Modern Jewish Views
Many Jewish thinkers generally agree that the spirit of idolatry has diminished, and that "real" idolatry is not commonly found.
Several have expressed the view that any beliefs or practices which significantly interferes with a Jew's relationship with God may, in some way, be termed "idolatry". Examples might include:
- A very strong desire to gain money and wealth; greed could be considered a form of idolatry.
- A very strong desire to gain fame or recognition; egocentrism could be considered a form of idolatry (a view expressed by the Vilna Gaon).
Some theologically moderated Jews argue that most modern-day religions which appear idolatrous should not be considered idolatry as defined by Jewish law. They argue that modern day Buddhists, Hindus and others:
- Do not literally worship "sticks and stones", as the idolaters in the Tanakh were described doing.
- Their beliefs have more theological depth than ancient pagans, and they are well aware that their icons are only symbols of a deeper level of reality.
- They do not practice child sacrifice, or sex rites, as did some pagans in the ancient near-east.
- They are of high moral character
- They are not anti-Semitic.
As such, some Jews argue that not only does God have a relationship with all gentile monotheists, but that God also maintains a relationship with Hindus, Buddhists and polytheists. Some notable figures with these views include Elliot N. Dorff, Michael Strassfeld and David Novak. However, Orthodox Judaism is in stark contrast to their views.
There are a few people who practice Judeo-Paganism, which is a mixture of Jewish and polytheistic/pagan practices. Some of those practices involve honoring (or remembering) divinities that were among those rejected by the prophets of the Tanakh (for example, Ba'al and Asherah). These practices are seen as non-Jewish by all the Jewish denominations.
Read more about this topic: Idolatry In Judaism
Famous quotes containing the words modern, jewish and/or views:
“Certainly for us of the modern world, with its conflicting claims, its entangled interests, distracted by so many sorrows, so many preoccupations, so bewildering an experience, the problem of unity with ourselves in blitheness and repose, is far harder than it was for the Greek within the simple terms of antique life. Yet, not less than ever, the intellect demands completeness, centrality.”
—Walter Pater (1839–1894)
“I know that I will always be expected to have extra insight into black texts—especially texts by black women. A working-class Jewish woman from Brooklyn could become an expert on Shakespeare or Baudelaire, my students seemed to believe, if she mastered the language, the texts, and the critical literature. But they would not grant that a middle-class white man could ever be a trusted authority on Toni Morrison.”
—Claire Oberon Garcia, African American scholar and educator. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B2 (July 27, 1994)
“It is even more grim and wild than you had anticipated, a damp and intricate wilderness, in the spring everywhere wet and miry. The aspect of the country, indeed, is universally stern and savage, excepting the distant views of the forest from hills, and the lake prospects, which are mild and civilizing in a degree.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)