Here's an infamous debate for everyone and one I personally enjoy. So I'll start it out, how can protestants say their way of Christianity is correct when it was not the first branch after Christ?

well niether caholic, duing the first time after jesus there were many Christian sect

Well, I could argue that not being the first makes Protestantism a better idea, since it would have had more time to refine it's ideas. You know, take what's good, get rid of what's not. Kinda like natural selection, really...

Of course, I would never argue that. I think that there isn't much fundamental difference between the two, really.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The differences between the two are nitpicking, yet both sides say the other is going to hell (more or less implied, if not explicitly stated). I don't think I could believe in a God that didn't allow at least some leeway in the interpretations of his laws. Bah, screw it, I decided long ago to be agnostic. ;)

__________________
An' it harm none, do as ye' will.


Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level of intelligence and beat you with experience.

The same way every other religion proclaims their faith to be the one true faith. They just believe it so and insist they are absolutely right and everyone else on the planet is going to hell. Nothing unusual there.

Btw, if you study the historical record of the first few centuries after Christ, you will find that there were many dozens of different Christian sects at that time (usually at each other's throats). Roman Catholicism certainly isn't the 'first branch' of Christianity. It took several hundred years for that faith to be 'defined' as it is understood now - and many earlier sects were 'eliminated' (with all that implies).

And your dichotomy ignores Orthodox Christians. Now I know Roman Catholics make up approx 75% of all Christians, I'm curious if Orthodox or Protestant is the second largest. Anyone know?

And Protestant is a label that is so varied that it is practically meaningless to generalize too much about it. Many protestant sects vehemently oppose other protestant sects as much as they oppose Catholicism. Indeed, some protestant sects are barely much different than Catholicism (Episcopalian for example) and some protestant sects are so extremely radical that many other protestant groups can't accept their validity (Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses for example).

Personally, I consider Catholicism and the majority of Protestant sects to be so radically different on the most fundamental aspects of doctrine that I have a hard time considering them the same religion at all. Catholic and Orthodox appears to be very close to each other on doctrinal issues.

Do Protestants believe in Hell then?

Source: 1997 Britannica Book of the Year. © 1997 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Total Religious Population: 5,804,120,000

Christians (total): 1,955,229,000 (33.7%)

Roman Catholics: 981,465,000 (16.9%)
Protestants : 404,020,000 (7.0%)
Orthodox: 218,350,000 (3.8%)
Anglicans: 69,136,000 (1.2%)
Other Christians; 282,258,000 (4.9%)

Looks like Orthodox are outnumbered by Protestants WR.

I am Greek Orthodox (Most of my family is either Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox) and I was raised in Catholic Schools. While the Eastern (Orthodox aka Eastern Catholic) and Western (Roman Catholic) churches are more similar to each other than either one is to a Protestant Church, I assure you.....there is a deep division b/t the two. Most of the contempt comes from my church towards the Catholic Church.

For example, the roman Catholic church will allow Orthodox members to participate in its sacraments, (communion, marriage, confession etc) however, if an orthodox member gets married or participates in a Roman Catholic sacrament he or she could potentially be restricted in participating in sacraments back in the Orthodox church. In fact, the person could technically be excommunicated from the Orthodox church. The Roman Catholic church states that it is acceptable for its members to participate in Orthodox sacraments; however, the Orthodox church does not allow outsiders to participate in our sacraments. A little conflicting huh.

There are some large differences b/t the two:
-Orthodox Priests are allowed to be married and have children....Catholics are not, which IMO feed the problem with its priests sexually assaulting children. Its not normal to deny a human the right to sex.

-Women are not allowed step on the altar in the Orthodox church. The altar is much more "closed" off to the people in general in the Orthodox church. Its typically has a curtain in front of it for parts of the liturgy.

" - The Orthodox do not accept the supremacy of the Pope, as the only successor of Peter, and this is the real issue for the split.
- The Orthodox do not have a central authority, no one even claims to be the successor of "Peter", with the immense authority given to him, and only to him and his successors!, by Jesus in Matt.16, Jn.21 and Acts.1-9.,
- If the Orthodox could accept the authority of the Pope, as the successor of Peter, all the other differences would be immediately eliminated."

http://www.religion-cults.com/Christ...x.htm#The_Pope

This site does a good job at pointing out the differences.

To sum things up, there is a DEEP difference in doctrine b/t the two churches. WR, while it may appear they are the same on doctrinal issues, they aren't. The pope makes all the difference.

__________________

Most definitely. I'm sure there are some sects that do not, but that is not the mainstream.

__________________

And some believe you are predestined for heaven or hell, your actions have no impact.

__________________
Viva Fidel

If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism

They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

My understanding is the split is all down to the nicene creed.

http://www.amen-online.org/c_nicaea.htm

__________________
Viva Fidel

If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism

They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?