I would begin by saying that I'm personally not convinced that "We are culturally constructed, mind, body and soul", consciousness does indeed remain an enigma that no materialist theory has yet satisfactorily explained. Indeed modern science and analytical philosophy begin with the "assumption" that phenomenal reality is all there is, but this assumption is more like a prejudice than a stable premise.
However, I think a good way to answer some of the objections to what Poirot and I appear to be arguing in unison is to defer to Derrida, perhaps the pre-eminent philosopher of this poststructuralism. The following link gives his idea of the problematic of the text. Scroll down to the heading "Of Grammatology".

Crabsy, Jung's archetypes are also not outside the symbolic order. Interestingly, Lacan (the pre-eminent theorist of the symbolic order) was a disciple of Freud, and of course Freud and Jung (former friends) fell out over their antagonistic theories.

Dear Ammonite,

"I see trying to make a point about how religion influences what we see as well as what we may believe is completely lost on you."

And I was under the impression that your main point was to ask me whether I was Christian.

As for your comment about the influences of religions (i.e. organized religions) on human perception, well that's a well-documented phenomena, not much to say about it and since I found no obvious connection between this phenomena and anything else that I wrote here, all I was left to comment about was that poor toast.

Dear Crabsy,

I love Tillich's description. Thanks. I also agree with your following exposition of his words. Unfortunately, we have no option but to present such ideas in relative language, which doesn't do them enough justice. I understand what you wrote, but I'm afraid that others may not. When you mention for example "to restore its link with its origin", others who perceive themselves as separate from God may perhaps imagine a chain or a rubber band of a sort.

Sorry, here's the link to Derrida:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

Here is a man who has chosen to embed his religion in his identity. Well his drivers licence anyway, and that is an id, right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523

Thank you rstuart for that link. It’s provided a refreshing bit of reality to this otherwise ridiculous discussion that could only be described as wishful thinking and mere assertions and pure unfounded speculation at best.

My favourite line from the article: “After receiving his application the Austrian authorities had required him to obtain a doctor's certificate that he was "psychologically fit" to drive.”

A lot of progress has been made in the last decade or so but the fact that some here are not too ashamed to admit that something like religion is embedded into their identity, along with the fact that someone who is simply trying to make an important point can have their mental health questioned when yet not an eyelid is batted when those who hold such equally absurd beliefs are given a free pass, just goes to show how far we still have to go.

The strength-in-numbers/peer-group aspect of religious belief is the only reason we wouldn’t psychologically assess theists. If one person alone believed half the nonsense uttered on this thread, we’d question their fitness to function and go unmonitored in a civilised society.

Actually, one other point I forgot to make...

I don't think any of you theists realise just how much better life can be when you deal with reality on reality's terms.