Rating: 
Summary: Straightforward analysis from a Christian Perspective
Review: Given the other reviews, I'll preface by saying this book barely scratchs the surface of answering the question the title poses. However, given that most Americans don't even take the time to scratch the surface of anything more than a mosquito bite, this book is a great, if simple, introduction to the answer. I always wondered the answer to the question this book approaches. Mr. Ridenour does a fantastic job of explaining these differences from a clearly Christian perspective. He starts with a clear identification of the Baseline for comparison (that is Protestant Christianity). He then proceeds to distinguish that baseline from Catholism, then on to other major world religions. I think every high school student should read this book before college. If you've missed that mark, go ahead and read it now! If this spurs your interest, and you really want to know more about other religions, read the writings that are central to those religions. IE. the Bible, the Koran, the Books of Mormon, etc. See for yourself what they say about themselves.
Rating: 
Summary: Gives good basic information
Review: I bought this book because I know people who belong to different religions such as the Bahai faith but I didn't know much about them and more importantly how it differs from Christianity. It gave a good introduction and I got a basic understanding about the different faiths. However it wasn't entirely comprehensive, it only covered the major religions such as Catholicism, Mormonism and the like. So overall I think it's a good start if you're interested in learning about the other religions.
Rating: 
Summary: A wolf in sheep's clothing
Review: I couldn't wait to read this book, but as I turned the pages, I suddenly realized Mr. Ridenour is not "comparing" religions; he is advocating that "biblical" Christianity is the only truth in the entire world.
This book reeks of bigotry, racism, blindness and is not what it reports itself to be.
For some reason, Mr. Ridenour is afraid to come out and say exactly what he is...a fundamentalists Christian who opposes any view except his. He hides behind the facade of "biblical" Christian and then tries to tell all of us "Christians believe..." Well, as a Chrisitian, I do not believe 90% of what Mr. Ridenour attempts to force upon this group. Mr. Ridenour's book portrays all Christians as closed-minded, uneducated bufoons.
I couldn't wait to start the book, and in the end I couldn't wait to finish it and wash my hands.
Rating:
Summary: Maybe well meaning, but sloppy research
Review: I found Fritz Ridenour's book, particularly as it related to the New Age Movement shockingly superficial -- even sloppy. My most charitable interpretation is that he had an assistant or bad proofreader. The work was hardly original -- I recognized much of it as a badly paraphrased version of some of my own, combined with taking as gospel the work of my critics who have cheerfully passed on disinformation about the New Age Movement for upwards of the past 20 years. BUT, the section on "Alice Bayley" (sic) was the coup de grace. The ALICE BAILEY devotees at Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Publishing Company) must still be howling with glee. Surely no knowledgeable New Ager nor anybody else who has done their homework on it could take the work seriously on any level. I don't know what the agenda was or even if there was an agenda, but this level of research and editorial sloppiness is both unforgettable and unforgivable. This is one area where I am uniquely qualified to speak. I wrote the first anti-New Age book and much of what I had to say is obviously badly paraphrased in Mr. Ridenour's book. I hope for the sake of his soul that he did this innocently.
Rating:
Summary: Maybe well meaning, but sloppy research
Review: I found Fritz Ridenour's book, particularly as it related to the New Age Movement shockingly superficial -- even sloppy. My most charitable interpretation is that he had an assistant or bad proofreader. The work was hardly original -- I recognized much of it as a badly paraphrased version of some of my own, combined with taking as gospel the work of my critics who have cheerfully passed on disinformation about the New Age Movement for upwards of the past 20 years. BUT, the section on "Alice Bayley" (sic) was the coup de grace. The ALICE BAILEY devotees at Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Publishing Company) must still be howling with glee. Surely no knowledgeable New Ager nor anybody else who has done their homework on it could take the work seriously on any level. I don't know what the agenda was or even if there was an agenda, but this level of research and editorial sloppiness is both unforgettable and unforgivable. This is one area where I am uniquely qualified to speak. I wrote the first anti-New Age book and much of what I had to say is obviously badly paraphrased in Mr. Ridenour's book. I hope for the sake of his soul that he did this innocently.
Rating: 
Summary: Lacking in Character and Knowledge
Review: I recently read the book and found it lacking in similar respects to the review of the individual who stated that he was Eastern Orthodox. I am currently writing a letter to Mr. Ridenour stating his erroneous and deceptive review of Islam.At first, I thought some of his errors were oversights but after I finished I realized that he was not trying to give a fair and accurate picture of Islam but was, in fact, tyring to keep the fundamentalist Christian from pursuing further knowledge about Islam. He stated that Muslims believe Jesus to be a prophet but far less in importance than Jesus. In truth, Muslims believe that we do not distinguish amongst the prophets and we believe in all the prophets of God. Muslims believe that Mary was a virgin, Jesus preached the Gospel, Jesus ascended into heaven and that Jesus is viewed as the Messiah and Christ. Ridenour failed to mention any of this. Without these ideas (and other errors he made) he has done a diservice to both Christian and Muslim alike by not disclosing some of the key elements of the Islamic faith and distorting others. "Verily, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers and wish to make a distinction between Allah and His Messengers saying "We believe in some (Messengers) but reject others," and wish to adopt a way in between. They are in truth disbelievers. We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment." 4:150,151 I found his work to be the typical sham presented by many 'Biblical' Christians as a way to discredit other religions and to reaffirm the reader that his faith, no matter what it is as long as it's not something other than Christianity, is correct. The book should not be taken as a the writing of someone serious about comparative religions.
Rating:
Summary: I agree...A Great Witnessing Tool!
Review: I used this book when I was in highschool to witness to my now husband of 13 years who was a Catholic at the time. He wanted to know the differences between our faiths. It helped him come to the decision that he needed to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is not indepth, but it just touches the surface of many of the world's religions and is written with a Christian perspective. Someone who is not opened to believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God may have a hard time accepting the truths in this book. It is a great witnessing tool for the Christian to have available in their own libraries to give to individuals who are on the verge of believing. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Pat yourself on the back Mr. Christian
Review: If you think anyone that isn't strictly your kind of Christian is an ... and you want to hear someone agree, read this book. It is completed misguided and awful. Presenting itself as a guide to understanding and fairness, when in fact it is a blatant propaganda piece for the Christian "cult" (to use a term that it pins on most other religions).
Rating:
Summary: The difference between Truth and Lies
Review: In an era where our teachers and ministers alike are striving ever harder to imbue our children with a sense of the beauty of cultural diversity and concord among the peoples of the world, Ridenour's contribution to religious literature is shameful and backward. If one is to follow Ridenour's logic, being a good Christian means affirming that "our" God is not "their" God, that modern science is dubious, and that a layman's survey of the bible is sufficient preparation for spiritual independence. Ignoring modern critical scholarship of the bible (but emphasizing inconsistencies in non-Christian texts), "So What's The Difference" teaches that religious exploration is for clever people like Ridenour but not for those who really want to reflect on the nature of God, salvation and religious observance. That this book should be on any bookshelf is a tragedy.
Rating:
Summary: So What's the Distortion?
Review: Intended as a defense of "Biblical Christianity," this simplistic and, at times, splenetic little book curtly dismisses any belief not in keeping with its author's severely limited religious judgments. Using the technique of "guilt by association," Mr. Ridenour lumps together such belief systems as "New Age" ideologies, postmodern philosophies, Mormon and Jehovah's Witness cults [his word], Hindu and Buddhist non-Christian religions, and even secular humanism. He does this in a series of vignettes--simplistic and distorted--which presume to give the essentials of each creed. Mr. Ridenour then "explains" why each religion or cult fails to pass his version of Biblical Christianity. His view of Catholicism is particularly distorted. Why, he asks, is Mass offered daily in Catholic Churches around the world? Because Christ commands it (Lk 22:19; cf. Malachi 1:11)--but he fails to mention those passages (and many others). He admits that Catholics know they are saved by grace, not works, but assigns no value to works. He fails to mention James 2:14-26 (and many others). He correctly, in my view, explains how vital Scripture is, but utterly ignores the dangers that exist in personal interpretation--even though Scripture itself warns against it
(2 Peter 1:20, 3:16; Acts 8:30-31). The papacy is not mentioned by name in the New Testament, he writes. But Peter is given the keys to heaven (Mt 16:19, 18:18), and only gradually did Church leaders understand that Christ's return was not imminent, leading to the growth of church government (Acts 16:4) He offers at best a misunderstanding of the Greek word for "Rock." (See Karl Keating, CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM, Ch. 17, for a reliable explanation). He pleads for sola scriptura, but he fails to mention about 20,000 Protestant churches, all emerging from someone's biblical notions. What, for example, would have happened if the U.S. had had a Constitution but no government? (See Luke 10:16.) Do we really think that Jesus commanded the writing of a sacred book but not the development of His Church to teach, to sanctify, to inspire? ROME SWEET HOME by Scott and Kimberly Hahn and BY WHAT AUTHORITY by Mark Shea should be in Mr. Ridenour's bibliography. They are not mentioned. You will not find your faith, regardless of what it is, adequately represented or explained in this distorted little book. Indeed, those who like this book ought to read Exodus 20:16. Those interested in the growing and grace-filled discussions between Evangelicals and Catholics should look at the August-September 2002 issue of FIRST THINGS for a reliable treatment.
|
