Catholic (50-55% of Christians living today)
Orthodox (10% of Christians living today)
Protestant (35-40% of Christians living today)

The Catholics and Orthodox both date organically back to the earliest days of Christianity. They have apostolic succession, which means that their line of bishops can be traced back to the apostles. They believe in the high importance of church tradition, and interpreting the Bible in accordance with that tradition. The Catholics and Orthodox officially split from each other in 1054, partly for theological reasons (the Orthodox disliked the newly activist papacy in Rome) and partly for political and cultural reasons — the split happened between the Latin-speaking West and the Greek-speaking East.

Both Catholics and Orthodox share many practices such as the sacraments, the veneration of Mary, and asking for the prayers of the saints. The Orthodox place great importance on icons. Organizationally, the Catholics are unified around the pope (the bishop of Rome), while the Orthodox have various national churches (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox) whose bishops are in communion with one another.

The Copts are closely related to the Orthodox, but broke off from them around the 6th century.

Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church beginning with Martin Luther in 1519. Luther’s main protest was against abuses such as the selling of indulgences, but political animosity against the corrupt popes of that era helped the Reformation take off. Since Protestants did not accept the authority of church tradition, and sought to follow the Bible alone, there are many different denominations (and non-denominations) with rather diverse beliefs according to their various interpretations of the Bible. Most American Christians are Protestants. Some of the more traditional Reformation-era Protestants, who believe in sacraments and practice infant baptism, are Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. Some of the more modern Protestants, who place little importance on sacraments, do not practice infant baptism, and have contemporary, non-ritualistic church services are Baptists, Pentecostals, and most Evangelicals.

There’s Christian diversity in a nutshell. Hope that helped.
References :

traditionalMASS.org
HUTTONGIBSON.org
gerrymatatics.org
The Robber Church, Patrick Henry Omlor.org
References :

The reasons the first Christians more or less that went there separate ways is basically with some variations a decision made where as some such as the Greek Orthodox decided that the Bishop of Rome had no authority over them you might say it was like a child telling a Aunt or Uncle you can’t tell me what to do only my Mother and Father can. Also there was some disagreements over what or how one should believe.

Then about 1500 yrs after Christ founded his Church the Protesters stood up against the Catholic Church claiming it had gone astray from the Bible and started teaching a different way.There is no argument by Catholic scholars and Historians that there were Catholic bishops and Cardinals not acting the way the Church required and they brought scandal on the Church and the loss of millions of members. The Church has corrected it’s misunderstood teachings and has made it impossible for it’s teachings such as indulgence to be abused by bad clergy again. Now we work with most Protestant Churches on many things and towards a reconciliation of the two faiths. But there are the radicals the extremist on both sides but individuals who are the worst are the Fundamentalist such as David and his kind. Then there are those who get there information from Jack Chick Publications which is another hate filled group claiming to be Christian but are any thing but..
References :

1) protestants believe that they are saved *because they believe inGod*; in countries like the US it is not uncommon for "saved" to be used as synonym of "Christian".
Catholics believe that in order to be saved you must make good works, broadly speaking: that you must walk the walk.
A protestant will declare out loud that he believe in Jesus, and think himself saved. For a Catholic it is a sin of presumption to be sure that one will be saved, as this is God’s decision, not his.

2) Protestants believe that the truth is contained entirely, and exclusively, in the Scriptures. Catholic believes that there is a written and an unwritten part of the teaching. In fact, the Church founded by Christ on Peter had existed already for several decades before the first Gospel was written in the first place.
—-
You will see that all other major differences between Catholics and Protestants can be reduced to one of these two.
–
So for example the Protestants do not have sacramental confession, because it not in the scripture; they do not have the very special veneration of Mary with the attached dogmas of the Catholics (Queen of Heaven; Immaculate Conception; Assumption of Mary), because there is no direct reference of this in the Scripture; consequently, they do not pray the Rosary, they do not believe in consubstantiation, etc.
—
Catholicism is obviously the only right Church, for the reasons repeatedly stated here and otherwise.
It is the Church founded by Christ on peter before a Gospel existed which a Protestant might read to believe in Jesus in the first place.
–
Catholicism offers an organic interpreattion of the Scriptures, over which the Holy Ghost wakes. protestant read the Scriptures and come to infinite different interpretations and conclusions.
—
As a result, the Catholic Church is the same monolithic structure it always was, and always will be; whilst Protestantism is split in hundreds of major churches, and thousands of minor ones, simply because tot capita, tot sententiae: everyone who reads it will read it in a different way and everyone who is ready to take a phrase literally and out of the context is bound to be in contrast with another who takes another phrase out of the context.
–
Catholicism gives you the context; an organic, complete, doctrinally immutable frame of understanding and interpretation; one which is never changed according to the fashion of the times, or to what is considered politically correct; with a Pope at the top who is the custodian and caretaker of the tradition; and with the Holy Ghost taking care that the Pope, sinner as he may be as an individual, never strays on the doctrinal points.
–
References :

Almost all important doctrine is completely agreed upon between Catholic Christians and other Christians.

Here is the joint declaration of justification by Catholics (1999), Lutherans (1999), and Methodists (2006):

By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

There are many minor doctrine issues and some major cultural traditional differences which, I believe, do not matter that much.

A Catholic worships and follows Christ in the tradition of Catholicism which, among other things, recognizes that Christ made Peter the leader of His new Church and Pope Benedict XVI is Peter’s direct successor.

For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/index.shtml

With love in Christ.
References :

But then, the civil government of the Western Empire collapsed. Suddenly the bishop of Rome was THE senior authority in Western Europe. In time, he learned to provide both civil and religious order and service by standardizing rules and policies, appointing delegates (priests) and setting up a chain of command. It was an imperfect, inefficient system but the alternative was much worse. Effectively he was the go-to guy, the big "papa", the pope.

He offered to extend his organizing skills to the bishops of Eastern Europe, but they were not interested. Their half of the Empire was just fine. Over the next few centuries, relations between the unified West and the diverse, autonomous East chilled considerably, until they finally excommunicated each other and went their separate ways. The Western Church became "Catholic", the East was "Orthodox". There were other, further-flung alliances (such as the Copts an Chaldeans), who remained "in communion" with either Western Rome or Eastern Byzantium, or stayed independent. You can sometimes tell by the "Catholic" or "Orthodox" added to their official names.

Western Church remained exclusively Catholic for several centuries, but as kings and princes found their power, tensions began to grow between them and the Church. An era of "scholasticism" arose, when principles of logic and philosophical reason were applied to the doctrines of the faith to further justify them. Intellectual curiosity led to dissatisfaction. The hierarchy took its task of maintaining social order a bit too seriously, and dealt harshly with dissent.

The Bible had been translated into Latin, the West’s common language, but now people spoke French, German, English, Spanish, etc. The Bible was now the obscure, incomprehensible property of priests and scholars. Most people were illiterate anyway, but that was starting to change. They wanted greater access to the Bible, but the Church feared that amateur theologians would misread the more difficult passages of the Bible and re-concoct old, discredited doctrines once again. The Church reserved the right to interpret the Bible correctly to prevent errors of faith.

Some people saw the Church as power-mad and oppressive. Dissident communities sprang up, quietly living their own, illicit versions of Christianity, quietly translating the Latin Bible into their own languages. The Church kept an eye out for such groups and wiped them out whenever they could.

Eventually, scholars rediscovered the Greek scriptures, and bypassed Rome. They began translating their own Bibles, and the Church couldn’t stop them. Unsanctioned analysis of the Bible surged. Sure enough, people came up with different, new, problematic interpretations.

And Rome was hopelessly entangled in worldly affairs. The pope had an army, and territory to protect. It formed questionable secular alliances, and even formulated "doctrines" of convenience to hide abuses. One example was a cash crunch that developed as the Sistine Chapel was undergoing a major renovation after a costly war war. Fundraisers reasoned that, if one could effectively pray for dead relatives who might not be quite ready for heaven, and consequently, if one could pay someone else to do the praying, then it made more sense to simply pay the Church to do the praying and get them on their way. That became the fundraising motto: "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs!"

This infuriated some churchmen, but the only one brave enough to take on his superiors was Martin Luther, a priest who read his bible and recognized simony when he saw it. But when he publicized his complaint, he found himself facing excommunication. He searched the scriptures for a tactic to prevent his own discreditation. By a careful reading of certain passages, he produced a couple of new doctrines: no human being but Jesus can intervene between God and individual people, and no doctrine can be derived if it doesn’t appear clearly in the Bible.

The basis of these "doctrines" can be debated, but one thing was certain. Many nobles, peasant and intellectuals were tired of Roman heavy-handedness, and they were willing to support Luther, to the point that they broke from the Roman Church and established an independent form of Christianity.

And Luther wasn’t the only one who could formulate a new doctrine. John Calvin promoted the idea of "predestination", that God chose who would go to heaven before he had ever created anything. Zwingi an Menno had their own takes on what was important. And who could say which one was right? Protestant churches had no chain of authority.

Each Protestant Church had its own name. Luther founded the Lutherans. Calvin established the Reformed Church (which became the Presbyterian Church when it was imported to Scotland). Menno’s church split into Mennonites and Amish, both rejecting modernizing inventions and social conventions. Anabaptists, who denounced infant baptism and re-baptized adults, eventually produced the Baptists, who believe that the proclamation of faith is more important than baptism anyway.

Rome was embarrassed by the Reformation. It soon called a council to clean house, condemn its worst abuses, justify what could be justified, and re-standardize its organization and practices. But the feud continued, as kings and princes declared themselves and their subjects either Catholic or Protestant, and Europe was rocked by centuries of religious wars.

One of Rome’s allies was Henry VIII of England, who suppressed signs of Protestantism in his own country, earning the honorary title, "Defender of the Faith". That was until Henry had a succession problem that required a divorce the pope would not grant. Henry broke off and proclaimed himself head of the Catholic Church in England. Everything was to remain the same except for ultimate allegiance. It took decades for the resulting bloody civil war to end, as Anglican and Catholic monarchs succeeded each other on the British throne. There were Englishmen who preferred a more Rome-like church, with complex theology and elaborate liturgies. There were also Englishmen, "Dissenters" or "Puritans" who condemned anything that smacked of "papism". Eventually the Dissenters got so intolerant and disruptive that they were chased out of England, fleeing to the Netherlands or starting fresh in America. But Anglicans followed, establishing their own colonies, and when America rebelled against England, their Anglicans became Episcopalians.

Protestant churches are always at risk of fracturing into more and smalled denominations. There are several kinds of Lutherans with significantly different doctrinal outlooks. The American Baptist and Southern Baptist churches don’t see eye to eye on many things. The number of kinds of Methodism (which broke away from Anglicanism) are uncountable. Below a certain size, the personalities in a denomination tend to overshadow unity and small disagreements over doctrine can cause bitter rifts.

Some of the disagreements are over specific points of doctrine, but most appear to be about general attitudes toward how to be a Christian and how to interpret the Bible. Those who demand that the Bible be read more literally tend to be very socially conservative and intolerant of innovations and diversity. Those who consider the Bible to be more figurative and metaphorical tend to be more open to a wide variety of interpretations and practices. The literalists are commonly referred to as "fundamentalists", which refers to a style of Christianity rather than a specific denomination. "Evangelicals" are Christians who emphasize the importance of personal faith (as opposed to communal) and the authority of the Bible in making spiritual decisions. There are Baptist and Lutheran conferences that are or aren’t "Evangelical", and are or aren’t fundamentalists.

There are also Christians who simply avoid classifying themselves as members or dissenters from any other denomination. They call themselves "non-denominational Christians", "Bible Churches", or simply "Christians". Unburdened by Christian history, they often consider themselves the only "true" Christians. (They also are extremely prone to splitting whenever a new pastor comes on board.)
References :

Listen to what Paul says about what will happen to those people who will FALL AWAY FROM SOUND DOCTRINE (THE HOLY WORD OF GOD) –

(1 Timothy 4:1 – 5)

The Spirit clearly says that in later times SOME WILL ABANDON the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through HYPOCRITICAL LIARS, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They FORBID people to marry and order them to ABSTAIN from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Can anybody think of any religious institutions that follows these practices? Actually, there are many, INCLUDING the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Catholicism may be old, but it doesn’t mean its true to the faith. If aged wine doesn’t taste good—people wont drink it.

Now back to the original question. Here is a list of christian faiths and thier beliefs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
References :

At least that’s the opinion I’ve formed from watching the people here. I know there are exceptions, and wish those people would speak up more often. The hateful ones give the rest of them a bad rap, really.
References :

The Catholic church insists it is the oldest and "truest" church…but the Gnostics dispute that…not without justification. The RCC holds that only through the church can anyone be "saved".

The Protestant branches and splinters separated from the RCC long ago in an event called the Reformation. The RCC’s political and social corruption had gotten so bad that a break was inevitable. Martin Luther just happened to be one of the more volatile sparks.

Basically Protestantism rejects the notion of having a central church do the interpreting of the Bible for everyone else and advocated individual interpretation. The result was a mass-splintering of sects, which themselves broke up into more sects and sub-sects. Ironically the biggest Protestant churches are now just as authoritarian as the RCC ever was.

Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Sevent Day Adventist, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses…all these are different splinter groups that interpret the Bible in many different ways. All of them have differing (in many cases directly opposing) opinions on the Bible and what certain of its passages mean.

That’s the Bible’s biggest weakness. It is so vague and heavily subject to interpretation that anyone can read virtually anything into it they want. Fundamentalist Evangelicals read the Bible and see a wrathful, petualnt control freak. New Thought folk read the Bible and see it as an expression one of many human concepts of divinity and the sacred. Some will insist that you can interpret the Bibel "correctly" only if you believe a certain way in the first place, while others believe that even a casual reading of the Bible can reveal "truths".

It’s funny to me how a person’s interpretation of the Bible always seems to validate their previously-held opinions.

There are more than 30,000 different sects and sub-sects, and few of them consistently agree on anything beyond the existence of a supreme god. Quite a few of them regard most if not all other sects with suspicion or even outright hostility. Some insist that only members of their specific sect…or sometimes specific congregation…are destined for Heaven. Others believe that there is no hell at all and that everyone will go to Heaven. A few believe that neither exist as we understand them but instead believe that death is merely a transition to another state of existence.

And there is no way to prove which one is correct. Virtually all of them have done good works for others, and many have their own claims of "miracles" that supposedly validate their faith. All of them also have had or have periods of extreme unpleasantness or even criminal activity (some more than others).

religioustolerance.org might be a good place to start. It’s a website about faith put up by believers of many dsifferent faiths.
References :

Bible believing. praying and learning christians can be from any denominational arena.

Some put their faith in to action rather than attend church as unbelievers still uncertain, lacking faith and being born again in Christ .

Better believrs praise God and Jesus Christ, study and pray earnestly.

These people are coveted by society, governemnts and othet nations for their own bettermnet, political gain, political persuasion.

Also some successful christians are often persecuted, hated , despised and loved also by many people includiong bible believing ones.

The format of praise and worship and methods of relationshoip to God differ for each church group.

Clicks of media, business groupos tend to want believers involved intheir business, forcibly and without pay to grow their business, governemnt, MP riding, police force and bemnefit their group while persecuting and violating the human rights of believrs in so doing.
Of course these groups deny all they do and hide their intents under law, security, state responsibility involuintarily wi9th believr minds, use of their persons. These are human right violations these groups emply every day in our culture and abroad.
Roman Catholicgroups also prejudice other christians and involove them without desire in their faith.
Typically some are not brethren in Chrfist as they do not futher thje gospel of Jesus Christ but quench the holy spirit o further the gospel according to Rome. These peoplke are not born again christians but believe they are in Christ and somehow God is controilled by them and their groupos in their misguided form of belief.
In Canada federal MP’s violate believers all the time and often bother thekm with Islamic groups, fringe groups, police and prisoners.
Sadly they display a poor display of their faith and must answer fpor their doings some day. Although they believe they are doing the community good, offer no monetary compensation for their actions, daily poilce and or governemnt funds for their prejudicial actioons similar to media grouips, TV groups and others.
The people that are persecuted most tend to have had a born experience through prayer and relationship with God.
Romanism and the doctrines that oppose the bible ioncluding the followers of false and worldly doctrines pervert, disrupt and quench the Spirit of God in some believrs , in the groups they are employed with, defile them with other religious groups outside of Christ.
References :