Religious Pluralism vs. Christian Exclusivism

Relgious pluralism: before and after My argument in round 2 went like this:1. If religious pluralism is true, then all major religions are more or less true.2. If all religions are more or less true, then Christianity is more or less true.3. If Christianity is more or less true, then Islam is more or less false.4. If Islam is more or less false, then not all major religions are more or less true.5. Therefore, if religious pluralism is true, then religious pluralism is false.In round 3, Pro said, "His 1st and 2nd premises are accurate," but now, he's contradicting himself. Now, he disputes my first premise on the basis that "more or less equally valid" does not mean "all of them are true." I already responded to that in the second round. I defended my first premise like so:"This premise is true by the definition Pro gave of religious pluralism. He said all major religions are equally valid interpretations of the same divine reality. His use of the word "reality" implies that there is some truth behind these various interpretations. So all religious must be true under this definition of pluralism."Since Pro has been arguing as if my interpretation of religious pluralism is true, and now he's saying it's false, he has changed the meaning of the term mid-debate, effectively changing what this debate is about. That's not fair.But let's assume for the moment his new understanding. He said, "it [religious pluralism] means that they [the major theistic religions] all hold roughly the same amount of truth."This new claim is even more problematic than the original one that he conceded to, and for two reasons:First, because religious pluralism could be true even if all reigions were completely false. All atheists would be religious pluralists, which is absurd. Nobody uses "religious pluralism" that way.Second, this new interpretation of religious pluralism is impossible to defend. Let's say, hypothetically, that Judaism was right in about 67% of their interpretations of "divine reality." Pro would then have to show that Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity were also right in exactly 67% of their interpretations of "divine reality." To defend Pro's new interpretation of religious pluralism, he's got to demonstrate exactly how correct each of these religions are in their respective interpretations of divine reality, and he's got to show that they are exactly equal. Good luck with that!He obviously hasn't done that in this round or in any previous round, so by his new interpretation of religious pluralism, Pro has not carried his burden of proof, and it strikes me as being just about impossible for him to do so.Now, let's consider my own argument against Pro's new interpretation of religious pluralism. According to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there is a radical distinction between creator and creation; whereas, under Hinduism, there is no such distinction. This is a major aspect of theism, and since they can't all be correct, either Hinduism is a lot closer to "divine reality" than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or Christianity, Judaism, and Isalm are a lot closer to "divine reality" than Hinduism. Given how radically different "God" is between Hinduism and the others, it is impossible that they could all have an exactly equal amount of truth to their interpretations of divine reality. So Pro's new interpretation of religious pluralism is plainly false.Essential vs. non-essential claimsPro seems to be a little confused about the distinction I've been making about essential vs. non-essential claims. By "essential," I mean definitional to a religion. The essential claims of a religion are what make it that religion rather than a different one. The essential claims of Christianity are what make it Christianity and not some other religion.Some of these should be obvious. The word, "Christianity" comes from the word, "Christ." So if you don't have Jesus being the Christ, then you don't have Christianity. Jesus being the Christ is an essential claim of Christianity. That's why it's inconsistent with Judaism, which denies that Jesus is the Christ. The denial of Jesus being the Christ is essential to Judaism. That's why Jews universally reject Messianic Judaism is a contradiction in terms. Once a person comes to believe Jesus is the Christ, they are no longer Jews; they are Christians. So Judaism and Christianity are irreconcilable. And that's just one example of what makes them irreconcilable.God as creator is an essential claim of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and that contradicts the essential claim of Hinduism that all is Brahman. Monism is essential to Hinduism. It's what all the yogas are about--they are different methods of becoming one with Brahman. If you don't have monism, then you don't have Hinduism.I have not merely been pointing out that these religions are irreconcilable in the periphery details (or the "arms and legs," as Pro put it), but rather, they are irreconcilable in their essential claims--the claims that make these religions what they are.Christianity vs. IslamPro seems to accept my correction on the Trinity, but leaves the contradiction between Christianity and Islam unresolved. In Islam, Jesus is not God, and to call him God is blaspheme.I also pointed out that in Islam, Jesus was not crucified. Pro claims this is not essential to Islam and that the Qur'an is mistaken here. But the universal Islamic view on the Qu'ran is that they are the words of Allah himself. This view stems from the first of the five pillars of Islam--that there is one God and Muhammad is his prophet. The prophethood of Muhammad is based on the fact that the Qu'ran was revealed to him. Muslims have an even stronger view of divine inspiration than even the most conservative Christians have about the Bible. The truth of the Qu'ran is essential to Islam, which means every word of it must be true. So the claim that Jesus was not crucified is an essential claim of Islam. And since it contradicts the essential claim of Christainity that Jesus was crucified, the two religions are irreconcilable.Christianity vs. JudaismHere, Pro claims that Jesus being the messiah is a non-essential claim. But in reality, it is THE central claim of Christainity. As I said earlier, it's where the word "Christianity" came from. If Jesus isn't the Christ, then Christianity is false. So yes, it is an essential claim. It's THE essential claim.Christianity vs. HinduismPro trivializes the difference I pointed out between the Christian worldview and the Hindu worldview when it comes to the creator/creation distinction. He doesn't really argue against it, though. The external world is either an illusion, or it's not. There's either a distinction between creator and creation or there's not. Either everything is part of God, or it's not part of God. One cannot reconcile Christainity with Hinduism without either abandoning the law of non-contradiction or else doing violence to what each religions actually claims.I also pointed out the distinction between the continuous cycle of birth and rebirth in Hinduism with death and resurrection in Christianity. Pro attempts to reconcile these two views by equivocating on the words, "heaven" and "hell." But I did not use these words. The issue isn't heaven or hell. The issue is what happens after you die. Being resurrected and being reborn are completely different things.The distinction here can be further emphasized by pointing out that in Christianity, the body that dies is the same body that rises in the resurrection. That's why Jesus' tomb was empty. But if reincarnation is true, like in Hinduism, then each soul had multiple bodies. We would have to believe that each of those bodies rises in the resurrection, and one soul animates them all at the same time, which is absurd. Neither religion would accept that view. It negates the Christian claim that people die once, then face judgment, and negates the Hindu view that people escape the cycle of birth and rebirth by being absorbed back into Brahman. They are radically different worldviews.I predicted at the beginning of this debate that Pro would attempt to reconcile these religions by equivocating on the various words they use to explain their claims, and that's exactly what Pro has done. If you equivocate on words, you're not really reconciling anything. You have to deal with what these various religions actually mean by the words they use. Christians and Hindus mean radically different things when they talk about the nature of reality, God, life, and death.Christian exclusivityChristian exclusivism is simply the belief that Christianity alone is true. It has nothing to do with whether non-Christians are going to hell or not. A person could be a Christian exlucsivist even if they thought everybody was going to heaven. So Pro's claim that Christian exclusivism entails that only Christians are going to heaven is just false. The Catholic Church is a living example of this. They claim to be the only legitimate Christian church, yet they deny that only Catholics are saved.Pro originally disputed that God is all-loving on the basis that people suffer punishment through no fault of their own. I don't get the impression that Pro has understood the simple point I've made. If you know right from wrong, and you do wrong, then you are at fault. The only way you could NOT be at fault is if you didn't know right from wrong or your action was an accident. Whether everybody has access to a pardon or not is irrelevant to whether it is their fault that they are punished for their sins.Think about it for a second. Every now and then, the President offers some people a pardon. Does it follow that everybody who stays in prison and who didn't get a pardon is in prison through no fault of their own? Of course not! They're in prison for their crimes! If they did those crimes on purpose, then they are at fault, whether they were offered a pardon or not.