Religious Pluralism vs. Christian Exclusivism

"To the Voters: please do not penalize Con for his inclusion of a rebuttal within his opening arguments" Thank you! I guess to be fair, we should also cut Pro some slack for originally including "all major religions" in his religious pluralism, then excluding Buddhism in this round and saying, "all major theistic religions." I was about to jump all over that!The case against pluralismSince Pro has conceded most of my premises, my case against religious pluralism boils down to the third premise and whether Christianity being true entails that Islam is false. My argument is that some of the essential teachings of Christainity contradict some of the essential teachings of Islam. Pro's strategy is to reinterpret what Christians mean when they say Jesus is the son of God, equal with God, etc.But if you pour a meaning into the words that differs from what Christians and Muslims mean when they use those words, then you're just not accurately representing the Christian and Muslim views. And if you're not accurately representing Christian and Muslim views, then you're not really reconciling their views. You're only recognizing a mischaracterization of their views.To Muslims, Jesus was a great prophet, but nothing more. He was a created being. He is not equal with the God in any sense. In Christianity, Jesus is uncreated. He is equal with the Father. And he is not merely one of three forms of God. That's a heresy known as modalism. Rather, Jesus is a distinct person from God the Father. Not only does that directly contradict the essential teachings of Islam, but it's even an unforgivable sin.[1]Another contradiction between Islam and Christianity is that in Christianity, Jesus was crucified to atone for sins, but in Islam, Jesus was not crucified at all (Surah 4:157-158).The case for Christian exclusivismSince we're limiting ourselves to "all major theistic religions," I assume this just includes Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and islam. Pro has no disputed that Christianity is true (and he can't without conceding the debate), so Christian exclusivism came down to whether Christianity entailed that these other religions are false.I've already argued that Christianity being true entails that Islam is false, so let's look at the others.In the previous round, I said that if Jesus is the Christ, then Judaism is false. Pro answered by saying, "Extend the 'Case Against Con's Third Premise' arguments." But nothing he said there is relevant to whether Jesus being the Christ contradicts Judaism, so he hasn't really addressed the argument.Let me expand on it a little. In both Judaism and Christianity, "Christ" or "messiah" means something specific. It refers to the person who will sit on the throne of David in fulfillment of God's promise to always have a man on the throne of David. In other words, the messiah is the eschatological king. Christians believe Jesus is that person. Jews deny that Jesus is that person. He either is or he isn't. If it isn't, then Christianity is false. If he is, then Judaism is false. They can't both be true. The only way Pro can reconcile them is to distort the meaning of "Christ" so that he's no longer talking about the Christian view or the Jewish view.Now, let's look at Hinduism. I argued there that Christian monotheism is inconsistent with Hindu polytheism. Pro's response is correct. There is a sense in which Hinduism is monotheistic. In fact, Hinduism is monistic. Not only is Braham the only God, but Braham is the only thing whatsoever. The Hindu worldview is completely different than the Christian worldview. In Christianity, there is a creation and a creator and a radical distinction between them. Many things and persons exist in Christianity. But in Hinduism, these distinctions are illusions since only Braham exists. We are all part of Braham. There is no creation/creator distinction in Hinduism. Rather, all things are one, and eventually, they will all be absorbed back into Brahman. In Hinduism, there's a sense in which we are all God since we are all part of Brahman. But that is not true in Christianity.Also, in Hinduism, all living things are on a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, but in Christianity, people die once before facing judgment (Hebrews 9:27). Christians believe in a resurrection to eternal life, not a cotinuous cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. In Hinduism, your next incarnation is determined by how you lived your previous life. It isn't a judgment; it's just a law of nature of sorts. In Christianity, a personal God judges you (or forgives you) for your sins.So the worldviews of Christianity and Hinduism are irreconcilable. Again, Pro's only hope is to mischaracterize what Christianity and Hinduism actually teach in an effort to reconcile them, but then that's no reconciliation!Pro's argument against Christian exclusivismPro argues that if Christian exclusivism is true, then billions of people are damned through no fault of their own, which is inconsistent with an all-loving God, so the Bible's claims of exclusivity must be false.I said the damnation of all non-Christians is not an essential teaching of Christianity and that Catholics do not believe all non-Christians will be damned. Pro responded by pointing out that the Bible clearly teaches the damnation of all non-Christians. But notice that Pro is being inconsistent here. On the one hand, he thinks Christianity can be true even if not everything in the Bible is true, which is how he maintains his pluralism in spite of the Bible's claims to exclusivity. But now he's saying that just because the Bible teaches the damnation of all non-Christians that it therefore must be an essential teaching of Christianity. He can't have it both ways. If whatever the Bible teaches is essential to Christianity, then Christian exclusivism is essential to Christianity and pluralism is therefore false. But if it's not, then the fact that the Bible teaches the damnation of all non-Christians does not make it an essential Christian doctrine. Either way, Pro's point of vievw is refuted.I also pointed out in the last round that it isn't through no fault of their own that non-Christians are damned since they are damned for their moral failures and they do know right from wrong. Pro's response suffers from irrelevance. He doesn't dispute what I just said. Instead he points out that it is through no fault of their own that they don't accept Jesus and gain salvation. He's right, but the comment does not negate what I said.Pro asked for a source for my claim that God is not all loving in Islam. I'm just going to drop this point because I think I have enough already to make my case.1. http://www.islamforamal.com...