[cornelis]

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.

[logos]

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.

Interestingly enough, this is precisely what C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer argued against, both trying to encourage an evangelism which first met its "prospects" on their own turf and teaching that the only way to introduce Christianity in the post-modern world was through the backdoor, so to speak.

From the point of view of bringing new adherants to the faith, I think they were "right on". Unfortunately, I also think it helped to advance the cause of the deconstructionists, even if inadvertantly.