C Michael Patton
C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger.
Find him on Patreon
Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements.
Join his Patreon and support his ministry
181 replies to "Difference Between Christianity and Other Religions in a Nutshell"
That isn’t entirely true. Some religions, like Confucism, started because of a wise teacher, and have never claimed any type of theological or divine basis. Others, like Buddism, started out the same way as this but gradually accumulated gods and a theological component overtime for many reasons.
The whole point of these cartoons are ridiculous. Simply to say that a religion was more public in it’s inception doesn’t make it any more or less true than any other religion, which to be blunt is based on belief. I’m assuming that’s the intent here.
Frankly noting the whole idea of Christianity is so different than the more complex and darker vision of God based in the old testament indicates, whether through his own doing or the promotion of his followers, he was creating a vision based on his private ideas. Mary is told of having an encounter with an angel that establishes basis for a virgin birth and the supposed holiness of the child. Jesus often segregated himself from his disciples for meditation and claimed repeatedly that trusting him was the only path to God. The cartoons are both inaccurate and insufficient as proving Christianity somehow more trustworthy and therefore “real.”
Not to mention that Jesus told some of his select small group of disciples that it was “given to them” to know the “mysteries of God” but not given to the average masses.
Jesus’ ministry wasn’t quite as “public” in all respects as some here would make out.
Seth,
You simply don’t understand my arguement. I don’t really know how to say it any differently, but your comment here just shows me that there are two ships passing here.
Maybe some future posts will clarify. I got some swimming in my head about turning points and foundational issues of Christianity and how God’s movements are always evident when he is making an epic announcement.
Until then, God bless.
@ C Michael “…when he is making an epic announcement.”
This exact sentiment is what invalidates your argument in the cartoons. How is “he” going to be making these epic announcements except through the mouthpieces of people who believe themselves the recipients of special knowledge that comes to them “in a dream” or from “a visitation from an angel.”
Even in the case of Jesus, he was imparting rhetoric that came to him as a special conveyor of the word of God, so much so that he claimed or was acclaimed to be the son of God. How exactly would that paternity test happen?
Epic announcements are only epic because the are accompanied by historic events which are available for inquiry and verification. Christ’s words alone were not enough. Christ’s resurrection alone was not enough. But combine the two and you have an epic announcement. One without the other and we would not have Christianity.
But how does that criteria establish the validity of a religion? Epic announcement + historic event = religion?
I’m sure there were some scientist who rightly predicted Japan’s recent earthquake. We wouldn’t suddenly push them into the role of mystical holy person would we?
And you’re also regarding the resurrection as if it were unquestionable fact. How is that even verifiable? How can it be taken as anything but belief that it occurred and in the manner it’s described.
If anything, we have Christianity through centuries of promotion and willful dominance of the beliefs and tenets of the religion. People make religion. People make Christianity.
You mean epic announcements like those accompanying the Exodus, or the Fall of Adam Michael?
Announcements like those?
P.S. You end the post with “Is it that hard a decision?” as if one has to decide to belong to Christianity or to “something else.” Is it not reasonable to come to the conclusion that one doesn’t have to believe in either Christianity or something else or frankly anything at all of a spiritual nature? Especially since it all comes down to belief?
This all comes down to faith. If any god is in some way provable than he just becomes a super-powerful space alien who uses scientific techniques we don’t fully understand… yet.
You cannot prove religion to be true. In doing so you are actually invalidating it as a religion and its requirement of faith.
The question is how does one instill that mustard seed of faith in a person? Flawed logic may work for some, but as with the man who built his house on the sand, when the rain comes the foundation of flawed logic won’t stand against the rushing waves.
Hi Mike,
Sorry, I don’t get on e-mail much. I think you missed my point. I am not saying their teachings are the same at all. Siddhartha and Jesus preach very different paradigms. But Siddhartha’s whole ministry, from rejection of his princely title to his search for enlightenment to his teachings were done publicly. I honestly have no idea what you mean when you say: quote: all the events happen in private.? Which events?
Buddism today, although really varied, is mostly taught by masters to disciples (hence all the monks – mostly disciples), not something that can be studied independently (heavy on meditation, chanting, etc.).
As for historicity, there are many sites in Indian and Nepal that pilgrims flock to that are the pivotal points of Siddhartha’s awakening.
But the main thing to keep in mind is, Siddhartha never claimed to have anything more than an awakening to truth – he is not a god, yet the founder of a major religion.
I’d probably take the Dr. Bart Ehrman position about this and say, the resurrection is not an historical event, and it is something to be taken on faith. I’d recommend watching the Bart Ehrman, William Lane Craig debate (you can view it on youtube) on the historicity of the resurrection.
By his own account (Galatians 1), Paul learned what he knew about Jesus from private revelations and visions. He wrote the first surviving records of Christianity. His mention of 500 nameless witnesses was written 25 years after the fact and to an audience over 800 miles from Jerusalem. I don’t think it would be very easy for the people in Corinth to confirm the story with these eyewitnesses, even if he had listed their names.
“This comic rules out Islam, Zoroastrianism, Mormanism, Hinduism, etc because their is no real reason to believe their central claims.” C Michael
Kettle, meet Pot.
Joseph and Mary were separately, privately told by messengers of God that Jesus was going to be a virgin birth. They then told others about this.
Clearly, I have disproven one of your religion’s central myths about Jesus’s divine origin based on your logic.
For your proof to be true, you must concede that Mary and Joseph lied about Joseph knocking up Mary to prevent her from being ostracized or killed.
More like the whole thing was made up. It is quite possible Jesus never existed. Or maybe Jesus did exist, but this does not mean he was the son of GOD. The church couldn’t even decide if Jesus was a man made divine or the story they choose to go with until much later.
All gods are man-made fiction.
So… I guess you ignore the 2/3 of the New Testament written by St. Paul following his personal & private Damascus road experience, right?
Because otherwise this argument is fallacious and not actually a point in your religions favor over others. If you accept Paul’s personal experience accounts, why reject Muhammad’s?
Santa and the Easter Bunny confirmed it.
All of the stories about Jesus death, resurrection, and his flying up into outer space without a space suit, are just that: stories. It’s hearsay. It ultimately boils down to rumors of ancient miracles. This cartoon makes it out to be some amazing eyewitness, public record, but why (for example) do we NOT have a single word written by Jesus HIMSELF?
Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, Lord… Or how about Legend?
The thing is, you have to prove panel one to be true, in order to promote the ideas of panel two. What is your proof that there was a Jesus? That Jesus was crucified? That he rose from the dead? Your proof is faith. That’s it…faith and an old book that’s been rewritten and edited almost beyond recognition.
So to say your religion is better, based on your faith that these events happened, and denying other religions as false, even though those followers have as much faith that their relifious events happened, is a false comparison. “I believe my religion’s events happened in a better way (of which I have no proof) than your religions (of which I have no proof), so your religions are fake!”
Who are you to deny other’s faith? And who are you to say since your faith is stronger, you’re better than all other religious followers?
You all are missing the point. It is understandable as while a picture paints a thousand words, it does not explain the details.
The point is the historical claims made in public (i.e. Jesus died in Jerusalem, under Pilate, rose from the grave, the tomb is empty, he then showed himself to hundreds of people for 40 days, many have examined this and are convinced) are falsifiable, both to the contemporary audience and, by extension, today. How? The same way you test any truth claim…by internal and external consistency of the witnesses.
There are not any other religions or cults that can make such claims.
I am not saying this alone PROVES Christianity true (for depending on your criteria, no historical event can be proven in a correspondence view—no contemporary one could either!). It just means that it is testable, examinable, and not beyond our ability intellectually believe.
The ideas of confusionism fall under the “Man who got an idea.” Human ideas are nice, but not THAT nice. The history of ideas is muddled and confusing. Inconsistant to say the least. Who is to say one IDEA about life is better than another? Why start a religion based on one man’s idea?
In the end, either there is a God and only his ideas matter or there is no God and no ideas matter. It is pretty simple.
[…] investigation and rational inquiry. Here is a great simple illustration of why that is the case by C Michael Patton from the Parchment & Pen […]
[…] (via Parchment & Pen) […]
[…] The origin of Christianity vs. the origin of other religions – Michael Patton has put together a nice illustration of the difference between how Christianity began and how other religions began. […]
[…] HT: Reclaiming the Mind […]
[…] 23. Mar, 2011 148550 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fclearriver.org%2Fjefflingblog%2F2011%2F03%2Fchristianity-and-other-religions%2FChristianity+and+Other+Religions2011-03-24+01%3A49%3A30Jeffery+Linghttp%3A%2F%2Fclearriver.org%2Fjefflingblog%2F2011%2F03%2Fchristianity-and-other-religions%2F Amplify’d from http://www.reclaimingthemind.org […]
[…] (HT: Parchment and Pen) […]
[…] Patton serves up an intriguing cartoon comparing the way Christianity’s origins differ sharply from those of other […]
[…] C. Michael Patton’s brief post (with pictures!) over at the Parchment and Pen blog on the “Difference Between Christianity and Other Religions in a Nutshell.” Here’s a […]
[…] Pictures are originally published: Credo House / Parchment & Pen Blog […]