Burton highlights the complexity of Buddhist attitudes to religious experience, thus challenging a western overemphasis on the role of personal experience and subjective factors in Buddhist religious experience, to the neglect of such social factors as rituals and scriptural components. He considers whether the Buddhist doctrine of no enduring, unchanging self can be justified by introspective experience, and he observes that this is a matter of controversy among Buddhist scholars.

Bowie focuses on some experiences that are self-described or described by others as being “religious,” in order to explore what qualifies an experience to be extraordinary and miraculous. She uses two case studies to illustrate the role experience plays in extraordinary and miraculous events and the relation they have to mystical experience, one involving a near-death experience and the other involving apparitions of Mary.

Peterson focuses on some theoretical and practical matters regarding the experience of evil and suffering in Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, with attention to their providing resources for responding to evil and suffering. Noting that different interpretive categories produce different directives for responding, he finds that the responses across religious traditions are significant for engaging with human experience while increasing awareness of our shared humanity.

Chittick focuses on Sufism or “Islamic mysticism” as a prominent influence in Islamic history regarding religious experience, noting that its mystical emphasis among Muslims traces back to Mohammad and the Qur’an.He finds that according to the Sufi literature of Ibn Arabi, a soul must be prepared for mystical experience to reap its benefits and to avoid the mistaken assumption that it removes one from the obligation to follow the teachings of the Qur’an.

Focusing on Confucianism and Daoism, Yao suggests that religious experience in these Chinese traditions falls into two broad categories: the human-centered and the transcendent-centered. Even so, he finds that the traditions agree in their tending to include an ultimate concern about human life and human destiny reflected in personal, familiar, and social matters, and that they typically associate their religious experiences with practices that, via self-cultivation, nourish a good human life.

Dunn identifies two foundational types ofmotivating experiences in earliest Christianity: postmortem appearances of Jesus and the first disciples’ Pentecost experiences. He regards the experiences of the apostle Paul as particularly illustrative of early Christianity, featuring the liberating power of the Spirit and of being “in Christ,” experiencing the Spirit of God as the Spirit of Jesus, and the shared experience of believers as members of the body of Christ.

Wiebe examines a historical shift from deductive inference to inductive inference and then to abductive methodological approaches in philosophy and science, with regard to their bearing on religious experience. In addition, he remarks on a "theory of Spirits" that postulates theoretical entities for explanatory purposes in connection with religious phenomena, and he suggests that a new epistemology of religious experience is needed for adequate explanatory purposes.

Katz examines mystical experience in relation to the tendency that its content turns out to be what the mystic desires it to be, and he suggests that this tendency is not to be accounted for by the nature of the mystical experience itself. Instead, he proposes that the ineffable and ecstatic experiences of mystics are expressed by them from within the traditions they follow, thus influencing their characterizations of their mystical experiences.

According to Griffith-Dickson, a theological enquiry that aims to understand the significance of religious experience as a whole must engage with the reality of religious diversity, including the place of religious "others." She explores some ways that such understanding has been sought, including through a theology of religions, comparative theology, interreligious theology, and interfaith dialogue, while emphasizing the value of such understanding.

An ideal called ‘the rule of law’ has won praise since ancient times from a diverse band of enthusiasts ranging from Aristotle and John Locke to the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. This apparent consensus, one that impressively bridges temporal, cultural and ideological divides, partly reflects the obvious fact that the phrase ‘the rule of law’ means different things to different people.1 One can, without linguistic impropriety, use this expression to refer to a number of significant though distinct ideas, or indeed to no clear idea whatsoever. To make progress, we must disentangle some of these ideas before trying to identify and elaborate the most compelling or fruitful version(s) of the rule of law.

Comparing the letters to the Philippians and to Philemon brings to light important aspects of Paul’s thought and practice – in particular, how certain key theological commitments are practically enacted when they encounter situational differences. Capturing a sense of what Paul is doing in these letters is best done by grasping what the problems were that he was addressing and considering how the letters deploy a set of rhetorical strategies to resolve those problems. The specific contextualized instantiation of Jesus-like relationships in Colossae is clearly different from its instantiation in Philippi; but the underlying strategy of mobilizing a story of Jesus (both conceptually by letter, as well as directly and personally through a disciple or envoy) remains the same. Paul clearly believes that Jesus, rightly understood and rightly followed, makes a difference to the basic issue that tends to concern all communities, namely, how people relate to one another.