Protestantism....

[Screaming Lord Byron]

Has the Protestant Faith on a whole had a positive or negative effect on humanity?

Personally, I'm in an odd position. My mother is Irish Catholic, my dad an Anglican-turned-Atheist. I was raised (for some reason, it was the default where I grew up) Presbyterian, although I am these days without faith. So, perhaps, I spend more time comparing and contrasting religions than other people.
I had planned a long, drawn-out post on the subject, but I don't particularly want to subject people to that, so let's discuss, and I'll pop in a few of the points I was thinking about along the way.

And yes, this will likely become a flame-war. That's not my intention. I posted this after reading about the reformation, and bearing in mind the Social Gospellers who were at the heart of left-wing politics for much of the twentieth century. I want to have a debate on the values and value of Protestantism.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no answer to the original question. You may feel differently.

[JohnKleeb]

1. umm netural effect, some good, some bad

I think. No offense to any Protestants but I am glad its not the majority religion anymore in the US.

[DenverDem]

2. So what is the majority religion in America now?

Other than worship of mammon, of course.

[JohnKleeb]

6. there is no clear majority anymore

[TeacherCreature]

8. Catholics are the largest denomination in America and world wide

[JohnKleeb]

10. yeah thats true

but Protestants have always had more infleunce by and large than Catholics in this country.

[DenverDem]

24. They may be the largest denomination but hardly a majority.

With the hundreds of protestant denominations.

[PATRICK]

82. worldwide

-and I don't have an updated census- adding the Eastern Orthodox to the RC's makes the largest world religion. America is the largest majority Protestant population, though the Catholics may outnumber individual units(ALL Baptists?). Anyway, no one operates as a mindless lockstep unity either together or in part, even the Fundamentalists, or devout Catholics.

Bush tries to build two disparate coalitions. The mainstream Churches that hinge on being fooled on specific moral issues and a string of politically radical Fundamentalist no-nothings for muscle. Money, of course to grease the machinery of both. The maliciousness of political subversion of all American organizations applies to Churches where a Conservative onslaught against the system and all others is mirrored withing the Churches. Great Catholic laymen like Norquist and Bennett keep trying to insert themselves as if they could do to the "American" Churches what they did to the NRA and others.

Horribly, Bush has taken the most hideous role of some kind of messiah for fringe apocalypticists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. There's still about twice as many protestants as catholics

and many more than those with no religion.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-prots21.html

Year Protestant Catholic Jewish None  Other
1972 62.5       27.4     3.0    5.1   1.9
1982 63.9       25.7     2.1    7.1   1.2
1993 63.1       23.0     2.1    9.0   2.8
2002 52.4       25.5     1.5    13.8  6.9

[JohnKleeb]

23. ahh interesting

see that Catholics went down too. Thanks.

[Fla Dem]

86. Protestants to fall below 50% of American population

From a CBS News report last night. Only mega churches have kept the decline from being worse.

-snip-

"They're very close to falling below 50 percent, which would be the first time in American history that the majority of Americans are not Protestant," says Tom W. Smith of the National Opinion Research Center."



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/24/eveningnews/main638195.shtml

[Liberal Veteran]

3. I think it's more of a bell curve.

Over all I think Protestantism has been positive, but the positive influence has peaked and as time goes on, it's going into descent as it is hijacked by political forces.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

7. That's close to what I think.

The original Protestants were certainly justified in their efforts to remake the medieval church. Unfortunately, as with much that is good, it was quickly manipulated by more puritan elements.

[Liberal Veteran]

16. A good example would be the Southern Baptists.

Growing up in a southern baptist household, I was able to watch the evolution of that denomination from a community fellowship church (that was conservative to be sure, but not politically active) into a behemoth that tries to impose it's beliefs on everyone else.

Sometime in the mid to late 70's I saw the church go from helping their neighbors, having potlucks, etc...into a group that became paranoid that everyone was out to destroy Christianity and the center of every urban legend and disdain for sinners.

[JohnKleeb]

26. I agree they had good intentions but often times

when they became the majority, they were rotten to Catholics, thats how it was here in the US for the longest time, hell Kerry is gonna be only the second Catholic president ever, and to my knowledge we've only had a handful of Catholic nominees, Al Smith was Catholic and part of the reason why he lost bad was because of this, Kennedy lost some support on the count of it too, pretty pathetic I think.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

28. Britain has never had a Catholic PM, IIRC.

Of course, Canada is the reverse. Most of our PM's and leaders have been Catholic.

[JohnKleeb]

34. hmmm I'd believe that

Well Canada has a high Irish, French infleunce right? the French got a lot of Catholics which is why Lousiana is the most Catholic state of the south. Don't know what people got against us, we just like having a pope, respecting Mary as much as Christ himself, etc, :shrug: its confusing.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

40. Canada has slightly more Catholics than Protestants (I think)

Obviously, the vast majority of French Canadians are Catholics, most of the Irish, a big chunk of the Scots, particularly the Highlanders, and of course, a lot of the recent immigrations. As far as leaders go....

2003 - Paul Martin (Catholic)
1993-2003 - Jean Chretien (Catholic)
1993 - Kim Campbell (?)
1984-1993 - Brian Mulroney (Catholic)
1984 - John Turner (?)
1980-1984 - Pierre Trudeau (Catholic)
1979-1980 - Joe Clark (Catholic)
1968-1979 - Pierre Trudeau (Catholic)

[JohnKleeb]

43. yeah

Makes sense to me that Canada would be mostly Catholic, another reason to consider living there lol.

[Dorian Gray]

75. Random sidebar....

Is it true that in Britain, it is illegal for a Catholic to become Prime Minister? While living over there, I was told that was so by some of the British that I encountered.

I have a hard time thinking that any country with people seemingly as enlightened as the general British populace would allow for such an outdated law. So, I was unsure if that was the case.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

76. It's illegal to have a monarch who is, or is married to, a Catholic.

Don't know about the PM bit though. The fact that there has not been one is telling, though.

Camilla Parker Bowles is Catholic, interestingly enough.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. I don't think it's illegal for the PM to be a Catholic

the theory behind the ban on the monarch and spouse being Catholic is that, being the head of the Church of England, or the parent of the probable future head, you mustn't have Catholic influence on it. It would make slightly more sense if the law said they had to be Anglican, of course. The PM doesn't have an official position in the church.

The consensus of web sites seems to be that Camilla Parker Bowles isn't herself Catholic, but her ex-husband is. I hadn't heard it talked about as a potential problem for them marrying, so I doubt she is.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

87. I doubt it could be held up as a reasonable obstacle even if she were.

[bryant69]

4. Yeah, this will turn into a flame war

Which is always a positive thing. I mean there's nothing better than taking a few moments to slam into people for having different religious beliefs than you do.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Screaming Lord Byron]

9. Not my intent, of course. I'd like to see some serious debate

This may be one religion we can have that on with the least damage done.

[bryant69]

15. Why this religion?

I'm not in fact protestent, although my faith would likely get lumped in with them. I mean aren't most fundemental christians, in effect, protestent?

Bryant

[Screaming Lord Byron]

17. It's a religion that has been dominant in our culture.

So, I would think that it's position would be secure enough for us to examine it. If I asked the question about Catholicism, we would already be in a flame-war, because in North American, Catholics have often been outsiders and underdogs. Which usually leads to an argument.

[theboss]

68. Protestantism is not a religion

It doesn't even mean "not Catholic," though that's what it has evolved into.

[Liberal Veteran]

19. Pretty much anything not Catholic is protestant.

At least in America.

[JohnKleeb]

29. well there's eastern orthodox too

but they really havent been big in numbers here, too bad because I think thats what I'd be if I wasnt Catholic and my grandmother grew up "Greek Catholic" which shares many rituals with the orthodox christians.

[TeacherCreature]

27. There is no serious debate on this topic

there is no answer to your question. Lots of people love to blame religion for the worlds problems rather than accepting that human nature is the real problem.

[malatesta1137]

5. EVERY religion

has done more harm than good to humanity.

[amber dog democrat]

21. Organized Religion = Organized Crime

One of the best things Martin Luther did was declare that no one needed an intermediary between him/self and the diety.
Given the bible, there is enough guidence there alone to function spiritually.

As an agnostic I don't feel qualified to weigh into the merits of one faith or another, but I am convinced that as denomonations developed their own doctrines and
became agents of state authority - they became useful in managing society.

Some of the ungodliest things have been done in the names of organized religions.
It is interesting that the Franciscan and Dominican orders were very involved in the Inquisition. Where is the charity of St Francis in that ?

Its not just Catholics that have much to answer for, its ALL faiths.
I feel religion is a personal matter.

[TeacherCreature]

30. Exhibit one

[Screaming Lord Byron]

33. Well, regardless of your theory, we're going to try and be rational here.

I think we can get something out of the question.

[TeacherCreature]

38. oh come on

You chose one religion and posed a question that can not be answered. I'd like to know what your personal opinion is. I don't believe you don't have one.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

41. I think you're being a little too touchy.

As I said in my original post, I was raised a Protestant. That's about as far as it goes.

Naturally, you assume I'm some despicable Protestant basher ready to pounce, right?

[H2O Man]

11. I'll go with "other"

I think that it has done tremendous good in individual lives, in some communities, and on raw occassions on the national/international level. And it has done severe damage in terms of national/international policy, in some communities, and in a number of individual's lives. The Protestant branch of Christianity ranks at the same general level as the other Christian faiths, and other major religious groups in the world's history. It has certainly not done anything to distinguish it as better or worse than any other.

Very good question/topic. I'll be following this thread with great interest.

[sui generis]

13. Not a slam on protestantism itself but organized religion in general

They all promote irrationality (and their particular brand of it). I think some good comes out of the most liberal thinkers in religious contexts, but they are rarely the leaders within their faiths.

I think there is far too much wonder in the everyday to ever need to anthropomorphize it into some "greater being". Occams razor and all that.

Even so, the most evil that has happened in the name of religion has happened under the leadership of people within those religious organizations who don't really believe anyway, but knew (know) how to manipulate other people by their faith and fear.

[DBoon]

31. In the context of the 16th century, protestantism was progressive

It challenged fedual authority. Its individualism was a precursor to the rights of man taught by the enlightenment philosophers. Its emphasis on individual knowledge of the bible spurred mass literacy. Its opposition to church hierarchies laid the groundwork for democracy.

[TeacherCreature]

37. Good points all

[TeacherCreature]

35. There is nothing irrational about religion

just because you don't believe doesn't mean those who do are irrational. Not anymore irrational than people who believe Occams Razor is an actual law of the universe rather than an unproven hypothesis... a kind of pop concept.

[sui generis]

45. faith without facts is irrational

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. why is believing the universe started from nothing

more far-fetched than believing in a creator that started from nothing?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[asthmaticeog]

66. I don't understand how you can say that,

given that every theologian worth discussing has EMBRACED the non-rational nature of faith, and even denigrated the efficacy of reason, as you yourself attempt in your straw-man argument against Occam's Razor. There's no need to defend faith against charges of irrationality. Knowledge absent reason is faith's whole point.

[LanternWaste]

91. In the Christian context, faith means...

In the Christian context, faith is easily summed up as, "Trust in that which you do not have full knowledge of..." rather than knowledge absent reason.

Try C.S. Lewis' book, Mere Chrisitanity for a fuller discourse in the meaning of faith and what it does (and does not) mean. It's good reading.

:)

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

14. Just like anything else - it was good and bad

Unfortunately men (woman not so much) have the tendency to use religion in a way that is counter to it's tennants.

I am less qualified to comment as I am a devout Catholic but it has served some good and some bad.

[NashVegas]

18. I Am Forced to Say 'Good'

For the sole reason that Protestantism lifted a huge chunk of dogmatic control from the church, and especially political control, coinciding with the invention of the press. Once that one group broke off, others did the same, wrestling even more control away from centralized heirophants.

I could rail about the abuses, especially in regards to what was done with the colonies, but the Catholic Church was just as guilty.

"God is an Englishman" was an arrogance born not of religion, but nationalism, racism, and religion combined.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

20. Agreed.

[kayell]

22. Religion in general has had an overall negative effect on the world*

Why single out protestents?

*Yes, I am aware of many examples of good done by religious people or religious organizations. I simply believe that when balanced out against the religious based wars, persecutions, bigotry, damage to free thought, and so on that the net effect is negative. Yes, I am including all religions, not just christians.

Another issue - Protestantism covers a rather wide range. How can one usefully discuss as a generality a group that incorporates both Southern Baptists and Quakers?

[DBoon]

25. I'd say good

It provided the philosophical basis for what became the Enlightenment and thus the rights of man. It helped spur democracy and civil liberties.

It was a weapon against feudalism and in that sense brought progress.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

32. That's Protestantism's trump card.

It would have been hard for me not to have been a Protestant during the English Civil War, when Protestants stood for Parliamentary Monarch against the Catholic Stuart belief in the Divine Right of Kings.

[JohnKleeb]

36. Wait the Stuarts were Anglicans I thought

Now during the English civil war, I'd be indepedent of it all, I cant stand Cromwell because he was anti Catholic, but the Stuarts were just as bad in that they thought they were god's messengers here on earth.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

44. That's a tricky question. Charles I was an Anglican

As was his son (although, many believe he was a secret Catholic - no one knows for sure), but his brother James II (VII of Scotland) was definitely a Catholic.
I understand that the Catholic population were Royalist. I can't see them taking the other side, alongside Pym, Cromwell et al.

[JohnKleeb]

47. Yeah I know about James II

I don't think I would take any side, I regard monarchies as horrible governments but I think Cromwell was a fucking asshole. Heh, I am weird, in between on things.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

49. It would be a hell of a choice to be forced to make.

I'd have hot-tailed it to Palestine and converted to Islam.

(but that's another flame war):evilgrin:

[JohnKleeb]

50. Yep Irish Catholic supporter of a parlimentry system

but thinks Cromwell is a fucktard, everyone would hate me lol.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

51. Of course, no-one knew Cromwell was a fucktard at that point.

During the War, he was just a good General. Afterwards, when he decided there were just a few too many papists in the world, that's when the really nasty shit started flying. Not too many people know it, but he also subjected Scotland to fire and sword, burning the town I was born in.

[JohnKleeb]

52. I didnt know he did stuff to the Scots as well

The Irish I know hate him.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

53. It's difficult to keep track of Cromwell's atrocities.

After a while, the burnings and slaughter all rolls into one.

[JohnKleeb]

56. why exactly did he not like the Scots

Ive always liked the Scottish people, then again Cromwell had a problem with the Irish and the Irish are great, must have been bad brandy he had.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

57. The Scots supported Charles II in his attempt to regain the throne in 1650

(all very complicated)
Anyway, Cromwell retaliated and invaded Scotland, burning Dundee, Perth and Edinburgh.

[JohnKleeb]

60. ahh

Ive read that Charles II was somewhat decent for a monarch, like he encouraged the sciences, didnt think he was god on earth, not a terrible guy to the Catholic population, etc.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

63. He always said he 'didn't want to have to go on his travels again'

So he played dice.

[JohnKleeb]

65. well yeah

Thats right, he narrowly avoided being excuted. I sorta wish Cromwell had gone to America after all, I like what I read about the modern Anglican church, but not a fan of the Puritans, dont know why we're taught in school that they're heroes for fleeing James I, like granted they were brave people but they also did bad stuff too.

[Dorian Gray]

78. I've been brought up Irish Catholic

and he was not my favorite man. I spent some time in Huntingdon, England (four months), and there was a big old statue of him in the center of town, celebrating Mr. Cromwell. Which I thought was a bit strange, particularly because I was taught that the was a "bad man!"

Interesting that he could be so celebrated by some, and so reviled by others. Still... to this day!

[JohnKleeb]

79. I am only part Irish but

I know some Irish history so I know Cromwell was terrible. Well, thats how it is for some, one man's demon is another's messiah, take FDR here for example, my grandparents loved the guy but there are some people who despise him.

[NashVegas]

42. That's What I Hate About the "Christ Kids" Conspiracy

I see it as an attempt to link the present-day heirs of that line to a "but Jesus didn't really die" line of reasoning, to allow those elites to reassert themselves as our natural leaders. The line leads straight to Bush and I'm told Kerry, but haven't seen the research first hand.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

46. That line leads to just about everyone, these days.

Or at least, you can make it look that way. It is rather sinister.

[asthmaticeog]

58. That theory

is built almost entirely upon large speculative leaps, though. The authors of "Holy Blood Holy Grail" don't even assert its truth anymore. And now that enough time has passed that that book is less of a bestseller and more of a thrift-store cockroach a la "Coma," the notion has few adherents.

That said, the Rennes-le-Chateau/Dagobert II mystery makes for some very rich and engaging reading. And it involves Poussin, whose paintings I love!

[Screaming Lord Byron]

62. There is no bloodline, but there seems to have been a fantastic treasure

buried at Rennes-le-Chateau. That victorian Abbe seems to have discovered at least part of it.

[asthmaticeog]

71. Agreed.

Something was there, and it's a shame the story will never be known, but to leap, based on a cryptic painting and some admittedly bizarre stations of the cross, from a treasure-hoarde to the dynastic legacy of Christ, is ridiculous. And the bloodline theorists seem to want to have it both ways -- if, as they claim, the point of Dagobert II's assassination was to end the line, whither their assertion that it survives? Through whom? A wholly speculative bastard? That gap needs filling before they can continue their claims.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

74. Wasn't the link King Arthur?

You're on dodgy intellectual ground if you have to drag Arthur into it.

[asthmaticeog]

77. Seriously.

Though never mind Arthur - if you want to talk exaggerated kings, this whole conversation can be wiped out altogether when you look at the mounting evidence that the historical King David wasn't nearly as powerful or important as the Biblical construct "David." Once he's out of the dynastic running, there's no messiah, no messianic legacy, and certainly no Holy-Family dynasty.

[whistle]

39. Which protestant denomination (s) are we talking about here?

...Lutheran, Methodist, Calvinist, Evangelical, Anglican, Christian Science, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, many others? There must be thousands of branches of protestants, all with a single purpose to pull away from the Roman Catholic church and accountability to the Vatican and the Pope. For centuries this schism has brought great division among nations, peoples and families. Now, once again Catholics and protestants are fighting side by side in Iraq and Afghanistan for what purpose? Despite the rhetorical claims by our very vocal born-again Protestant Christian president, George Bush, repeated makes, it does not appear that the liberation of the people of these two countries is foremost on his agenda. Profit, territory, power and control rather than Christian charity seem to be BushCo's primary motive for going to war. That has been the agenda by men of protestant faith for centuries and unfortunately little has changed.

<snip>

FROM: Problems of Humanity - Chapter V - The Problem of the Churches

Today men's minds are recognizing the dawn of freedom; they are realizing that every man should be free to worship God in his own way. This will not mean (in the coming new age) that every man will pick a theological school to which he will choose to adhere. His own God-illumined mind will search for truth and he will interpret it for himself. The day of theology is over and that of a living truth is with us. This the orthodox churches refuse to recognize. Truth is essentially non-controversial; where controversy emerges, the concept is usually secondary in importance and consists largely of men's ideas about truth.

Men have gone far today in the rejection of dogmas and doctrine and this is good and right and encouraging. It signifies progress, but, as yet, the churches fail to see in this the workings of divinity. Freedom of <129> thought, the questioning of presented truths, a refusal to accept the teachings of the churches in terms of the past theology, and a rejection of imposed ecclesiastical authority are characteristic of creative spiritual thinking at this time; this is regarded by orthodox churchmen as indicative of dangerous tendencies and as a turning away from God and, consequently, of a loss of the sense of divinity. It indicates exactly the reverse.

Perhaps as serious, because of its effect upon untold thousands of the more ignorant public, are the materialistic and political ambitions of the churches. In the Eastern faiths this is not so prominently the case; in the Western world this tendency is fast bringing on the degeneration of the churches. In the Oriental religions a disastrous negativity has prevailed; the truths given out have not sufficed to better the daily life of the believer or to anchor the truths creatively upon the physical plane. The effect of the Eastern doctrines is largely subjective and negative as to daily affairs. The negativity of the theological interpretations of the Buddhist and Hindu Scriptures have kept the people in a quiescent condition from which they are slowly beginning to emerge. The Mohammedan faith is, like the Christian, a positive presentation of truth though very materialistic; both these faiths have been militant and political in their activities.

The great Western faith, Christianity, has been definitely objective in its presentation of truth; this was needed. It has been militant, fanatical, grossly materialistic and ambitious. It has combined political objectives with pomp and ceremony, with great stone structures, with power and an imposed authority of a most cramping nature.

The early Christian Church (which was relatively pure in its presentation of truth and in its living processes) eventually split into three main divisions - <130> the Roman Catholic Church which today seeks to make capital out of the claim that it was the Mother Church, the Byzantine or Greek Orthodox Church and the Protestant Churches. All of them split away on the question of doctrine and all of them were originally sincere and clean and relatively pure and good. All have steadily deteriorated since the day of their inception and today the following sad and serious situation can be found:

1. The Roman Catholic Church is distinguished by three things which are all contrary to the spirit of Christ:

A. An intensely materialistic attitude. The Church of Rome stands for great stone structures - cathedrals, churches, institutions, convents, monasteries. In order to build them, the policy down the centuries has been to drain the money out of the pockets of rich and poor alike. The Roman Catholic Church is a strictly capitalistic church. The money gathered into its coffers supports a powerful ecclesiastical hierarchy and provides for its many institutions and schools.
B. A far-reaching and farsighted political program in which temporal power is the goal and not the welfare of the little people. The present program of the Catholic Church has definite political implications; their attitude to Communism has in it the seeds of another world war. The political activities of the Catholic Church have not built for peace, no matter under what guise they are presented.
C. A planned policy whereby the mass of the people are kept in intellectual ignorance and, through this ignorance, are naturally to be found among the reactionary and conservative forces which are so powerfully at work resisting the new age with its <131> new civilization and more enlightened culture. Blind faith and complete confidence in the priest and in the Vatican are regarded as spiritual duties.

The Roman Catholic Church stands entrenched and unified against any new and evolutionary presentation of truth to the people; its roots are in the past but it is not growing into the light; its vast financial resources enable it to menace the future enlightenment of mankind under the cloak of paternalism and a colorful outer appearance which hides a crystallization and an intellectual stupidity which must inevitably spell its eventual doom, unless the faint stirrings of new life following the advent of Pope John XXIII can be nourished and developed.

<link> http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/problems/toc.html

Well, it is my observation that the religious right in this country is following the same agenda and appear to have much the same goals in mind: intensely materialistic attitude; A far-reaching and farsighted political program; and A planned policy whereby the mass of the people are kept in intellectual ignorance. We need to go back to our constitution and see what rights we have as Americans and stick to those.

[theboss]

69. I don't think Mormons are considered Protestants

And Jehovah's Witnesses aren't even Christians so they can't be Protestants.

Mormons are Christians but they have an entirely different faith and follow a different testament.

[sweetheart]

48. fascinating the "doing" of prodestants

I'm not so sure about the greater "evil" as it seems mankind has
always used congnitive dissonance and religion to justify atrocities
and war. Endemic to prodestantism is the idea that "through
good works we plod along getting closer and closer to god." This
idea, that something must be "done", does not exist in buddhism
and many other world faiths. Perhaps the world is already God's,
and the state of things already god's will... what presumption to
presume that an individual's mental ego knows better how to fix what
is already perfect.

It is what i love in the film "the last samurai". The lead japanese
samurai discusses this koan with tom cruise of searching for the
perfect blossom, and as he dies, he has the epiphany that they're
all perfect.

This "doing" is creating a lotta problems. If america did not
send its army around the world "save" people, the world would be
better off, and i can't help but see that as a side effect of
prodestantism.

[JVS]

54. The Church did need and still does need reform, hence the reformation

long live the reformation!

[gula]

55. I looked for a definition of protestantism and found

that it covered a wide range of faiths. So if you could give your definition of it, that would help.

I can only talk from personal experience which is somewhat limited not having grown up in a church going family. What I came away with from the few years of "religious" lessons I attended can be summed up as follows: Do unto others like you would have them do to you. What I like about my religion (Zwingli) is that there is no intermediary, it is God and you. The minister serves more like a social worker/shrink. Also there are no icons nor pomp.

Of course, at the beginning there was much blood shed and the destructions of artifacts, which is definitely not good.

Personally, I was always glad that I grew up in a protestant or reformed area as opposed to a catholic one as the former tended to be much more socially progressive. And judging by voting patterns, not much has changed.

So, historically, I would say both good and bad. All through history there have been and will be people who use an idea or a movement for their own glory and there are those who are genuinely interested in advancing the lot of human kind. This obviously doesn't just apply to protestantism.

Anyway, I'll be looking forward to reading people's opinion on this and, hopefully, learn about the various kinds of protestant/reformed churches.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

59. Protestant is a pretty broad grouping of course.

But I couldn't really narrow it down to one group. I think there is a guiding principle between all those groups, though.

[Zynx]

61. More good than harm without question.

Even though I'm Catholic, I will concede that the Church had not only lost its way during the 1500s and hundreds of years before that and the Protestant forces helped to free people from the unnecessary dogmatic nature of the Catholic Church and finally opened Europe up to progress without the corruption and fear of a backwards and unChristian insititution such as the Catholic Church.

Now I will grant you that some awful things have been done in the name of Protestantism, but those things are completely antithetical to the core teachings of any Christian religion and are distortions used by corrupt and evil people for the purposes of manipulation.

[theboss]

64. There is no such thing as a "Protestant Faith"

And there is no "Protestant Church." Catholics and Protestants share the same faith - Christianity. Protestants take issue with the methods of the Catholic Church; it did not alter the faith.

And since the Restoration Period of the 18th century, a number of people who would be labeled "Protestants" don't consider themselves that. For instance, the Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, etc don't consider ourselves Protestant because we are not protesting anything. The Catholic Church has no influence on what we do, one way or another. The Bible is our guide.

But to the larger question, I think any action that stops the consolidation of power is largely good. At the time of the Reformation, the Catholic Church had largely suppressed its religious message to that of its political and financial aspirations. I think the Reformation was good for the West and good for the Church itself since it has forced it to occasionally engage in re-evaluation of its mission.

[Dorian Gray]

80. The faith is similar

But, there are tenets of faith that differ. The difference varies according to denomination. But, the biggie is transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation. To a non-Christian, that would seem no more than semantics. But, if you actually believe that God's presence is the bread vs. exists with the bread vs. the bread is just a symbol, you could see why the other beleifs would be so offensive to others.

Anyhow, there are various other faith related divisions. That's why groups such as Mormons and Jehova's Witness do not even count as Protestant. Their faith varies just a little too much from the original Protestant deviation.

[allemand]

70. Would there have been an Enlightenment without the Reformation?

Perhaps not. So, in a way, even the freedom to be an Agnostic is a result of Protestantism.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

72. There's a paradox in there.

Protestantism was a major force in the Enlightenment. It's no coincidence that so much of the Enlightenment came out of Presbyterian Edinburgh.

That doesn't explain all the French Enlighteners, though.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

73. There's a paradox in there.

Protestantism was a major force in the Enlightenment. It's no coincidence that so much of the Enlightenment came out of Presbyterian Edinburgh.

That doesn't explain all the French Enlighteners, though.

[PATRICK]

81. Bad phrasing

Either top choice includes "harm" so there is implied negativity, whatever that is. I am thinking here it implies the moral repugnance to some of the moral stances and political damage done more than the harm done in fragmenting the Body of Christ. Also Protestantism is too broad, the people who instigated the Wars of religion more amorally political like Bush or Milosevic.

The relativism implied also makes the question strange and unappealing.
Protestantism is basically a reform movement which has created dynamics for freedom and liberalism as well as conservative purification. People tired of all the drama would rather everyone keep in mind the general principle "do no harm", but it seems like Christianity, that cannot be practiced faithfully.

[devinsgram]

83. No disrespect to anyone here,

but when you start to organize any religion you will end up with problems. That is not to say spirituality is wrong; I think we all need that. But that is where it stops.

[Nocturnes]

88. All religion

I moved to the US from a secular society. If you claim to be of any religion in NZ you tend to get funny looks from people who wonder at your sanity.

I arrived in Southern Baptist heartland. It scares the hell out of me at times. Until I arrived in the US I really did not understand what it was like to live in a society where religion was important. To em it almost feels like a theocracy.

My take though, is that organised religion in general has created nothing but problems for humanity. How many times do you hear the old nonsense about morality being meaningless for atheists? Too many I bet

[starroute]

89. Positive influence c. 1500-1800 but largely not since

In its early days, Protestantism was a progressive element in Western society, associated with the development of science and democracy.

But around 1800, Protestantism in general became far more conservative and directed more towards emotional comfort than intellectual truth -- a trend that climaxed with the rise of fundamentalism in the late 1800's.

Since then, Protestantism has primarily acted as a brake on social progress, much as Catholicism had been in the days just before the Protestant Reformation.