we are clothed or what we shall eat, and who said that if he were to call, ten thousand angels would come down from Heaven to save him from the cross, not take care of evil nations? God turned Nebuchadnezzar into a grass-eating something or the other after all. Could He not have done the same to Adolf Hitler? Would He have allowed Hitler to destroy His chosen people had their not been a war?

One of the arguments against the above argument is that God allows men to make decisions. He does not sit and direct our every move. We have to make choices. Otherwise we would not have been given free will. But my answer to that argument, is that just as in pre-Jesus times, God said an eye for an eye, and just as in pre-Jesus times, God allowed divorce - when Jesus came we are given a new testament, a better one. In this one we are told God hates divorce and that he allowed it in old times because of the hardness of our hearts.

We are told the same thing about the eye for an eye. We are given more responsibilities with more knowledge. In the old days, when we were children wallowing in self-interest, like children, if someone whacks us we whack them back. When Jesus came He told us it was time to start behaving like grownups. It was time to start behaving like we actually believed that God had power.

We are also told that governments are allowed to exist by God to govern and to punish the wicked. But I do not read this as something that that gives Christians carte blanche to punish. I think that God is saying that there will always be unbelievers. The governments of the kingdoms of this world are there to govern the world. But Christians are not of this world. We are of another world, with other interests all together. We are called to turn the other cheek. To love our enemies. We are asked not to be children in our understanding but to take the principles of Christ and the example that he lived by and apply it accordingly. Christ did not fight the Romans. His kingdom was and is not of this world. He did not criticise those who did fight because that was not his concern. His kingdom is not of this world. Christians are of His Kingdom, not of the kingdoms of this world.

Of all the wars in recent memory, World War Two will always be the most troubling war for pacifists to come to terms with, with what we know about the war in retrospect. But there has not been, that I can recall, anything resembling a just war since, only wars of aggression.

I was watching some portion of some presidential debate on TV, and I can't remember the guy's name, only that he was from the state of New Mexico and he was asked whether he believed that there are times when justice in another country should out-weigh what is in the best interests politically of the US - he hesitated for a moment, and to me it seemed that he was thinking over which was the 'right' answer, the answer which people would want, but then he said, yes. My impression was that he wasn't sure that was the 'right' answer but that was the right answer.

Well, I am sorry in that I don't seem to know how to be short-winded. I get an idea and then that leads to another idea, and before I know it, I'm in trouble.

Layla