Q&A: My friend's words — I'd be glad to hear your opinion.
My friend's words — I'd be glad to hear your opinion.
Question
"One can see in Maimonides' approach that there is no reality of reward and punishment, but rather reward and the withholding of reward. That is, the righteous person receives a certain reward, whereas one who denies the fundamental principles ultimately disappears completely, losing all real continuity.
The puzzling point that seemingly arises is that a person was created in the 'image of God,' and therefore if a person disappears from reality, a divine element disappears from reality, which is contradictory.
Therefore it seems to me that the plain meaning of the concept 'image of God' should be understood differently. This is how I defined it: 'the image of God' is not a divine element integrally embedded in a person, but rather the possibility of 'receiving' that divine element in question.
And therefore, a person who did not accept upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven will not lose a divine element that was never created.
One can see some basis for this in the verse about the image of God, but I won't go on at length."
Thank you in advance, all the best
Answer
First, I don't know where this conclusion about Maimonides comes from. He speaks about reward and punishment, not only about reward.
Second, a person can disappear from reality while his divine element remains in it in one form or another, like the survival of the soul (reincarnations?).
And third, even if there is no need for it, the proposal he raises is possible.
Why assume that the image of God is a "part" of God? Usually the word image comes to indicate resemblance (see Guide for the Perplexed, chapter 1), just as if I "photograph" a picture and then destroy it, nothing of what I photographed is destroyed.