Just to be clear: When I said ‘original Church’, I was well aware there were different churches at the time. I was speaking colloquially, rather than aiming for precision, because the distinction isn’t really relevant in the broad view.
Thank you.
On first point indeed, but the second point seems to forget the Orthodox, who use a Bible with all the OT books the Catholics have which the Protestants dropped, plus other ones the Catholics don’t have. But in any case a statement like ‘the Mormons and the Catholics use a different bible’ seems to go beyond correctly pointing out that various pre-Protestant sects can compete to say who was ‘original’ to treating a 19th century religion as if the same as RCC and maybe the Protestants have the ‘original’ bible. 
Even if one argues about who is the original church, it’s definitely not the Protestants. They reinterpreted the religion and scriptures of the virtually sole religion of their culture, Roman Catholicism. It’s kind of silly IMO to put LDS and RCC in the same boat as different ‘from others’ with no reference to time line of what came from what, besides which it’s not true the Catholic Bible is ‘fundamentally different from most other groups’ without crediting every little splinter of Protestantism as a ‘group’ equal to RCC and Orthodox.
Anyway little if anything of importance Catholic doctrine is based on the OT books it didn’t drop, nor really that much on OT at all, which is itself a complaint of Bible-literal type Protestants. Not having jettisoned a few OT books is not what makes Catholicism different from Protestantism, and anyway Protestants arguably vary at least as much among themselves as they do relative to the RCC.
The NT books of Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox are essentially identical. And IMO/IME (using the Bible as study technique when learning other languages) there’s no way to meaningful say the dominant Protestant translations of the NT in for example Korean and English are one side of a divide and the dominant Catholic Korean and English translations on another. Translation across unrelated languages introduces as much difference, inherently, as between say King James and modern Catholic standard.
Actually, disagreements over just what’s important are a boon to ecumenicism, not a hindrance to it. If groups A and B disagree over points C and D, but A considers C most important, and B considers D most important, then you can compromise on A’s view of C and B’s view of D, and both sides will then agree that the compromise kept what’s most important. You only really get problems when both sides think something is important, but disagree on the details.
And yet, most Protestants will quite readily ask other people here on Earth to pray for them. If it’s acceptable to ask people on Earth to pray for you, then why wouldn’t it be just as acceptable to ask people in Heaven to pray for you?
As I understand protestant theology (as taught by the Church of Sweden) it’s not wrong to ask the dead to pray for you; it’s simply fruitless. The dead are all dead, and will remain so until Judgment Day.
Which is inconsistent with Jesus’ statement to the man being crucified with him that “this day you will be with me in Paradise”, and also inconsistent with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where both have gone on to their respective afterlives while the rich man’s brothers are still on Earth.
Never thought I’d appear as a Protestant apologist, but hey, let’s try it! Jesus tried to comfort the wretched man on the cross best he could, and his statement “this day you will be with me in Paradise” is consistent with the experience of the dying: he is not aware of the time passing while dead. To him, his awakening on Judgment Day will seem as the same day.
As for the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, it supposedly all happened long before Christ. The Jews had a special deal with God back then, and are well known to just mind their own business. 
I go further. As I posted above, I would say that anyone who puts Christ, or the words and teachings of Christ, at the center of his or her life (or at least near the center) is a Christian, even if that person doesn’t believe in the Resurrection, or in Christ’s divinity. And that includes deists, or even atheists.
Someone has never been to a proper nerd convention. 
It’s a parable: those are specifically not supposed to have happened.
Which only goes to show the pointlessness of this sort of debate. Because I think you would find that vast numbers of people who would call themselves knowledgeable in Christianity would regard the idea that one can be atheist and a Christian as completely laughably wrong.
Which is not to say that I think you are completely laughably wrong. But I think it does show there is just no bedrock here upon which to base the argument.
It is pointless to try to convince people who strongly disagree you can be an ‘atheist Christian’. But like you say it’s just an opinion. And relevant to the topic IMO it’s an opinion more likely or natural in Protestantism than Catholicism (even though it seemed the previous poster might have been saying they were Catholic). If you can interpret the scriptures as you like, and just start a Christian sect among the like minded, one natural possible endpoint is Bible literalism, another is atheism which respects ‘the philosophy attributed to Jesus of Nazareth’. As I’ve heard it stated, modern secularism is sort of Protestantism with the serial number filed off, and it’s somewhat ironic how some secularists so fiercely hate Bible literalist Protestants in particular.
Similar attitudes have spread somewhat to Catholics (and Jews and some of every other religion) in heterogeneous Western countries and formerly homogeneous Western Catholic countries, but I still think it’s fair to trace back to the Reformation, not just the Enlightenment.
But yeah, under Catholicism the idea of a ‘Christianity’ which rejects the Risen Christ is ridiculous. It doesn’t mean there’s any need for hostility, nor caring much which non-Catholic sects are ‘really’ Christian in general. Though as I mentioned if people want to convert, the Church has to decide if the previous sacraments are valid in the RCC. I don’t see how that could be viewed as unreasonable.
I don’t think it’s ironic. I think rather that firstly the idea that modern secularism is “Protestantism with the serial number filed off” is of highly dubious validity. Secondly, the sort of Protestantism that most resembles the socially liberal ideas that tend to be associated with modern secularism has little in common with “Bible literalist Protestantism” which tends to be socially highly conservative.
It’s probably worth mentioning that Presbyterians in Ireland have a long history of radicalism and fighting alongside Catholics for independence. Presbyterians were instrumental in the founding of the United Irishmen, for example. Under the penal laws, non-conformists were subject to much the same kind of discrimination as Catholics.
In modern Northern Ireland, those who shout loudest tend to get more than their share of media attention, but the Non-subscribing Presbyterians are a generally thoughtful and liberal-minded bunch who would be happy to discuss the subject over a cup of tea.
“Catholics believe that Protestants believe that Catholics believe” will, unfortunately, tell you more about Catholics than about Protestants.
It’s just a statement of fact that there are (some, probably not many) Protestants who believe that Catholics are not really Christians. Do you think I was wrong? Are there no Protestants who believe this?
It doesn’t tell you anything about Catholics.
For sure; my observation re Northern Ireland, was largely in jest. It’s just that as regards the British Isles nowadays, one has the impression that instances of Protestant extremists / groups thereof, harbouring an incandescent hatred of all things Catholic, occasionally to the point of physical violence, are rare: and that if such are met with, it’s most likely to be among highly extreme Presbyterians in certain “fringe” areas – both geographical and ideological – of Northern Ireland, and Scotland. And the picture is got that even on those scenes, there are – as well as the “haters” – many humane and sensible folk.
Well we disagree. And my point IMO is not disproved by pointing out the obvious fact that mainline Protestants approaching de facto atheism and funadmentalist Protestants came to very different endpoints. Yeah, but they had the process in common of ‘just interpret the scriptures yourself, and if a bunch of people agree with you, start a new sect’.
Well, right in the quote in the OP there’s a Protestant saying, ‘The RCC are not Christians.’ And I’ve heard the sentiment many times from many sources.
Because said asking doesn’t take the form of a prayer. Nothing in the Bible indicates those people can hear your prayers.
Sure, God can hear you, since he’s both omniscient and omnipresent. But can the saints? They don’t get their new bodies until after the Resurrection of the Saints. And the description of heaven doesn’t sound like they are constantly looking down at Earth, or else they’d see all the horrible stuff and not be happy.
So it seems the only way they could find out is if God tells them. And, if God is telling them, why not cut out the middle man?
That is, of course, the more charitable version. The less charitable version is simply “The Bible says that you pray to Jesus. It never says to pray to anyone else. So praying to other beings is a sin.” They hold this even if said being is an angel.
I’m also unsure of what your “actually” part means, since it doesn’t disagree with anything I said.