The concept of "logos" is actually quite rich and frankly hard to describe. It is used of course to describe Christ before His Incarnation, but it also has the meaning of the "created identity" of each thing. IE, each thing has a particular inherent identity - a logos - given to it at it's creation by God. The Gospel of John directly parallels the creation account of Genesis -- in this sense the Logos said creation into being. Thus form and matter has in a sense an "identity", and further form and matter is sustained by the action of God (would return to nothing without God). IE, nothingness is - in a sense - the absence of God, of life.
While this might appeal to a Buddhist's idea of conditioned genesis, it seems to make things too dependent on what seems within Buddhist metaphysics to merely be another consciousness and existence that must follow this greater law of conditioned genesis, that is, everything is conditioned by some other factor, in a web of cause and effect.
In our present situation, post-lapsarian, our relationships have become self-centered ie we do not actually relate (to God, to others, to self). Created for relationship (as relational beings), our identity (our created logos) can only "be" known to ourselves in relationship with God. Without realtionship with God, there is also no relationship or disordered relationship to self and others.
This again seems to reduce relationships to a far too narrowed understanding. Of course we can have relationships to ourself and others without God. Your argument would be more precisely that relationships with self and others are incomplete without God, which is another subject entirely.
To imagine eternity accurately in such a condition (a condition of disorder and without our true identity) is impossible, and it will indeed seem "hellish".
Eternity in either disorder or order is impossible to imagine as good or beneficial, though disorder could be said to be preferable, surprisingly enough, since there is the possibility of seeking out some order and working through trouble. Eternity of pure order is stagnant and static to me, which is why I continue to see it as unappealing and undesirable.
A speaker yesterday (who had practiced Buddhism for some time with eventual "success", at a large Monastery in Thailand or Cambodia) described the Christian faith I belong to as "Orthodoxy is paradoxy. You descend to ascend." The descent in the EO is reaching for humility, dying off from attachments if you will (as in our fallen state these will be disordered and false), of becoming empty -- in order to become filled with Christ. Thus filled, our true logos is discovered/regenerated and we become who we were created to be in Him; it is only in losing the self that the self is found in Him who created us in love for us.
Emptiness in Buddhism and emptiness or kenosis, if I remember right, from Christianity, are different. Emptiness or shunyata in Buddhism reflects metaphysics, nothing has a permanent self or identity to it, conditioned instead by everything around it.
Kenosis in Christianity is a personal receptivity to God, which has an interesting relation to emptiness in Daoism, where you become receptive to the Dao in a sense, though not like a communion with a person, but merely with nature, so to speak.
In this condition of relationship with God, our true self restored or discovered (and this typically over a long period of time), we will be relational: right relationship with God, thus right relationship with others, and right relationship with self. But also, we will be engaging in "right use"; ie we will see all through the eyes of God --- we will see the logos of each created thing. (In this condition, Adam was able to name the animals.)
Wouldn't seeing through the eyes of God be redundant or at least reduce the general appreciation of things from our own individual and perfected perspectives after the supposed resurrection of our bodies in heaven?
The present (sometimes horrifying) state of the world is evidence of human disordered relationship to all, and thus "wrong use" (including environmental degradation).
That could be justified from a Buddhist perspective, but then you involve God and would appear to complicate what is an already complex system where we have humans interacting and confusing their own psychology, etc.
