Modernism vs Post-Modernism, in the Church

[Neirai the Forgiven]

Well, I said I was going to do this. It's been a long time coming, and I hope it's well received. I write this with fear and trembling, as I hope I do the issue justice.

This paradox weighs on me quite heavily. I'm a post-modernist Christian, and that makes it hard for me to bite my tongue sometimes, and it also means I get misunderstood a lot. So, I'd like to explain the two, how they interact with Christianity, and why both are Christians. Hopefully I succeed in this task.

This post will be colorful. That's because I'm trying to organize my thoughts into things you can tell apart, instead of one black mess that looks the same. For now, I'm going to set Dark Green -- this color -- apart for the purpose of defending Post-modernism against its detractors. I will use Black for comparing the two and telling you what the difference is, and I will use Sienna -- found above -- for my own thoughts.

Good Post-Modernism vs Bad Post-Modernism
Many of us have an idea in our heads when we hear the phrase "Post-modernism." Along with that phrase comes thoughts like "what's good for you isn't what's good for me" or "everything is relative" or "the Bible is important for you, and that's cool, but it's not for me" or "there is no Truth."

The fact is that while all of these phrases are associated with Post-Modernism, none of them is what I would call "Good Post-Modernism." That is to say, P-M that is intellectually honest. In fact, most of the artists, theologians, or people that you hear use such things aren't Postmodernists. Actually, they are Modernists who have had their viewpoints challenged by Postmodernism and no longer believe that Absolutes exist. A Postmodernist would not say such a thing, as postmodernists do in fact believe that Absolutes exist. They simply believe that Absolutes must be viewed through perspectives.

Why am I blathering about this? Well, I want you to keep in mind what I just said as I talk about Modernism and Postmodernism.

What is Modernism?

To begin, I'd like to talk about Science. In the 1700s, Sir Isaac Newton developed his law of gravity, proving to the world that the essential laws of how the universe worked could be discovered, worked out, and understood. Newton's efforts began an age known as the Modern Age. Hallmarks of the Modern age included the belief that we can figure out the universe.

In the Modern Age, people did just that. Science grew in leaps and bounds. Laws of every scientific thing sprang up in textbooks. We explored the human body. Discovered bacteria, and then antibiotics. Harnessed electricity and then nuclear energy. Broke the sound barrier.

Outside of science, psychologists cracked the puzzle of the human mind. Behaviorism, theories of personality, neurobiology, and many other fantastic concepts sprang into existence. The Modern Age was the time of cures, with diseases that used to paralyze our ancestors being walked all over.

In philosophy and theology, the Modern Era was a great time of figuring it all out. Metaphysics were analyzed; God himself was analyzed.

In short, Modernism is the cultural perspective that says "We can know the complete truth about everything. We can discover the Absolutes."


The Christianity Snag

Modernism hit a snag, however. Two, to be precise. 18th century Christian philosopher Emmanuel Kant, the most influential philosopher since Aristotle, declared that metaphysics were unable to be known by reason, halting much of the religious/philosophical discussions of religion. This declaration placed the idea of religion partially outside of the realm of Modernism, a factor that spawned both the Liberal and Conservative church movements as a reaction to the unknowability of metaphysics.

The second snag is paradox. Because the Modernist mindset believes that we can know the complete truth about everything, and in the church that means we can know the Truth because it's in the Bible, things that are opposed to other things are really problematic.

Okay, I enjoyed that last sentence. What I mean specifically is that if one source of metaphysical "knowing" (let's say God's word) and another (God's word in another place? God's word in another translation? Science? Psychology?) disagree, one of the following MUST be true:
-One must be wrong. Say, the Bible must be right, and Science wrong.
-Both must be agreeing, but they look like they are disagreeing. Say, Paul saying we're saved by grace and James believers must have works to show for their salvation.
-The universe must have no meaning. This is often the result of these kinds of exercises; the exerciser begins to feel that it's all bunk after all.

Remember, in the Modernism perspective, the universe has been disseminated into knowable chunks. And if it's not, it can or should be. When the known chunks disagree with each other, you have a serious problem.

TL;DR: Modernists believe that Absolutes can be, and possibly are, completely known.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

What is Post-Modernism?

Once again, let's begin with a Scientist. In the 1900s, Albert Einstein threw a big monkey wrench into the field of physics by discovering his theory of relativity, which basically states that the laws of the universe change depending on where you're standing. Or in many cases, moving very fast.

Einstein proceeded to put a lot of quirks into the Modern Age's discoveries. He discovered, for example, that the Law of Gravity, which started off the Modern Age, was wrong if and only if you were close enough to a lot of gravity. So while the Law of Gravity formula works quite well, it actually is self-defeating.

Einstein's discoveries shook the Modern Age to the core, to a point that one couldn't really call it the Modern Age anymore. So people started calling it the Postmodern Age.

In the Postmodern Age, things were a little different. The people looking in microscopes found out that they couldn't get to the simple understandable bottom of things; instead, the complexity kept going. They weren't sure where it all ended, or whether it just kept on going depending on where you looked. Medically, solving diseases has lead to discovering more diseases, and conditions, syndromes, and then you have antidepressants selling like hot cakes. Psychology is a field with a hundred methods and a thousand perspectives, and is no where closer to being a hard science than when Freud started it all.

Like the concept of "Laws" in Modernism being applied to more than just Science, the Postmodern idea of relativity was applied to other things than just science. Relativity was applied to such fields as philosophy and theology as well.


Oops.
The application of Relativity to other things than Science didn't always go well. In the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties...

Let's just say that "Relativism" got to be a dirty word. People took it to mean "no rules." "No truth." "No consequences."

But let's go back up to Einstein for a minute. He said that the rules changed in relation to some pretty specific things, like traveling near the speed of light, or being close to an incredible mass.

Actually, the rules changed based on perspective. It wasn't like they went away completely.


Postmodernism: Absolutism, with difference.
Now, if you read the line above me, you probably read "Absolutism, with DIFF-rince." That's not correct. That line reads "Absolutism, with di-FERR-ince."

Difference, with the emphasis on the second syllable, is the philosophy that says that between what you know about something and what the something is is a perspective.

Maybe a few perspectives, depending on where you got the knowledge.

This is the essence of Postmodernism; whatever you know about the universe, you know through a perspective.


It's blue! Because it's an example!
Let's say you know that the Bible says something. For the sake of argument, let's say that you believe that the Bible teaches that sex should be within marriage only.

That's great.

But what is sex?
And what is marriage?
And what is "only?"

In Modernism, you can be sure that you know exactly what sex is, and what marriage is, and what "only" is.

Problem is, says the Postmodernist, you could be wrong. Your definition of what sex is belongs to your time, your culture, and your church. Certainly your definition of marriage does. And your interpretation of "only" can also be changed, although that's a little harder.

Unless you get into translation. What is "only" is only one of three words that could be used in the place of the Hebrew/Greek word that is in that passage?

What if you agree with, say, Billy Graham that it means "only" but you disagree with, say, some other guy with similar credentials?

I'm not trying to undermine the belief that I think most of us share, that sex is to be within marriage only. I'm simply saying you HAVE a perspective. For a Modernist, the existence of perspective is often never realized. For a Postmodernist, it must be.


Where are the absolutes?
Under diFFERence, the postmodernist culture flourishes. No longer completely relativistic, the Postmodernist movement believes in knowledge relative to absolutes. Yes, Postmodernists believe that you can't know Truth, but they also believe that truth, that is, what you know, must be formed in relation to Truth, by seeking it out.

I used the lowercase truth and capital Truth there to mean what you know, and the Truth itself.

This is hard for many people to swallow. Hopefully it doesn't mean you all come after me with pitchforks and torches.

Often, I hear people ask or say "what the Bible says." In fact, we've even got a whole forum dedicated to people debating what God says about things.

Funny thing is, we don't agree. Does this mean that some of us aren't led by God, don't follow God, or are simply deluded? Or does it mean we are each sharing different perspectives about what God says?

A Modernist should say we are sharing what God says, or that we are forum trolls, or maybe one poster is right and the others are all wrong.

Man, it's really hard for me to remain unbiased doing this. I guess I suck at it

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

Placeholder, so I can get back to it.

I am going to talk about Modernism, Postmodernism, and "the war in the Church." But I want to talk to some people first, let this simmer in my head.
I really felt that I was running out of steam on the above post, because I wanted to have a parallel structure, and it didn't work so well. When I broke structure, it became hard to write out my thoughts, so the above might be a schmauz.

 

[ewoksrule]

Interesting write up so far. Will probably respond as I digest it.

I just read a quote from Phil Johnson that made me think of this thread.

"Postmodernism might be defined in a nutshell as, the belief that no single world view offers a universally and objectively true perspective on all of life and reality."

"Postmodernism is hostile to every world view that makes a universal truth claim"

 

[Bowser]

I love your post, Neirai; thanks.

 

[inkelis]

Thank you for posting this Neirai; it was a very good read =D

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

"Postmodernism might be defined in a nutshell as, the belief that no single world view offers a universally and objectively true perspective on all of life and reality."

Yes, but after a fashion. It's not the universal truth that's an issue. As a Postmodernist, I believe in one universal truth, that revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and the revelation of God. At the same time, I believe that the words "Objectively true" and "Perspective" are oxymorons. Perspectives are subjective.

So, I would say that the Bible, for example, and here I'm going to get nasty responses, is "the most true perspective on the objective truth of the universe, short only of direct revelation from God himself." The Bible is not "direct revelation," it's got at least one level of difFERence than, say, God appearing at the foot of your bed one morning.

"Postmodernism is hostile to every world view that makes a universal truth claim"

Nope. He's confusing Postmodernism with Relativism. They are two different animals.

Postmodernists are opposed to the idea of taking a truth claim, blindfolding yourself to all the nuances of our multifaceted world, and spreading it over something it's not intended to be spread on; but not to the idea of truth being universal.

Let's say Jesus says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me." I accept that statement. That is universally true. Jesus was the direct revelation of God, so he's speaking the universal, objective truth.

Really, it's a question of perspective versus objectivity. A Modernist often says that a perspective and an objective are pretty much identical. A Postmodernist says that they are not.

Often, I will hear evangelists or apologists who are Modernists argue that "the Bible says..."

Say, for an example, "The Bible says Homosexuality is wrong."

They are wrong.

The Bible does not say Homosexuality is wrong, it says Homosexuality is תועבה or Βδέλυγμα, Abomination, assuming Google translator serves me well.

The speaker has assumed that Abomination == wrong, even though that's not what was written there.

So the speaker has a translation, which he is then re-interpreting into action. That's perfectly fine. But then he's saying that the Bible says what his translation+re-interpretation says. Which isn't the same thing.

So then he says "and this is why we need to politically oppose gay marriage. Because the Bible says that it's wrong."

The Bible says very little about gay marriage without being re-interpreted.

Actually, if you read Romans in context, Paul says that Homosexuality is an Abomination, which can, and should, be translated as "wrong." Or at least as "bad." But he says that, instead of this being why "Christians should oppose homosexual rights and marriage," this is why Paul feels a burning need to tell them about Jesus (Romans 1:11-17 -- the "non-Greeks" that Paul refers to are the Barbarians, who he says practice the list of sins (18-32) which follow and include Homosexuality.) In short, the apostle doesn't want to oppose them, he wants to share the good news.

As hopefully can be seen in my example, I separated the perspective from the objective (or near-objective) truths, showing how a universal truth can be used in a non-accurate way.

Postmodernists are all for universal truths, but they also realize that perspectives and applications on these truths may not be accurate to that truth itself.

 

[OrryW]

I read an interesting short-story about modernism, post-modernism and perspective. It was called Aristotle OS. The premise was instead of an OS for a computer like we have now that will only accept what it is programmed to accept the OS would accept all information, however the computer lacked perspective and would accept conflicting information, which led to massive problems when the computer was connected to the internet. Later he then upgraded to another OS called Kant OS as the computer refused to accept the previous OS. This would sort the conflicting information via the user, however it had problems separating fact from fiction and present from past and liked to infer things based on it's knowledge which led to odd situations and had the main character's news feed showing things like a utopian society. Anyhow, the point of the story was that knowledge without perspective is dangerous.

Anyhow, I believe you mean "différance" (with the acute accent over the e and the intentional misspelling within the rules of the French language, however the word "différence" means something different, namely difference) Also, the words are pronounced identically, however both different from difference.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

Anyhow, I believe you mean "différance" (with the acute accent over the e and the intentional misspelling within the rules of the French language, however the word "différence" means something different, namely difference) Also, the words are pronounced identically, however both different from difference.

They are the same concept; the idea is that the two ideas seem the same when spoken (in French) but are different when you read them. This is a punny way of explaining how perspective works.

In some Postmodern circles (i.e., my textbook on criticism,) English speakers refer to this same Derridan concept as "difference" and "difference," the difference being that they look the same when read, but sound different (DIFFerence and diFFERence) when spoken.

I honestly don't know how widespread the concept of the "English way" is, but they are supposed to refer to the same thing.

 

[Bowser]

I read an interesting short-story about modernism, post-modernism and perspective. It was called Aristotle OS. The premise was instead of an OS for a computer like we have now that will only accept what it is programmed to accept the OS would accept all information, however the computer lacked perspective and would accept conflicting information, which led to massive problems when the computer was connected to the internet. Later he then upgraded to another OS called Kant OS as the computer refused to accept the previous OS. This would sort the conflicting information via the user, however it had problems separating fact from fiction and present from past and liked to infer things based on it's knowledge which led to odd situations and had the main character's news feed showing things like a utopian society. Anyhow, the point of the story was that knowledge without perspective is dangerous.

Anyhow, I believe you mean "différance" (with the acute accent over the e and the intentional misspelling within the rules of the French language, however the word "différence" means something different, namely difference) Also, the words are pronounced identically, however both different from difference.

Perspective is important, I'll buy that. I just think it's important to get the right one. I mean, that statement in itself (in italics) is pretty subjective. I mean that we should consider all-source, but weigh that information minutely and try to determine the most accurate conclusion. We can't just take someone else's perspective and assume the same; instead we should be objective, or perhaps skeptical (although not necessarily), of the things we observe.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

Perspective is important, I'll buy that. I just think it's important to get the right one. I mean, that statement in itself (in italics) is pretty subjective. I mean that we should consider all-source, but weigh that information minutely and try to determine the most accurate conclusion. We can't just take someone else's perspective and assume the same; instead we should be objective, or perhaps skeptical (although not necessarily), of the things we observe.

That's very correct; as a Postmodernist, I believe that we should never assume (within reason) that our perspective is already the correct one. Humility is the key virtue of knowledge.

That's not to say we can't assume that the Bible is correct. It is. But we need to hold our perspective on what the Bible says carefully, and with humility.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

I'm back.

Today I'm going to talk about Theological Expressionism, Philosophy and Religion, and how they work together.

Theological Expressionism refers to the way that Christians handle expressions found in the Bible (like, "I am not afraid of the Gospel," or "God so loved the world," or "the love of money is the root of all evil.") Expressionism is the single greatest distinction between Conservative and Liberal (Modernists) and Post-Modernist Christians.

Expressionism really comes out in the church as an understanding of how doctrines function. In other words, what the point of doctrine is, and how Christians should interpret them.


Propositional Expressionism
Propositionalism is probably one of the oldest approaches to doctrine and expressionism. According to Propositionalism, Doctrines are True propositional statements derived from scripture.

Now, that's a lot of big words. I'm going to a dictionary to break that down...

In logic, a proposition is a statement in which something is affirmed or denied, so that it can therefore be significantly characterized as either true or false. In the European mindset, since the days of St. Anselm ("Faith seeking Understanding,") theology has been closely tied with logic.

In Propositionalism, then, theological expressions are statements about what is right or wrong about the objective reality we live in.

Blue! or Indigo. Because it's an example!
One of the best-known examples of an expression in scripture, at least among evangelicals, is "We are saved by grace alone."

According to Conservative theology, then, this is a statement about the true way in which people are saved. Through grace. And only through grace. Therefore, any other claim about salvation methods is wrong.

Propositional Expressionism isn't known for its grey areas.

Theology and Philosophy color is purple!

In the aftermath of the philosophical explosion caused by Kant (remember, he proved that it is impossible to rationally grasp "metaphysics,") some theologians decided that they would simply ignore Kant's philosophies. This is largely where Conservative comes from. Because of Conservative theology's rejection of philosophy, it is often seen as a cop-out by more liberal theologians.


Experiential-Expressivist Expressionism
Is it just me, or does that line contain the same word twice?

As opposed to Conservative theology, what is typically known as "Liberal" Christian theology was historically formed as an attempt by Christians to incorporate philosophy -- from Descartes to Kant and maybe even a few names after that -- into Christian theology. Unlike Conservative theology, Liberal theology acknowledges the importance of philosophy. But, as is generally not the case with Conservative theology, Liberal theology can be accused of often dropping the ball by going with philosophy over scripture when conflicts between the two arise.

Basically, the way the E-E expressionism works is by treating doctrinal statements from the Bible as language added to pre-linguistic experiences. What I mean is that, according to Experiential-Expressivist models, a follower of God may have an experience that defies the ability to be quantified by mere words. Over time, they make up words to fit that experience, and those words become religious doctrine.

Example: Let's say an early Hebrew writer finds her- or himself in a particularly interesting and hard to define state of experience. As a result of being in this state, he or she finds that learning true knowledge about the world is easier.

After a while, this writer pens the immortal words, "The fear of the Lord is the root of all knowledge."

According to the E-E model, the writer is commenting on a universally true state, which the author has simply chosen to call "the fear of the Lord." The writer chose that term because that's what the state felt like at the time.

While to some people this concept may seem downright heretical, it has its merit. A prime example of a place where this approach holds water is in the case of the transfiguration. It's pretty obvious in that passage that the disciples had very little clue what really happened there.

Alas, with the E-E model comes a bit of a pitfall. Those that accept the E-E model tend to also have the idea that nothing can exist in the context of religion that does not happen to everybody. While on some levels that is true, on others it leads to problems. You have things like the infamous "Jesus Seminar" (the search for the historical Jesus,) for example, where Liberal scholars sit around and vote on what part of the Gospels is fact, and what is E-E "reconstruction." And the criteria is generally, "has this happened to me?" "no?" "well then it means that it was just an E-E attempt to explain a universal truth, and not literal in any way."

In addition, because any non-universal phenomenon is considered an attempt to explain universal truths, E-E scholars tend to study all religions as the same thing, continually discounting anything that separates one from another. While most Liberal Christians do balk at this notion, their leaders tend to see religions as being equal.

Example: Back up to the Fear of the Lord.

So, the Hebrew sees his or her state as the fear of the Lord. Being in that state creates a heightened ability to "intuit" the universe, causing much knowledge.

On the other side of the world, a Buddhist writes that Enlightenment leads to true knowledge (Buddhist philosophy in this example is highly ignorant, btw.) A E-E scholar may then say, "aha! the Fear of the Lord is a state leading to knowledge, and Enlightenment is a state leading to knowledge. Therefore, what is called in Hebrew the fear of the Lord and in Buddhism is called Enlightenment must be one and the same thing."

Obviously, some people have some major issues with this.

Historically, the biggest issue Christians have with the E-E method is the fact that it essentially makes being a Christian of no value over being a person of "any faith." Or maybe even no faith at all. So as long as you're a good person, that's okay.

The other major problem that comes is that, when you think about it, the only things that all the major religions agree on universally is ethical behavior. People should be good, not evil. So this largely reduces the religions to forces of Ethics, with a "made-up" reasons why we should be ethical.

 

[Logos]

Love the article so far I haven't had time to really READ it in full though...need to sit down and soak it in. I love apologetics so this is one of my favorite areas.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

I changed the above ending to be more specific about what issues I meant.

 

[Logos]

I was reading the last few paragraphs there...and I noticed that you stated or quoted that "Conservative" theology has for the most part ejected Philosophy from their thinking. I personally from studies and even my degree would have to on one hand disagree with that idea. First, I understand there is a legalistic form of fundamental conservatism that in the past went to the extreme of rejecting anything philosophical, but I think there has been a shift in realizing the importance of reasoning and philosophy. For example my degree is in Biblical Studies and Philosophy where we read everything from Homer to Kant, in order to broaden are realm of thinking. Also philosophy has seen a reserge in the apologetic side of conservative christianity as well, examples of this are Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig and many many others.

 

[Patriot]

This may be an ignorant question, but I'd much rather throw out an ignorant question than give an ignorant answer.

What value is added to the Gospel or doctrine by adding philosophy?

(I've never read Kant, Geisler, or any others)

 

[Logos]

No prob Patriot I am not saying by any means that ANY VALUE is added to the Gospel...the gospel itself stands without any help from anyone or anybody aside for the Lord Himself. BUT philosophy helps to answer or at least attempt to asnwer some skeptics questions about Christianity and in turn often times begins to open the door so that the Gospel becomes real and true to them.

and in reference to reading other men of God, I would suggest that you do, because God has used many great men in the past to be bulwarks for sharing the gospel and expounding on the Word of God. I prefer the "dead" guys myself.

 

[Durruck]

From Wiki:

The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom"

"adding" philosophy may be a slight misnomer of what is actually happening. Philosophy is just trying to dig deeper and find out more about something.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Our use of logic or philosophy (and in some cases, our world-views) impact how we look at the Bible. Was Revelation written metaphorically or literally? How did Noah put all the animals on the Ark? Did Methuselah really live to be 933 years old? Did the sinners have a committee meeting and elect Paul their chief? Did the guards really die when throwing Meshach, Shaddrach, and Abendego into the fire? Did David really kill Goliath with a single rock?

There are certainly places that logic and our worldview can be used to help wrap our minds around the concepts in the Bible. With the Ark example, taking baby elephants on board would certainly save a lot of space. Two of each kind were taken - meaning two dogs... not two pitbulls, two great danes, two mastiffs, two poodles....etc.

And looking at Revelation, many parts are clearly metaphoric (the beast is a symbol for Satan, the woman is Israel, and so on). On the other hand, the language used implies that the judgments are literal.

But what Neirai is talking about is how we apply differing theories and individual philosopher's thoughts to God's word. We have to keep in mind that each philosopher tried to make the world fit into their view, rather than making their view fit into the world. When we try to reverse that process, we see the flaws and start trying to make exceptions to either the theory or the world. Sadly, we often choose to twist the Bible because it doesn't fit Kant or Descartes, rather than adjusting the philosopher to fit the Bible - our source of ultimate Truth.

 

[Logos]

From Wiki:


"adding" philosophy may be a slight misnomer of what is actually happening. Philosophy is just trying to dig deeper and find out more about something.

Our use of logic or philosophy (and in some cases, our world-views) impact how we look at the Bible. Was Revelation written metaphorically or literally? How did Noah put all the animals on the Ark? Did Methuselah really live to be 933 years old? Did the sinners have a committee meeting and elect Paul their chief? Did the guards really die when throwing Meshach, Shaddrach, and Abendego into the fire? Did David really kill Goliath with a single rock?

There are certainly places that logic and our worldview can be used to help wrap our minds around the concepts in the Bible. With the Ark example, taking baby elephants on board would certainly save a lot of space. Two of each kind were taken - meaning two dogs... not two pitbulls, two great danes, two mastiffs, two poodles....etc.

And looking at Revelation, many parts are clearly metaphoric (the beast is a symbol for Satan, the woman is Israel, and so on). On the other hand, the language used implies that the judgments are literal.

But what Neirai is talking about is how we apply differing theories and individual philosopher's thoughts to God's word. We have to keep in mind that each philosopher tried to make the world fit into their view, rather than making their view fit into the world. When we try to reverse that process, we see the flaws and start trying to make exceptions to either the theory or the world. Sadly, we often choose to twist the Bible because it doesn't fit Kant or Descartes, rather than adjusting the philosopher to fit the Bible - our source of ultimate Truth.

I would have to second that Durruck!

 

[Patriot]

Our use of logic or philosophy (and in some cases, our world-views) impact how we look at the Bible. Was Revelation written metaphorically or literally? How did Noah put all the animals on the Ark? Did Methuselah really live to be 933 years old? Did the sinners have a committee meeting and elect Paul their chief? Did the guards really die when throwing Meshach, Shaddrach, and Abendego into the fire? Did David really kill Goliath with a single rock?

There are certainly places that logic and our worldview can be used to help wrap our minds around the concepts in the Bible. With the Ark example, taking baby elephants on board would certainly save a lot of space. Two of each kind were taken - meaning two dogs... not two pitbulls, two great danes, two mastiffs, two poodles....etc.

And looking at Revelation, many parts are clearly metaphoric (the beast is a symbol for Satan, the woman is Israel, and so on). On the other hand, the language used implies that the judgments are literal.

But what Neirai is talking about is how we apply differing theories and individual philosopher's thoughts to God's word. We have to keep in mind that each philosopher tried to make the world fit into their view, rather than making their view fit into the world. When we try to reverse that process, we see the flaws and start trying to make exceptions to either the theory or the world. Sadly, we often choose to twist the Bible because it doesn't fit Kant or Descartes, rather than adjusting the philosopher to fit the Bible - our source of ultimate Truth.

This makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. (Except, let's cram up the ark a little more and add 7 of each of the "clean" animals according to their kind)

I guess I'm getting confused at what Neirai is actually proposing since he is describing liberal vs. conservative vs. fundamental vs. post-modernism but at such a high level that it makes it difficult for me to relate it to anything I know.

Neirai - Perhaps if you could provide some concrete examples of how a post-modernist would interpret the Bible, that would be helpful.