Jacob, you have revealed that you do not understand the word “relate” the way it is used in the law of noncontradiction, and you do not seem to care to recognize the word has more than one meaning in different contexts. That is most surprising, coming from you.

This equivocation is really quite central to the whole discussion, and now that it has been identified, it should be dealt with. Actually, I have employed that concept more than once already, when I spoke about how the Buddhist relates to the Christian God even if he does not believe in the Christian God. This is the first time I used the term “equivocation” to identify the type of problem we are having, and it’s absolutely crucial to understanding the issues. You are not dealing with it, however.

Your answers to my final questions are diversions, changing the subject again. The analogy you provided does not hold, because it was about personal values, while the pluriverse concept is a statement about ultimate reality. 

And you’ll probably say that the pluriverse concept is not a statement about ultimate reality. It is, but I can foresee you saying that it’s nothing so grand as that. Yet any statement that says we don’t live in a universe is a statement about ultimate reality.

You continually disagree, yet you are unwilling to call any other opinion wrong. Maybe some see that as a mark of courtesy; for me, it is tantamount to saying that someone could say 2+2=5 and not be wrong. A world in which nothing can be wrong is a world where nothing can be right in any meaningful sense of the word. More to the current point, however, it seems disingenuous to disagree while pretending not to.

And you have repeatedly berated me for being unwilling to accept the logic of the pluriverse, while also saying,

I’m not necessarily claiming that something is better about a pluriverse over a universe. I’ve just been saying that it offers an alternative, which might be interpreted as a good thing or a bad thing depending on where one stands.

So there is (like before, a year or more ago) no hope that this discussion will make progress. This is not the first time this has happened. The problem is not that you and I disagree. The problem is that it’s so hard to stay on subject, that so much needs to be repeated again and again, and that you are trying to argue in favor of something that you admit has no arguments in favor of it. As SteveK has just shown by making his passionate plea, that gets very tiresome.

SteveK, I’m going to honor your request, and I’m also going to avoid allowing discussions to go this way again in the future.

You are trying to square the circle, Tom. I beg you to stop.

I’m not necessarily claiming that something is better about a pluriverse over a universe.  I’ve just been saying that it offers an alternative, which might be interpreted as a good thing or a bad thing depending on where one stands.

You’ve said that it acknowledges people worship different gods. So do I; that’s not a point of dispute that divides us at all. These different gods, in a Biblical viewpoint, are all false gods, and in fact the word “god” means something entirely different in this application than when applied to God the creator. It means “false object of worship.” That’s a far cry from what we mean when we speak of the Creator God. Watch out for equivocations!
What have I equivocated on here?  Could you explain?
I’ve said on multiple occasions that my point is simply: there are many paths and many goals.  That is the logic of a pluriverse.  And yes, I agree, from within the perspective of the Scriptures other gods are seen in negative terms.  From within the Christian perspective, there is the Lord our God and then there are many other lesser, or false, gods.

What does “relate” mean here? It has been used in a couple of different senses in this thread, and I think there’s some more serious equivocation going on. There is “in the same relationship” as the term is used in the law of noncontradiction, and then there is the relating by which I have a personal relationship with God. They are not the same. That I have a personal relationship with God, and not with some Buddhist ideal, does not mean that I have no logical relationship to the Buddhist ideal, viz., that I deny it is true.
By relate, I mean the practical work of relating to others.  In a very empirical sense of the word relate, Buddhists do not relate to Jesus Christ in their worship and neither do Christians relate to the Buddha.  Christians relate to Jesus Christ by reading the Bible, praying in Jesus’ name, attending church, etc.

Is my religious belief actually wrong? You haven’t quite answered it. Let’s put it this way: suppose, when I finally understand what the pluriverse means, I say that it is categorically false–that the pluriverse is a false conception of reality, and that it denies the Bible. Would my religious belief then be wrong?

I wouldn’t be inclined to call it “wrong.”  I would most likely describe your view as zealous boundary defender.

Look closely at this and you’ll see it’s more a question about the nature of the pluriverse than it is about my beliefs (since I don’t know enough yet about the pluriverse to state a belief on it). If there is a religious belief within the putative pluriverse that says the pluriverse is false, a sham, a lie, can the pluriverse accept that belief as equally valid as other beliefs that allow for the reality of the pluriverse?
How about an empirical example of a problem?  Are there people in the US who think that all the talk about “freedom” is false, sham, a lie?  Of course there are.  Every system of belief has detractors.  The question is: how are those detractors dealt with?

2. You haven’t begun to explain what it is about the pluriverse that is better than the universe.

3. You’ve said that it acknowledges people worship different gods. So do I; that’s not a point of dispute that divides us at all. These different gods, however, in a Biblical viewpoint, are all false gods, and in fact the word “god” means something entirely different in that application than when applied to God the creator. It means “false object of worship.” That’s a far cry from what we mean when we speak of the Creator God. Watch out for equivocations!

4. You say,

People relate to different gods.  Christians relate to Jesus, Buddhists don’t. 

What does “relate” mean here? It has been used in a couple of different senses in this thread, and I think there’s some more serious equivocation going on. There is “in the same relationship” as the term is used in the law of noncontradiction, and then there is the relating by which I have a personal relationship with God. They are not the same. That I have a personal relationship with God, and not with some Buddhist ideal, does not mean that I have no logical relationship to the Buddhist ideal, viz., that I deny it is true.

That a Buddhist does not have a personal relationship with the Biblical God does not mean that she does not have a logical relationship with him., viz., that she denies his reality. 

Watch the equivocation. It will catch up with you.

5. Is my religious belief actually wrong? You haven’t quite answered it. Let’s put it this way: suppose, when I finally understand what the pluriverse means, I say that it is categorically false–that the pluriverse is a false conception of reality, and that it denies the Bible. Would my religious belief then be wrong?

Look closely at this and you’ll see it’s more a question about the nature of the pluriverse than it is about my beliefs (since I don’t know enough yet about the pluriverse to state a belief on it). If there is a religious belief within the putative pluriverse that says the pluriverse is false (a sham, a lie), can the pluriverse accept that belief as equally valid as other beliefs that allow for the reality of the pluriverse?

Do I agree there are multiple gods? Of course not! I do agree there are multiple objects of worship, most of which are thought to be gods. But the Bible is very clear that those who worship them as gods are wrong. The language of right and wrong is unmistakable, central, and essential. Read the prophets on this.

Let us look at what the Bible says.

So when Exodus 18:10-11 reads:

He said, “Praise be to the LORD, who rescued you from the hand of the Egyptians and of Pharaoh, and who rescued the people from the hand of the Egyptians. 11 Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly.”

It seems that the Bible is referring to multiple gods and saying that one God in particular is greater than all the other lesser gods.  Doesn’t it?

Or take this excerpt from Deuteronomy 6:13-15:

I interpret this to mean that we should fear the God of the scriptures and not follow the various other gods that are around us. 

So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?

And here it seems clear to me that Jesus is one of many different gods (foreign and domestic) that people of the times worshiped.


I agree that the Bible says following our Lord is the only way to salvation.  But it also seems pretty clear to me that the writers of the scriptures were well aware that there were many gods out there.  I don’t see how you can deny that there are many gods.  Whether you believe them to be idols or not, my point is simply that people worship other gods.   

My religious belief is that every person relates to the same Creator God. Is my religious belief wrong?


On what grounds would I say that you are wrong?  I would be more inclined to say that I disagree with your starting presupposition.  People relate to different gods.  Christians relate to Jesus, Buddhists don’t. 

But Christians are talking about Buddha! We’re saying he’s a false teacher! And Buddhists do speak about Christ, and when they do, they most decidedly do not say that he is the unique Son of the Only Father, the Second Person of the Trinity. So you are simply speaking falsehood when you say they are not talking about the other. There is contradiction there!

Let me be more precise with my words.  While some Christians and some Buddhists may be talking about each other, Christians don’t worship the Buddha and Buddhists don’t worship Jesus Christ.  And as I said last week, there are always going to be some zealous followers that denounce other faith systems.  Denunciation doesn’t entail contradiction.

I cannot respond to that until you explain the pluriverse, specifically by answering the questions I have repeatedly asked you about it, beginning a week ago. At this stage I must ask you to answer those questions, and the direct one that I just posed you, or else there is no basis for us to continue the conversation. By “no basis,” I do not mean we have no basis in manners, or in mutual respect, or in some shared purpose. I mean this: you are using an undefined word and telling me I ought to seriously consider its value as a logical foundation for discussion. I can’t do that with an undefined word.

I responded to those questions last week, I thought.

Pluriverse is often associated with William James and what became known among sociologists as radical empiricism.  James argued that empirically it is hard to deny that different men live in different worlds.  To be clear, he did not argue that different men see different aspects of the same world.   The world is not a unity, but a plurality of different experiences, meanings, truths, gods, etc. 

Some time after James, the notion of pluriverse started catching on among missionaries.  Perhaps the best known is David Bosch.  Conducting missions in very different parts of the world other than WASPy USA, he too began to see that we live in a pluriverse where there are many different experiences, meanigns, truths, gods. etc.  Bosch’s aim wasn’t to deny what was plain to empirically see (people live in very different worlds).  Rather, he saught to understand the plurality of worlds and figure out how to insinuate the Word of God into them.  And this doesn’t mean beat someone to death with Right Doctrine that we imagine we can apply equally in all times and all places, but to learn how to relate the good news in many contexts. 

To acknowledge that we live in a pluriverse where other gods could be worshipped (whether we believe them to be idols or not), is to emphasize personal responsibility in faithfully and fearfully trusting in the Lord our God over all other gods.  To deny that there are many other gods is to basically reduce agency to nothing–there is no way to escape Tom’s univeralism.       

Though I notice something about Amused Observer’s take on the pluriverse and the hemidemiverse. Obviously the hemidemiverse is ridiculous. Maybe it’s satire rather than mockery (where’s the line there?).

Regardless of that, what I note about it is that it proposes a logic without explanation. So far, that’s the same status we have for the pluriverse. I wouldn’t propose that Jacob has no explanation, but I would certainly say that in terms of what has been presented for us, it’s about equal to the hemidemiverse. He has proposed what the conclusions of his logic might be, as has AO. Neither one has explained how their logic got them to their conclusions. Jacob is no further along than AO on doing that for us.

And I do think AO’s question to me is a good one. Rather than laying out what I see in the Bible, I should have just asked Jacob whether he really thinks the Bible teaches there are multiple gods in any sense other than one true God and multiple false “gods” that aren’t really gods at all. What do you mean by that, Jacob?

And I guess that means I’m hoping to see three answers from you. I would put them in this order, the most important being first:

1. What is the logic of the pluriverse–in terms of the questions I’ve referred to previously, and any additional insight or information that would help me understand what you mean?
2. Is my religious belief actually wrong?
3. What do you mean by saying the Bible teaches multiple gods; i.e., are there multiple gods that are in any sense true Gods?

And for both of you–since Jacob doesn’t mind talking about a pluriverse without telling Tom what it means, I’m going to suggest a third logic. It’s the logic of the hemidemiverse, and it says that whenever Tom says something, he means what Jacob said, and whenever Jacob says something, he means what Tom said.
I challenge both of you: Tom, are you too committed to the logic of the universe to accept the logic of the hemidemiverse? Jacob, are you too committed to the logic of the pluriverse to accept the logic of the hemidemiverse?
I absolutely guarantee you the logic of the hemidemiverse is more humane, more sensible, more logical than either of your logics. But I think I’ll wait a week, like Jacob, to tell you what in the heck I’m talking about.

Your pluriverse idea depends on some equivocations, especially on the word “God:”

The Bible is clear that there are multiple gods and the Bible is also clear that only one is the Savior.

Do you agree that there are multiple gods?  To be clear here, I’m not asking you if you trust in these gods, I’m just asking if you agree that there are multiple gods?

That there are multiple gods is a founding claim of a pluriverse.

Here’s what I think I understand of it, at least the nutshell that I am most concerned about. I think you are saying that it’s possible for alternate views of God to be true without violating the law of noncontradiction (LNC), because they do not share a relationship. I gather that from here, most recently, and from comments leading up to that point.

To be clear, I am not saying “it’s possible for alternate views of God to be true without violating the law of noncontradiction…”

Rather, the Buddhist and the Christian are not worshiping or talking about the same God.  Buddha is not Christ and Christ is not Buddha.  I’m talking about multiple gods.  The Bible is clear that there are multiple gods and the Bible is also clear that only one is the Savior.

Do you agree that there are multiple gods?  To be clear here, I’m not asking you if you trust in these gods, I’m just asking if you agree that there are multiple gods?

That there are multiple gods is a founding claim of a plurivere.

When I read your comments, you seem to still be stuck in the logic of universe where there is only one God.  But today as in the Bible, there are multiple possible gods; not just one.

The upshot of this all is that a Christian’s beliefs can be true and a Buddhist’s can, too, at the same time. They both share equally in truth regarding ultimate reality; or, as they each express their beliefs, they each express truth in spite of their differences. Even at their points of contradiction both sets of belief express truth. (I’m trying to represent your position accurately, and I hope I’m succeeding.)

Why not just say that the Buddhist worships a different god than Christ Jesus our Lord?
I think that there are fundamental differences between Christ and Buddha.  And I think that the differences cannot be reduced to “wrong” versus “right.”

As a Christian, I hold to these as essential beliefs (among other things): there is exactly one God, who subsists in three Persons. Everything else that exists, exists by his creation and providentially sustenance. All persons are made in God’s image, and every person’s chief purpose is “to glorify God and enjoy him forever,” as the Westminster confession says. All persons will stand before God’s judgment seat at some point, for all of us are accountable before God. His offer of rescue from our failings, through Jesus Christ, is available to any person, and is the only form of rescue that can be efficacious for any person.

That is historic Christian belief; and at any rate, it is my belief, and you have said (I think) that my belief and a Buddhist’s belief, which contradict each other, may both be true because they are not held in relation to the same thing.

If a Buddhist and a Christian worship two different gods, then I see no contradiction between your affirmation of the Westminster statements and the Buddhist.  Why?  Because Buddhists don’t affirm the Westminster statements or historic Christian beliefs.  Buddhists have their own statements and their own historic beliefs, I would say.

But my belief quite doggedly insists that the Buddhist and I are both relating to the same God in virtue of the set I just enumerated, and more. The Buddhist says the monotheistic Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is not an accurate depiction of God, or that belief in Jesus is not the one and only path toward rescue from God’s judgment. The Buddhist’s statement cannot be true unless mine is false.

Do you have any quotes that support your claims about what Buddhists believe or say about Christ?    I don’t really know much about Buddhists apart from knowing that they are not Christians or Hindus or Muslims.

I don’t think that Buddhists are concerned about God’s judgment or sin or redemption.  From what little I’ve read, I think that Buddhists are concerned about reaching some state of zen.  It seems that Christians and Buddhists are striving for different goals.

Granted, your “belief” may “doggedly” insist that the Christian and the Buddhist are relating to the same God, but do you speak for the Buddhist too?  Does it only matter what your beliefs doggedly insist? `

There is no escaping this contradiction by resorting to some kind of unshared relationship, because Christian doctrine absolutely insists that the relationship is shared. Everybody has a relationship to the same God; and if they deny that view of God, it is the same God that they are denying.

While it is a founding presupposition for universalism that the “relationship is shared” and I can therefore see how (from your perspectivee) there “is no escaping this contradiction,” for a pluriveralist the founding presupposition is different.  A pluriveralist presupposes that there is no necssary shared relationship between a Buddhist and a Christian.  So, from a pluriveralist perspective, there is no contradiction to escape.

Let me ask a question: Do you ultimately think that Buddhism and Christianity are different?
Now, do you disagree with that shared relationship?

Then you are saying that my doctrine is wrong, because my doctrine of God cannot be true without that shared relationship. If you are right concerning the lack of shared relationship, then my doctrine is false. What I have been calling “my” doctrine here is, of course, shared by many millions of believers in Christ. The minimal set of beliefs listed above could be affirmed by a large proportion if not a majority of Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox believers.

Actually, I’m saying that I work from a different presupposition than you.  And since presuppositions are not empirically testable, I don’t think one is wrong and one is right.  I’m just fine with saying that we disagree about whether there is or is not a shared relationship.
And I think that poses a large problem for what I think you have been affirming: That Christianity and Buddhism can both express equal truths regarding God. That can only be true if this set of Christian beliefs is utterly false; or in other words, the assertion can only be true if it is false, which is absurd.

Actually, I haven’t been saying that “Christianity and Buddhism can both express equal truths regarding God.”  I’ve been saying that Christianity and Buddhism are talking about two different Gods.  Christians aren’t talking about Buddha and Buddhists aren’t talking about Jesus.  So, I don’t think the conundrum that you see is a problem for me.

So now I hope you see how it looks to me at this stage of the discussion, before you have explained what you call the logic of the pluriverse. I think I could close here by stating it in terms more relevant to that topic: You say that Christianity and Buddhism may both express equal truth because they exist in a pluriverse. Christian doctrine, as I understand it, and as I understand the pluriverse, explicitly denies that that is the case regarding reality. There is no pluriverse that would admit a contrary view of God being true. None. Period.

I do feel like I have a better picture of what you are saying.  But my complaint today is the same as it was last week, you seem to be applying a universal logic to my pluriversal claims.
 
 
 

I’ve been puzzling over this pluriverse idea, although of course I’m still waiting for more information on what it involves.

Here’s what I think I understand of it, at least the nutshell that I am most concerned about. I think you are saying that it’s possible for alternate views of God to be true without violating the law of noncontradiction (LNC), because they do not share a relationship. I gather that from here, most recently, and from comments leading up to that point.

More on that, to make sure we’re on the same page: You have acknowledged your commitment to the LNC with the standard provisos regarding (time implicit in your reply, I think) and relationship. And you have agreed, I think, that Buddhist and Christian conceptions regarding God are (or at least may be) contradictory. But for one person to affirm the Buddhist conception, and another to affirm the Christian conception, need not be a fallacious contradiction for either of them, for one affirms it with relation to the Christian conception regarding God, and the other affirms it with relation to the Buddhist conception.

(Buddhism is typically understood to be a kind of atheism, but its view of God is nevertheless a conception regarding God; and I think if we had been speaking of Hinduism, which is not atheistic, you would have made the same argument anyway, so I’m going to proceed with some hope that I can speak of these various conceptions of God in the way I am, without misrepresenting your position.)
 
The upshot of this all is that a Christian’s beliefs can be true and a Buddhist’s can, too, at the same time. They both share equally in truth regarding ultimate reality; or, as they each express their beliefs, they each express truth in spite of their differences. Even at their points of contradiction both sets of belief express truth. (I’m trying to represent your position accurately, and I hope I’m succeeding.)

But let’s  explore this a bit. I have said that contrary to your position, there actually is a shared relationship. Let me state it in a way that may make the whole problem, as it appears in my mind, more clear to you. This is what you will have to explain to me if I am going to be able to accept a pluriverse logic.

As a Christian, I hold to these as essential beliefs (among other things): there is exactly one God, who subsists in three Persons. Everything else that exists, exists by his creation and providentially sustenance. All persons are made in God’s image, and every person’s chief purpose is “to glorify God and enjoy him forever,” as the Westminster confession says. All persons will stand before God’s judgment seat at some point, for all of us are accountable before God. His offer of rescue from our failings, through Jesus Christ, is available to any person, and is the only form of rescue that can be efficacious for any person.

That is historic Christian belief; and at any rate, it is my belief, and you have said (I think) that my belief and a Buddhist’s belief, which contradict each other, may both be true because they are not held in relation to the same thing.

But my belief quite doggedly insists that the Buddhist and I are both relating to the same God in virtue of the set I just enumerated, and more. The Buddhist says the monotheistic Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is not an accurate depiction of God, or that belief in Jesus is not the one and only path toward rescue from God’s judgment. The Buddhist’s statement cannot be true unless mine is false.

There is no escaping this contradiction by resorting to some kind of unshared relationship, because Christian doctrine absolutely insists that the relationship is shared. Everybody has a relationship to the same God; and if they deny that view of God, it is the same God that they are denying.

Now, do you disagree with that shared relationship? Then you are saying that my doctrine is wrong, because my doctrine of God cannot be true without that shared relationship. If you are right concerning the lack of shared relationship, then my doctrine is false. What I have been calling “my” doctrine here is, of course, shared by many millions of believers in Christ. The minimal set of beliefs listed above could be affirmed by a large proportion if not a majority of Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox believers.

And I think that poses a large problem for what I think you have been affirming: That Christianity and Buddhism can both express equal truths regarding God. That can only be true if this set of Christian beliefs is utterly false; or in other words, the assertion can only be true if it is false, which is absurd.

So now I hope you see how it looks to me at this stage of the discussion, before you have explained what you call the logic of the pluriverse. I think I could close here by stating it in terms more relevant to that topic: You say that Christianity and Buddhism may both express equal truth because they exist in a pluriverse. Christian doctrine, as I understand it, and as I understand the pluriverse, explicitly denies that that is the case regarding reality. There is no pluriverse that would admit a contrary view of God being true. None. Period.

Is that a strong statement to put before you, before you have even had a chance to explain the pluriverse? Well, strong it certainly is. It’s meant to be. But it’s not before you have had a chance to explain the pluriverse; we asked you about it last week and you did not come forth with any explanation. And recognize, please, that none of what I wrote here used the term “pluriverse” except at the very beginning and end, and that the rest of what I wrote was drawn from things you have explained. I know I have extrapolated from your other comments to some conclusions about what your pluriverse might be, and if my extrapolations are in error, please accept my apologies. The rest of what I wrote here about Christianity, Buddhism, and contradiction should not be adversely affected by any such error.

Fair enough, but I still have doubts that divesting meditation of its “spiritual” aspects is itself necessary. That is the whole point of what I’ve been saying: the “spiritual” aspects of meditation in general do have different aims and even “emptying the mind to achieve oneness with the impersonal All” is a controversial aim within Eastern circles (some accept it, some do not, even in relation to the exact same practice or set of practices). Care simply must be shown in discussing this and I have yet to see such care in any Evangelical discussions of it.

Kevin, if I may distill things down again–though Charlie has already done it–I do not intend to say that New Age involves just contradictions, either within itself or with reference to Christian belief. There are practices typically among New Agers that may be of benefit to everybody. At their source, these practices are closely related to beliefs that are contradictory to Christian beliefs (Atman and meditation, for example). If those connections can be conceptually severed, and no commitment is made to false beliefs, then some of those practices may be completely at home within Christianity.

For example: Eastern meditation is a form of whole-body relaxation. This is a good thing. It is also a way of emptying the mind to achieve oneness with the impersonal All. That is contrary to Christian understandings of the nature of reality.

Yoga may be great physical exercise. I confess to not knowing if it has other spiritual implications in Eastern thought; but if I practice Yoga for exercise in that state of ignorance, there’s no reason for me to believe it’s spiritually polluted or polluting for me. Paul speaks of this freedom in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 14.

Regarding Jacob, and for the benefit of others who may wonder. These discussions are replays of others that occurred months ago, and I use the term “replay” advisedly. The initial topics have been different, but they have all tended to go the direction this one has: Jacob’s refusal (for whatever reason) to engage the argument at hand, his persistent presentation of ideas without enough substance (by way of definition, support, explanation, etc) for us to be able to respond to him, and his complaining thereafter about our not so responding. It is perhaps most epitomized in this thread by his question whether there was any chance he might be making a credible argument. I answered by saying how much I would welcome it if he did, and it’s true. I really would welcome it.

Here’s a clear example:

Jacob took Charlie and me to task for being closed-minded toward the logic of the “pluriverse.” This was in spite of our several, very specific (specific for the purpose of coaching him toward the kind of answer that would help) requests for him to explain what he means by this new word.

I don’t know how well this has been coming across, but I have been expressing two very different kinds of criticism toward Jacob, in my intent (you can judge whether it has succeeded). One is toward his ideas–I think they have been either (in different places and different ways) contradictory or unclear. The other has been the kind of criticism I always welcomed in my first career, which was music. It is the kind that is intended to help move a person forward into doing better. See here and here, for example. 

I confess to being frustrated that this effort has not been more successful. I’m not convinced myself that I’ve handled it the best way every time. But again, there’s a very long history here which new blog readers would not be aware of.

Perhaps, but I have known people who would attribute such a cavalier attitude towards non-contradiction to so-called ‘postmodern’ thinkers like Derrida (I have a <em>spectacular</em>quote from <em>Limited Inc</em> on this), Heidegger, and Foucault, so forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.

You are forgiven. I am attributing such an attitude toward a person based upon his written words and our many interactions, not based upon a category of thought (post modern) or three thinkers I’ve never heard of. You’ll have to judge based upon your own experiences. You might find you’ve been hasty.

So, yes, there are certainly things that contradict Christian doctrine. 

Then you agree with Tom (myself, Steve, etc.) and are at odds with Jacob.

;But let me say that most Evangelical authors who write on this issue are not so careful to make this distinction in their eagerness to denounce this ‘false religion.’

That seems uncontroversial. But you’re defending a different point of view from Jacob’s and I’m not sure of any relevance in the point you’re making about most evangelical authors.

As for my claim to the un-Christian nature of the denouncements of Jacob, it is not the disagreement per se, but the way the disagreement is presented, i.e. in a disagreeable way.

I disagree with your assessment. Perhaps you would have to know that this is a continuation of one long exchange, on various subjects, but centering upon the same basic disagreement, to understand that Jacob is not listening to Tom, his position, or his requests. I find this common among people who pick a blog and its owner as their own personal target for gain-saying. Tom has answered Jacob’s charges countless times and has explained his position over and over again. He is asking something particular of Jacob, publishing here at the blog-owner’s discretion. Jacob has received the answers this blog has to offer and is making no point other than that he disagrees on a personal level – people have their own blogs at which to espouse their own worldviews. To repeat objections ad nauseum as though you’re going to get a different answer someday is rude – especially when that objection is not a dispute over a matter of fact but of stated opinion.

P.S. Let me add that that distilment of Hinduism is itself inadequate insofar as it demands pantheism while there are, in fact, monotheistic Hindis and Hindi sects (and, I am told, atheistic Hindis, though I  haven’t stumbled on this yet in my own studies). The nature of Brahma is not monolithically agreed upon in Hinduism and I get the impression that those who presented this list of ‘essentials’ are, in fact, biased towards their own understanding of Hinduism.

Regardless, Hinduism and Buddhism and New Age, et al have beliefs which contradict Christian beliefs – as you have affirmed. Jacob denies this. Even if presented specific cases of such contradiction he states that he would not accept them as such.

Perhaps, but I have known people who would attribute such a cavalier attitude towards non-contradiction to so-called ‘postmodern’ thinkers like Derrida (I have a spectacular quote from Limited Inc on this), Heidegger, and Foucault, so forgive me if I don’t take your word for it. Misunderstandings abound in discussions between so-called ‘analytic’ and so-called ‘continental’ philosophers (yes, I am one who thinks the distinction is pretty vacuous and mostly politically motivated).

As for your argument, I didn’t say otherwise: my discussion of presence as the central common element to Eastern thought was not intended to be exhaustive. Such would be as silly and intellectually irresponsible as to claim that pantheism is a universal element to either Eastern thought or the New Age movement. So, yes, there are certainly things that contradict Christian doctrine. However, I still think that the aims of ’salvation’ as understood through Eastern thought (understood very broadly and, hence, incredibly vaguely and ultimately inadequately) does have different aims insofar as ’sin’ is not an explicit element of concern. Which, again, is why I argue that the two, when broadly understood, are not contradictory (or at least not necessarily contradictory), despite similarity in language on a few things, but do, as Jacob tried to say, have different aims. The Christian will just say that the one-pointedness of mind, calming and slowing down incessantly racing thoughts, etc. are not sufficient for ’salvation’ (and some Buddhists would agree, though for different reasons with different aims). But let me say that most Evangelical authors who write on this issue are not so careful to make this distinction in their eagerness to denounce this ‘false religion.’

As for my claim to the un-Christian nature of the denouncements of Jacob, it is not the disagreement per se, but the way the disagreement is presented, i.e. in a disagreeable way.
P.S. Let me add that that distilment of Hinduism is itself inadequate insofar as it demands pantheism while there are, in fact, monotheistic Hindis and Hindi sects (and, I am told, atheistic Hindis, though I  haven’t stumbled on this yet in my own studies). The nature of Brahma is not monolithically agreed upon in Hinduism and I get the impression that those who presented this list of ‘essentials’ are, in fact, biased towards their own understanding of Hinduism.

In 1995, while considering the question “who are Hindus and what are the broad features of Hindu religion”, the Supreme Court of India highlighted Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s formulation of Hinduism’s defining features:[5]

Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realization of the truth that the number of gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of Hindu religion.
 

does, in fact, essentially contradict Christian belief.
Jacob, however, will protest that claim of contradiction –  if Tom makes it.
 
Why do you think it rather un-Christian to challenge Jacobs claims?
 

So this raises a few questions for me that must each be dealt with individually: do meditation practices that aim at calming the incessant running of the mind (i.e. “monkey mind”) essentially contradict the aim of Christian salvation? Do meditation practices that aim at becoming present with the body (walking meditation, yoga, eating meditation, meditation with the body as its focus, etc.) essentially contradict the aim of Christian salvation?

From my own study and practice, the single unifying thread that can be found in all Eastern religions/philosophies is the concept of being present; pantheism is not essential, atheism is not essential, materialism is not essential, idealism is not essential, etc. The latter all have multiple variations depending on the religion/philosophy and/or the school of thought within a particular tradition (Buddhism itself runs the gamut on every issue in the previous sentence), yet all have a central focus on becoming present: to one’s thoughts, one’s body, one’s relations with the other, one’s relation with things, etc. Since, as far as I can tell, this is the primary thing shared by Eastern religions (I won’t speak for its “New Age” inheritors, but I would imagine a not-too dissimilar analysis applies to them as well), then maybe it should be the focus.