Difference between Catholics and Protestants

Protestants usually look down on Catholic in doctrinal debate.

I think there are many valid points in which the Roman Catholic deserves belittling from Protestants.

For example, in the biblical interpretation and authoritarian practices, Protestants seem to have upper hand over Catholics.

However, is there real difference between the two religions?

Some zealous Protestants even view Roman Catholic as anti-Christ.

I know if one of you are Catholic, that's not what you will condone or accept. But some of Christains really believe Catholicism is an agenda of anti-Christ, and I think too that's a very possible idea.

Right it's time to delve into the historic debate.

You may think I am biased because I am a Protestant.

Well, I maybe am. But to be fair, I really think Protestant's view of Catholicism is not completely twisted or wrong per se.

But at the same time, I don't believe Protestants are different from or superior to or even better than Catholicism either.

The more I observe the real side of Protestants, the more I see similarities than dissimilarity.

The first Protestants claim is that they are superior to Catholic in doctrine and the biblical interpretation. For example, to Protestants it is a pure nonsense to even say that bread and wine turn into the real blood of Christ in communion service.

When Protestants criticizes Catholicism for superstition, it is sane. The same principle goes against Protestants when they try to persuade non-Christians about supernaturalism about Christianity.

So, the point is how far they will push supernaturalism, and what kind of supernaturalism will be each sector's baseline or endpoints.

If Catholic's communion travesty is a pure nonsense, rationale-prostituted one, Protestants are no better than Catholics when it comes to all miracles and supernaturalism.

What drives war of religion is just Newtonian principle. If there is an action, there shall be another reaction.

If orthodox were to propose monotheism, then other sectors would have proposed Trinity. The point is that idea that we are different from others or rather a necessity of differentiation for virtuosity.

It doesn't matter whether there is a real ingredient of virtue in what we believe. If there isn't, we will invent as many as we'd like.

Because we can't live that virtue of life. Even the worst criminal can't live without that sense of virtue. So that urgent need always drives us to an edge that punctures the balloon others possess.

Virtue we seek is always relative.

In prison, all criminals are locked in. They are all bad in definition; that's why they are there.

But the truth is that there are some good among them; there are some really bad even among them.

In heaven, all saints are gathered and lived together making the heaven into the most hideous hell, because it is a place where any minor carelessness will be rendered as evil.

I am not trying to relativism.

But no matter how we try to stick to absolute good or absolute evil, what we amount to in the end is double edge word of good or evil.

God created heaven and earth.

The first declaration of creation is dualism. Heaven and Earth. It sounds like too different entities, bur if you pay more attention to how the two entities play in the realm of hermeneutics, it is virtually dualism.

Light and darkness. Without darkness, how can light be defined or vice versa?