>>Well doesn't it say "I'm your sole provider of spiritual supplies and you won't shop for them anywhere else"? I admit it doesn't necessarily follow that the provider doesn't serve others in the same way, but such an exclusivity clause sounds to me like an exclusivity clause. Many may think it does work both ways, at least for their own brand of religion, so if they're on his side, so is he on theirs.
>
>No, I don't think it breaks the first commandment.

Come to think of it, it really doesn't. It says "you're all mine", and says "I'm yours" but doesn't say "I'm only yours". Nice legalese when you can spot it :).

>>One of the major flaws in most of the religions is this idea that everybody else got it wrong.
>
>Well, I do think Hindus have it wrong.

Ah, but how can you know? If I was such a spiteful god, pitting people against each other (even my own people), I'd set it up so that some see me as one and some see me as a multitude.

> We are still on a journey and sometimes we get lost. The danger is in saying "I know exactly where I am, where I'm going, where I've been, etc. and since you're not on this exact same path, you're on the wrong path." An honest and humble person - some qualities I think God requires of us - can not make that statement.

But then, almost all religions assume that the other religions are wrong, or else they wouldn't be separate from each other. So, maybe they aren't saying "we know the truth", but they say "the others know even less, we at least know they are wrong".