Psychological image of God and mental idol

  • Thread starter Thread starter Makar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Makar

Guest
What is the difference between the psychological image of God (our concept of His “character”) from the mental idol? After all, our idea of Him is certainly not appropriate to reality, but without this psychological image, this ideal, spiritual life is impossible (there will be no direction in it).
 
What is the difference between the psychological image of God (our concept of His “character”) from the mental idol? After all, our idea of Him is certainly not appropriate to reality, but without this psychological image, this ideal, spiritual life is impossible (there will be no direction in it).
Catechism of the Catholic Church
206 In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH (“I AM HE WHO IS”, “I AM WHO AM” or “I AM WHO I AM”), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the “hidden God”, his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.11

213 The revelation of the ineffable name “I AM WHO AM” contains then the truth that God alone IS. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and following it the Church’s Tradition, understood the divine name in this sense: God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from him; but he alone is his very being, and he is of himself everything that he is.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p1.htm

Some words are used for our way of thinking about what we have difficulty expressing.

St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 39. The persons in relation to the essence
Article 1. Whether in God the essence is the same as the person?
Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (I:29:4, signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1039.htm

St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 2. The act of faith
Article 1. Whether to believe is to think with assent?
Reply to Objection 1. Faith has not that research of natural reason which demonstrates what is believed, but a research into those things whereby a man is induced to believe, for instance that such things have been uttered by God and confirmed by miracles.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm
 
but without this psychological image, this ideal, spiritual life is impossible (there will be no direction in it)
It is not impossible. That is why the Holy Spirit gifted us with prayers. Praying is spiritual life even if we are (and we all are sometimes) uncertain of how God is. As for his visual image this is why we have icons and crucifix with Jesus on it.
The rituals done with our body are not enough in themselves but are sufficient to themselves as a spiritual life for the difficult times when our own thoughts and actions take us away from God. This is why we have life in the body. To help us out physically when the mental side is against our soul taking us away from Him.
 
Without psychological image of God, of Christ, we cannot “imitate” and love Him. When we read the Bible, we formulate such image in our mind.
 
Part of growth in the interior life is that image being changed and formed by God. This is partly what happens when we experience dryness and “dark nights”- old image of God is breaking down to be made into a new, more accurate one. He corrects the inaccuracies of our own image of Him, if we let Him and put the time into spiritual practices.
 
I agree with You (@RKS89). But can we say in this case that we always have an idol in our mind?
 
I agree with You (@RKS89). But can we say in this case that we always have an idol in our mind?
I would call it a provisional image. The important thing is always to be open to the “old image of God breaking down to be made into a new, more accurate one” as RK suggests.
 
If it leaves us the image will come back after prayer. Many people just lose it and because of these spiritual.scruples get spiritually tired and give up. The body helps our soul when our mental state is lost from God. Why else would so many saints advocate prayer? Because it’s magical. It certainly it is not. So God can inspire back what we need to mentally see.
 
Thank you for your replies! but my question is still open - is that image an idol? And if it isn’t, then why?
 
Last edited:
God is not an idol, firstly.
He is GOD. Period.
An idol is an imitation of God. Totally different.
 
It [a person’t image of God] is an idol if the person believes it totally defines God.
 
How does a simple image DEFINE God?
God is fairly incomprehensible to us on this plane.
If a mental image helps us to communicate with him through prayer, that’s not being idolatrous.
 
I read a book called “Your God is Too Small.” It described the many images of God that people often have: the ancient old man in the clouds, the warrior, the punisher, the easygoing forgiver, etc. Each and all inadequate, unable to contain the reality. Yet many reject God because of those images.

Looking to a finite image cannot lead us to God. Only in suspending our instinct to grasp and quantify what we do not understand, can God reveal Himself to us.
 
Last edited:
There you go, Does that help answer your question, pianistclare?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top