How could you possibly know what the point of another person's belief structure is? I thought you guys were the ones who didn't believe in omnipotent superbeings. :-)

But once again, seriously, you'll probably find as many reasons for belief in Christ, Christianity, and God as you have believers themselves. THere is no since in attempting to belittle it as a salve for life's woes when for many people it is the fuel that fires them to amazing lives and works of compassion (Mother Theresa, GHandi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.).

**By it I meant religion in general- yes I realize Mahatma Ghandi was Hindu**

Based on the subject of this thread, it seems the OP is asking for thoughts on Catholicism vs. Protestantism, not for thoughts about theism in general or on the existence or lack thereof of any deity(-ies).

Catholicism is based on apostolic succession whereas Protestantism is based more on direct revelation, tending toward a more mystical sort of spirituality (though certainly not all Protestants are truly mystics - in fact, most religious people in general are not actually mystics, no matter how mystical their religion may be at its base).

Catholicism purports that Christianity was founded by Jesus and that his teachings have been continuously handed down through direct dissent to the present time through the bishops - whose line purportedly begins with the apostles of Jesus, the first bishops. Proof of this comes from talk in the Greek Bible of bishops (episcopoi) and the laying on of hands to make people bishops (or priests or deacons). The giving of the keys of heaven to Peter in the Greek Bible (in the gospel) and Christ saying "thou at Kephas (Peter) and upon this kephas I shall build my church" is also used as proof of Petrine authority (i.e. the Pope) which is part of the apostolic succession belief of the Catholic Church.

Protestantism says the Catholic Church was not founded by Jesus (most would say it was founded sometime around the Council of Nicea or during/just before the middle ages). Protestantism purports that the church founded by Jesus was more based on a relationship between Jesus and individuals with no structure of authority or formal relationship between individuals (the latter varies between different Protestants, some accept different levels of structure but tend to see structure as secondary at best).

That's what the argument basically boils down to, though there's a lot more than any one post could deal with that separates Protestants and Catholics, even including what ought to be included in the Bible, which itself creates an impasse, since Protestantism sides with the Judaic rabbis (Pharisees, i.e. post-Second Temple Judaism) on the content of the Hebrew Bible.

I know it's superficial, but there's some basics.

@CRazyAnglican: "...more likely than having the Universe form with the exact specifications that would allow life to exist"

There are probably millions if not billions of planets in the universe. So far, for all we know, life might only exist on our planet. So if it's a billion-to-one chance that a planet would randomly exist where there were the right conditions for life, it's still not that unlikely, after all, that ONE planet among the millions might support life.

@Steveokun Thanks for the interesting post. Yes, it degraded into a pretty common religion thread contrary to the OP's wishes.

So what would you say to the Orthodox view that states all churches were orthodox churches initially? Their interpretation states that the Roman Catholic Church was only one of the five major seats of Christianity, and it broke away from them.

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/filioque.html

@Jamiet99uk

I have to say that I loved the odd, backwards use of the "God of the gaps" argument. Well certainly, we might be the only planet in the universe inhabited by sentient life, (Drake's formula, for what it’s worth, tends to point to a different conclusion, but it isn't intended to be evidence, just an estimate of the likelihood that other life exists). Until we fill in the gaps of our knowledge though; we can't know if the facts support your point.

Life on this planet wasn't the unlikely event I was referring to, however, so it doesn't come into play anyway. I was referring to the unlikelihood that the Universe would be structured in a way that would allow any life at all. Francis Collins hits on this:
"Hawking writes 'Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates the models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at that critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it reached its present size.' (Hawking, A Brief History, pg. 178)
One the other hand if the rate of expansion had been greater by one part in a million, stars and planets would not have been able to form." (Collins, The Language of God, pg. 72-73)

This was what I was referring to in my earlier post. I admit that I'm not a scientist, but these guys are; as I'd stated, they are pondering this question. It was upon this that I questioned the validity of just writing off such an incredibly unlikely occurrence.

@crazy anglican: as interesting as that fact is, <insert antromorphic arguement> ie given that we are here observing this the universe must be able to support our development.

Now i don't know what that means, but it doesn't speak to me for or against the existance of God.

Exactly, thanks. Hence my argument, was not that God exists, but that we aren't going to know any time soon and in the mean time it might be helpful to be more respecful of one another's worldviews. In this instance, letting people speak publicly about the differences in their religious views and respecting the OP's wishes that this not be another atheism vs. theism debate.

Basically guys we've been through this, ad nauseum. Is it really so much of a threat that we can't allow people to discuss their individual views within the context of a religious viewpoint without making it a point to attack them? Seriously, if there were a thread about agnosticism vs. atheism, I'd read but not contribute.

@ steveokun

I realize I was a little off the subject, but I don't think that a discussion of Catholicism va. Protestantism would be complete without mentioning the third (and often overlooked in the West) major division of Christianity.

@orathaic

I apologize up front if my reply seemed terse. It was not meant to be directed toward you. I realize it's a public forum and nobody can be excluded from any thread. I just question the motives of the minority of people who seem to want to take any thread that has a religious topic and turn it into the same old "God exists---naw he dudn't---duz' too" schtick. There truly is a lot more that can be said on the subject. I suspect that's part of the problem for those who seem bent on belittling any viewpoint that they do not share.

@Crazy Anglican

Yes, off topic, but given the state of this thread I don't see the harm in going there.

Essentially the division between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is nothing more than politics. The same differences existed before they parted ways, but none of the huge problems they supposedly have now existed then.

For the record, the two groups didn't actually split in the 11th Century, as most say - the individual who was Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated by a group of (three I believe) Cardinals following the death of the reigning Pope. That's obviously not valid from the current Orthodox or Catholic point of view and certainly wasn't valid then (when the Roman Patriachy held primacy but Constantinople was second in like as far as the five Apostolic Patriarchates were concerned - meaning only the Patriarch of Rome could excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople). In response to that excommunication (which I might add the Cardinals delivered on the altar of the Hagia Sophia during the pre-liturgy rituals, violating the sacred space of that church) the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope since the three Cardinals were supposedly doing this in his name, despite the fact he was already dead (nb: this whole scene saw two individuals get excommunicated, not their offices or anyone else under their authority).

That said, the split between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches occurred in the 1400s, after the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks. The Turkish sultan basically told the Patriarch of Constantinople and all the bishops under him and in Muslim territory that they had to break with Rome or die (plus the sultan gave the Patriarch of Constantinople the title "Ecumenical Patriarch," which the Constantinopolitan bishops had been trying to get from the Byzantine Emperors for quite some time).

Given all that, the only real difference of theology between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches at this point is over Petrine Primacy. From the interaction between Jesus and Peter in the Gospels (the "on this rock I shall build my church" and the giving of the Keys of Heaven to Peter) the Catholics claim to have proof of the unequaled primacy of the Petrine See - the Bishops of Rome is the indisputable earthly (obviously not total) head of the Christian Church in their eyes.

The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, purports that the relationship between the Roman Patriarch the rest of the Christian bishops has always been "primus inter pares" Latin for "first among equals". That is to say, the Orthodox hold that the Petrine bishop is indeed first among all the bishops, but that he is still basically the bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West. Think of it this way: the Catholic Church sees the Pope as the a chief executive - everything in the church is his business; the Orthodox Church sees the Pope as the ultimate authority in his jurisdiction and as having a sort of appellate jurisdiction outside of the Patriarchy of Rome.

What amazes me is this was never an issue until after the two groups split. Until then they seemed to get along fine as far as being one church was concerned - though there was certainly always a great amount of cultural and political strain between East and West. However, things like the Filioque controversy and the Assumption/Dormition of Mary and the Immaculate Conception of Mary are all non-issues (i.e., both churches have the same teachings on those issues essentially, they just word their teachings differently and that's always been the case, since time immemorial).

In other words, they're basically two bratty siblings fighting - they're still in the same family, they just don't want to acknowledge each other. Also, please note that Catholics and Orthodox Christians are allowed (under duress) to receive the sacraments from each others' clergy (that is to say, if you're going to die and you're Catholic an Orthodox priest can administer confession and last rites and vice-versa - both sides agree on this, they just aren't "in full communion").

@SteevoKun: thanks, i think that does add a lot to the original topic.
It does feel a bit like a histroy lesson, however without a members of the Orthodox Church coming forward to describe how their beliefs differ from those which the Catholics, Protestants and other minority Christian groups have described, I feel a history lesson is the best contribution we can expect (unless i'm wrong in assuming there are no Orthodox Christians here)

@Crazy Anglican, yeah for a public forum, i feel it would be appropriate to take some of the arguements here and split them into a seperate thread. I do see how some Atheists/agnostic posters come to a thread like this and see people conversing who are doing so under the assumption that God exists, and they feel the need to comment. (I suppose the maturity of the people, or the maturity of the community is brought into focus; I will not comment lest i say somehting hypocritical)

@Jamie - But the Catholic Church told me that the sun revolves around the earth... how can i possibly believe there to be millions of other planets. is religion giving up to science?

@ otto
Wow, and I was accused of trolling in this thread?

@ orathaic
Sure, I can see that as well, yet it seems to have escaped the attention of several posters in this thread that the attempt was made by the OP, up front, to acknowledge atheism and merely say that the intent was to delve into the differences between two Christian groups. I've noted no Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists, or HIndus posting their respective beliefs here. One must wonder at the agenda of those who post when they were ancknowledged, offered respect, and asked to allow the conversation to go on without having it degrade into a common set of tired arguments and outright propaganda. I can certainly see reacting to defend your beliefs (or lack thereof) but to just go on the offensive as a knee-jerk response does call into question he maturity of the people involved; I certainly agree with you on that point. I do not find your posts to be of the same kind and wouldn't consider it at all hypocritical for you to comment further.


@Steevokun

I found the difference in the orthodox and western view of the Holy Trinity to be interesting. I've always looked upon the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be akin to the relationship between, the human mind, body, and spirit. It appears that I'm unclear about this as it seems that I'm slipping close to the Sabellian heresy with that. The Holy Trinity would be a good place to start in looking at a basic doctrinal difference between Orthodox, Roman Catholic, protestant, and other non-conventional Christian Churches.

@CA, yeah, but in fairness to some people they didn't read the opening but only contributed a long way down the line to what was being discussed there. (which seems approriate in a way for a very long thread, and i'm sure i was guilt of it, even if i did read the whole thread, i just had little to say about the difference)

and yes no Muslims or Hindus et. al posted, but the ascertian that there is a God does not neccesarily go directly against their beliefs. That said i imagine it is more likely that pure numbers is the major effect; i'd say there are more atheists here than any other non-christian group.

@ orathaic

I tend to find the rhetoric interesting, but wonder about the motives. I'd certainly like to believe that it was just a lot of people who blindly jumped on the band wagon (something I thought free thinkers were opposed too, btw), but in looking back at the first ten posts of the thread that doesn't seem to be compelling. Sixty percent of the first posts ran from mildly anti-religious to sarcastic parodies of believers, and the ever present prediction that religion won't last the century (nobody is ever around to see that they were wrong about that one, so I guess it's a safe one to make). That does not indicate that these people just wandered in and saw a thread that was off topic, but that they wandered into insure that it never got on topic. That's an entirely different issue wouldn't you agree?

@ orathaic

"and yes no Muslims or Hindus et. al posted, but the ascertian that there is a God does not neccesarily go directly against their beliefs."

I'd add that the thread was never intended to assert the existence of God, but to survey believers about their preferences as to worship. Are there people who believe God exists? Sure. Do I mistrust people who seem to believe that an assertion (any peaceful assertion) needs to be shouted down? Yes. If there is one recurrent theme in history its that once a group's right to speech is taken away, other rights are taken away in rapid succession.

@Crazy Anglican

As far as the Catholic and Orthodox views of the Trinitarian Doctrine are concerned, there's really no difference in the dogma concerned, just in the wording.

The Catholic Church says "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit". The Orthodox Church says the Catholic Church is wrong, because the Son proceeds from the Father, through the son ("not from the Father and Son," which is what "Patre Filioque" literally means - Father and Son). However, the Catholic Church views the above Latin statement (from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan-Toledoan Creed - Filioque was added during the Council of Toledo, long before the Great Schism) as an inclusive, general statement - not as a definitive statement on the direct origin of the Holy Spirit. That is to say the Catholic Church also believes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and that's exactly what the Catholic Church claims "ex Patre Filioque procedit" means. However, even since the 1400's the Orthodox Church has claimed this is a deal-breaker and that the wording must be changed before there can be any talk of reconciliation. For the record this was also discussed early in the first millenium along the same lines (everyone agreed the Spirit proceeds through the Son, but people who spoke Latin always said it in the way the Catholic Church now says it while Greek speakers always worded it the way the Orthodox Church now does).

All that said, there is no final word, so to speak, on the relationship between the members of the Trinity in the Catholic or Orthodox Church - there are statements of what it is and what it isn't, but not a final definition of it altogether.

As for Protestantism, that's too big and diverse a group to really talk about Protestant dogma in general terms (basically it could be argued that any group arising since Luther's theological rebellion that self-identifies as Christian is Protestant, though many of those groups would say they're not Protestant, so even defining Protestant becomes rather difficult - to say the least).

As for the "others" (the ones no one would label as Protestant, which basically means all the different Oriental Orthodox Churches - the ones in the Middle East and surrounding areas that split from the centralized Church in the first half or so of the first millenium) they essentially agree with the Orthodox and Catholic Churches on all the basics, but like the Catholic and Orthodox have "very important differences," but no one seems to be able to define how or why they're really different, except in semantics (more silly politics and cultural ambiguities for their own sake).

Oh, and for anyone really interested in the differences between Catholics and Orthodox Christians look into the Byzantine Catholic Church. They are basically Orthodox Christians that accept Papal Primacy as the Catholic Church understands it (they were Orthodox but came into full communion with Rome during the 1600's). They say the Nicene Creed without the "Filioque," they use all the Byzantine (i.e., Orthodox) forms of devotion and liturgy, they retain Orthodox theology - the only difference between the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox Church is the issue of Papal Primacy, which makes it hard for me to believe anything but Papal Primacy is really at issue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.