Ah, but consistent iconoclasts do.Alfred Persson said:Sure, paintings, statues, film, don't see the harm.Melodist said:So it's OK to have an image of Jesus, just as long as you don't venerate that image or think of it as an image of God?Alfred Persson said:No images are objectionable per se (except those of God), its the act of venerating them that is objectionable.
I could have those pictures on my living room wall, but I could never venerate them.
"A picture is worth a thousand words." If you put up a painting or a statute, it's for a reason. If I have a picture on your wall of Jesus, it tells me something. If you have a picture of the Dalai Lama, Ann Rand, Marx, Che Guevara, Playboy's Miss August,....it tellls me something else. If if you do not pray before it or burn incense before it.
There's a reason why in the Soviet Union pictures of Lenin and Stlalin were all over, and why the picture of Lenin or Stalin being put in a public place spreads fear. Few look at the Statue of Liberty without being moved in some way, Americans one way, al-Qaida another. Film is among the most, if not THE most effective means of propoganda: children often play what they see in film. After "Top Gun" enlistment to the air force shot up.
Aniconists and Iconoclasts see the power of the image and shun it. The Amish shun it based on their interpretation (with as much authority as your interpretation, i.e. none) of Exodus and Deuteronomy, knowing that pictures arose egoism (see how everyone preens and tries not to look like themself, i.e. the plain truth, when they sit for a photo. Your like minded rabbis shun images whether or not they are used as idols.
(the part on the sphinx being OK is odd, since although that idol is nothing in the world and that there is none other God but one, it was worshipped):An authoritative breakdown can be found in the Shulkhan Arukh, section yoreh deah which takes the literal meaning of פסל pesel as "graven image" (from the root פסל P-S-L, "to engrave." See Exodus 34:1, 4; Deuteronomy 10:1, 3.) The prohibition is therefore seen as applying specifically to certain forms of sculpture and depictions of the human face. In keeping with this prohibition, some illustrations from the Middle Ages feature fantastic creatures—usually bird-headed humanoids, even when the depictions are quite clearly meant to be those of historical or mythological humans. The most well-known is the Birds' Head Haggadah (Germany, circa 1300). Because such creatures as gryphons, harpies, sphynxes, and the Phoenix do not actually exist, no violation of the prohibition is perceived in such depictions. This is based on the fact that the Second Commandment, as stated in Exodus, refers specifically to "anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land." However, it is forbidden to make the four faces on the Divine Chariot (Ezekiel I) or the ministering angels, because these are believed to be real beings that actually exist "in the heaven above." (Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh 138:1)
The Muslims shun images, in particular of Muhammad. The Danish cartoon flap a few years ago brought this up, but most Muslims do not want even respectful pictures of their prophet-even a respectful one can get you killed. For instance, here is a picture of Muhammad destroying the idols in the Ka'bah (btw, according to Muslim Tradition there was an icon of the Theotokos and Christ in the Ka'bah, which their prophet covered with his body while instructing his followers to destroy everything else). He's the flame.
he is also shown veiled, when he is shown at all.
When Muslims make movies on Muhammad, he is never shown: the characters only talk about him, and when necessary, the camera takes the viewpoint of Muhammad. Since Protestant iconoclasts come from a religion with icons, they have no problem with film and pictures of Christ. Except those who take their aniconic views seriously, who become iconoclasts, and like the B'nei Noach reject the incarnation as idolatry and join the rest who interpret the prohibition of images like you do.
"He who has seen Me has seen the Father." So you believe the Father is not transcendent Deity and not infinite?Worshiping Jesus via an image, or having an image of Him in mind during worship, rends Him from His transcendent Deity, making finite what is infinite.
God made Himself finite when he took the likeness of man. We had no means to accomplish that. It was the good pleasure of the Father which did, emptying out the fullness of Godhead into the icon of the invisible God.
The He would not have taken flesh and shown us His glory, showing on Tabor what was not seen on Sinai.God doesn't want to be imaged in your psyche as you pray to Him,
that would be like me visualizing you as dung as I spoke to you.[/b]
One of the early Muslim polemics about the incarnation have to do with the idea of God coming out of a filthy place (there words) full of urine and dung, and blood and menses. The Holy Theotokos bore the Son. He wasn't her bowel movement.
We see Him as He is, the finite man Who is the firstborn of all creation, the icon of the invisible God. In the beginning the Word was God, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory.You would be insulted...God is insulted when you visualize Him as finite xyz, He isn't that at all.