Oedipus Rex as a Religious Drama
His actions are riven by the intention to flout a prophecy, which is, of course, killing his father and weding his mother.  He is not consciously guilty of the criminal activities of incest, however the reality and paradox of the play states that he is backing them. He takes the role of partner and child, bro and daddy; he is equally guilty and innocent, despite the juxtaposed nature of these conditions, a reflection of the conditions from which humankind sprang. There is a guaranteed tone of reverence in the dark subject, and a subsequent lesson that Gods that their prophecies demand respect.
However, the etting of the festival and homage to the Gods make it an essentially spiritual play. Central to spiritual drama is the principle that ‘male need to comply with magnificent order- even at the cost of himself. ‘C7] In Oedipus Rex, this magnificent order is predetermined by the prophecies of the Oracle which is the driving force for the whole plot. Oedipus’ parents receive the prophecy at his birth; later on, when called a ‘bastard’, Oedipus goes to the Oracle and gets the very same information; and when a pester attacks Thebes, Creon is sent out to consult it once again, which reveals its fulfilment. 8] The Oracle’s presence is extremely ctive, and in this sense, satisfies the role of an antagonist. Its also enforces Aristotle’s idea that a character is just a result of plot, as the characters action are exclusively dictated by the details offered by the Oracle.  The function is additional enforced by the fact that it is not a mere invention; it was a vey real part of Greek culture, where spirituality and politics are intricately connected. Despite the characters best efforts (Jacosta and Laius leaving their son for dead, and Oedipus fleeing who he believed to be his moms and dads. its fulfilment was apparently inescapable, maybe even brought on by their understanding of the rophecy. [l O] It is in the avoidance Of situation in which the prediction might be satisfied, that is distance to the unsafe other, that Oedipus and Laius were able to meet. [1 1] As afore discussed the forecast is the force behind the plot, but it is the characters resistance that cause the dispute and therefore the drama. Not to taint a spiritual discussion with a Freudian psychoanalytical point of view, but, as this dispute shows, Oedipus is maybe the least most likely person to have an Oedipus Complex; he dedicates his life to its avoidance.
C12] When he discovers his situation, his expenses are banishment, he loss of his kids and his eyes, “Now I will do what need to be done to the source of This is a highly symbolic action as in Greek the words for ‘understand and ‘see’ are reporter.  He is actually removing the ‘understanding’ of his sins, understanding he looked for with such dynamism from the oracle, an image soaked with paradox. The ultimate approval that Apollo’s will have been fulfilled is, possibly, the spiritual moral of the play; the Gods are omniscient, therefore their laws will constantly be up held.
Aristotle states, within its six elements (plot, character, diction, spectacle, thought and 5], that ‘Tragedy is an imitation … f occasions inspiring worry or pity [1 6] which the Tragic hero is ‘above the common man’, but not definitively excellent, he should have a defect. [1 7] In significance to Oedipus Rex, and the sense in which it is a religious play, these components highlight the enforced influence the presence of the Gods have on the actions of the characters, and the concept of free choice. The event ‘motivating fear and pity’ is probably the act of incest.
Although a taboo subject despite culture and period, its analysis changes across time. A modern-day view is one that inherently links incest to child abuse, as we are considerably influenced by feminist theory. 1 8] Such theory states that incest is an abuse of the power dynamics in the household unit, usually from dad to child.  Nevertheless the incest represented in the play is unintentionally carried out, by consenting grownups, but, nonetheless, provokes a disgusted response. The cross-contamination of ‘blood’ is widely thought about ‘polluted and abnormal’. 20] The circumstances surrounding Oedipus and Jacosta’s union could be the fear provoking aspect. The magnitude of the awful universe developed requires the reader to question whether Oedipus would truly have actually killed a stranger over access, if the riddle of the ‘Sphinx’ was truthfully that hard- which permitted his passage to Thebes, or if the intoxicated mans accusation of ‘bastard’ were simple coincidence, The enormity of the paradox recommends some nasty play on the part of the Gods.