Is it idolatry to have a mental image of God?

[aneeshm]

Another question which occurred to me when seeing that thread on CFC.








Is it idolatry to have a mental image of God?

Because the moment you have that image, doesn't the object of your worship shift from God to the image you have of God?

I'm curious as to how the anti-idolatry religions deal with this conundrum, because it's almost inevitable that a person will have an image of God in their mind, and will worship that image.

If, on the other hand, you admit that there's nothing wrong with having a mental image as a tool or a symbol to represent God, then you should have no problem with Hinduism's concept of idols which are used as exactly the same thing, only as external images instead of internal ones.

[lord of the mark]

Maimonides would say yes, it is.

[aneeshm]

When you have an image of a certain object, in this case God, and you worship that object, it's your mental image you're worshipping, isn't it, because of the impossibility of mentally separating the object and the image?

In fact, I'd go one step further, and ask: is it possible to worship something without an associated image in your mind?

[SlowwHand]

No, it's not.

[-Jrabbit]

This thread is sophistry, not philosphy.
Worship and belief are about ideals, not images.

[SlowwHand]

So many people have this concept of God the Avenger. I see God as the ultimate sense of humor.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
In fact, I'd go one step further, and ask: is it possible to worship something without an associated image in your mind?

Probably, but it takes substantial mental effort.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
So many people have this concept of God the Avenger. I see God as the ultimate sense of humor.

Menshe tracht, und Gott lacht ("Man plans, and God laughes")

[lord of the mark]

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

[DinoDoc]

I'd have to know more about the origins of the Hindu civilization before I can make a definative comment.

[Tattila the Hun]

God does not exist. Problem solved.

[Jon Miller]

While I have an imagine of Christ, I don't have one of God.

When I worship, I don't have an imagine in my head. When I think about Christ's actions on earth, I do.

JM

[Barnabas]

If I recall correctly, theoretically, it is allowed for christians to draw jesus but not God the father, but that has been largely ignored, and it is only "did you know that...../trivia" now, think of the famous, the creation of man painting with God and man touching their extended fingers.

Aneeshm, you might want to check out "iconoclasm", which is the period in christianity in which it was discussed/decided/fought over whether images could be made of Jesus and the saints, and whether they could be venerated.

The pope of rome and many bizantine priests (of the western half of the territory) were mainly pro lets make images and venerate them, the byzantine emperors and byzantine christians of the eastern half of the empire who had been in contact with muslims were against paintings and venerating them.

If I recall correctly there was a huge riot in Constantinople when a huge picture of Jesus was destroyed because the emperor ordered it.
Finally, the pro images won, and that was the last ecumenical council, soon after catholics and eastern orthodox would break up.

Maybe Heresson knows more of this.



edit: I forgot protestants

They are all pretty much against venerating pictures, but most dont have a problem with paintings/statues per se, they have them just because they look nice, to educate children etc, altough there are some iconoclastic protestants
In the reformation many monasteries and churches were completely destroyed, their images smashed, but it is a minority group.

[DinoDoc]

I thought the Catholic Church settled this. You know with the fact the Sistine Chapel having pictures of God and what not.

[Barnabas]

Yes, but not all christians submit to the will of the Pontifex Maximus