Religious Pluralism vs. Christian Exclusivism

Many thanks to Con for his excellent arguments!This will take some heavy contemplation to refute...________________________________R1) LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION:CHRISTIANITY v. ISLAMHere is the case outlined by Con against Religious Pluralism: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.His 1st and 2nd premises are accurate, but his 3rd premise is completely false, and thus his 4th and 5th are automatically invalidated.Case Against Con's Third Premise"One of the essential claims of Christianity is that Jesus is the unique son of God and is equal with God the father. One of the essential claims of Islam is that God has no equal and has no son... Jesus is either God or he's not God. If he's God, then Islam is false. If he's not God, then Christianity is false."In my opening arguments, I pointed out that some doctrinal differences between religions can be explained as different aspects of the same concept, and I listed "different ideas of what God really IS" as an example of such a difference.At its heart, the difference listed by Con boils down to that.^Jesus is just one of God's three forms according to the Christian theology. The term "Son of God" is more symbolic in nature, signifying origin or close association more than an actual physical relation to God. So Islam's rejection of Jesus's divinity is basically rejecting one particular form of God; it is a rejection of the Trinity.However, these different concepts of God are absolutely not mutually exclusive.It is like looking at a circle which has been divided into thirds and choosing between seeing it as a circle or seeing it as three sectors. Is either choice wrong? No; they are both correct.In the same way, God can correctly viewed as both one AND three. Islamic and Christian concepts of God are not mutually exclusive at all."...there are a few teachings that define what Christianity is and what Islam is such that if you remove those teachings, you no longer have Christianity or Islam, respectively... the fact that they differ on essential teachings does mean they cannot both be true"This is true, but the example Con has provided of "essential teachings" clashing has been shown to not be a clash at all. With the central premise of Con's case refuted, his whole case falls apart.Christianity and Islam can both be true and keep their unique identities according to Religious Pluralism.________________________________R2) LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTIONCHRISTIANITY v. ALL RELIGIONS"If any of these [essential claims of Christianity] are false, then Christianity is false. But since Pro agrees that Christianity is true (to be consistent with his pluralism), then he cannot deny any of these claims without giving up his religious pluralism."I will show why each of the given cases is false."If Jesus is the Christ, then Judaism is false."Extend the "Case Against Con's Third Premise" arguments."If There is only one God, then Hinduism is false."Hinduism is actually monotheistic. Quote from BBC:"Contrary to popular understanding, Hindus recognise one God, Brahman, the eternal origin who is the cause and foundation of all existence. The gods of the Hindu faith represent different expressions of Brahman." [1]"If God imposes moral obligations on people, then Buddhism is false"I probably should have clarified this earlier, but Religious Pluralism is only talking about THEISTIC religions. Buddhism is considered an atheistic religion by most. While I certainly do think Buddhism has some truth to it, it cannot be grouped in with the theistic religions. "If Jesus died to pay for our moral violations, then Islam is false."Extend the "Case Against Con's Third Premise" arguments."And those are all the major religions. It follows that if Christianity is true (which Pro must agree it is), it follows that it is the only major religion that is true, and therefore Christian exclusivism is true."False. None of the essential claims made by Christianity contradict those of any other religion.________________________________R3) ALL-LOVING GOD + EXCLUSIVITY" First, it [C3] fails because the damnation of all these people is not an essential claim of Christianity."The Bible is the only basis for Christian Exclusivism, so it is natural for the Bible to be the guide to all Exclusivist Christian beliefs. And the Bible is VERY clear about what happens to non-Christians [2] :"...the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord..." (2 Thessalonians 1:8)Exclusivist Christianity DOES preach the damnation of non-Christians."...it isn't true that non-Christians in various parts of the world are damned throug no fault of their own. They are at fault because they know right from wrong, and they do wrong."However, it IS through no fault of their own that they do not accept Jesus as their savior, which according to the Bible is the only possible way to be saved."As a side note, In Islam, God is not all-loving."Con will need to provide some proof of this... ________________________________CONCLUSIONSR1- Christianity and Islam's essential claims are NOT mutually exclusiveR2- Christianity's essential claims do not contradict those of ANY religionR3- Christian Exclusivism DOES violate its own concept of an all-loving GodGood luck to Con with his rebuttals! To the Voters: please do not penalize Con for his inclusion of a rebuttal within his opening argumentsSOURCES[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://biblehub.com...