Definition of idolatry

1. Is accepting the authority of the Knesset to enact laws essentially idolatry?
2. How is this different from the authority of the Gemara (which came from below through acceptance by the people of Israel and not from an argument that this is how God wanted it)?
3. Why is an object needed for the formal definition? Just as God is not a tangible object, so too is the boundary for idolatry supposedly supposed to be (if you are talking about an intangible being, then I don't really understand what you are excluding from the definition)
4. As a follow-up to question number 3, if in essence idolatry has not been abolished from the world but has only changed form, all the laws related to idolatry must undergo adaptation and be relevant to our day (conservative midrash), right?

1. I also addressed this there. In my opinion, no, unless you give it authority by virtue of being the Knesset and not for any reason. Any rationalization for granting this authority excludes it from the rule of law.
2. The assumption that God wants us to follow the public's decision. In the end, it is His own will. It does not necessarily correspond to His specific will (regarding the daughter's plight, or a particular halakhic issue), but He has a will that we do so, as we hear the decision of the Sages (in the Torah) even though it is not necessarily His will. This is the ‘victory of my sons’ of Akhnai's oven.
3. An intangible object. Enoch, for example, claims that morality is binding even though there is no object behind it, neither tangible nor intangible. Because if there is an object behind it, it is God by definition (I define God this way - the object that gives validity to morality). Every morally committed atheist holds such a position.
4. Why do you think something has changed? Couldn't they then grant authority to an abstract object or no object at all? I'm not sure. But in principle if that's the case you're right.

1. Even if I have a rationale for why I obey the Knesset as a normative source of authority, I will ask about the rationale for why it is not idolatry? (Unless the lowest turtle is God) Most of humanity is idolatry as it accepts the political authority or perhaps they are secret believers?
2. Where do we get this assumption from? This is also a question we have discussed in the past and there is no need to expand if you simply “see” that it is the divine will to follow what our ancestors accepted as a source of authority.
3. I am pretty sure that you are a realist who thinks that there are moral implications. I am not entirely sure what the essential disagreement is between you after watching the debate and your discussion on the website afterwards. In any case, I fail to understand why someone who is committed to a normative system that has no object behind it would not be included in the definition of an idolater from a formal point of view, but formalism is not my strong suit.

1. Rationality begins with some value. This brings us back to the question of the basis of values. In my opinion, it is only God. Obedience to the state as an independent basis is fascism. Not common in our regions.
2. Indeed, I suppose. One could even say that it is a moral value, to act as the group you belong to decides (unless there are strong counter-considerations).
3. Indeed. It is precisely on this point that I do not understand him either. He talks about realism and evades the ontological question.

Regarding the prohibition of עז, simply put, there is a difference between not being committed to G‑d and being committed to someone else (which is עז). When there is no object behind the norms, it is difficult to say that you are committed to someone else. You are committed to floating norms, and this is a commitment to behavior and not to God (another).