First POS posts this, which does in fact misrepresent Frater RO's thoughts on a subject quite a bit. It also presents a pretty limited understanding of mystical Christianity and I think that he falls into the trap that many occultsists and pagans do of not extending Christianity the same depth of attention to the mystical interpretation as they might another religion.
Frater RO comments below in the same post, not only explaining what he meant, but also explaining the interpretation of Jesus as Logos, and thus his universality even to those not Christian.
Next Patrick Dunn, posts this, which is more or less a presentation of the Gnostic/Neoplatonic emanation theory of creation and the place of the Logos within it. He than states that "Any magician, of any variety, of any religion, who does not understand this and would denigrate this particular deity casts doubt upon their understanding of magic."
With all due respect, that is going more than a little too far. There are two problems with this thinking.
The first is that oodles of people all over the world do magic without any concept close to this theistic emanation thinking. Buddhists for instance would not at all acknowledge the statements in Dunn's post and they do magic just fine, thank you.
The second problem is a little more nuanced. You may recognize the concept of the Logos. You may also however be adamantly opposed to the idea that the historical Jesus is in any way representing it. Take the Mandeans for instance (which we are in Iraq btw) who believe that John the Baptist is the Logos and Jesus is a corrupt Sorcerer that stole his thunder. The Logos is a cosmic title. Christ is a cosmic title. Jesus however refers to a specific person that may or may not have existed at a specific time and preached a specific thing and than did or did not do the whole rise from the dead thing. So while I think it is dumb to do so, I think it perfectly reasonable that capable magicians may not jive with saying "Jesus is Lord".
While I am at it, I will put my Christian Priest collar on and mention that if you are a Christian and using the term Jesus, it can be a bad mistake to look at him solely through the cosmic lens filter so that you only see this universally applicable "Logos". Christ is indeed the Logos, but to really explore the beauty, power, and meaning of Jesus as the Logos you need to get comfy with Jesus as that specific manifestation. You must come to terms with what Kierkegaard called the Scandal of Specificity, otherwise you are missing out on a lot of the really good stuff in favor of a very saccharine, vague, but universally acceptable cosmic Christ.