It made me anxious that Christians were in danger of being outdone in the “love and mercy” department by other creeds.
If Christianity is true and Buddhism is false then it makes no sense to ask if Christianity is more moral than Buddhism. Additionally, if Buddhism is true and Christianity is false then it makes no more sense to ask if Christianity is more moral than Buddhism. First, reality gets a vote. After that morality is a pragmatic tool. By that I mean that morality is either/or. Something is either moral or it is not moral. When a worldview, philosophy, or idea is not moral it puts into question the coherence of that worldview, philosophy, or idea. If Christianity or any Christian idea is immoral then Christianity or that Christian idea is not coherent. The same is true of Buddhism or any Buddhist idea. Of course this assumes that your understanding of Christianity or Buddhism is the proper understanding or that your understanding of an idea is the Christian or Buddhist’s actual understanding. If not then it is not Christian or Buddhist coherence that is under question bot your own. This is what I suspect in the authors case. I suspect that he is presenting a Christian idea of hell that is not really the Christian idea of hell. Again, the definition of straw man.
