Cheers Simon, I suppose my point is that Jewish/Christian belief/worldview has been un-western for a few thousand years – way before Rob Bell, anyway

Mmnnn. I’d call Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrian Middle Eastern, though. Very different to what I mean by Eastern, and a long way from Zen(!)

Cheers Simon,
Of course, Judaism was/is more an ‘eastern’ worldview. As for Christianity, a lot of serious/detailed stuff has been said/written about to what extent the early church fathers made Christianity ‘westernised’ (Greek-i-fied, etc.), or perhaps were communicating their understandings to a Greek audience, etc. All this just to say that the divide between ‘western/logical’ and ‘eastern/mystical’ isn’t so clear?

As for me, I admit I can lean to the ‘logical’ side a bit, but I certainly hope to be able to use both my objective and subjective faculties in this endless pursuit of truth. No doubt, we both have to keep thinking!

Thanks!

I have recently and inadvertently, actually, become aware of [some of the] more Eastern explications of the experiential-ness and mystery of existence.

(In most ways I find the Eastern ‘language’ more sensible, and looking back I can see that christianity is very much part and parcel of the sort of declarative, deterministic thinking that gave birth to Western academia ( which most certainly has daunting accomplishments.) I find that many of your(Dale’s) views are of this ilk – declarative and deterministic; ‘logical’, I guess. E.g. god having to be ‘above’ time, beyond existing and creating. But on the other hand often more….well, Zen, I guess – less deterministic and less seeded by Westernity (as opposed to the like of the chaps at ThinkingMatters) And I see christinaity heading this way; liberal, mor INclusive, less EXclusivistic, like Rob Bell)

And I agree that it is beyond words. However, I’m not sure that [I agree that] it is possible to be beyond words and prostrate to logic – as you mention – at the same time. I shall have to give this some more thought!

Good comment, Simon!
Yes, words fail. And you’re right to draw a massive distinction between the unprecedented ‘Creating’ of the Creator, and the very-precedented ‘creating’ which we ‘creative’ humans ‘create’.

No arse-ness at all! Sounds like we agree? Even if the words fail, the logic seems to me to be crystal clear – even inescapably so.

Dale,

Well, yes, I think I relise what you’re saying: It’s always a ‘supra-’ kind of description. Which is to say that words ultimately fail – god is inexpressable. So when you use the word ‘existence’ or even ‘essence’ – if I make you commit to properly defining these words, we will have driven out of them the import that you intend.

The word ‘exist’ and the word ‘thing’ ultimately fail. Hence god is a non-existing ‘existing’ non-thing ‘thing’.
I have to say though, I am more receptive to what you are saying than I seem here. I am quite ready to admit the mystery and experiential quality of existence. (Is that what you mean by ‘actual’ in 28?)

Do we really think it possible that a Creator of all things…..

No. No to the question. Where is there precident for this? When we see things created around us, or create things ourselves – when do we ever make something out of nothing? We always use pre-existing materials. Ergo, even when you use the word ‘created’ and attribute it to god it is a mis-use of the word.
The non-existing ‘existing’, non-thing ‘thing’ which non-created ‘created’ everything.

Appologies for being an arse!

Simon,
I’ve not said that God has no kind of existence, or that he has no essence; rather, I’ve said he has a God-like kind of existence and suggested that his nature is more actual than the word ‘thing’ can handle
Do we really think it possible that a Creator of all things even could have the same kind of mode of ‘existence’ or ‘thingness’ that the created things have?

Good point Ian! What does it mean to say that “god exists” if we don’t mean exist by the word ‘exist’?

Forgive by bluntness Dale but I find the idea that there is a non-existing existing non-thing thing which is [a] god and which is even discernable! Multiverse – 0, Dale – 1 -

Yes, and you’ll hate this, but (again) God-like kind of existence is not ‘mere existence’, but rather something entirely different. For all of our familiarity (whether experiential or experimental) with the kind of existence which ‘things’ have, this does not (nor could it) rule out (or confirm, of course) entire other modes/kinds of existence.

That was kind of my point although I’d go one step further which is that saying this version of god exists is actually a meaningless statement because existence or lack thereof is not a property of a non-thing.