Friday, September 28, 2007
Blog #2 Reformation Week of 10/5-10/12
"The Protestant Reformation was primarily an economic event." Defend or refute this statement by describing and determing the relative importance of the economic, political, and religious causes of the Protestant Reformation. (Be sure to answer the prompt in 3-4 sentences and to also respond to your classmates (2 of them) with a complet response not just I agree with little Danny's ideas they are great!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Religious:
A direct result of the Renaissance. People were more logical than ever before. Anything that the church was saying that really didn't make sense, or that they just expected you to believe was refuted.
Economic:
Um...less support = less tithes? Not that it would really affect the church, they were filthy rich. But the 95 theses really opened people's eyes, and started to disgust them more.
I agree with jordan. The renaissance was a time when people actually started to "rebel" or "refute" the ideas of the church its when people actually searched for their own answers of things. Now when it comes to it economically? well the church was filthy rich so in my opinion it did not affect the church as much as we thought.
i agree with Jordan & Kim. As Jordan was saying for Religion, yes more & more people started to think/make suggestions of their own. Since the church was lossing more and more power, they started to announce things that did not make sense, and people started to disbelieve or question them even more! Also for Economic, Both of them were right, yes the church were STILL filthy rich and so the amount of followers "leaving" didn't fully effect them to where they had to worry about money. Thanks to the 95 thesis, as Jordan mentions, it helps people see a WIDER PERSPECTIVE on A LOT of things. This made them understand and disagree with numerous things even better.
Like the previous people have said, the reformation was when people really started to speak for themselves and not follow everything from the church. they didn't have to go to the church for approval on what their thoughts were. before, the church could say complete nonsense and the people would still "believe" them but now they knew if it was wrong. people started to realize that the church could be a negative thing so they started leaving which did not affect the church too much since, like everyone else has said, they had enough money to go through without those certain people.
well i agree and disagree with what everyone has said so far. although the reformation was caused by the church, it was also caused by the loss of jobs due to increased technology. it also hurt the economy much more than it hurt the church because people where running around killing each other. so although i do agree it hurt the church i believe it was mainly an economical event.
drwhgn, I need your name. email Mr. Neal Thanks
I think the reformation was when people started to speak there mind out. People also started to think about what kind of corruoted things the church would do thanks to the 95 thesis. Ecomonic the reformation didnt hit as much like Jordan said. The hurch was still rich.
When you think Protestant Reformation, the two words that immediatly come to mind are pretty obvious: Protestant and Reformation. Nothing about the economy is mentioned in these two words; it's a purely religious concept. Although economical issues may have sprung from the reform in people's religious views, the economy was not the core of this event in history.
Oh, forgot my two comments:
1) Jordan, you have some good ideas, but they seem kind of vague. It seems like you take one stand but spend the whole time going "and then?", "or maybe this?", and retracting your own statement.
2)In general, everyone's taking the person above them's ideas. "I agree with so-and-so" and then "I agree with so-and-so and whats-his-face" and then "I agree with everyone else". Maybe we should write our views, then read everyone elses.
Violinist4life, thank you for addressing the issue that your classmates seem to forget about. In order to receive full credit you need to write an argument that is supported with concrete evidence. Many of you fail to realize that if you right "I agree with John he makes a good point.." with no clear evidence or historical examples to support what your saying. Also many of you are pushing the limit by waiting until the last minute to respond. It is very inconsiderate to your classmates because they cannot respond to others on time. Lets step it up APEH.
For additional assistance on understanding some other views that are associated with the question being addressed you may want to read the following: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/WEBER/WeberCH2.html
Max Weber’s spirit of capitalism
lecture on social progress under the guidance of Protestants.
I feel that the Reformation was primarily a political/religious event. Well the church wouldn't lose too much money anyways because they were still reall rich. The people were depending on the church to pave the way to heaven, but once the church became corrupt, the people knew something had to be done, i.e. Martin Luther. People were starting to lose trust in the church, which meant that they were losing their political influence. Had the church continued the way they were going, they would've lost what little respect they had left.
I agree with violinist4life because the Reformation was not caused by economic problems, but they were the effects of the revolution.
And pj butta, although the Reformation was primarily not an economical event, the church would still being in financial trouble if all of their followers left. Sure they would be filthy rich, but for how long? Considering the size & number of people in church offices, the money would run out quite quick.
One last note. Why is it that although I am doing this blog a couple hours before it is due, there still arent very many posts? -_-;;
The protestant reformation was mostly a religious event. Although economy was involved it did not play as an important role in the protestant reformation. It was mainly religious, since it began the start of new religions and beliefs. For example, when martin Luther posted the 95 theses on the church doors, people realized what the church had been doing was wrong. The reformation caused them to loose some spiritual authority, since their actions were being questioned. their manipulations with power and their growing wealth only aided the church to loose jurisdiction. Therefore the religious aspects of the protestant reformation exceed the economic aspects.
responses:
i agree with violins4life the changes made during the reformation created what economic issues there were.
i also disagree with kimmycakes. yes the church was realetively wealthy but if they were to go into "spiritual bankruptcy" they would lose their money as well. they made most of their money by indulences and from followers. if they were to leave, the church hwould have suffered economically.
The protestant reformation was never meant to be a economic matter but mainly a religious one. If u think about it, the word reform means to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses. The catholic church was giving people false information and false beliefs of god. Martin Luther did not want to make money, but change the beliefs of the catholic church. Basically people wanted a strong connection between them and god and nothing else. But the church was so corrupt, in buying and selling of church position, teaching and sale of indulgences and the thirst for power. The church was sooo caught up in these things that they forgot the most important thing God!!! That is why Martin Luther wrote the 95 thesis and wanted a reformation in the church.
I strongly agree with David Kim and violinist4life because this was the purpose of the reformation. Not economy but God.
Also i disagree with those who thought the reformation was a economical matter. Who cares if the church was filthy rich, but what are they gonna do without any followers? What is more powerful to those who wanted change, God or money, Heaven or Hell?
Well, I personally think that it slightly affected the economy. I believe that the only ways it could possible affect the church is if they stopped buying their golden tickets to heaven, etc. I just believe that everything that had to do with a religious reformation affected the economy. The peasant revolt being one of them which hurt agriculture greatly.
I disagree with Drew when he said something about loss of jobs due to technology. I don't think that the increase of technology had a lot to do with the religious reformation. Maybe more mass production of bibles but that's it.
And in respone to David Kim's post. Yes, the Church has tons of money but just because a mass group of people leave they aren't going to immediately file for bankruptcy. The ROMAN Catholic Church still is very influential in terms of politics and finances. But they are rich in one way more than the other: power. They still are the biggest power holders around this time. If you go with the 95 thesis as the Church's wrongdoings they have been doing this for quite sometime now. Middle ages crap. So then haven't they always been 'corrupted' in a sense? Why would today be any different? Someone finally points them out and then people take it to the next level?
They still are going to be very powerful. Afterall, since when have people cared what the non-educated peasants think of them?
Violinist4life, hmm...how naive to say that economics didn't play a role in this event in history. If you think about it, EVERYTHING is driven for the cause of money. Even as i type this i am driven b/c of money in that: i do well on this blog, i get good grades, i go to college, i make lots of money as a result of such. In the Reformation, it may not have been as evident as the church's many other monetary escapades, but there's still an underlying need for currency. Think of it this way: lets say England's upper echelons doesn't like the Catholic Church's rulings anymore and needs a religion to better suit his own personal needs. Well, then England will as a result switch over to their own "special" religion and they will cease to be seen as Roman Catholics. As a result of this, the Catholic Church will NO LONGER see the tithes and support of both England as a country, and the political favors of the British elite. This means that the Catholic church sees substantially less money -- not that it will cause them to go bankrupt, but it will STILL hurt them in the long run.
Hmm...well seeing as though everyone else basically copied my statement, i can really only respond to the only actual ORIGINAL thought in the blog. =]
Wow now that i think about it i agree with jordan. By the way nice example lol.
Wow i actually agree with jordan. By the way nice example.
Sorry Jordan, but I have to respond to your newest post, just for sake of argument...
EVERYTHING is a bit of an exaggeration. Mothers do not raise their children for money. Henry VII's reasons for starting a new church weren't money; they were to get a divorce, so he could get an heir, so his family would remain in power. Many changes in the economy are not because of money itself, but for alternative reasons that eventually effect money. You said you are driven by money to get good grades etc., but many people do not think that far in the future; personally, I want good grades because I want good grades. I do it for myself, not for my later career (which, if anyone was wondering, is to be a musician...anyone heard the phrase starving artist?)
The long term effect of some things effect more than they are originally intended. Luther was not aiming for finances when he posted 95 theses on the door of a church. He wanted change. Later in history, Thoreau did not go live alone in a cabin in the woods for money. He did it for his studies, his beliefs. Susan B. Anthony did not fight for women's suffrage for money. She did it for the rights of women in our nation. The results of their actions? Yes, economic change. But many other things too. The original events were all based on something, but money was not it.
I'll rest my case.
And thank you for calling me original Jordan, I appreciate it.;)
-H
You won't rest your case as long as I'm around Hailey.
Well then, I guess I should've said that people only do things for money and POWER.
HENRY VIII: An heir means an extended bloodline so that MONEY & POWER will stay within the royal family.
SUSAN B. ANTHONY: Women's suffrage=power and money for women. Just look at Hilary.
Basically I'm saying that most people with leaders and followers, and that are in a position of power have alternative motives that INCLUDE more power and money.
P.S. good job on cracking my argument w/the mothers, I was hoping no one realized that
You're right, Jordan, with you around I just can't rest it, can I?
Case unrested.
Back to arguing... debating... discussing... whatever.... You don't seem to be getting my point, because although you argue it, you still haven't adressed it directly, you've only hit the examples.
The CAUSE does not determine the EFFECT. Argue this, not my examples.
But while we're talking examples, let's focus on Susan B. Anthony (although the Hilary comment was very amusing, I must admit, I can [and will!] argue that comment). Do you really think Susan B Anthony wanted money and power for women? Her intentions were equality, the ability, yes, to make money and get power but not the sake of it. (And I'm tired, so correct me later if that makes no sense, it seems like it does right now...)
Besides, I'm sure if Ms. anthony had known we'd get Hillary, she would have stopped fighting for suffrage.
:)
I'm tired...you win Hailey. I'll see you in Soc. Seminar tomorrow. :]
I think that the protestant reformation was both econimical and religous.
First, it was economic because the chruch was losing money due to the the 95 thesis, written by martain luther, who enlighted the minds of the common people of the church's corruption.
Second, it was an political, because in many of the countries the pope was like the "main guy"
he incharge of so many things, that even he became more politically powerful than the kings.They would fight over power most of the time. so when they saw what the pope was really doing, his social status was going way down.
Last,religious, now that martian luther sort of created his own little religion it inspired many other people to go make there own religions, like the calviists or the baptists, and move away from catholicsm.
along with the econimic aspect of the protestant reformation there was also a religous side.When the 95 thesis came out people saw the other side and that is what made people open up and get mad. the people were already smart and with the 95 thesis people became more ittlengent.
i highly agree with jorden and P.J, they both think that the econimic event opened their eyes with the 95 thesis. but also that with religous side that people were smarter and that they kinda just believed what they thought was right and what they had to. all they had cared about back then was that they were rich and that they had land. and the 95 thesis changed that for alot of people.
I disagree with the statement that the Protestant Reformation was primarily an economic event. It was more religious. The members of guilds were becoming literate which sparked the conflict of religion. Social and political experience naturally influenced religion. The Brothers of Common Life for example was a one major religious movement in the Protestant Reformation. They sponsored religious publications and conducted schools. Also the benefice system and Martin Luther’s 95 theses were major religious factors of the Protestant Reformation. Luther's Books such as Freedom of a Christian taught that the teaching of salvation was by faith only. The reformation occurred over religion mostly.
1)I agree with violinist 4life about her statement that the Reformation was religious rather than economic. As she said the economic issues weren't the root of the Reformation.
2)I also agree with PJ Butta who mentioned about the 95 theses that opened up people’s mind. Also with the fact that the church was losing more and more power.
I believe that the Reformation was primarily a religious event. Although less people began to attend church it didn't affect the church economically because the church had plenty of money. When Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis on the church doors people began to think more logically and also they realized that the church was not as reliable as they thought it was and so this led to the church losing much of its strength. Also Martin Luther wrote "Address to the Chritian Nobility of the German Nation" which drove the princes of Germany to force reforms on the Roman church.
I agree with Paulina that due to martin luther's 95 thesis people began to expand their way of thinking and began to move away from catholicism.
i also agree with blondie pie that people became more intelligent after martin luther's 95 thesis and also that they had new ways of thinking.
“The Protestant Reformation was primarily an economic event."
My Thoughts
I disagree with the statement because there are more to it than just economics. In my opinion, I think the Protestant Reformation was focused mainly on religion and political power rather than the economy. However, some of the economic problems ascended through the Protestant Reformation. Well, first of all, the Protestant Reformation was motivated because of religious issues. For example, the church corruption during that time was one of the religious issues. There were a lot of corrupt popes, schisms, and unresolved doctrine issues during that time, and therefore, the church followers began to question within themselves, but no one was brave enough to speak up. Not until Martin Luther, who was a strong offender of the sale of indulgences in the church, nailed the 95 theses on the church doors. Although the Catholic Church was so powerful, many of their followers began to leave for the Protestants because many of them during that time were bullied by authority figures and nobilities, most of them who were bullied belong to the lower classes. Another reason that motivated the England Protestant Reformation was because Henry VIII wasn’t so happy about the marriage between him and Catherine of Aragon. However, Henry VIII couldn’t reject this marriage because Catherine’s nephew was the Pope and the Pope wouldn’t allow Henry VIII to cancel it. Therefore, Henry VIII turned to two of the Lutherans, Thomas Cromwell, and Thomas Cranmer for help. This conflict involved in political issues and motivated the Protestant Reformation because the King and the Pope had long been fighting for power over their country/ their area, the King was a Catholic but he didn’t like the Catholic church, so he created the Church of England, where King Henry VIII was trying to convert people to go to his church rather than the Catholic Church. When the “Act of Supremacy” was created, it declared that Henry is the supreme head of the Church of England, not the pope.
I wouldn’t say the Protestant Reformation had nothing to do with the economy because there are really a few examples where economy issues were involved. For instance, in the English Reformation, the church and the kings were always fighting for political power, but what the monarchy really benefited from it were the lands. If the kings controlled over the church, the monarchy would gained 25% of the lands.
My Responses
Violinist4life: I agree with Hailey because as I have mentioned, the Protestant Reformation was motivated by both religious problems and political issues. For example, Martin Luther’s reason to speak up wasn’t because he wanted to be famous and gained a lot of money, he was only discontented of the sale of the indulgences and the arrangements of the church.
david kim: I agree with David’s comments to pj butta. (Philip I guess?) The church based its economy on their followers, such as the practice of the sale of indulgences, and other religious goods. If the followers began to leave, their economy will obviously go down. Using the same example in the English Reformation, if the monarchy dominated over the church/ area, the Catholic Church’s economy will go down because now the monarchy take away 25% of their lands.
The Protestant Reformation was mostly religious & political. The Reformation involved new ideas about the relationship with God, individuality, and society. People began to become educated and realized that the church wasnt being completely honest to them. That is when they started to think for themselves and had their own opinions.
RESPONSES:
-i agree with jordan. people began to think, and not just listen to what the church had to say. they werent trapped within the church anymore and they came out with their own thoughts.
-i also agree with megah. people began to read more and learned to think for themselves.
1)Jordan: the people started to believe less of the nonsense the church was saying and started to be more logical.
2)Violinist: i agree with you when you say that the refomation revolved around religion and not for money. people wanted to achieve more than just gain money
I disagree with the statement because this was a time when the common man started to think a lot freer, which was stated by most everyone before. Economics did not seem to be the right word to put in this quote because the Protestant Refomation was not started for money, but for change. The only thing that may have been economic about this reformation was the Protestant protests against the selling of church goods, and maybe the after effects of wars and rebellions.
I agree with Hailey, because the econmic factor was not the main part of the reformation. The reformation was made in response to samll protests that would leave huge impacts on the inhabitants of Europe.
I disagree with abbybaby's response to kimmycakes answer because the church was by far richer and had a far greater income than most buisinesses in Europe at the time. Even if they went "Spiritually bankrupt" they would still have tons of money left from decades before of taxation and selling of church goods.
P.S. Where did the blog I sent yesterday go?
Post a Comment