Please note that in my post 107 I very explicitely distinguished between the believing theist, particulary, one who believes in the Judeo-Christion (should one append -Moslem) God,* and the agnostic or atheist. For the theist the world is a very different place than it is for the non-believerer. I can accept an analysis such as yours as valid (more or less, I didn't read it in detail). But I am interested in the analysis from the point of view of the non-believer, whose case is quite different. Certainly the deconstrutionists are for the most part (if not without exception) non-believers, and therefor, if you want to understand them you have to try to see the world through their eyes as unbelievers. And if you want to refute them you have to refute them in the same light or worldview. If you want to base your refutation on religious ideas, you would have to convert them first. If they where converted, they would see the world as you do and would freely abandon the ir previous views as incompatible with their new religion.
*In this context I cited the same verse that you quoted, John 1;1.
If you want to base your refutation on religious ideas, you would have to convert them first. If they where converted, they would see the world as you do and would freely abandon the ir previous views as incompatible with their new religion. Interesting points, Aurelius. Along this line one can see why others, thinking solely from their own point of view that the post-modern movement as a para-military organization that aims to destroy the world, beginning with academia. This is an unprofitable opinion, but I know how popular it is for jouralists the learn the art of debunking.
I have suggested above that what has given rise to the post-modern position has been the bankruptcy of Rational-ism. It is odd the religious view will defend rationalism against the post-modern movement. This is a confusion based on ignorance.