Which matters more?

[Az]

There is a question that has intrigued me for some time now. The post regarding the Allah/God/Jahwae conundrum brought it back to mind. Specifically it is which matters more? The intent to believe in the correct god? Or actually believing in the right one?

This is no insignificant question considering that the penalty for getting it wrong may be eternal damnation.

Suppose I believe I believe in the correct god but it turns out to be a ficticious creating that decieved me. My intent was good but it is said that the road to hell is paved with such things. So it seems critical to make sure the thing you believe in is the correct thing.

But there is the rub. As we atheists are often seen to point out there is a dirth of evidence indicating that a god even exists. Sorting out which claim for god is the right one is going to be even more problematic than that puzzle. If there is no definitive evidence that god exists then there certainly is no evidence indicating which god is the right god.

Which seems to leave the matter to one of circumstance of birth. If you were born to a family of one particular faith it would seem to have a great deal of bearing on what you may wind up believing. But chance and circumstance hardly seem an adequate means to adjudicate such a matter. But that seems to be what the claim of someone who claims you have to have faith boils down to.

So which matters more? The intent to worship the right god or actually worshipping the right god. He is a jealous god after all.

[bennywhale]

1. Definetely the INTENT to worship the right God. If

you had to pick the right on, that would be cruel and arbitrary, as you would have no way of knowing. "The God" would surely let you know somehow, because being wise in your choice is not the same as being faithful.

Anyway. Be a decent human being as best you can according to your morals and you won't go far wrong. Decent people's morality is never far from the teachings of the religions, even if they've never read any holy book.

[Az]

2. But that seems to be clearly at odds with the commandments

The god of the bible clearly states that he is a jealous god and that worshipping the wrong god is worthy of death. I can certainly understand why you would think it was reasonable to be rewarded for good intent but that does not seem to be what is indicated.

[bennywhale]

5. Well, I believe in God, but i don't believe in religion if that makes

sense.

I'm from Britain, and organised religion, based on human interpretation has caused nothing but pain, division, misery and death in my country and across Europe. The divisions are still apparent in many places. The power of the church in Europe in the middle ages and still today in some countries is frightening. It has often been brutal and it has often been wrong. The whole 'reformation' was based on breaking the dictatorial power of the church and reconnecting with God on a personal level, not how someone tells you too.

So, i think me and the big Guy will be ok with eachother if i try to live a righteous, decent and moral life.

[Az]

6. So how to reconcile

The bible? Or do you dismiss the bible and form your beliefs from your own tapestry of experience(a perfectly valid route)? As I mention in the post below the bible and the commandments are quite clear that god does not want his people messing around with any other gods and that he is quite jealous of those that do.

[bennywhale]

7. I don't dismiss the bible, i

just don't believe in the dogmatic nature of it. Much of the bible teaches us to live the way i already do. And the contradictions within the bible make it so open to interpreatation, that i just think moral decency is the best route to heaven if there is one.

I can't see how my position would offend God or the position of the bible that you describe, as i'm not picking A God, i am merely picking the fact of ONE God.

[Az]

8. But

It seems to me you still run into problems. If you look to the bible as any sort of guide to the nature of god then you surely have to take the commandments as a little more than a suggestion. And the first three commandments seem dedicated to making sure you are picking the right god. Not a title but a specific individual god. There are even some that suggest that the wording indicates that there were other gods but that the god of Abraham would not tolerate worship of them.







PS, Please do not take my words as any kind of an attack. I am sincerely posing these questions to better understand the thinking of the religious liberal. My dealings in the past have been primarily with a more fundamentalist sort and also those more removed from a biblecentric view of god. This comes about by way of debating with fundamentalists and associating with Unitarian Universalists. Thus the world of the liberal Christian is a bit outside my direct experience.

[bennywhale]

11. Don't worry, i wasn't taking any criticism as attack. Anyway, i mentioned

earlier the 'reformation'. Now i don't know what importance this holds in America, but for me it holds vital understanding into one's belief and one's approach to religion. It was a break from authority. The first real revolution of modern Europe. People were murdered for worshiping in forests rather than churches, not two miles from where i live. The church was also very corrupt in those days.

The reformation means to me, the birth of rationality, morals, and free thinking. It is against authoritarianism, dictatorial powers of rule through interpretation (similar, i believe, to many debates about the American constitution today), and power of interpretation. It means to me, the free will to interpret the world and therefore God and spirituality in your own way. It gave birth to great North-Western European sociologists and philosophers, such as Durkheim, Weber, and later Marx. English philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes, and Bentham et al. This was a freeing of the mind from theocratic constraints, and the divine right of monarchs. (Indeed, Locke stood in parliament and used the old testament to dismantle the Tories conviction of the divine right of Monarchs to rule. It was all due to freedom of interpretation.)It gave birth to the enlightenment which has shaped Western societies ever since. As you can see, freedom of thought and expression is my religion, and therefore, if the bible contradicts this, in my mind it becomes obsolete.

That is not to say again that i don't believe in God. It is to say that i am sceptical about organised religion. If that means i don't believe in every commandment, then so be it. I am taking them as more than suggestion as i live by most of them, as does any decent human being of whatever religion. However, my point above about dictatorial powers of interpretation is relevant here. Are the tablets of the commandments fact or are they the interpretation of the word of God, by the religious leaders of the day?

[davekriss]

20. Throughout the entire Old Testament...

...there are references to worshiping other gods and illustrations of disasterous consequences. I could be mistaken, but I believe the references refer to the empty substance of these other gods -- i.e., that they are NOT God, therefore lead not to reward but to destruction. The whole OT seems to be about the consequences of turning away from the one true God to the superstitions of the non-Jews in Canaan and Egypt and perhaps elsewhere.

As to the nature of God in the OT, doesn't the book of Job suggest that it is folly to try to hold "God" to our confining definitions? God will not be contained by the mind of man?

"Whatever we leave to God, God does and blesses us; the work we choose should be our own, God let's alone."
-- Thoreau

First step of faith is to surrender to something greater than ourselves; the second step is to perceive and acknowledge the positive effects of this "surrender", which are many. But it is a "walk" that goes beyond these first two steps...

[funflower]

25. Are you quizzing us on the commandments or asking what we think?

[Az]

26. A bit of both (though not really quizing)

If a particular belief is distinct and seperate from the bible description of god I would follow up with a different line of inquiry. But the notion of a laid back god that doesn't mind as long as one's heart is in the right place doesn't seem to jive with the bible. If one professes such a god I am going to naturally be curious as to how they reconcile the differences.

[funflower]

31. We give the Bible it's due and go with our gut.

Interesting collection of literature. Valuable in many ways. Certainly not "inerrant" and not the complete basis for my understanding of God.

[DanCa]

3. The intent

I basically believe that it all goes back to either one of two basics concepts. For us that do believe its love thy neighbor. For those that dont its follow the golden rule - do onto others as they do onto you. I believe thats thrust of nature and whatever force philosophy positve negative yin or yang approach as to whatever concept you wish to describe that applies to universal truisim.
Thats why I am for gay marriage. I dont want anyone telling me how to live or who to marry to marry thus if I do that I would be breaking a commandment of love thy neighbor. I also dont think theres anything wrong with being gay. In fact gays are people who should be treated with as much love and respect as any one else on this planet.
Thats the same way I feel about abortion or guns. I simply cannot tell anyone what to do. But at the same time I can choose not to carry a gun if I am for gun control , or not sleep with a woman if I am against a woman having an abortion. So I hope I didn't sound to cocky or offensive I really like DU and I dont want to sound like fundie.
Have a gentle and healthy day. Danny.

[Az]

4. You don't sound bad at all

Its not an easy question I am asking and you provide a good opinion on the matter. I doubt the thrust of my question will really strike many here as too difficult a matter. It is really a question more problematic to fundamentalists that believe that things are carved in stone. For those with a more open mind this issues isn't going to pose the same problem.

[Tux]

9. To me

There is no "right god", just a perspective of the Divine. We're finite while the Divine is infinite. Whatever view a person or religion has of god, it's right. They all are. God or the Divine or whatever you want to call it is like a quantum particles, it appearance depends on how you observe it. As long as you have faith or no faith, you're OK. Damnation is just a tool so clerics can control a population.

[Az]

10. I think the more we travel this road the closer we come together

For me what I suspect you see as the divine I see as that which we share as identity. We each in our turn marvel at that which is our self... our existance. We come to understand that others share this as well. We come to recognise the connectivity we have with each other through this identity and in many cases we come to recognise a bit of ourself in the world around us. That we are part of something.

Some place an identity on this shared perception and call it god. Others look to it and simply cherish it for whatever it is. Still others try to delve into it and understand its nature stripped of guesses and instead based on reason and other tools we have developed. In the end we are all looking at the same thing.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. The question is based upon a certain concept

that there is a "right" or "wrong" God. That implies seperation between God and everything else. If there is no seperation, if everything IS God, then there is no answer to your questions, as they are coming from a different conceptual space.

[universalcitizen]

13. There are those who do not believe that everything IS God, therefore they

are separate from God in their thoughts and actions. This is quite evident from posts here on DU and in the world in general. It is the prevalent mindset in humanity, religous or otherwise. Those that know the Oneness of all of creation are a very small minority. Some say they know this Oneness but their actions say differently.

If one considers themselves separate, then they have become a god unto themselves. Then there are two gods, you and me.

In Jesus' day there was another god whom the people chose over the one revealed as the true God by several witnesses, and that other god, Barrabbas, a conservative flag waving zealot, promised to save the Jews from those terrorists, the Romans. He saw himself separate. Jesus on the other hand, said of one of the Romans, "greater faith than this I have not seen in all of Israel." He was one with this man.

History is repeating itself. The false messiah has come to save the world from the terrorists "out there." He is also a conservative flag waving zealot and his use of deadly force will bring its due harvest just as Barrabbas' did with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ad. All those who believe that they are one with this man will go down with him.

Then there will be oneness again.

[Az]

14. Um there seems to be a logical flaw in your statement

You seem to be saying that everything is god but then claim that those who do not believe as such are seperate from god. I suspect I understand what you are trying to say but I wanted to mention this as I do not wish to presume.

[universalcitizen]

15. Az long az I think I am separate from you, I am,

irrespective of what the facts may be.

[Az]

19. Ok so lets examine this notion

We are all one with god. That is everything and everyone is part of god. Except those who are not part of god. There for the statement we are all part of god is not exactly true. It may be true that we all could be part of god. But unless we are currently all part of god then the notion that we are all part of god is false.

[universalcitizen]

22. "Not exactly true" from the point of view of the physical world,

but totally true from the view of the spirit. Cancer is one with the human body until for some reason it takes a course that looks like it thinks it is separate, and it does in fact become separate and adversarial to the spirit of that body of which it was a part. But it would still be considered part of the body physically at that point in time. It is possible to reverse this process by various means, in whch the cancer seemingly disappears, or becomes one with the body again. There are still cells that would begin the process of separation again given the right environment, mentally or physically. Are they one with the body?

[Az]

24. You seem to misunderstand the nature of cancer

It is never seperate from the body. It is merely our own body out of balance and out of control. It is only destructive to our sense of what we desire for our body to be. It is growth and life without end. And that is the problem it poses to us. We are a balance. Not a chaotic burst.

Life is life whether its the life we want. It is simply our desires and hopes that define what is negative about cancer.

[universalcitizen]

27. It seems to me that we understand it in the same way,

that cancer has a different intent, or desire and hope, than the body we call us, and therefore it is not one with of us although it is part of us physically.

[Az]

28. None the less

It seems to fail as an analogy for this case. Either god is everything (including cancer and nonbelievers) or god is not everything.

[universalcitizen]

29. Yes that is true, are you or aren't you? n/t

[Az]

30. As I do not believe in god

It would seem that I am not part of god by your reconning.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. interesting thoughts, interesting analogy

Thanks for sharing.

In my lifetime I've found it quite amazing that, although there are few of us, we tend to find one another, despite all odds against it. And when the meeting takes place--there is no seperation, heart to heart, soul to soul...and so the desire of the seeker is to find those of the heart. Oh, to dwell in Unity! The peace that is there does indeed pass all understanding!

[universalcitizen]

18. ah, yes, transcendence isn't a meeting of the minds or

a ballot in a box! Only Spirit knows spirit and it is beyond time and space and the imagination of the mind.

The impossible thing for the mind to understand is that the "enemy out there" is really "the enemy within." It is the attempt of survival of the separated ego mentality that creates the endless war. When the ego is slain, by the awakening of the spirit then the great peace is found.

Knowing you know that ah yes, we are One.

[Zorbuddha]

23. You answered most questions posed on this forum with that response.

That about sums it up. Now, who's buying drinks?

Cheers!

[immoderate]

17. It's five of one, and a half dozen of the other.

--IMM

[Nikia]

21. I have come to believe that it is intent

In my teens, I joined a Church of Christ. They were very big into worshipping the God of the Bible and only worshipping in the way that the Bible says. I read the Bible closely and still wondered whether certain things were right or wrong or whether certain theology was more or less correct. I really was concerned about getting everything right. I also grew around a lot of Catholics who believed that there was no salvation outside of the Church and they wanted to get it right as well.
In college, I met people of several different religions. Being college students, several students were converts to different faiths than the one they were raised in. I was not afraid to talk about different faiths. They all had good intentions. Some were very dogmatic, but others said that they acknowledged that other faiths may be true as well, but that they had found the best one for themselves. despite this, I was still concerned about getting it right.
Then one December evening after I had smoked a bit of pot, I went walking our dog with my husband. I noticed Christmas displays. One display included the three wisemen. I laughed and then I said "You know, the three wisemen weren't Jewish and probably never became Christian, yet they found Jesus by use of their methods (astrology). They were among the first to honor him. God spoke to them in a dream. God does accept religious diversity."
Sometimes, I still want to be getting it right, but I acknowledge that God will respect people's understanding of Him (or Her or both) whatever that may be. I don't think that any one religion has it absolutely correct because religion simplifies it as well as adding culturual and personal experiences. We are all imperfect in our understanding. Whatever you call God, God knows what you mean.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. There is one God

different people understand that divinity differently. And that's ok.

You'll find similar commandments to adherents of many different faiths the world over: most boil down to treating each other justly.

Religion is a man-made construct, theology human kind's attempt to explain the divine. As such it is all flawed. We can't do perfect, we can only continue to strive to understand.

I do not believe that God requires a loyalty oath, is interested in which religion you've practiced or is terribly concerned about the fine points of your creed. I think the message God has tried to teach us over and over, and in different ways, is that we are loved, and we are called to love one another.

Very simple, and very difficult to actually do.

[Az]

34. Here is a concept I find troubling

You claim of loving one another that it is "Very simple, and very difficult to actually do." Why would you think this? I find loving my fellow humans to be quite easy and natural to do. Where does this notion that it is difficult to do come from for you?

[JerseygirlCT]

38. It's quite easy to love the people you find lovable

and perhaps those you have neutral feelings for. It's hard indeed to love those who hurt you or yours. How much love do you easily summon for Bush, for example? The kid who beat up your kid yesterday? The guy who cut you off on the highway a few minutes ago? It's not just a lack of angry or negative feelings. Loving is active.

If you truly find that easy to do in all cases, then I'm glad for you, and admire you. But most of us do not.

I find it's far easier to make proclamations about the correct way to live and the rules one must follow and the creed one must subscribe to than it is for people to simply love one another.

[Az]

39. Its a matter of wanting to understand

I can have positive feelings for a person even if they harm me. I understand that they do so out of ignorance or fear.

I think part of the problem is that the concept of a person being evil is introduced by many beliefs. I don't believe that there is such a thing as evil. Not in the way it is suggested by these beliefs.

I happen to believe that most people are basically good. Their actions and goals are decided by a desire to do the right thing. Of course we can learn to do bad things or to allow bad things to happen. But this is merely learning a bad path.

In this way it is possible to look at the things others do not as malicious or evil. Rather it allows you to try to figure out what it is that drives them to it. Why they believe the things they do are right.

It is unfortunate but the single emotion that can drive people to do the most heinous of things is love. It is love guided by ignorance that causes the problem. Love propells us to do great things. But if the direction it takes us in is not well informed or guided by wisdom it can reak great destruction.

As soon as we start trying to label things as evil or hateful we lose understanding. We simply choose to sweep these things into a category that we have labeled as our enemy. We lose sight of the fact that what motivates them is love of something we do not yet percieve or understand. Just as they do not percieve what it is we are concerned most about.

[H2O Man]

33. Five short answers.

Christianity: "There is one God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in you all."

Judaism: "Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us all?"

Confucianism: "Remember even when alone that the Divine is everywhere."

Hinduism: "He is the one God hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings, watching over all worlds, dwelling in all beings, the witness, the perceiver."

Sikhism: "There is but one God whose name is true. He is the creator, immortal, unborn, self-existent."

Luckily for us, Jeffery Moses has authored, "Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions." The book is promoted as a step towards multicultural tolerance by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

[H2O Man]

35. A holistic answer ....

"The term 'holistic' comes from the Greek holos, which in our context means wholeness. The term refers to comprehending reality as a function of a whole in integrated process. The term 'holistic' is used to denote that reality is an undivided whole; that it is not fragmented; that the entirety is the fundamental reality. The holistic vision is based on an integration of knowledge. Science, art. spirituality, and tradition interface with one another to create a culture of wisdom that overcomes the fragmentation of knowledge manifested in the academic disciplines."
-- Ramon Gallegos Nava


("If they only knew -- we could save the world." - George Harrison)

[H2O Man]

36. Which religion?

"Religion I take to be concerned with faith in the claims of salvation of one faith tradition or another, an aspect of which acceptance of some form of metaphysical or supernatural reality, including perhaps an idea of heaven or nirvana ..... Spirituality I take to be concerned with those qualities of the human spirit -- such as love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony -- which bring happiness to both self and others."
-- the Dalai Lama

[Az]

37. Its a nice idea

But the notion that they are all worshiping the same god is a bit shortsighted when you look closer at their doctrine. If the Word of their Doctrine can be said to be the closest we can come to know their god besides our own internal communing with him then they are drastically different individuals.

Its only when you break them down to a generalized view that you can draw similarities. And I would suggest that the clergy and proponents of the specific religions would disavow any attempt to dilute their own particular doctrine.

I will say that it is very likely that any religious view examined from a sufficiently distant point will be found to be sufficiently similar to others. This is simply because they are all trying to explain the same phenomena. Whether their explanations are accurate or not is of course the central question.

[H2O Man]

40. "a nice idea....." ......

From his book "The Soul of a Butterfly," Muhammad Ali describes his meeting with the Dalai Lama: "We finally met in 2003 at an interfaith temple just outside of Bloomington, Indiana. The Dalai Lama had named the temple, which is on the grounds of the Tibetan Cultural Center, Champtse Ling, or 'Field of Love and Compassion.' ...Leaders from sixteen religions and denominations were there to speak. The Dalai Lama wanted to impress upon everyone that 'all religions have the same potential and capacity to serve humanity.' He stressed that religious teachings should be a part of all of our lives. I understand that there are many paths to God, and I believe that Islam is the correct path for me. Like the Dalai Lama, I respect people of different religious beliefs and agree that spirituality should be a central focus of our daily lives. Spirituality helps us achieve self-discipline, forgiveness, and love, which are so essential to a peaceful existence in living among others."

I think that many religious leaders would gently disagree with you.

[Az]

41. Certainly

Someone is clearly wrong. The big mystery is sorting out if anyone is right or even close to being right.

But your statement does not dismiss my observation. From a sufficiently distant view any functional belief will have similar qualities with others. The subject matter in all cases is the same. And that is specifically the Human Condition.

[H2O Man]

42. Bill Moyers on Joseph Cambell:

"He wanted to know what it means that God assumes such different masks in different cultures, yet how it is that comparable stories can be found in these divergent traditions -- stories of creation, of virgin births, incarnations, death and resurrection, second comings, and judgment days. He liked the insight from the Hindu scripture: 'Truth is one; the sages call it by many names.' All our names and images for God are masks, he said, signifying the ultimate reality that by definition transcends language and art. A myth is a mask of God, too -- a metaphor for what lies behind the visible world. However the mystic traditions differ, he said, they are in accord in calling us to a deeper awareness of the very act of living itself. The unpardonable sin, in Campbell's book, was the sin of inadvertence, of not being alert, not quite awake."

Maybe it would be a good time for more people to wake up to what the leaders of different religions do agree upon ....

[Az]

43. Unfortunately

They tend to go to war over the things they don't agree upon. Belief is not negotiable.

You will find that most religions that survive for any length of time will evolve along paths that are conducive to productive societies. They also unfortunately also can pick up some oppressive traits as well though. Religion can bring with it both marvel and horror.

[H2O Man]

44. "A tree has a million leaves.

There are as many religions as there are men and women, but they are all rooted in God." -- Gandhi

"There should be truth in thought, truth in speech, and truth in action. Devotion to truth is the sole justification of our existence. It is impossible for us to realize perfect truth so long as we are imprisoned in this mortal frame." -- Gandhi

If there is "God," than God IS God, and because we men and women are imprisoned in this mortal frame, the differences is doctrine are the result of that fragmentation that Nava spoke of .... the differences in religion tend to be caused by easily understood cultural variations .... one would not expect men and women at the arctic north to have the same ceremonies as men and women living near the equator.

Yet in each of the different religious systems, there have been "leaders" - for lack of a better term - who are in fact the people who Campbell recognizes as the "awaken."

For this reason, we find the prophet Isaiah (51-9) saying, "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in ancient days, in generations of old."

For those who are awake, there is not the fragmentation of truth that creates confusion among different doctrines. The word "yes" replaces the need to rely upon "no."

[Az]

45. The most important word in all those quotes

If.

If there is a god. God is not plain to see and recognise before us. The only common thread between all religions and all beliefs is simply the human condition. That which we call god may simply be our labeling of our perceptions brought about by the nature of our existance.

[H2O Man]

46. If so

that is "God." And the truth is still the truth. And "yes" is still a far more positive condition than "no."

The common thread -- the human condition -- does connect religions. It could not be otherwise, because being in this mortal frame it is impossible to realize the perfected Truth. And, as the OP asked a question (or a line of questions!) regarding what what is important in attempting to approach that Truth, it is perhaps more beneficial to examine the teachings of those who have come closest to being awakened to the Truth (yes), rather than focusing on those things that tend to make people stumble when they walk in their sleep (no). That, in fact, would seem to answer the OP's questions.

[Az]

47. Ok, that is going to take some explaining

You claim the common thread is not the human condition. Please support that statement. Simply claiming it does not make it so.

Perfected Truth. You seem to be suggesting that something such as the Perfected Truth must exist and can only be a god like entity. I see no evidence suggesting this necissarily be so. Could you please support this statement as well?

Questions lead to answers which may lead to more questions. This is natural. The original question is an opening to a dialog. A path. A journey. They can be fascinating if taken without fear and in the hopes of discovering something new.

[H2O Man]

48. Actually

I agreed that the human condition is the common thread. In fact, I said it could not be otherwise.

"Truth is God." -- Gandhi.
The implication is not that God is limited to truth, but that truth is an attribute of God. The Perfected Truth is what Nava spoke of in the holistic vision based on integrated knowledge -- where he spoke of science, art, spirituality, and traditions interfacing with one another ..... and making the fragments whole.

When one views the questions of religion ("what's more important...") from thisvantage point, it eliminates the need of saying one is "right" or another is "wrong." Rather, they are connected fragments which lead to the recognizing that the human condition is not separate from the divine. I suspect that it what Campbell speaks of when he talks about "being alive."

"People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances within our innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive ..." -- Campbell

Again, as I believe we agree (but can't be sure!), being imprisoned in this mortal frame, as the Mahatma put it, makes it impossible for one person to explain exactly what is real, clear, and obvious to him/her to another person. There are numerous examples of one person attempting to force his/her reality on another in terms of religious beliefs, that we find those who are awake tend to avoid rigid definitions or rules, and instead teach with guidelines to the path they have traveled.

[Az]

49. Clarity achieved

Forgive me for misunderstanding the initial comment. Yes I believe we are more in agreement than opposed. Some labels and priorities may differ. But this is to be expected. While not on the same path we do see to be trying to head towards the same goal.

[H2O Man]

50. Sometimes I think of the story

about the blind men describing the elephant. Perhaps that is a good description of the various religions.

[Az]

51. I was actually thinking of working that into the conversation

It is an apt description of the problem.