Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Pluralism and Theology - Coggle Diagram

- - - - This seems to justify exclusivism, since Jesus is ‘the truth’. Pluralism can’t be right because it would suggest Jesus is only ‘a truth’, one truth among many – not ‘the’ truth. It is traditionally interpreted to suggest that only through faith in Jesus can a person be saved
        
        It follows that only Christianity is true and only Christians can be saved
  - - - However, arguably Jesus was slightly ambiguous in his wording of ‘through me’. He doesn’t explicitly state that ‘faith’ is what enables someone to be saved through him
        
        He could simply have meant that his sacrifice would enable all humans to be saved through him, since he died for the sins of everyone
        
        Inclusivists argue that although Jesus is clearly saying he is ‘the truth’, so Christianity is the only true religion, nonetheless we could interpret the verse as suggesting that non-Christians could be saved
        
        Perhaps by ‘through me’ Jesus meant that anyone who is a good person can be saved
        
        This interpretation would also fit with Jesus’ claims in the sheep and the goats parable, where he identifies those who are saved by their good acts, not their faith
- - - - This means we can never be or do good enough to deserve heaven through our own efforts
        
        So, original sin damns us to hell by default
        
        It is only if God grants us his gift of unmerited grace that we could be saved
        
        Not all Christians will be granted grace – only some limited ‘elect’ will
  - - - We had nothing to do with Adam and Eve’s disobedience – so how is it fair to punish us with hell for their actions?
        
        Predestination is not something a loving God would enforce
        
        This suggests anyone could get to heaven by doing good, which supports inclusivism
- - - - It seems to conflict with omnibenevolence for them to be sent to hell
        
        Some Rahner proposed that God must try and reach non-Christians by working through other religions and their conscience
        
        E.g. God works through Hinduism & Buddhism to try and save people in them
        
        If non-Christians respond well to God’s revelation in their religion then they will be acting like good Christians – Rahner calls them ‘anonymous Christians’
        
        This could result in their being saved, despite not being Christian
  - - - It proposes that those who never heard of Jesus could still be presented with the Christian message after death and given an opportunity to accept and have faith in Jesus
  - - - They both still claim that some people go to hell (those who reject or fail to live up to being a good Christian)
        
        An all-loving God could never send anyone to Hell
        
        Hick thinks only universalism is justified – the view that all people go to heaven
        
        Hume’s argument backs up Hick here. For punishment to count as justice, it must be proportionate to the crime
        
        No human can ever deserve infinite punishment because we can only ever do finite crimes
        
        Some might argue that people like Hitler surely don’t deserve Heaven, but Hick combined his universalism with his soul-making theory to conclude that people who fail to become virtuous must simply get another chance after death
- - - - He observed religious worship in mosques, temples, Gurdwaras, etc.
        
        He came to the view that the same sort of thing was going on in different places of worship
        
        “human beings opening their minds to a higher divine Reality, known as personal and good and as demanding righteousness and love” – Hick
        
        Hick pointed to the ancient Islamic parable of blind men each touching a different part of an elephant
        
        After describing what they each felt, they concluded an elephant was something different, just like religions say different things about God
        
        However this was because they were too blind to see how they were really all touching the same thing in different ways
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Either Jesus was the son of God (like Christians claim) or he wasn’t (like Muslims claim)
        
        Hindu and ancient Greek/Roman religions believe in multiple Gods, whereas the Abrahamic religions believe in just one
  - - - He argues that those particular theological details such as the divinity of Jesus or number of Gods are part of the ‘conceptual lens’ that different cultures project onto reality
        
        Clearly Christianity can’t be right that Jesus is the son of God at the same time as Judaism being right that he wasn’t
        
        However, Hick claims they can both be right in the sense that they are both pointing to the same higher divine reality