Religious Pluralism vs. Christian Exclusivism

That was a well-written opening! Let's pause and give that man a hand! Now let's sit back down and refute his arguments. :-) This is my argument in a nut shell. 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 other worlds, religious pluralism is self-refuting. Now let me defend these premises.1. If religious pluralism is true, then all major religions are more or less true.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.2. If all religions are more or less true, then Christianity is more or less true.This second premise is true because Christianity is a religion.3. If Christianity is more or less true, then Islam is more or less false.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.Pro anticipated this argument when he said that "Religious Pluralism does NOT mandate that every part of every religion is true." The problem with his response is that he fails to make a distinction between essential teachings and non-essential teachings. Christians differ amongst themselves on a variety of issues, and so do Muslims. HOwever, 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.For example, if Jesus doesn't return before the great tribulation, then Christianity could still be true. But if Jesus is not teh son of God, then Christianity cannot be true because Jesus being the son of God is an essential teaching of Christianity.The fact that Christianity and Islam differ in their non-essential teachings does not mean they can't both be true. However, the fact that they differ on essential teachings does mean they cannot both be true. 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. But under no circumstances can they both be true.4. If Islam is more or less false, then not all major religions are more or less true.This premise is true because Islam is one of the major religions.5. Therefore, if religious pluralism is true, then religious pluralism is false.This follows from 1-4 by the transitive property.Now, I need not prove that Christianity is true since Pro subscribes to religious pluralism. To be consistent, he must already acknowledge that Christianity is true. If he denies that Christianity is true, then he must deny religious pluralism since Christianity is one of the major religions.So the only question is whether Christianity is exclusively true.Pro thinks that the only argument for the exclusivity of Christianity is the explicit statements of exclusivity in the Bible. But that is false. There is also the argument from the law of non-contradiction, which Pro unsuccessfully attempted to address. The essential claims of Christianity are these:1. There is one and only one God.2. God imposes moral obligations on people.3. People disobey their moral obligations.4. God punishes people for their moral violations.5. Jesus is the Christ.6. Jesus died to pay for our moral violations.7. Jesus was raised from the dead.If any of these 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.If Jesus is the Christ, then Judaism is false.If There is only one God, then Hinduism is false.If God imposes moral obligations on people, then Buddhism is false.If Jesus died to pay for our moral violations, then Islam is false.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.Now let me address one last argument Pro made against the exlusivity of Christianity. He claims that it violates the concept of an all-loving God.As a side note, In Islam, God is not all-loving. Pro stipulated that "For the purposes of this debate, we'll be assuming the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God." That very stipulation refutes religious pluralism.Anyway, the reason Pro thinks Christian exlusivity violates the concept of an all-loving God is that it entails that billions of people will be damned through no fault of their own since they had no control over where they were born or what religion they were born into.This argument fails for two reasons. First, it fails because the damnation of all these people is not an essential claim of Christianity. He already acknowledge earlier that religious pluralism does not entail that every part of a religion is true. The Catholic Church denies the claim that all non-Christians are damned. So Pro's premise is false.But even if Pro's premise (that all non-Christians are damned), it would still not follow that people are damned through no fault of their own. Notice the essential claims of Christianity I listed above. The claim of Christianity isn't that people are damned because they didn't convert to Christianity. Rather, the claim is that they are damned because of their moral violations. One does not need to be a Christian (or to even have knowledge of Christianity) in order to know right from wrong. So 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. Everybody violates their moral obligations. Nobody is perfect. If there WERE a perfect person out there somewhere, then that person would not be damned.So Pro's argument against Christian exclusivity is fallacious on two counts.