Religious Pluralism vs. Christian Exclusivism

The changed meaning of religious pluralismPro has a misunderstanding of what I think is unfair. Pro is under the impression that I'm objecting because he waited until late in the game to object to my first premise, but that isn't the issue at all. Pro didn't simply wait to object to the first premise. Rather, he conceded my first premise! By conceding my first premise, he was implicitly agreeing with my interpretation of religious pluralism. Now he claims that I miscontrued religious pluralism when he himself agreed with the supposed misconstrual. By once having agreed with my interpretation of religious pluralism, and now taking issue with it, Pro has effectively changed the meaning of "religious pluralism" in the middle of the debate and therefore changed what this debate is really about. That's what I'm calling unfair. It isn't fair to operate under one definition of religious pluralism, then once that construal is refuted, switch definitions and pretend like your point of view hasn't been refuted. My strategy for showing that religious pluralism is false is to show that the various religions contradict each other in their essential teachings. Originally, Pro attempted to show that they did not contradict each other in their essential teachings, so he was again implicitely agreeing with my understanding of religious pluralism. His new definition entails that each of the major theistic religions is correct by "more or less" the same amount, regardless of how much that amount is. In fact, they could all be completely wrong, and as long as they're wrong by the same amount, religious pluralism would still be true. I spelled out what Pro would need to do to defend this new definition of religious pluralism. He'd have to tell us exactly how true each religion was and show that they were exactly equal in the amount they got wrong and the amount they got right. He responded by appealing to his "more or less" clause. Well, exactly how much is "more or less"? He doesn't tell us. This just waters down his definition of religious pluralism even more. If it turned out that Christianity was right about 67%, and Islam was right about 45%, Pro could say, "Well, I only said 'more or less,' not 'exactly'! " Pro's religious pluralism has died the death of a thousand qualifications. It's basically reduced to meaninglessness. I think it's fair to say it's been refuted. But even if Pro meant something meaningful by "more or less," he still hasn't carried his burden of proof. He hasn't even shown that the various religions have approximately the same amount right and the same amount wrong. Where in the debate did he ever tell us just how true each of the religions are? Nowhere! Pro hasn't so much as attempted to defend his new definition of religious pluralism. Jews and ChristiansI've attempted to show that Christianity and Judaism are irreconcilable because they differ on whether Jesus is the messiah. Pro doesn't dispute that they differ on this issue. He just denies that Jesus being the messiah is essential to Christianity. I think my case is overwhelmingly stronger than Pro's, and he hasn't really done anything in this round to overcome my argument. I'll just leave it to the voters to decide. Muslims and ChristiansI showed that Christians and Muslims differ on the question of whether or not Jesus is God, which is essential to both religions. Pro claims I ignored his argument, but what I really did is dismiss his argument as irrelevant. By the law of excluded middle, Jesus is either God, or he's not. It cannot be both. If Pro is going to say Muslims just don't see Jesus as one of the "forms" of God, then what could that mean except that Muslims deny Jesus is God, which is the very thing I said? Of course they don't see God the same way Christians, do! That's why I said their views are irreconcilable. I pointed out that the divine origin of the Qur'an is essential to Islam. Pro denies my claim on the basis that the Qur'an may not be divine after all. But whether it is, in fact, divine is irrelevant to whether the belief and teaching that the Qur'an has a divine origin is essential to Islam. If Pro thinks it's not an essential doctrine in Islam, then he just doesn't understand Islam. The reason the centrality of the Qur'an is relevant is because it states that Jesus was not crucified, which makes the non-crucifixion of Jesus an essential teaching of Islam, whereas the crucifixion of Jesus is an essential teaching of Christianity. Therefore, they can't both be true. Islam and Christianity are irreconcilable because they differ on their respective essential doctrines. Hindus and ChristiansI pointed out that Hindu monism is irreconcilable with the creator/creation distinction in Christianity. Pro claims I ignored the possibilty that God created the world out of himself, supposedly reconciling the two views. But this does violence to what each religion means. Pro isn't reconciling Hinduism and Christianity. Rather, he's misconstruing the views of each, then reconciling the misconstrual. In Hinduism, all is God, and all appearance of distinction is illusion. In Christianity, there is a radical distinction between created things and the one uncreated God, and this distinction is not an illusion. The world actually came into existence. it wasn't made out of God. It is distinct from God. In Hinduism, each person has Atman (the God within), and each person is God in some sense. In Christianity, we are mere creatures. We are not God in any sense. We're not even part of God. I also pointed out the differences between beliefs about the after life in Christianity in Hinduism. In Christianity, people die once, then are physically raised from the dead, then face a final judgment. In Hinduism, they die, are reborn, then die again in a continuous cycle until they eventually escape the cycle and are absorbed back into Brahman. Pro again tries to reconcile these two views by misconstruing them. Being reborn in Hinduism is not due to the judgment of a personal God, but simply the result of how the previous life was lived. There is no judgment in Hinduism, and Brahman is not a personal God. And there is no rebirth in Christianity. There is resurrection. And since it's a resurrection of the body that died, reincarnation is impossible. I explained why it's impossible in the last round, and Pro ignored that argument. Pro equates the Christian "hell" with the Hindue "rebirth," but this is a misconstrual of what these religions mean by "hell" and "rebirth. " Another difference Pro ignored is that in Hinduism, there is no forgiveness. A person must work off their karma in each life. They can only escape the cycle by working off all their karma. In Christianity, we can be forgiven for our sins and have a resurrection to eternal life. And in Christainity, we remain distinct persons whereas in Hinduism, all personal distinctions cease when people are absorbed into Brahman. Christian exclusivismPro argues that if one is a Christian exclusivist, then one is logically obliged to believe that all non-Christians will be damned. His reason is that the only reason to be exclusive is because the Bible is exclusive, and the same Bible says all non-Christians will be damned. But neither of us have argued in this debate that all statements in the Bible are essential to Christianity. So the fact that one statement in the Bible is essential to Christianity doesn't entail that every other statement in the Bible is essential to Christianity. Since Christian exclusivism has to do with the exclusive truth of Christianity, and not with whether only Christians get saved, the question of whether only Christians are saved is irrelevant to the question of whether Christianity is exclusively true. Earlier, Pro argued that God was unjust because he condemned people for what was not their fault. I showed that people are condemned for their wrong-doing, which is their fault. Pro seems to have dropped that argument and brought up a new one that is related. Now, he's arguing that God is unjust and unloving since he doesn't offer a pardon to everybody. But pardons are not the sorts of things that are owed. If somebody does wrong, they deserve punishment. A pardon is an act of mercy and grace. It's something given in spite of sin, not because the recipient earned it. The fact that God punishes people for their sins is no strike against God's justice. In fact, giving people what they deserve is the very meaning of justice. If God's justice is to be called into question, it shouldn't be because he punishes people, but because he lets some people off the hook. Pro argues that since God didn't let everybody off the hook, then he doesn't love everybody equally. But who said he did? The Bible certainly doesn't make that claim. Neither does Islam or Judaism. Pro thinks this is some strike against God's perfection, but he hasn't shown that perfection requires God to offer everybody a pardon. ConclusionSince Pro has failed to defend either of the definitions of religous pluralism in this debate, and he has failed to refute Christian exclusivism, Pro has not carried his burden of proof. I believe that I have shown both construals of religious pluralism to be false, and I have shown Christian exclusivism to be true, so I have carried my burden of proof. Now it's up to the voters to decide. I apologize for the length of this debate. I very much appreciate anybody who reads the whole thing, especially if they vote as well. I'm lucky if I get one vote on even my short debates these days.