[Gem]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

That is not obvious to me but everyone is entitled to their opinions.

It's pretty simple really. Religion is symbolic and symbolic meaning is dualistic. If I say 'I am a Christian' I have to remove myself for 'the other' who is 'not'. Indeed I would never have to say I am not a Christian if someone else didn't claim that they were. I am basically forced into the 'not position' to be used to affirm their identity. That's a force of power exerted on be through the creation of 'the other'. There is the dual identification symbol. The problem is, symbolic meaning needs extreme ends. Heaven Hell. God Devil. Jesus 'all good' and sinners etc. To maintain the meaning religions require exteme ends because they are symbolic structures, so there has to be a Queen Mary of Scotts, Jihadis, 'the troubles' in Ireland and/or the many other real life example.


For a bloke like me, who never said I am this or I am that, I didn't position anyone as 'not what I am' use them as a contrast against which I orient myself, so when other people say I am this or I am that, I understand how that necessitated then exerting power over 'the other' who is made 'not'. The religious identioty simply cannot exist without 'the not', so power exertion is inevitable, and power requires a resistance to exert against.


The nature of it is inherently volatile, and from outset it creates relational conditions which are conducive to violence.

My sense is that there is an underlying "core teaching" at the foundation of the various religions upon which all can agree. I have spoken on that subject in various diverse groups including Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Shamans, Native Americans, etc.

Let's explore the depths and see what emerges.

I understand what I say is offensive to the ideal, but I think if people really examined what I'm trying to explain and see how the formation of religion in itself is an act of violence.