Dao and Logos

[ben d]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

I have been reading, and I am still confused on one aspect...

Logos in relation to god. If it is like Taoism, I hope I receive a simple answer. Is Logos God? Or an effect of God? Is Logos the Prime Mover, or an effect of it? I'm not asking you to divide the oneness, just let me know which part of the oneness it is.

It all depends on what meaning you give to Logos, if one uses it in the context of it being the same as the 'unspeakable' God, then it logically it is not an effect.

However if one uses Logos in the context of it being the expression of God, then logically it is an effect.

[Master Vigil]

That doesn't make any sense. So, if I want to give it one meaning I disagree with you. But if I give it another meaning, I agree with you. I'M SO CONFUSED!

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

I have been reading, and I am still confused on one aspect...

Logos in relation to god. If it is like Taoism, I hope I receive a simple answer. Is Logos God? Or an effect of God? Is Logos the Prime Mover, or an effect of it? I'm not asking you to divide the oneness, just let me know which part of the oneness it is.

To the Greeks who invented the word, "logos" referred to the divine ideal structure of the universe. It was the divine blueprint for all of existence. Simply put, it referred to the 'logic of existence'. Even the pantheon of the gods were part of it, and were subject to it.

[ben d]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

That doesn't make any sense. So, if I want to give it one meaning I disagree with you. But if I give it another meaning, I agree with you. I'M SO CONFUSED!

You will be only confused if you do not understand the particular meaning that was intended. This is true for most words.

For instance, the Greek word Theos was first used by Heraclitus in three different ways, It could mean God = Universe, or God = Controlling Law of the Universe, or God = A God ( Heraclitus seems to believe that there are immortals, or at least very long-lived, living beings who are superior in wisdom to human beings but not identical to the divine thought that steers the universe or to the universe as a whole.)

So long as one did not consider the context of the statement in which the word is used, it would be confusing as to which meaning was relevant.

Let us not be like the dreaded scribes, the professional lawyers who are notorious for purposely misrepresenting the meaning of things by ignoring context in order to win their case.

[ben d]

Originally Posted by PureX

To the Greeks who invented the word, "logos" referred to the divine ideal structure of the universe. It was the divine blueprint for all of existence. Simply put, it referred to the 'logic of existence'. Even the pantheon of the gods were part of it, and were subject to it.

That make sense in light of the different meanings of Theos, consider John 1.1

en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with Theos, and the Logos was Theos. John 1.1.

[Master Vigil]

Originally Posted by PureX

To the Greeks who invented the word, "logos" referred to the divine ideal structure of the universe. It was the divine blueprint for all of existence. Simply put, it referred to the 'logic of existence'. Even the pantheon of the gods were part of it, and were subject to it.

I get it. Thanks PureX.

I know can say confidently Ben d....

"I agree."

[ben d]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

I get it. Thanks PureX.

I know can say confidently Ben d....

"I agree."

Know it works both ways, vigilence inspires confidence, thank you....