Interesting thoughts on the Logos by the first guy to coin the term as far as we are aware:

4. The Logos

There is more to Heraclitean philosophy than the proposition that all things are in flux and, therefore, that there can be no knowledge of them. Apparently, Heraclitus, upon turning inward and probing his true self, discovers the Logos. The Logos is the principle according to which all things change, that which determines the nature of the flux that resides in all human beings. Three fragments in particular suggest this:

Fr. 50: Listening not to me but to the Logos it is wise to agree that all things are one. (Hippolytus Refut. 9. 4 )
Fr. 1: Of the Logos which is as I describe it men always prove to be uncomprehending, both before they have heard it and when once they have heard it. For although all things happen according to this Logos, men are like people of no experience, even when they experience such words and deeds as I explain, when I distinguish each thing according to its constitution and declare how it is; but the rest of the men fail to notice what they do after they wake up just as they forget what they do when asleep. (Sextus, adv.math. VII, 132)

Fr. 2: Therefore it is necessary to follow the common; but although the Logos is common the many live as though they had a private understanding (Sextus, adv.math. VII, 133)

The Heraclitean Logos is common to all human beings, because all possess reason or Logos, although they may not make much use of it (Fr. 2). The statement that "All things happen according to this Logos" (fr. 1) should probably be interpreted to mean that the Logos is the principle of the organization of the all things in flux. The same Logos common to all human beings gives order to the cosmos. This, no doubt, accounts for the fact that the flux is not random, but exhibits eternal regularity and predictability. At the risk of putting words into Heraclitus' mouth, the Logos possessed by all human beings is actually universal Logos or Mind; there is an intelligence at work amidst all the flux, which is identical to human intelligence, or, at least, human intelligence is a manifestation of this. It follows that the Logos gives unity to all things, so that all things are one or belong to one system (fr. 1), insofar as all things change as directed by the one Logos. (There is, however, more to the unity of all things than this, as will become clear below.) Hippolytus says of Heraclitus' view, "Logos always exists, inasmuch as it constitutes the cosmos, and as it pervades all things" (Refut. 9.4.). For Heraclitus, although all things insofar as they are in flux are impermanent, the intelligence pervading all things, according to which all things change, is eternal.

6. Fire as God

Heraclitus identifies Logos or fire as God; this follows from the fact that fire is eternal, being the source of all things: whatever is eternal is by definition a deity. He says in fr. 67, "God is day night, winter summer, war peace, satiety hunger [all the opposites, this is the meaning]; he undergoes alteration in the way that fire when it is mixed with spices, is named according to the scent of each of them" (Hippolytus Refut. 9. 10). God as fire becomes all things in the same way that fire takes the scent of the spices thrown into it. Everything is a modification (through condensation or rarefaction) of this divine, intelligent fire. It follows that what appears to be wrong in the cosmos is, from God's perspective, right, since all things are from God and are God: "To God all things are beautiful and good and just, but men have supposed some things to be unjust, other just" (Fr. 102, Porphyrius I Iliadem IV 4). In order to be rational, to conform to Logos, human beings must change their reactions to what they wrong perceive to "unjust" things or events, since all things are actually "just," insofar as they are from God and are God.

From here:http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Heraclitus.htm

I remember trying to discuss this a while back and people getting into a stew over my mentioning the fact that the Logos and Reason are the same thing and that they are actually divine attributes. I even remember a KAG telling me that the Logos was not a personal being like God, yet it's obvious to me that Heraclitus considered God and Logos to be synonymous.

Please people, what is your opinion?

Pastor AIO:

Please people, what is your opinion?

Well, maybe interesting in some ways. . . but I don't think that the following gives us a good understanding of Logos as used in the Bible:

In order to be rational, to conform to Logos, human beings must change their reactions to what they wrong perceive to "unjust" things or events, since all things are actually "just," insofar as they are from God and are God.

"All things" are not God - that's pantheism and not Christian theism.

pilgrim1:


Well, maybe interesting in some ways. . . but I don't think that the following gives us a good understanding of Logos as used in the Bible:



"All things" are not God - that's pantheism and not Christian theism.

What is the understanding of logos as used in the Bible?

PastorAIO:


What is the understanding of logos as used in the Bible?

Please does anyone know of the difference between the Logos in the bible and the Logos as understood in a wider context.

To help better understand what the Logos is let us consider what the Jews thought about Logos and how they applied it to their understanding of theology and the world.

There was a Jewish thinker in Alexandria called Philo who laid out his understanding of the Logos.

The Logos

Philo used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[13] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[14] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."[14]

Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."[15]

Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates "Logos". This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the "dividing Logos" (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts ("Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," § 43 [i. 503]), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power.

these ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels; and Philo borrowed from all these in elaborating his doctrine of the Logos. He calls the Logos "second god [deuteros theos]" (Questions and Answers on Genesis 2:62), the "archangel of many names," "taxiarch" (corps-commander), the "name of God," also the "heavenly Adam",[18] the "man, the word of the eternal God."

The Logos is also designated as "high priest", in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: ἱκέτης,[19] and παράκλητος.[20]

It is obvious that all of the christian concepts of Logos already existed in Judaism long before the gospel of John was written.

Repeating this question...

PastorAIO:


Please does anyone know of the difference between the Logos in the bible and the Logos as understood in a wider context.

PastorAIO:


Please does anyone know of the difference between the Logos in the bible and the Logos as understood in a wider context.

Well, as for me, I believe that the only difference is that which you'll find when you separate individuals are trying to describe the same thing. There may be subjective differences in how they perceive and express it, but essentially they are saying the same thing.


For me then, The Logos is the 'blueprint', the Original copy of, Firstly, the entire Universe, and Secondly of ourselves and the course of our Lives.

It is often translated as 'Account' in English, however, An account of something is often derived from the original something. e.g. An account of this morning's events is given AFTER this morning's events have occurred, and the account can be an accurate account or it might not be an accurate account.
The use of the word Logos in religion/philosophy is NOT a derived Account. No! In fact it is the events that are derived from the Logos.
So to stay with our example above, This morning's events are derived from An Account of the events, and furthermore this morning's events can be an accurate or inaccurate depiction of the Account.

Let me put it like this: The entire history of the Universe is derived from the Logos/Account. History can be a true and accurate representatlon of the Logos/Account or it can derail and be a poor representation.

So imagine God creates first a Plan, An Account, A Logos, and then from this Logos a world is created by derivation.

Then imagine that the World deviates from the original plan and is no longer an accurate derivation of the Logos.

Or to bring it down to a Microcosmic level, Imagine that a man/woman in the course of his/her life deviates from his/her Logos and is no longer an accurate derivation of the Plan. Imagine that this is a cause of grave discontent for the person. This is the situation of Humanity and the World today. And the only way to relieve oneself of this state of discontent is to re-align oneself with the Logos.

So how come the inaccurate derivation from Logos can occur.

We have to look into the 'anatomy' of humans.

It is believed that there are two aspects to the human Being. One part is Adamant and the other part is Malleable. The Adamant part is often called the Higher Soul while the Malleable part is called the Lower soul.

The Higher Soul is connected directly with Divinity and through it we perceive the Logos.

The Lower Soul is connected to the Senses and through it we perceive the physical world around us and we get influenced through it by our physical environment/society etc....

The perfect situation would be for the Lower Soul to mold itself and take the form of the Higher Soul, however with most of us this is not the case. Rather it gets influenced and molded by the physical environment, the opinions of others in society, the fears and insecurities brought about by the limited and subjective perception of the Senses. This is what causes it to deviate from the Adamant Higher Soul. This is the cause of unnecessary suffering and the reason why we need Religion.

Religion is to Re-ligere, Re- bind the Lower Soul to the Higher Soul.

I believe that in the parlance of the Gospel according to John the Lower Soul is what is called Sarx (translated into english as Flesh), and the Higher Soul is what is called Pneuma (translated into english as Spirit).

John 3:6
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.c 7Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘Youd must be born again.’ 8The winde blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Or to keep the Greek terms intact that passage should read....

That which is born of Sarx, Sarx is what it is, and that which is born of Pneuma, Pneuma is what it is.

This shows us that there are definitely two distinct parts of the human 'anatomy', or the human 'being'.

Also earlier in the passage, verse 3, Jesus says...

3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”


That means that Sarx cannot perceive divine things but rather can only be aware of the information it gets from the '5 senses'.

On the other hand, in order to perceive divine things we need the Pneuma. But the Pneuma must be activated. Only then can we hear the Logos.

The following is from this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/630887/kingdom-heaven#7979880

It demonstrates the relationship between the Logos and what is called The Kingdom Of God


The Kingdom of Heaven.

No doubt the objective of every christian is to get to heaven. The only difference is in the understanding of what this kingdom of heaven actually is. Is it is place in the sky that we'll go when we die and which we will enter into through some pearly gates with St. Peter standing guard at the gates? Or is it something that is not someplace else but rather right here and now to be accessed in the the present.


In luke chapter 21 Jesus says
21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


This suggestion that the kingdom is not something that can be pointed at like a place or an object but rather in something that is within us makes the notion of a future place shaky. There is obviously more to the Kingdom of Heaven that what many of us think.

Jesus goes to great lengths to explain what he means by the Kingdom of God/Heaven through the use of many parables. There is one parable above all that is key to understanding all the others.
Mark 4
13And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

This refers to the parable of the sower and it goes something like this (a one a two, a one two three four . . . ):

3Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: 4And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up. 5And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: 6But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. 7And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. 8And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred. 9And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark chapter 4.


He then goes on to explain this parable, thereby giving us insight into the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. The seed represents a Logon (an ancient greek term translated into english as word). Let us look closer at what the word Logos (logon) actually means because merely translating it as 'word' does not do it sufficient justice.

Wikipedia:

Logos (pronounced /ˈloʊɡɒs/, /ˈlɒɡɒs/ (UK), or /ˈloʊɡoʊs/ (US); Greek λόγος logos) is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric and religion. Originally a word meaning "word," "speech," "account," or "reason,"[1][2] it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for the principle of order and knowledge.[3]

The original meaning refers to an utterance, a telling, a story, reason. Heraclitus was the first philosopher to use it to refer to a creative principle that gives order to the universe. The Plan of the Universe. He says:

"This LOGOS holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this LOGOS, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, . . .


It was also used by the Stoics in their philosophy. Wikipedia:

In Stoic philosophy, which began with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BC, the logos was the active reason pervading the universe and animating it. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to the seminal logos, ("logos spermatikos" or the law of generation in the universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divine logos.[23]

Reason did not just mean right thinking, but also Cause as in the reason for something existing. The purpose of it's existence and what brings it into existence. The Logos is like the Plan, or the blue-print of a thing, or of the world.


When the Jews became Hellenized they used logos to represent the hebrew word Dabar when they translated the bible into greek (the septuagint). Dabar means the speech. So in Psalm 33: 6 when we see -

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth

By the Dabar of the Lord were the heavens made . . .
Or,
By the Logos of the Lord were the heavens made . . .

-this seems in keeping with the idea of Logos as the creative principle of the cosmos.

So by the time of Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, the Jews were already familiar with the idea of Logos being an utterance from God that created the cosmos. Wikipedia:

Philo (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[5] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect idea, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[25] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."[25] Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

So we see that Logos already had a lofty position in the minds of all people in the Roman empire as well as amongst the jews. So by the time John opens his gospel with the words,

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

,that the Logos was a term already rich with meaning. So when we go back to look at Jesus' explanation of the parable of the sower we need to apply this understanding of the Logos to what Jesus is saying.

The Seed is a Logon, according to Jesus. I would like to suggest that the mystery of the Kingdom of God is nothing other than the process of maturation of the Logos from the moment of inception in our hearts to the point where it starts to bear fruit in our lives. It is analogous to the process of maturation of a plant from the time of the planting of the seed to the time when it bears fruit. This analogy to the maturation of a tree is so apt that it is used over and over again by Jesus whenever he tries to explain the kingdom.

This would suggest that in each and everybody there is a Logos in seed form that is planted in the heart of him. It is required that we hear it and then understand it. However Satan works to obfuscate this. He might snatch it up immediately so that the person in question is not even aware that they have a logos sown in their hearts.
In others they falter because the logos brings with it persecutions and some cannot withstand this. Jesus says it's because they have no root in themselves. In others it is not suffering and persecution that hinders the Logos but rather enjoyment and lusts. These are said to be amongst thorns.
Then there are those who provide good soil for the logos and it grows and brings forth fruit, multifold.

So this, the very first of the parables on the Kingdom of God, is the key to the Kingdom of God. Understand this and much else will fall into place.

What persecution does the logos come with?@PastorAIO

I believe you already know that when the biblical authors describe their thought they sometimes use concepts already developed in the culture...this is no different but these adopted concepts are usually given new meaning, a bit more or a bit less than they originally meant.

Watch out for that "a bit more or a bit less".

swegiedon:
What persecution does the logos come with?@PastorAIO

The Logos will set you on a path that is at odds with the rest of the world. For instance your word might be to become an agriculturalist but in the environment you come from, from your family, everyone goes on to become a doctor. You will therefore face immense pressure from well meaning family members to stick to the family traditions and forgo the Logos you hear.
There are so many ways in which the world can set you against your Logos. This is because it is heard within by your Pneuma. Yet the rest of the world perceives with their outward Senses (Sarx) and these 2 modes of perception are often at odds in what they reveal to us.
Logos persecution is often Social but it can also be from within the person himself. You have these 2 viewpoints and if you follow the path of Logos there will also be another opinion within yourself that will be rueing the decisions you make. If Pneuma tells you to go south when everybody else is going North and making lots of money up north, your Sarx point of view will be making you feel very stupid and even depressed.

I hasten to add that these might not necessarily be the Christian understanding of these issues as we have received Christianity today, but that is hardly my concern. I am not presenting these doctrines as Christian doctrines but I do note that Christianity seems to superficially be parodying these teachings and also using the same terms.

Ubenedictus:
I believe you already know that when the biblical authors describe their thought they sometimes use concepts already developed in the culture...this is no different but these adopted concepts are usually given new meaning, a bit more or a bit less than they originally meant.

Watch out for that "a bit more or a bit less".

I do indeed watch out for these ‘a bit more or a bit less’. And that is precisely why I do not present these doctrines as Christian doctrines while I note that on a superficial level Christianity seems to be parodying it.

PastorAIO:
I believe that in the parlance of the Gospel according to John the Lower Soul is what is called Sarx (translated into english as Flesh), and the Higher Soul is what is called Pneuma (translated into english as Spirit).

John 3:6
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.c 7Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘Youd must be born again.’ 8The winde blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Or to keep the Greek terms intact that passage should read....

That which is born of Sarx, Sarx is what it is, and that which is born of Pneuma, Pneuma is what it is.

This shows us that there are definitely two distinct parts of the human 'anatomy', or the human 'being'.

Also earlier in the passage, verse 3, Jesus says...

3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”


That means that Sarx cannot perceive divine things but rather can only be aware of the information it gets from the '5 senses'.

On the other hand, in order to perceive divine things we need the Pneuma. But the Pneuma must be activated. Only then can we hear the Logos.

I'm not so comfortable with the translation of John 3: 6 -8 that I quoted above. There seems to be quite an essential bit that is lost in translation. I think it would help if we kept the Greek term Pneuma intact which translating. This was yield the following.....



John 3:6
6That which is born of the Sarx is Sarx, and that which is born of the Pneuma is Pneuma. 7Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The Pneuma pneis (blows?) where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Pneuma.”

If The Pneuma moves where it wishes and all you can ascertain is that it is there but you cannot ascertain where it comes from and either can you ascertain where it is going.....

....then that would be tantamount to spontaneity. You cannot predict it's actions. Such a person led by Pneuma cannot be said to be living deterministically. His behaviour is not determined by his upbringing or environment, you cannot say of him, 'oh he is only reacting like that because of what happened yesterday'. His behaviour is totally free of his context.

Most people lacking this faculty of pneuma are predictable. They are also programmable. They do not have any 'free will' but rather act in accordance to the forces that are around them and shape them. They are no better than highly complex Robots that have been programmed by their circumstances.

PastorAIO:
So how come the inaccurate derivation from Logos can occur.

We have to look into the 'anatomy' of humans.

It is believed that there are two aspects to the human Being. One part is Adamant and the other part is Malleable. The Adamant part is often called the Higher Soul while the Malleable part is called the Lower soul.

The Higher Soul is connected directly with Divinity and through it we perceive the Logos.

The Lower Soul is connected to the Senses and through it we perceive the physical world around us and we get influenced through it by our physical environment/society etc....

The perfect situation would be for the Lower Soul to mold itself and take the form of the Higher Soul, however with most of us this is not the case. Rather it gets influenced and molded by the physical environment, the opinions of others in society, the fears and insecurities brought about by the limited and subjective perception of the Senses. This is what causes it to deviate from the Adamant Higher Soul. This is the cause of unnecessary suffering and the reason why we need Religion.

Religion is to Re-ligere, Re- bind the Lower Soul to the Higher Soul.

Can these Souls be demonstrated in any meaningful way?

PastorAIO:

The use of the word Logos in religion/philosophy is NOT a derived Account. No! In fact it is the events that are derived from the Logos.
So to stay with our example above, This morning's events are derived from An Account of the events, and furthermore this morning's events can be an accurate or inaccurate depiction of the Account.

Let me put it like this: The entire history of the Universe is derived from the Logos/Account. History can be a true and accurate representatlon of the Logos/Account or it can derail and be a poor representation.

So imagine God creates first a Plan, An Account, A Logos, and then from this Logos a world is created by derivation.

How can God create a plan and the world is derived from this plan, then the world deviates from God's plan?

If God created any plan then any deviation is surely part of his plan. Meaning he wanted it so. If there is any deviation, either his plan was a bad plan, or he/she/it (god) wished that there be a deviation.

The déviation is thus not a true deviation, but a part of the plan.

Goldenventures:


How can God create a plan and the world is derived from this plan, then the world deviates from God's plan?

If God created any plan then any deviation is surely part of his plan. Meaning he wanted it so. If there is any deviation, either his plan was a bad plan, or he/she/it (god) wished that there be a deviation.

The déviation is thus not a true deviation, but a part of the plan.

This is very perceptive of you. I'll respond later when I have more time.

Goldenventures:


How can God create a plan and the world is derived from this plan, then the world deviates from God's plan?

If God created any plan then any deviation is surely part of his plan. Meaning he wanted it so. If there is any deviation, either his plan was a bad plan, or he/she/it (god) wished that there be a deviation.

The déviation is thus not a true deviation, but a part of the plan.

First thing that I note is you appear to be working with an axiomatic definition of God that makes him Omnipotent.

Then the manner of the omnipotence seems to be specific and exact. I.e that God wills history to take a very specific path which, with God being omnipotent, the world cannot deviate from.

Please you can correct me if I’m missing your position with any of these axioms.

Let me try to challenge these axioms in a number of ways.

First, is God always that specific in his intentions? If us humans with our small minds are capable of sophisticated expressions such as double-entendres or even the ability to tell jokes, then why do we think that God would lack such ability.

I address this in many posts. Eg here: (Though it is in fact Image123 that makes the point):

Image123:
^it's not exactly a new perspective. The statement is 'ambiguous' if i'm permitted to use that word. Actually it's a play of/on words by the all seeing, all knowing Creator. The two meanings are true and applicable. Many will say that Jesus is Christ, and will deceive many. Other manys will say they are the Christ i.e the messiah, and many will be deceived. Also add that Jesus had not just the immediate audience in mind when He spoke/abi na spake. He seemed to have a future audience, even yet in our future, in mind. He's the unparalleled, really, the One who created grammar, the Word personified.

https://www.nairaland.com/839087/matter-interpretations#9915871

I reiterate the point Here: https://www.nairaland.com/4096095/des-pensees/4#73380196

Intentions:

I can speak with the intention of making a specific point.

I can speak with the intention of obfuscation and hiding a point.

I can speak with the intention of expressing the possibility of a number of options. For instance, in a joke. My intention is to make you think I'm making one point but with the punchline you realise that the point is actually different. I can't think of a joke right now to illustrate..... I'll be back with one.

PastorAIO:


How specific does an intended message have to be? i.e Can a double entendre be intended? In which case the intention is not one point or the other but the contemplation of the possibility of both points.

On the other hand in communication how accurately does received understanding reflect intention. You say what you mean but do I get what you mean? Or did you mean what I Understood?

These and many other interesting questions can be addressed to the issue of communications.

In these cases I speak of intended meaning in Communication however here I am expanding the point to include all intention including the Logos from which the universe is derived.

My point is that God does not have to be so narrowly specific as you Axiomatically presume. In fact I think such a notion of God comes from a projection of people for whom religion is a matter fraught with anxiety and Angst, and an overbearing graveness.

That’s one challenge.


Again you can consider if the Plan could be articulated as a Proportion rather than exact events.
Let me try to explain myself further. We have a certain type of proportions known as Pythagoras’ theorem. That is a set of 3 numbers that are related to each other in a certain proportion. This proportion is expressed as X² + Y² = Z².

One such set of these numbers would be 3, 4 and 5. Because 3² plus 4² equals 5². In other words 3² which is 9 plus 4² which is 16 equals to 5² which is 25.

However these three numbers are not the only 3 numbers that fulfill and relate to each other according to this proportion. Also 5, 12, and 13 fulfill it. And also 8, 15, and 17.

Your axiom that God has dictated history to be exact and specific is like saying that there can be only one Right Angled Triangle, that having sides of unit lengths 3, 4 and 5.
However what if The world is itself more flexible than that and the Logos is in fact articulated as Proportions. Therefore if a Man chooses 3, and 4 then 5 will be the necessary 3rd event. If however he chose to forgo 3 and went instead for 8 and 15, then the universe would react with a 17. This leaves a lot of room for potentiality of a number of different possible events to occur. They can occur as long as they don’t violate the Divinely intended Proportion/Logos.

What is the Logos can therefore be articulated as a Proportion, a Ratio, rather than as a fix set of events (or numbers as in my example).

I don’t know if I’m explaining myself well.

Another thing that would challenge your axioms is my saying that the world has a certain amount of elasticity. Whatever a person does will bring about certain reactions from the universe. The way the universe will react is in tune to the Logos.
Life/History is not a fixed unyielding path. Rather if one chooses to deviate from ‘the path’ then he will set a series of events into play which will ‘pull’ him back into ‘the path’. Yet he has a little bit of leeway to deviate from the path before insurmountable forces pull him back.
Imagine a path that is bordered with an elastic rubber sheet on either side. If you veer off the path you can only go so far before the springiness of the sheet will propel you back onto the path.
A better image may be the ropes of a boxing ring. You can run off the against the edge of the ring and the Ropes will allow you to escape only so far before they thrust you back onto the ring. There is therefore some allowance for deviance but sooner or later you will be thrust back into the ring, (or onto the path).

Now we can contrast 2 persons. One who sticks assiduously to the path and lives his whole life totally on the path. Then another person who keeps deviating from the path and causing events that continuously keep thrusting him back onto the path. The path is is not thwarted ultimately but the second person will live his life at loggerheads with the path and experience a fair bit of distress as he finds himself constantly swimming against the current. But ultimately the path will never by thwarted and his destination can never be changed.

LordReed:


Can these Souls be demonstrated in any meaningful way?

Can these souls be demonstrated in a meaningful way?

I can try. First though, perhaps the words souls are not the best terms to use as they have a lot of baggage from murky religious thinking. Let me use the term Faculties instead.

So can these 2 faculties be demonstrated?

Well, I believe for a start one of them doesn’t need to be demonstrated to you or anybody. And that is Sarx, which receives it’s information from the Senses and the physical environment. So can we agree that I can be relieved of the burden of having to demonstrate the ‘lower soul’.

As regards the ‘higher faculty/soul’, how do I demonstrate it? I’m afraid that the experience of it is quite subjective and if it can be demonstrated objectively then I haven’t figured out a way. However what I can do is propose some exercises for you to do which will awaken your awareness of the Higher faculty. This will occur subjectively obviously and you will be convinced for yourself and for yourself only.

And please do not dismiss what I say because I say it is subjective. The most certain thing that you and I can ever experience is totally and utterly subjective. That thing is what we call Consciousness. It cannot be demonstrated to another person but each of us will attest to the fact that our most fundamental experience is our own Consciousness.

So how would you go about discovering this subjective experience of the higher Faculty. Well you know that the lower faculty is fed by impressions from the senses and the physical environment. These impressions actually drown out the information that you are getting all the time from your higher faculties. So the key to becoming more aware of your higher faculty is to reverse this and turn it around.

1) Withdraw your attention from the impressions constantly sent to it from the senses. Sit still and empty the mind in meditation. Focus your attention inward instead.
2) Secondly, Withdraw your concerns from social affairs and all those things like status that your lower soul tells you are so important.
3) Learn to view everything that happens with equanimity.

There is more depth and involvement to these 3 techniques that I’ve mentioned but to go deeper would be beyond the scope of this post and beyond what my distracted mind can handle for now.

PastorAIO:


Can these souls be demonstrated in a meaningful way?

I can try. First though, perhaps the words souls are not the best terms to use as they have a lot of baggage from murky religious thinking. Let me use the term Faculties instead.

So can these 2 faculties be demonstrated?

Well, I believe for a start one of them doesn’t need to be demonstrated to you or anybody. And that is Sarx, which receives it’s information from the Senses and the physical environment. So can we agree that I can be relieved of the burden of having to demonstrate the ‘lower soul’.

As regards the ‘higher faculty/soul’, how do I demonstrate it? I’m afraid that the experience of it is quite subjective and if it can be demonstrated objectively then I haven’t figured out a way. However what I can do is propose some exercises for you to do which will awaken your awareness of the Higher faculty. This will occur subjectively obviously and you will be convinced for yourself and for yourself only.

And please do not dismiss what I say because I say it is subjective. The most certain thing that you and I can ever experience is totally and utterly subjective. That thing is what we call Consciousness. It cannot be demonstrated to another person but each of us will attest to the fact that our most fundamental experience is our own Consciousness.

So how would you go about discovering this subjective experience of the higher Faculty. Well you know that the lower faculty is fed by impressions from the senses and the physical environment. These impressions actually drown out the information that you are getting all the time from your higher faculties. So the key to becoming more aware of your higher faculty is to reverse this and turn it around.

1) Withdraw your attention from the impressions constantly sent to it from the senses. Sit still and empty the mind in meditation. Focus your attention inward instead.
2) Secondly, Withdraw your concerns from social affairs and all those things like status that your lower soul tells you are so important.
3) Learn to view everything that happens with equanimity.

There is more depth and involvement to these 3 techniques that I’ve mentioned but to go deeper would be beyond the scope of this post and beyond what my distracted mind can handle for now.

These exercises I have done before and I know are independent of religious experience. However how do we conclude that it is a "higher faculty"? Is it not just a part of the normal human consciousness?

LordReed:


These exercises I have done before and I know are independent of religious experience. However how do we conclude that it is a "higher faculty"? Is it not just a part of the normal human consciousness?

Okay, let us not call it 'higher'. Let's just call it another faculty.

PastorAIO:


Okay, let us not call it 'higher'. Let's just call it another faculty.

So you are saying it is not part of the normal human consciousness.

LordReed:


So you are saying it is not part of the normal human consciousness.

No, I never said that.

What do you mean by 'normal' in this case?

PastorAIO:


This is very perceptive of you.

I do not believe in an omnipotent God. In fact I do not believe anything. I am an unbeliever in the strict sense of the word. I don't believe. I prefer to be convinced [ by experience and logic and relevant approaches. ]

I find pertinence in your explanations. Nonetheless it still validates the notion that God or whoever created the original plan according to your spiritual world-view/cosmogony, took into account the various possibilities of derailment and even provided a remedy.

Therefore derailments are permitted and to an extent wished by god.

I don't know if you are familiar with the Matrix movies. The architect initially created a system that was so rigid it could not be accepted by the mind of the enslaved men. He then designed a system that was very flexible to give men the illusion of choice, and the idea they are fighting against the machines. In such a way those that accepted the world of the machines remained in the matrix, and those that refused would go to Zion, supposedly to fight against them.

What they did not realize was both the machines and Zion were operated controlled and designed by the Deus ex machinae. And that was how the matrix was successful.

I hope you get my point.

PastorAIO:


Most people lacking this faculty of pneuma are predictable. They are also programmable. They do not have any 'free will' but rather act in accordance to the forces that are around them and shape them. They are no better than highly complex Robots that have been programmed by their circumstances.

Quite poignant. There is something I wrote in this respect.

LoJ:
This is a very interesting topic. I shall offer my opinion as follows.

Free will does exist but for most people it is an illusion.

What we think are evidences of free will (freedom to choose one thing over another) are almost all the time actually the effects of previous causes, known or unknown. Our present character tastes habits and therefore choices are shaped by previous causes such as environment, circumstances, events, subliminal impulses, unconscious influences that lead us to make them, while we deceive ourselves that we are freely making our choices.

There is an interesting concept in psychology called the illusion of control. It shows how people can be led to a definite response while believing they have the control and are freely making their choices. This was once illustrated by a TV series called "The mentalist". I would encourage people watch season 6 episode 16 to get what I mean.

In a nutshell, my point is we are (at least most of us) not really free (willed). Rather we are determined and the actions we take are the effects of some Causes which in turn were previously caused.

True free will does exist though. It is the ability to liberate oneself by annihilating the effects of all previous causes. Then one becomes similar to a primary cause, meaning he has the ability to iniate a new sequence in the system, a new series of unending causes and effects . One then has the potential of a god.

PastorAIO:


No, I never said that.

What do you mean by 'normal' in this case?

Normal means there is no supernatural component, it is something everyone possesses and can access regardless of beliefs or lack therefore. It does not operate by faith of any kind.

LordReed:


Normal means there is no supernatural component, it is something everyone possesses and can access regardless of beliefs or lack therefore. It does not operate by faith of any kind.

When I see the word supernatural I tend to shut down because I have yet to hear anyone define what they mean by supernatural in contrast to Natural.

I have never stated that what I'm talking about is not something that everyone possesses and can access. Unless I did so by mistake but I doubt it. Can you please show me where I said as much?

I also never mentioned anything about Faith.

You seem to be reacting to some wishy washy religious concepts that you've encountered in the past, yet none of these have anything to do with what I've been writing about. To the extent that I've quoted from the bible I've also taken pains to state that Christianity seems to be a parody of what I am talking about.

LoJ:

Quite poignant. There is something I wrote in this respect.

LoJ:
This is a very interesting topic. I shall offer my opinion as follows.

Free will does exist but for most people it is an illusion.

What we think are evidences of free will (freedom to choose one thing over another) are almost all the time actually the effects of previous causes, known or unknown. Our present character tastes habits and therefore choices are shaped by previous causes such as environment, circumstances, events, subliminal impulses, unconscious influences that lead us to make them, while we deceive ourselves that we are freely making our choices.

There is an interesting concept in psychology called the illusion of control. It shows how people can be led to a definite response while believing they have the control and are freely making their choices. This was once illustrated by a TV series called "The mentalist". I would encourage people watch season 6 episode 16 to get what I mean.

In a nutshell, my point is we are (at least most of us) not really free (willed). Rather we are determined and the actions we take are the effects of some Causes which in turn were previously caused.

True free will does exist though. It is the ability to liberate oneself by annihilating the effects of all previous causes. Then one becomes similar to a primary cause, meaning he has the ability to iniate a new sequence in the system, a new series of unending causes and effects . One then has the potential of a god.

I liken it to the Hindu concept of Karma which is a process of Cause and Effect. We are mostly all caught up in our Karma, previous events causing what happens next and our future. It is however possible to transcend or even end Karma.

PastorAIO:


When I see the word supernatural I tend to shut down because I have yet to hear anyone define what they mean by supernatural in contrast to Natural.

Neither have I but it needed to be stated for clarification.

I have never stated that what I'm talking about is not something that everyone possesses and can access. Unless I did so by mistake but I doubt it. Can you please show me where I said as much?

I also never mentioned anything about Faith.

You seem to be reacting to some wishy washy religious concepts that you've encountered in the past, yet none of these have anything to do with what I've been writing about. To the extent that I've quoted from the bible I've also taken pains to state that Christianity seems to be a parody of what I am talking about.

Yes I am hence the questions. After I deconverted from christianity I was drifting towards a sort of godless spirituality, the type espoused by people like Deepak Chopra and all those universal consciousness movements which have as much evidence for them as christianity has which made me realise I'll only be exchanging one set of fables for another. So when I hear people talk of souls and higher realms I am wary.

You are someone I think is not as dogmatic as others which is why I feel comfortable asking these questions and conversing.

PastorAIO:


I liken it to the Hindu concept of Karma which is a process of Cause and Effect. We are mostly all caught up in our Karma, previous events causing what happens next and our future. It is however possible to transcend or even end Karma.

You mean, we can transcend the principle of "cause and effect'',that one reaps that which he sows? How is it possible to break the chain of, "our previous actions affecting our future"?.

Mind to elaborate?.

LordReed:




You are someone I think is not as dogmatic as others which is why I feel comfortable asking these questions and conversing.

You seem to think @PastorAIO is Christian.