Despite being called "non-denominational", non-denominational christians are a broad group of independent churches and spiritual movements that fall under the protestant tradition. They aren't a part of larger, more organized subsect of protestant like the baptists or lutherans, but their non-denominational-ism refers to not being a part of/neatly defined by an organized denomination of protestantism. Non-denominational Christianity can even be a nucleation point for new denominations, like the burgeoning evangelical movement that's become a driving force in the fall of the american empire

🤷 that's a christian-to-christian thing to determine. I'd love for that to be the case, but seeing as most Christian organizations are perfectly fine with the status quo, I don't see that changing any time soon. Also, Martin Luther was a trash bag for plenty of reasons, I don't see any point in seeking to align oneself with a raging misogynist, antisemite, and author of "Against the Murderous, Theiving Hordes of Peasants", which was written in response to the German peasants war. Valid criticisms or not, the dude sucked and bred a religious movement that was just as bigoted, bloodthirsty, and money hungry as the catholics he was protesting

Huh, didn't realise. It's for sure not catholic, but thought it was something in between.

Edit: Right, you did say technically. According to Wikipedia,

The degree of distinction between Protestant and Catholic tendencies within Anglicanism is routinely a matter of debate both within specific Anglican churches and the Anglican Communion.

Ah ok so your thesis is that after the reformation the Catholics build more beautiful churches than the Lutherans?

No. I'm saying protestant churches built like 200 years ago are much more barebones than the ones preceding the great reform. Protestantism also values humility, which is sort of why. But I can see value in awesome places despite them also signaling probably quite a corrupt clergy usually.

But in Finland we have quite a lot of stone churches built before the reform and while they're not exactly flashy papidt churches, they're clearly a bit flashier than the lots of wooden churches we have, and I just think the impressive stone ones are much more effective at generating awe. Which I feel is kind of a function of religion, if you're into that. And I'm not and I still enjoy being awed, for whatever reason.

The written Finnish language is literally from the same time as the reformation, so I don't think we can be considered to have ever really been properly catholic in the first place. The first ever Finnic text of any sort recorded is from the 13th century and the first ever recorded Finnish is apparently this:

The first known written example of Finnish itself is found in a German travel journal dating back to c. 1450: Mÿnna tachton gernast spuho sommen gelen Emÿna daÿda (Modern Finnish: "Minä tahdon kernaasti puhua suomen kielen, [mutta] en minä taida;" English: "I want to speak Finnish, [but] I am not able to").

I just wanted to put that here for any Finns who might be reading. It's like reading Old English. Weird, but ~readable. Sorry for the tangent.

I guess yeah, but I for one think it's okay. They're literally awesome. As in, generate awe. Can't help but to feel awe whenever I stand by the Cathedral of Turku. It doesn't relay well with images. Which is why I'd like to see the Sixtine Chapel someday myself. Also definitely the Pantheon. Such a marvel.