Etzelnik wrote:

Here's what Maimonides has to say about this 'confusion' (beginning of Laws of Idolatry):

During the times of Enoch, mankind made a great mistake, and the wise men of that generation gave thoughtless counsel. Enoch himself was one of those who erred.

Their mistake was as follows: They said God created stars and spheres with which to control the world. He placed them on high and treated them with honor, making them servants who minister before Him. Accordingly, it is fitting to praise and glorify them and to treat them with honor. [They perceived] this to be the will of God, blessed be He, that they magnify and honor those whom He magnified and honored, just as a king desires that the servants who stand before him be honored. Indeed, doing so is an expression of honor to the king.

After conceiving of this notion, they began to construct temples to the stars and offer sacrifices to them. They would praise and glorify them with words, and prostrate themselves before them, because by doing so, they would - according to their false conception - be fulfilling the will of God.

This was the essence of the worship of false gods, and this was the rationale of those who worshiped them. They would not say that there is no other god except for this star.

I know this is not precisely the same as Christianity, but it is identical in implication.

Do you mean the situation Maimonides depicts is identical in implication to Christianity?

That is not clear from what you quote. On the one hand, there is the metaphysical or theological position of the world. From a Platonic position at least, all things derive their being and their goodness, so far as they possess this, from God. Their goodness, beauty, and being are infintely less than God's. But few living men are ready to entirely leave behind created goods. And whilst there is danger in all created things, for fallen men who have trouble seeing them entirely as they are, it is far from icons that are only dangers. Anything may become an icon if it is valued for itself rather than for reflecting God.

But, in a sense, also, all things are icons, and can be viewed as such. Reflecting God, they come from him and viewed probably lead to him. Icons, like sacraments and the Scripture, are simply especially efficacious kinds of such symbols, and made so by the divine. The theology of the icons, pace Maimonides, captures a truth and is founded upon an important truth.

Of course, the Jewish and Islamic traditions, amongst others, are correct that there are dangers in the use of icons. Aasim makes a good point about the ideal use of such symbols. And the Church has tried to guard against these dangers. But there are great benefits in their use too. And there are dangers in the opposing position - especially in sundering God from his creation. I certainly think the Christian position is complex and one not easily dismissed simply with reference to idols.

 

Do you mean the situation Maimonides depicts is identical in implication to Christianity?

That is not clear from what you quote. On the one hand, there is the metaphysical or theological position of the world. From a Platonic position at least, all things derive their being and their goodness, so far as they possess this, from God. Their goodness, beauty, and being are infintely less than God's. But few living men are ready to entirely leave behind created goods. And whilst there is danger in all created things, for fallen men who have trouble seeing them entirely as they are, it is far from icons that are only dangers. Anything may become an icon if it is valued for itself rather than for reflecting God.

I was trying to say that both Maimonides' example and religious icons, can be said to essentially represent the same concept: that of glorifying an individual aspect of creation to an elevated level of "Godness" (for lack of a better word).

I would also add that your point that any glorification of creation as power is absolutely correct, and the Jewish polemicists quite frequently employ references to idolatry.

But, in a sense, also, all things are icons, and can be viewed as such. Reflecting God, they come from him and viewed probably lead to him. Icons, like sacraments and the Scripture, are simply especially efficacious kinds of such symbols, and made so by the divine. The theology of the icons, pace Maimonides, captures a truth and is founded upon an important truth.

Here is where our fundamental difference lies. We can inspire ourselves towards God by contemplating the totality of creation, and then only as an action of God. Such a mode of approaching God is highly prevalent in both the Platonist and the Kantian schools of thought in Judaism, as well as in Suffism, to the best of my knowledge. I will continue on this train of thought following the next quote:

Of course, the Jewish and Islamic traditions, amongst others, are correct that there are dangers in the use of icons. Aasim makes a good point about the ideal use of such symbols. And the Church has tried to guard against these dangers. But there are great benefits in their use too. And there are dangers in the opposing position - especially in sundering God from his creation. I certainly think the Christian position is complex and one not easily dismissed simply with reference to idols.

The distinction must be drawn between ascribing Godliness to all of Creation as a harmony (the Suffi "Unity of Existence), which is a perfectly fine way of approaching God's greatness, and selecting a single facet, feature, or object of creation as having more Godliness than others, which is (at least by Jewish and Islamic standards) idolatrous. When one does this he in fact separates God from all the rest of his Creation, via ascribing them lesser Godliness than other objects. He also risks eventual ascribing of independent power to that specific detail of creation.

Last edited by Etzelnik (7/14/2015 5:25 am)

Etzelnik,

There is certainly a truth in that argument. All things reflect God and he is in all things. However, I do not think one can maintain that some things are not in a sense closer to God or more spirituality efficacious, universally, culturally, or individually. After all, is not the holy and wise man in some sense more God-like than a man riven by folly and vice? Are not some things relatively more good and beautiful and true than others? Are not some practices especially marked out as spiritual and religious practices, as Iwpoe alludes to? Are not, to the Platonist at least, levels of being closer to God, so to speak, than others.

The position you seem to advocate would have immense ramifications, far beyond the issue of icons. It would also be a position implying the highest apophatic and otherworldly spirituality, fit only really for one who had achieved theosis - who sees God perpetually in all things and all things through God, and has no need for any support from created things, even discursive reason and mental images - though even this highest Saint would acknowledge a hierarchy in creation.

There is also the question of abstraction. Except perhaps to the fully sanctified man, nature does not appear as a whole to man, except in a deeply abstract sense. Particular objects, occasions, and relationships, though, are far better to lead the whole soul to the transcendent whilst avoiding too much abstraction or merely mental or discursive ruminations.

I understand the perspective of Judaism and Islam when it comes to images. There are dangers and these traditions largely avoid them. But I think the Christian position does contain a truth, not one these other traditions need adopt but one the Christian tradition has made good use of.