Marcus Borg and William Lane Craig: Two different perspectives on religious pluralism and religious exclusivism

The above two lectures show two wholly different perspectives, one in favor of religious pluralism (Borg) and other in favor of religious exclusivism (Craig). Both authors have in common that they're Christians (even though I strongly doubt that Borg is a Christian), but besides that they disagree in almost everything.

I agree with Borg in this: I would like that religious pluralism were true. Why? Because I'd like that all the roads lead to God and that most people, of whichever religion, be saved.

However, I find no convincing evidence at all for religious pluralism and have not idea if it is true.. But I am strongly opposed to a religious pluralism regarding the historical Jesus, because I think the best evidence for Jesus' teachings doesn't support such a view. On the contrary, I think the evidence support an exclusivistic view of Jesus' self-perception (I've briefly discussed some of the reasons here).

I agree with Craig in this: If Jesus' resurrection happened, then (contrary to Borg's inexplicable view that "the bodily resurrection doesn't matter") it tells us a lot about him, if read in the socio-religious-historical context in which his teachings were provided. Also, if Jesus' resurrection didn't happen, then Christianity is false. Period (no sophism about "metaphors" is going to change that). Therefore, an objective investigation about Jesus' resurrection and teachings is absolutely necessary.

Finally, I want to say that the liberal portrait of Jesus by liberal schoalars is, in many cases, a new and astute way of atheistic deception. Many of the most influential liberal scholars ara demostrably atheists (despite of their misleading use of the language of Christianity), and they have found in religious pluralism a politically correct way to destroy and undermine mainstream religions, making them all basically equivalent. This is the basic purpose of atheism and secularism.

Since such liberal scholars don't believe in God, their claim "all roads lead to God", means that your religious beliefs are purely subjective, a personal choice. Since all such a religious claims about God are factually false, their only content is purely metaphorical and autobiographical, that is, they express the believer's own religious experience and spirituality. Hence, there is not reason to be an "exclusivistic" regarding one person's religion over another.

Note that the whole approach is dangerously misleading. Many religions and New-Age Spiritualities make factual claims about the spiritual world, and they contradict each other. Therefore, on pure analytical grounds, we know for sure that at least some of them are false.

You cannot accept the Urantia Book account of the reincarnation while accepting Neale Donal Walsh's Conversations with God, because they contradict each other about it. You cannot accept Eastern philosophies, some of which are impersonalistic (pantheistic, panentheistic or atheistic), while accepting Christianity which is a personalistic worldview.

You cannot accept deism (which excludes revelation) while accepting a religious worldview which is based on a revelation or miracle.

The above matters are obvious, but many people cannot see it because they have a purely emotional, feelings-based approach to religious matters, and these are the feelings exploited by religious pluralists and believers in New-Age religions and spiritualities.

But what is true or false about any objective matter cannot be settled alone by how such a doctrine "make me feel", or based on a bunch of personal nice feelings or how much a given idea is "appealing to me".