Raas: The hindu tradition is very old and contains a long line of 'sons of god', they just don't get all exclusive about it ("only our son of god is the real important one"). Hindusim is not one religion but a whole range of them with a shared cultural heritage. Many of those sects would naturally accept jesus as one of the long line of semi-divine people (eg yogananda). Many of the christians in first century near-east also happily accepted jesus as one of the long line of semi-divine people, as that was their shared heritage.
Have you read the bhagavad gita? Read about Krishna who is an archetypal 'son of god' (long before christianity was a glint in judaism's eye) - many people (me included) would argue that there was a definite influence on how christianity developed from hindu and buddhist ideas which were collected in the melting pot of alexandria around that time (some even go further and say he was plaigiarised from krishna (jeshua krishna)). Christianity wouldn't exist in the form it does without the influence of a whole range of faiths/philosophies (including stoicism, neoplatonism, mithraism, zoroastrianism and hinduism/buddhism alongside judaism). This was probably it's strength (like mongrel dogs being cleverer, or hybrid vigour in plants). We don't know what the actual jesus followed - probably a fundamentalist jewish sect like in the Qumran settlement (the dead sea scrolls i think are some of the most likely remnants of the original jesus' sect (they sound a bit grim though)); but how chrtistianity developed in the first few centuries very much reflects the wider alexandrian context, and was arguably more greek and roman than it was jewish.
The way i see it, religions that are insecure have to make themselves all exclusive and monotheistic; religions that are more experienced and more at ease with themselves (like most eastern religions, and the saner christians, like the quakers) are happier to accept anyone into their tent.
I think the quaker attitude is brilliant, and they are what i'd consider the most christian of christians, even though they have no priests, no sermons, and don't even have to read the bible (or think of god in any way other than they decide themselves (and which is then private)). And yet look at their works - they do far more good per head than most/all other christian sects - and they talk sense too, rather than refering to ancient texts all the time. In their view the relationship with god should be direct and not via some human intermediary. Being humble before god must include recognising that your human intellectual faculties can't possibly fathom what's god's true will, let alone enforce it via your petty human language as an excuse to judge other people (judge not...)
EDIT: as for judaism, i think the torah gets a bit of a bad rep from how fundamentalist christians talk about it - as far as i know, the jewish approach always requires interpretation of the old texts to apply them to the current context, an analytical approach often missing from evangelicals. All religions have got their backwardnesses (look at the caste system in hinduism), and judaism would be no exception, but i've found that all religions have also got really nice bits too (for judaism, some of the stuff from jeremiah was pretty good from memory, and there's rabbi hillel who was saying jesus-y things 100 years before jesus).
If only these insecure religionsists, could get over themselves and focus on all the bits they have in common (as shown in huxley's 'the perennial philosophy') there could be no relgious conflict (i'm of the view that the religion is just a lightning rod and excuse for social-based conflict anyway rather than the actual cause of it)
