Christianity and World Religions: Exploring the Differences

* Notes from a talk I gave to a church high school group a few years ago.

Christianity and World Religions: Exploring the Differences

 

1.     Question: What are some other religions besides Christianity?  (List on board)

 

2.     Big topic!

 

a.     Christian teaching  show H. Bavinck’s 4 volumes

 

b.     Hinduism and Buddhism have extensive Scriptures

 

c.     Q: How can we do an overview without being overly superficial?

 

3.     Analogy: Tool chest vs. Leatherman tool

 

a.     Leatherman:

 

                                               i.     Portable

                                             ii.     Effective

                                            iii.     Doesn’t do everything but it does a great deal!

 

b.     We need a “Leatherman tool” for religions

 

4.     Absolute Personality as our “Leatherman” concept[1]

 

a.     Absolute

 

                                               i.     Creator and Sustainer of all things

 

                                             ii.     He has no need for anything else for his existence: Acts 17.25

 

                                            iii.     Self-existent and self-sufficient

 

                                            iv.     Nothing brought him into being and nothing can destroy him

 

1.     He always was: Psalm 90.2; 93.2; John 1.1

2.     He always will be: Deuteronomy 32.40; Psalm 102.26-27; 1 Timothy 6.16; Hebrews 1.10-12; Revelation 10.6

 

                                              v.     Lord of time (timeless): Psalm 90, esp. v. 4; Galatians 4.4; Ephesians 1.11; 2 Peter 3.8

 

                                            vi.     He knows all times and spaces with equal perfection: Isaiah 41.4; 44.7-8

 

                                          vii.     Answer to question 4 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

·      God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

 

b.     Personality

 

                                               i.     Capable of relationship

 

                                             ii.     Speaks/reveals himself

 

                                            iii.     Experiences wrath and anger

 

                                            iv.     Loves and forgives

 

                                              v.     Tri-personal  Trinity

 

5.     Exercise: Break up into two groups; look at a passage of Scripture and find the elements of Absolute Personality in these passages; make a chart

 

a.     Isaiah 40.9-31

 

Absolute	Personality
v. 10—might; arm ruling	v. 10—judge (reward + recompense)
v. 12—measured waters and heavens	v. 11—gentle shepherd who tends his flock
v. 13-14—no one has directed or helped him	v. 14—justice (needs a person to make sense)
v. 15-17—greater than all nations put together	v. 27-31—God cares for his people; gives strength to the weary
v. 18—no one like him
v. 22—sits above the earth; stretches out heavens
v. 23-24—powerful over all rulers and judges
v. 25—no one like him or equal to him
v. 26—Creator of all the stars
v. 28—Everlasting; Creator

 

 

b.     Acts 17.22-31

 

Absolute	Personality
v. 24—Creator of all things	v. 27—we can seek him
v. 25—he doesn’t need anything	v. 30—patient (“overlooked the times of ignorance”)
v. 25—he gives to all life and breath and all things	v. 30—speaks and calls for repentance
v. 26—made humankind and nations	v. 31—judges the world in righteousness through a Man
v. 26—sovereign over history	v. 31—speaks through the miracle of the resurrection
v. 27-28—Immensity +omnipresence (“not far from each one of us”
v. 29—not created by thought of humans

 

 

6.     Absolute Personality  unique combination (“Leatherman” concept!)

 

7.     Let’s try our “Absolute Personality” Leatherman to some religions

 

8.     Hinduism

 

a.     Difficult to describe

 

                                               i.     Multiple layers

                                             ii.     Multiple Scriptures

                                            iii.     Multiple expressions

                                            iv.     Theistic, pantheistic, polytheistic—?? 

 

b.     Many gods  Polytheism

 

                                               i.     Brahma: Creator

                                             ii.     Vishnu: Protector

                                            iii.     Shiva: Destroyer

 

                                            iv.     Apply our Absolute Personality concept:

 

·      Absolute: no

·      Personal: yes

                                                                                                     i.     Have I aligned myself with the right god? the most powerful one? the good one?

                                                                                                   ii.     These personal gods are part of something greater…

 

c.     Pantheism  everything is “god”

 

                                               i.     Atman is Brahman (from the Upanishads)

 

·      The soul of each and every human being is the Soul of the Cosmos

·      We are all “god”—the one, infinite, impersonal reality

 

                                             ii.     Maya  illusion that keeps us from seeing the oneness of all reality

 

                                            iii.     Karma and reincarnation  leading to moksha (liberation)

 

                                            iv.     Apply our Absolute Personality concept:

 

1.     Absolute: Yes

2.     Personality: No

 

                                              v.     Implications:

 

1.     Our human personality is meant to be extinguished in the great ocean of oneness

2.     “Scriptures” can be contradictory and never complete

 

·      Truth and falsity are also one

·      Language brings division

·      Experience is the fundamental reality; words cannot adequately describe ultimate reality

 

9.     Buddhism

 

a.     Again, difficult to describe in short form every kind of Buddhism

 

b.     Buddhism develops into different schools in its historical development

 

                                               i.     Theravada and Mahayana forms of Buddhism

 

·      Mahayana: yana = raft; ferry // maha = great

 

·      Hinayana = little raft; prefer to call their view Theravada

 

                                             ii.     Theravada Buddhism is more in line with the content of Buddha’s teaching as found in the Pali canon.

 

                                            iii.     Comparison chart (Huston Smith, The World’s Religions, 126)

 

THERAVADA	MAHAYANA
Human beings are emancipated by self-effort, without supernatural aid.	Human aspirations are supported by divine powers and they grace they bestow.
Key virtue: Wisdom.	Key virtue: Compassion.
Attainment requires constant commitment, and is primarily for monks and nuns.	Religious practice is relevant to life in the world, and therefore to laypeople.
Ideal: the Arhat who remains in nirvana after death.	Ideal: the bodhisattva .
Buddha a saint, supreme teacher, and inspirer.	Buddha a savior.
Minimizes metaphysics.	Elaborates metaphysics.
Minimizes ritual.	Emphasizes ritual.
Practice centers on meditation.	Includes petitionary prayer.

 

 

 

 

c.     Key concepts:

 

                                               i.     Nothing is permanent including the human personality

 

                                             ii.     Sorrow and suffering is part of all seeming individuality

 

                                            iii.     No soul (anatman)  individuality is an illusion

 

 

                                            iv.     Four Noble Truths[2]

 

First Noble Truth	The existence of suffering (dukkha).  Life is dislocated and out of joint.
Second Noble Truth	The cause of suffering is desire (tanha).  Our lives are driven by desires and craving.
Third Noble Truth	The ending of desire and suffering by “blowing out” the flame of desire in each one of us.
Fourth Noble Truth	There is a path that leads to the ending of desire—“the eightfold path.”

 

                                              v.     Eightfold Path[3]

 

1.  Right Views	You must accept the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path.
2.  Right Resolve	You must renounce the pleasures of the senses; you must harbor no ill will toward anyone and harm no living creature.
3.  Right Speech	Do no lie; do not slander or abuse anyone.  Do not indulge in idle talk.
4.  Right Behavior[4]	Do not destroy any living creature; take only what is given to you; do not commit any unlawful sexual act.
5.  Right Occupation	You must earn your livelihood in a way that will harm no one.
6.  Right Effort	You must resolve and strive heroically to prevent any evil qualities from arising in you and to abandon any evil qualities that you may possess.  Strive to acquire good qualities and encourage those you do possess to grow, increase and be perfected.
7.  Right Contemplation[5]	Be observant, strenuous, alert, contemplative, free of desire and sorrow.
8.  Right Meditation	When you have abandoned all sensuous pleasures, all evil qualities, both joy and sorrow, you must then enter the four degrees of meditation, which are produced b concentration.

 

 

 

d.     Karma, transmigration (like reincarnation but no soul transferred), and Nirvana

 

e.     Apply our Absolute Personality concept

 

                                               i.     Absolute: Yes, there is a form of it

                                             ii.     Personality: No

 

f.      Implications:

 

                                               i.     No grace

                                             ii.     No communion with a personal God

                                            iii.     “Salvation” is attained by the self but there is no self in Buddhism!

 

In religion it is not enough for people to do the best that they can. That can never be enough. Our life is more perilous than that. Everything is on fire. We cannot put out the flames, for we too are engulfed. I pray to Jesus Christ not because he was the teacher who showed us how to do the best we can, but because he is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Miserere mei, Domine (have mercy on me, O God).  –John Buescher (former Tibetan Buddhist who came back to Catholicism)

 

10. Islam

 

a.     View of God

 

                                               i.     Absolute Creator and Judge

 

·      Allahu akbar  “God is greater” (than all else)

 

·      Allah is so far above mankind that he is almost impersonally related

 

                                             ii.     Unitarian view of God  denial of Trinity

 

·      Tahwid  God’s absolute oneness

 

                                            iii.     Exalted view of God’s sovereignty

 

                                            iv.     No crucifixion; no atonement

 

                                              v.     No guarantee of forgiveness from Allah; Allah is so sovereign he can override all your good deeds

 

b.     Using our Absolute Personality concept:

 

                                               i.     Absolute: Yes

                                             ii.     Personal: Not really; due to Allah’s lofty state

 

c.     Importance of the Trinity

 

                                               i.     Eternally a Three-person relationship

 

                                             ii.     Love is an eternally expressed attribute of God!

 

                                            iii.     “So in order for Allah to actually be gracious and merciful, he has to first create the universe.  In other words, Allah is dependent upon his creation in order to be Allah.  He cannot be ar-Rahman[gracious] or ar-Raheem [merciful] until he creates the world to be gracious or merciful toward.  Allah’s qualities are contingent upon creation.  Therefore it is irrational to say, as does traditional Islamic teaching, that Allah is intrinsically gracious or merciful or any other relational attribute, whether found in the ninety-nine names or not.  If Allah is a monad, he needs his creation to be relational.”[6]

 

d.     Implications:

 

                                               i.     No communion with God in Islam

                                             ii.     No assurance of forgiveness

                                            iii.     Allah is ultimate power and you submit to power; you don’t need to love it

 

11. Other religions… polytheism (Asatru) or even atheism  apply Absolute Personality concept

 

12. Review

 

a.     God the Bible is unique  Absolute Personality

 

b.     Other religions compromise on this or borrow elements from the biblical view

 

c.     Glory and worship with this truth  the Absolute God loves you!  You can know him and be known by him!

---

     [1] I am using this concept as developed and taught by John Frame in Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief—2^nd ed. (Presbyterian & Reformed, 2015), 34-39.

     [2] Another way to put the four noble truths: (1) The truth of dukkha, (2) the truth of the origin of dukkha, (3) the truth of the cessation of dukkha, and (4) the truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha.

     [3] There are various ways to describe the eight elements of the Eightfold Path.  These definitions and wording come from Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Understanding Non-Christian Religions (California: Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., 1982), 51-52.

     [4] The Five Precepts: (1) Do not kill, (2) Do not steal, (3) Do not lie, (4) Do not be unchaste, and (5) Do not drink intoxicants. (Huston Smith, 107-108)

     [5] “The Buddha saw ignorance, not sin, as the offender.  More precisely, insofar as sin is our fault, it is prompted by a more fundamental ignorance—most specifically, the ignorance of our true nature.” Huston Smith, The World’s Religions (New York: Harper Collins, 1991), 109-110.

     [6] Nabeel Quereshi No God But One: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity (Zondervan, 2016), 66.

Some Summer Reading: Closed Classrooms, AI, and Frankenstein

 * An email I sent to a Christian Professors Group I am part of--talking about some of recent reading I've done.

It's almost time for the new semester to start!  Who's ready?!

I hope your summer is going well.  I've been able to read a number of good books and articles.  Here are some interesting items of note:

1.  An interview from The Chronicle of Higher Education--"These Scholarly Topics Are Hotly Debated. So Why Don't Syllabi Reflect That?" (July 22, 2025).  The interview is with the authors of the working paper, "Closed Classrooms? An Analysis of College Syllabi on Contentious Issues."  The authors examined the syllabi of courses on controversial topics such as (1) racial bias in the American criminal justice system, (2) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and (3) the ethics of abortion.  The authors are interested "in whether students are exposed to a broad spectrum of the most reputable and informed thinkers, which includes professors and, in some cases, well-regarded intellectuals and writers outside of academia."  They examined key thinkers in the above areas--often from a more left-leaning perspective--and noticed that when these thinkers were used in various classes they were very often not paired with responsible counter-voices to balance the teaching perspective.  They write:

To varying degrees, we found strong asymmetery: While some of the most important voices like Alexander's, Said's and Thomson's are routinely taught, their critics are not generally assigned along with them.  And when we flip the analysis to see how often the critics are assigned along with the canonical texts, we find that they generally are taught together.  In other words, in the compartively rare cases when these critics are assigned, they are apparently taught to widen the conversation, not cement a different orthodoxy.  That suggests a minority of professors do teach these intellectual controversies.

 

On the whole, though, it seems that professors generally insulate their students from the wider intellectual disagreement that shape these important controversies.  That is the academic norm.  This is a problem we must collectively remedy."

I took a special interest in this article since I do teach on the ethics of abortion and I do teach both sides.  I have my students read the famous Judith Jarvis Thomson essay in defense of abortion and I pair it with pro-life philosopher Francis Beckwith's article critiquing Thomson's argument.  Although in the minority, it felt good to be among the forces in higher education promoting critical thinking!

2.  A recent article over at Mind Matters (a good website I encourage you to check out!), Jeffrey Funk has a link-filled article entitled, "AI in Education: Is the System Being Gamed--or the Student?" (July 30, 2025).  Here is just one set of comments relevant to what is happening to our students: 

Using generative AI as a friend or therapist is also becoming popular across all ages. A survey of 1,060 teens aged 13 to 17 across the US ‘found that around three in four kids have used AI companions,” “with over half of surveyed teens qualifying as regular users of AI companions, meaning they log on to talk to the bots at least a few times per month.” (Futurism)

 

The results are not good. “A troubling number of ChatGPT users, both young and old, are falling into states of delusion and paranoia following extensive use of the OpenAI bot.” Perhaps they are driven by the tech’s sycophantic behavior or its penchant for being flattering, agreeable, and obsequious to users. These chats can “culminate in breaks with reality and significant real-world consequences, which include the dissolution of marriages and families, job loss, homelessness, voluntary and involuntary stays in mental health facilities,” and death. (Futurism)

 

More serious uses of large-language model (LLMs) also have their dark side. Writing articles for the Internet with them has produced what some people call the “enshittification” of the Internet or “slopaganda.” The Financial Times says: from enshittification to slop and slopaganda, many people are claiming that the internet is on the decline, and generative AI is contributing to that decline. “The last bits of fellowship and ingenuity on the web are being swept away by a tide of  so-called artificial intelligence.” Some are also worried that bad actors can use ChatGPT to produce mass postings on almost any topic and any political persuasion to foment dissent in America. (Wall Street Journal)

 

3. Lastly, I'm currently reading (re-reading, really, since I read it over 30 years ago!) Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.  I'm only about a third into it but it is fascinating to see the pride and hubris of Dr. Victor Frankenstein--a trait not unknown to some of our contemporary scientists who work in Artificial Intelligence!

So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein, more, far more, will I achieve: treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.

Here the quest takes him to consider the resurrection of dead bodies and immortality through science: (transhumanism, anybody?)

Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world.  A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.  No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs.  Pursuing these reflections, I thought, that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.

 

 These thoughts supported my spirits, while I pursued my undertaking with unremitting ardour.

What have you been reading?  Let us all know--remember to "reply all."

Teaching and the Quest for Classroom Neutrality

* A recent email I sent out to a Christian Professors Group I am part of:

Recently I was at a Starbucks doing some reading.  I read three interesting pieces that are all, in one way or another, relevant to our roles as Christians in higher education.

1. "Conservative(s) Teaching and Classroom Neutrality" by Christopher Tollefson

2.  "Can 'Fear Equity' Revive Campus Free Speech?" by Lee Jussim and Robert Maranto

3.  "The Radicalization of the American Academy" by Lee Jussim, et. al. 

Here I want to focus on the first short article by Tollefson.  He addresses the issue of the divide between those who attempt to use the classroom for progressive advocacy and, on the other hand, those who promote complete neutrality on the professor's behalf.  Tollefson asks us to consider "a third way to approach as least some difficult issues in the classroom, one that departs from the strategy of neutrality."  Tollefson gives his experience as a template.  In his medical ethics classes he will assign his own work defending the humanity of the human embryo along with argumentation against the destruction of embryos.  His students know where he stands on this controversial issue.  He also assigns readings from diverse perspectives but his students know that their professor is not "neutral" on this issue.  He speaks to the value of this pedagogy:

First, what is modeled in the classroom is not simply the presentation of arguments and critical thought, but the presentation of arguments and critical thought in defense of what is believed to be true.  And this matters.  Classroom neutrality can be important and appropriate in various ways, but it risks what neutrality-based approaches to politics risk: that it suggests to students that there is no truth, only arguments, and that their presentation and criticisim on all sides is as much an intellectual game as anything else.

 

 But that is not where we want our students to end up: we want them to argue for the sake of getting at, and defending, the truth.  And while this can be encouraged by who takes no side in the argument, it is shown by one who defends a position because, as he says, he believes it to be true.

 

 Second, what is likewise modeled and shown is that the project of defending what is believed to be true can be done in a good spirit, with goodwill, and with respect for all participants.  When this approach is successful (I am not saying that I am successful in it!) then intellectual opponents will have become as good intellectual friends as intellectual allies will be.

I have actually taken this approach in my Philosophy 101 classes.  About week 6 or 7 my students read an article I wrote (based on a public presentation I gave at GCC) on "Why Science Needs God." After reading this, the students know I believe in God and am arguing for a certain relationship between science and religion.  I have the students evaluate the paper and tell them that some of the best papers I have received on this assignment are from those who have disagreed with me.  I also tell them that there is a problem with the paper that has been pointed out by students--and that I agree with the criticism!  

I would encourage you to read Tollefson's piece and see how it might affect your classroom presentations.  Do you agree or disagree with his thoughts?  How do you (or, how could you) take Tollefson's approach in your classroom with your content?

One last thing... last semester I wrote a piece for the GCC CTLE's blog.  It looks at some of the issues from the above essays.  I tried to create the space for increased conversations by those who are ideologically and philosophically divided.  Take a look and see what you think--"Crossing Cultural Divides with 'Adversarial Collaboration'"