How do you conceptualize God?

[Unveiled Artist]

The best we can do is explain how we relate to a specific person or lack of. How we relate to a person is an action, therefore a verb. The idea of God works the same way in Jewish and Christian scripture.

I'd agree with this logic though I respect not being allowed to conceptualize god. @Tumah @savagewind if god is a verb, he is someone who does things then how we relate to him there has to be some form of conceptualization (not to be confused with idolism). For example, I find it meaningless in and of itself only to conceptualize life and our true nature. Yes, I use "Buddha-nature" for language purposes, but our nature and life it just is.

So, when we live with people, for example, our parents dont say (I dont think) "don't call me any name. I will take care of you just don't refer to me as anyone-no name-no face-no voice" If a child did that, how would that parent feel?

We conceptualize or form a concept (not idol) of god in order to relate to him. We say "I love you" or "I do this for you" or "I perform this specific tradition for you" because that is how we conceptualize god not just by voice but by our actions.

We conceptualize god by our actions. So, if a Jew doesn't conceptualize god, how does he form a bond with him? If action isn't conceptualizing, then I can flap my arms and it will have the same affect as davening or lighting a candle. When a Christian holds his or her hands out and palms up, that action is conceptualizing the presence of the holy spirit "in the arms and body" of the person. It is using one's mind (for lack of better words of that faith) to feel or connect with the holy spirit and know who the holy spirit is-by what she does.

So, maybe when you say you don't conceptualize, do you mean you don't idolize?​

My concept of god is an action and I interpret it in language that only my body and tone of voice can speak. If I idolized god, instead of body language and voice, I'd make an "idol"-a person or thing that represents the god I have a bond with. Making god an idol, I understand that and why it's forbidden to do so.

Conceptualizing, however, is what we all do so we can relate and understand our relation to things and people. If we don't conceptualize god whether by speech, action, tone of voice, and/or meditating, how do you experience god? Why practice? and what would the culture and traditions mean if it did not have a source or point of reference and definition (not to be confused with idolizing god by definition) god?

 

[ShadowFire]

I have seen God in many forms, He/She/ is the most beautiful source of pure energy perfection I have ever seen. I am in awe of it's magnificence presence, but there is so much more than conceptualizing it's amazing image! I see the tremendous inner beauty, the Perfection of Love the perfection of trust in this mighty master artist who created such a canvas of inspiring beauty our universe contains just for you and me to enjoy. Seeing all of this beauty awakens my inner beauty and opens my eyes to the possibility of Love, of Family, and a Home to go to when it is my Time to cross over to the other side. I am never alone in my spiritual life for all I have to do is look up at the sky above to see that master artist at work, or feel the sacred air around my body, the sweet fragrance of the earth as I plant flowers in the garden, and seeing the power of a smile, a hug, a gentle touch to remind me I'm human, I'm not alone and I'm connected to a vast universe that was created to marvel at and enjoy it's complexity and beauty!

 

[Treasure Hunter]

IF you have a God or god-like/higher power concept, how do you define/conceptualize that?

For me, there is an unknowable Brahman-like energy that holds the universe together. I don't conceptualize that as a person, or any anthropomorphic thing. I don't think it has a personal interest in me or anyone, or any "divine plan". In fact, my belief in what I call God for lack of a better word wouldn't be called a belief in God at all by an Abrahamic adherent. How do you name the un-nameable? How do you describe the unknowable? It makes it very hard to talk about, but the language of mystics from all traditions speaks to it. I find great wisdom in Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism, and Christianity, and it doesn't conflict with my worldview at all. I think all religions have valuable elements, and all have something to say about the ineffable.

For you, is God a "person" with a human-like personality? Is God a spirit (and what is a spirit)? If you have a different higher power concept, how does it work?

Focusing on God is pointless. Focusing on your intuition is miraculous.

 

[Tumah]

I'd agree with this logic though I respect not being allowed to conceptualize god. @Tumah @savagewind if god is a verb

I guess G-d isn't a verb then.

So, if a Jew doesn't conceptualize god, how does he form a bond with him?

Knowing that G-d exists is enough to form a bond with Him.

So, maybe when you say you don't conceptualize, do you mean you don't idolize?

No, I mean we can't form any sort of picture of Him.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I guess G-d isn't a verb then.


Knowing that G-d exists is enough to form a bond with Him.


No, I mean we can't form any sort of picture of Him.

Knowing god exists doesn't automatically form a bond with god. If that be the case, every non-believer of any faith who knows god exist would have a bond.

Forming a picture as in a image of what he would look like? (that's idolism)

If you formed a picture based on your actions and experiences from god, and someone asked you to conceptualize god, wouldn't your concepts not be from you "we are not allowed to..." but from god himself?​

Conceptualizing god based on your experiences, actions, and god's existence isn't wrong.

Using those conceptions god gives you to make an image-say an idea of how he looks to maybe a statue of him, that, I can see is wrong.

Does that make sense?

edit

Good example.

If a child is not supposed to conceptualize his parent then he wouldn't know how to relate to his parent. The figure in front of him would have no meaning because he hasn't (or told not to) form a language in his mine to point A to B. He is basically saying "I have a bond with X" but with no concept of who X is (parent, woman, etc), there's just a blank space.

If a child wants to bond or not just know a figure exist but actually relate to that figure, there has to be some form of language (body, speech, whatever). These come in concepts. So, if the child is told not to conceptualize his parents, basically, regardless if the figure exist or not, how does that child form a bond?

Idolism, on the other hand...

If the child had a concept of the figure he is with, say a parent. Then he creates in his head (rather than the parent giving him these things) what his parent should look like. Maybe draw his parent on paper. That's what I think you're saying.

As for conceptualizing god, if we don't have concepts or definitions of who and what we talk about, how do you talk about (not define) god?​

 

[Tumah]

Knowing god exists doesn't automatically form a bond with god. If that be the case, every non-believer of any faith who knows god exist would have a bond.

This statement is contradicting.
I didn't say knowing G-d exists causes a bond, I said its enough to form one.

Forming a picture as in a image of what he would look like? (that's idolism)

This is true. I think the word is idolatry.

If you formed a picture based on your actions and experiences from god, and someone asked you to conceptualize god, wouldn't your concepts not be from you "we are not allowed to..." but from god himself?

Maybe.

Conceptualizing god based on your experiences, actions, and god's existence isn't wrong.

If you say so.[/QUOTE]

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is true. I think the word is idolatry.

If you say so

These are my points.

Concepts are needed in language. A child knows his parents exist without knowing that its his parents. To form a bond (more than just knowing its existance), that child, whether in sign language, spoken, or whatever finds ways to identify and define who he has a relationship with. He can't do that without concepts. So, that is why that isn't wrong. It's a language thing not religious.

The other part, idolism, I think that's a better word for "not being able to conceptualize god". God is conceptualized all the time: he's the creator, all powerful, knowing, generous, and so forth. However, in some faiths actually depicting these conceptions as an image say an idea or statue it becomes idolism....that is wrong.

 

[Tumah]

These are my points.

Concepts are needed in language. A child knows his parents exist without knowing that its his parents. To form a bond (more than just knowing its existance), that child, whether in sign language, spoken, or whatever finds ways to identify and define who he has a relationship with. He can't do that without concepts. So, that is why that isn't wrong. It's a language thing not religious.

The other part, idolism, I think that's a better word for "not being able to conceptualize god". God is conceptualized all the time: he's the creator, all powerful, knowing, generous, and so forth. However, in some faiths actually depicting these conceptions as an image say an idea or statue it becomes idolism....that is wrong.

A child forms a bond with his mother even before he recognizes what his mother is.
With the exception of G-d's Oneness, any other concept of G-d would be false, only subjectively true, or not directly related to G-d.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A child forms a bond with his mother even before he recognizes what his mother is.
With the exception of G-d's Oneness, any other concept of G-d would be false, only subjectively true, or not directly related to G-d.

Why would we need even the concept of god's oneness? Wouldn't even god being called a name be idolizing him? That, and being a creator defines god as well. I know I'm being picky, but wouldn't defining god as a creator be wrong or is it not the concepts that the problem, it's more who does it. The person or god.

The child forms a bond based on many concepts that are automatic. Body language is a huge form of human contact between mother and child. Some children don't have the ability to make that connection via certain disorders. It's language as in communication rather than linguistics.

 

[Tumah]

Why would we need even the concept of god's oneness?

Because through it, we can exclude any other possible concepts.

Wouldn't even god being called a name be idolizing him?

Do you have a reason that this should be true?

That, and being a creator defines god as well. I know I'm being picky, but wouldn't defining god as a creator be wrong or is it not the concepts that the problem, it's more who does it. The person or god.

Being the Creator is not defining G-d because G-d only became the Creator when He created. Its not an intrinsic quality.

The child forms a bond based on many concepts that are automatic. Body language is a huge form of human contact between mother and child. Some children don't have the ability to make that connection via certain disorders. It's language as in communication rather than linguistics.

The child forms a bond without having the ability to conceptualize anything.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because through it, we can exclude any other possible concepts.

I understand. Stretching it a bit. Even with that, though, I'd say it's pushing it. I see god as life. If I conceptualize life as oneness, creator, consciousness, goddess, vishnu, whoever, although I'm allowed, it would be rather meaningless in and of itself. There is no term. Other than convenience or preference, why have one?

Do you have a reason that this should be true?

If you use the G-d, you aren't calling god by name. It's the same reasoning, just my point is, once you use God then you are making a idol (or written representation) of who god is by "naming" him. I'm a writer and when I put a name to a character, that name defines that character just as his qualities. If, in religion, I'm not allowed to define god's character, his "name" would not be excluded.

Being the Creator is not defining G-d because G-d only became the Creator when He created. Its not an intrinsic quality.

Good point. I learnt that the Creator has always been the Creator even before he created.

The child forms a bond without having the ability to conceptualize anything.

The conceptualizing I'm speaking of is body language and communication between mother and child-maternal instinct not linguistics or forming ideas or thoughts. A child has a concept that his mother is his mother not based on forming ideas or anything like that. Just pure body language and natural bond between mother and child.

It's the same with sign language. Sign language isn't a language but a form of communication using gestures and isolated signs to convey direct messages. ASL, LSF, and other sign languages around the globe are actual languages with concepts or ideas. A child forms a bond by sign language, gestures, etc. When he grows older, he builds concepts not just on body language anymore, but a form of linguistic communication-ASL, English, or so have you.

Long story short: I'm using concepts as communication. Building a connection, a natural idea of how a child relates to his mother. Linguistic concepts are later when he grows older. I'm talking about the former. I think you're speaking of the latter.​

If I am told not to conceptualize god, then my actions, speech, and everything that god works through me so that I can speak about him would be mute. I'd have no bond-not an isolated connection but personal-because I can't use my freedom of expression to let him work through me in concepts-words and body language I am familiar with. So, in my point of view, I have to put god in some type of concept in order to worship him. (Concept not idolizing) It's fine to know he exists. It's also find to know I have a bond. It's better to have an active language (body or otherwise) so knowledge is not enough, but relationship is even better.

That's how I would see god if I seen him as an entity. Even the word entity would rock me if I'm not allowed to conceptualize. I'd literally have to be a blank slate-that's my faith. Life. Blank slate. Perfect Zen. From a Jewish, Christian, or Muslim perspective, I don't see how one can be a blank slate given each religion has a sacred text that defines god.

So....

 

[Tumah]

I understand. Stretching it a bit. Even with that, though, I'd say it's pushing it. I see god as life. If I conceptualize life as oneness, creator, consciousness, goddess, vishnu, whoever, although I'm allowed, it would be rather meaningless in and of itself. There is no term. Other than convenience or preference, why have one?

Obviously according to the standard that I presented, your conceptualization is wrong. G-d is not life, because G-d existed before life did.

If you use the G-d, you aren't calling god by name. It's the same reasoning, just my point is, once you use God then you are making a idol (or written representation) of who god is by "naming" him. I'm a writer and when I put a name to a character, that name defines that character just as his qualities. If, in religion, I'm not allowed to define god's character, his "name" would not be excluded.

G-d denotes a relationship between two subjects. Its not a quality.

Good point. I learnt that the Creator has always been the Creator even before he created.

That makes no sense.

The conceptualizing I'm speaking of is body language and communication between mother and child-maternal instinct not linguistics or forming ideas or thoughts. A child has a concept that his mother is his mother not based on forming ideas or anything like that. Just pure body language and natural bond between mother and child.

Can you prove that a week old baby has the capability to conceptualize?

If I am told not to conceptualize god, then my actions, speech, and everything that god works through me so that I can speak about him would be mute. I'd have no bond-not an isolated connection but personal-because I can't use my freedom of expression to let him work through me in concepts-words and body language I am familiar with. So, in my point of view, I have to put god in some type of concept in order to worship him. (Concept not idolizing) It's fine to know he exists. It's also find to know I have a bond. It's better to have an active language (body or otherwise) so knowledge is not enough, but relationship is even better.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's how I would see god if I seen him as an entity. Even the word entity would rock me if I'm not allowed to conceptualize. I'd literally have to be a blank slate-that's my faith. Life. Blank slate. Perfect Zen. From a Jewish, Christian, or Muslim perspective, I don't see how one can be a blank slate given each religion has a sacred text that defines god.

So....

So... obviously you don't know as much about Judaism as you thought you did.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Tumah We can cut it short. I honestly think you're talking about idolism rather than concepts. Only because we naturally make concepts when we speak about subjects from the word god to tuna sandwiches. If we idolize the (not our) concept of god and made him, say, the statue of Jesus, then I can see that wrong. If you keep the concepts as god's and no our own, then it's all idolism.

 

[Tumah]

@Tumah We can cut it short. I honestly think you're talking about idolism rather than concepts. Only because we naturally make concepts when we speak about subjects from the word god to tuna sandwiches. If we idolize the (not our) concept of god and made him, say, the statue of Jesus, then I can see that wrong. If you keep the concepts as god's and no our own, then it's all idolism.

Try this.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Obviously according to the standard that I presented, your conceptualization is wrong. G-d is not life, because G-d existed before life did.

Tomaato, tomato. I don't separate god from life. That doesn't make sense to me. Everything and one is a part of reality.

G-d denotes a relationship between two subjects. Its not a quality.

I'm just saying the same reason you use "G-d" is the same point I'm saying not to use the word god at all. Using God (in your case) or the name regardless the spelling in mine, if I were christian, I'd see it as idolism. Only because names are part of people's qualities. It could be a cultural difference.

That makes no sense.

That's what I learned. I never questioned it.

Can you prove that a week old baby has the capability to conceptualize?

You are using concepts as in linguistics. I am talking about communication and concept by body language. Babies conceptualize by how they relate to their mother by body language. What you are saying is completely different.

So... obviously you don't know as much about Judaism as you thought you did.

I never said I knew anything about Judaism. Why would you think I did?

Edit: I don't care for wiki. It is too hard to distinguish lettering even when I blow the screen up, people edit it all the time, and I rather talk to someone who practices the faith in question not go to a site about it.

 

[Tumah]

Tomaato, tomato. I don't separate god from life. That doesn't make sense to me. Everything and one is a part of reality.

Can you share which part of my statement you don't understand (as opposed to what part of it you disagree with)?

I'm just saying the same reason you use "G-d" is the same point I'm saying not to use the word god at all. Using God (in your case) or the name regardless the spelling in mine, if I were christian, I'd see it as idolism. Only because names are part of people's qualities. It could be a cultural difference.

It kind of seems like you didn't read what I wrote but just skimmed it and responded. "G-d" is not a name. It represent a relationship between two entities. Father is also not a name.

That's what I learned. I never questioned it.

Ok.

You are using concepts as in linguistics. I am talking about communication and concept by body language. Babies conceptualize by how they relate to their mother by body language. What you are saying is completely different.

What you are saying makes no sense to me. Conceptualization happens in the mind.

I never said I knew anything about Judaism. Why would you think I did?

Because you said (and I quote)

From a Jewish... perspective, I don't see how one can​

The implication being that you are familiar with the Jewish perspective and don't understand how what I am saying reconciles with it.

Edit: I don't care for wiki. It is too hard to distinguish lettering even when I blow the screen up, people edit it all the time, and I rather talk to someone who practices the faith in question not go to a site about it.

Apophatic theology is one that doesn't aim to describe G-d, but to define Him by what He is not. G-d created everything, so G-d is no thing.

 

[Acim]

I think that love is an aspect of Truth, and like Gandhi, that God is Truth. And I think that there are (at least) 4 such aspects of Truth: knowledge, justice, love and beauty--from pure objective Truth blending through to pure subjective Truth.

I'm not sure how you are stating "that love." Are you saying "that love that I spoke about?" Or the word "that" isn't necessary in what you are actually conveying, such as: "I think love is an aspect of Truth?"

My ongoing understandings of the Spirit of Love covers Knowledge and Justice. Beauty is in eye of beholder, though Love I find has high appreciation for all things, as if beauty is all around.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

With conception, I am thinking of my knowledge of American Sign Language and Deaf Culture. The use of body language from infant to age without speech forms concepts in and of itself. When a infant is just born, there is no concept (what you are talking about). No thinking. No speech. What I am talking about communication and concepts by body language and maternal instinct.

When I sign, sometimes I don't have to have a specific concept in mind to get my point across as we do in English. Body language and facial expressions show what I want to say without any thoughts putting words together as we "hear" them in our heads in English and spoken languages. Since I am not a native speaker of ASL, I do have some concepts as I sign. When I am on a roll, concepts (thinking) washes away and everything just flows.

It's different than English. So, I see it different being visual. Linguistically speaking, you are right. We can't make linguistic concepts until we learn language. Again, I am talking about body language and maternal instinct.

We are talking two totally different things.​

Can you share which part of my statement you don't understand (as opposed to what part of it you disagree with)?

Obviously according to the standard that I presented, your conceptualization is wrong. G-d is not life, because G-d existed before life did.

I understand and I disagree.

It kind of seems like you didn't read what I wrote but just skimmed it and responded. "G-d" is not a name. It represent a relationship between two entities. Father is also not a name.

Everyone thinks that; some of us actually do read what others write. It's an online assumption that I hate. That's why we ask for clarification, not because we haven't read whatever it is and want to debate (another online assumption), it's because what we read doesn't make sense or is not clicking.

I know G-d is not a name. However, it must be of some importance to you to use the - and names are personal; so, I will say it's a proper pronoun.

If god is not a proper pronoun nor a name, then that is like me saying Jane is a h-man being. So, every time I mention about Jane (within worship) but talk about Jane outside of worship, I use the - . In my perspective that doesn't sound right. Human being isn't a name, so the - dash isn't needed. If you said the actual name god has with a - then that would be different.

For example not accuracy, it's like if a Muslim says: Allah (pbuh) that's fine. I don't see him saying Entity (pbuh) since entity (like god) is not a name.

On that note,

I believe names are important. How we refer to someone whether it be god (by his name) or Jane is a personal thing. To me if I said god, that's like saying "human being" so that's fine. If I said Allah, I'd use a All-h (to make a point only not accuracy) then it's not insulting and to the point, it's not idolizing god's name by making a representation of it on screen or paper.

I'm just comparing G - d and my view of using a name as idolism in reference to god. It has nothing to do with how a Jew uses the - so you don't have to explain that to me. That's all.​

What you are saying makes no sense to me. Conceptualization happens in the mind.

It also happens in body language especially when people can't think and they use signs and gestures to form concepts or language. When a infant is born, I consider that communication between mother and child a maternal language. The baby instinctively knows who his mother is. He is forming a concept by body language and maternal instant rather than thoughts and linguistics.

Like I said, we are talking about two different things. I see concept beyond language.

Because you said (and I quote)
From a Jewish... perspective, I don't see how one can
The implication being that you are familiar with the Jewish perspective and don't understand how what I am saying reconciles with it.

Okay. I get the point. "If I assumed from a Jewish perspective..."

All of my Abrahamic views come from a Christian perspective. I tried talking to a Jew and visit a Synagogue but the person was nasty, so I never really got into the faith because of it one of many reasons.

My points:

1. I see concepts beyond language/mind/thoughts. So we are talking about two different things.

2. If I personally felt writing god's name is wrong, I wouldn't use G - d because god isn't a name. Names are personal. So from a Christian perspective I would use J-sus or even more accurate J-hovah. Then that way I am not idolising Jesus' name (in this case) by representing him on paper when he has no definition.

3. I rephrase, my mistake. "I assume" from a Jewish perspective...

4. All of my views come from a Christian perspective (in general; by their scripture not denomination) so that will influence how other Abrahamic religions see god even though I may be incorrect. It is what it is.

My over all point. Concepts can be both body language and/or from the mind. So, even if you are not allowed to make concepts of god by language, in my opinion, by body language can just as well make the same point. If you are not allowed to make a concept, then to me, it sounds like you are not allowed to think of the nature of god-yet when you talk about him, that is part of his nature (Oneness and everything described in the Torah). If the nature of god or concept of him is forbidden to be spoken, then there'd be no talk about god to begin with.

So, in my opinion, the correct word is "idolism." You are not allowed to make a representation of god and his nature. Talking about him is fine. Writing, drawing, or making a statue (or whatever) of what god may look like is not. That is how I see it.

I don't understand how you are not allowed to view god as a concept since we talk in concepts all the time.



Also, to understand long posts, I have to literally separate paragraphs in half. I have a processing language issue (medical) so concepts and connections by reading and writing takes longer than usual. That's why I edit often and re-read what I write. I post a lot because I see things I didn't address.

I don't like assumptions but people do it online all the time. It's a nasty habit when trying to have a civil conversation anywhere.
​

 

[Tumah]

With conception, I am thinking of my knowledge of American Sign Language and Deaf Culture. The use of body language from infant to age without speech forms concepts in and of itself. When a infant is just born, there is no concept (what you are talking about). No thinking. No speech. What I am talking about communication and concepts by body language and maternal instinct.

When I sign, sometimes I don't have to have a specific concept in mind to get my point across as we do in English. Body language and facial expressions show what I want to say without any thoughts putting words together as we "hear" them in our heads in English and spoken languages. Since I am not a native speaker of ASL, I do have some concepts as I sign. When I am on a roll, concepts (thinking) washes away and everything just flows."


It's different than English. So, I see it different being visual. Linguistically speaking, you are right. We can't make linguistic concepts until we learn language. Again, I am talking about body language and maternal instinct.

We are talking two totally different things.​

​

Ideas are not processed in the body, they are processed in the brain/mind. Conceptualization - that is, the process of forming an idea, is not a something that happens in the hands or feet. The sign concepts that you are talking about here seem to be sign language that represent concepts. They do not form concepts.

I understand and I disagree.

That makes sense. But you can understand why I had to ask that since what you actually said was

That doesn't make sense to me.​

Everyone thinks that; some of us actually do read what others write. It's an online assumption that I hate. That's why we ask for clarification, not because we haven't read whatever it is and want to debate (another online assumption), it's because what we read doesn't make sense or is not clicking.

I know G-d is not a name. However, it must be of some importance to you to use the - and names are personal; so, I will say it's a proper pronoun.

If god is not a proper pronoun nor a name, then that is like me saying Jane is a h-man being. So, every time I mention about Jane (within worship) but talk about Jane outside of worship, I use the - . In my perspective that doesn't sound right. Human being isn't a name, so the - dash isn't needed. If you said the actual name god has with a - then that would be different.

For example not accuracy, it's like if a Muslim says: Allah (pbuh) that's fine. I don't see him saying Entity (pbuh) since entity (like god) is not a name.

On that note,

I believe names are important. How we refer to someone whether it be god (by his name) or Jane is a personal thing. To me if I said god, that's like saying "human being" so that's fine. If I said Allah, I'd use a All-h (to make a point only not accuracy) then it's not insulting and to the point, it's not idolizing god's name by making a representation of it on screen or paper.

I'm just comparing G - d and my view of using a name as idolism in reference to god. It has nothing to do with how a Jew uses the - so you don't have to explain that to me. That's all.​

​

Surely you can understand why I would assume that you are not actually reading what I'm writing when your comment seems to completely ignore half of every response I make? "G-d" is not a proper noun and "Jane" is not a good comparison. "Jane" is a proper noun. Its a name. I gave the example of "father". Which you ignored. You can call your father "father", but the word is describing a relationship, not an intrinsic property of your father.

It also happens in body language especially when people can't think and they use signs and gestures to form concepts or language. When a infant is born, I consider that communication between mother and child a maternal language. The baby instinctively knows who his mother is. He is forming a concept by body language and maternal instant rather than thoughts and linguistics.

Like I said, we are talking about two different things. I see concept beyond language.

People and perhaps babies do not use their gestures to form concepts. They use their hands to form hand-signs that represent concepts. They do not use their hands to formulate concepts.

Okay. I get the point. "If I assumed from a Jewish perspective..."

All of my Abrahamic views come from a Christian perspective. I tried talking to a Jew and visit a Synagogue but the person was nasty, so I never really got into the faith because of it one of many reasons.

There is very little in common between the two.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am sure it is natural to read and skip over points you have already read that does not relate to what you want to say in a reply, right? I try not to remark to everything, because I feel after I re-read what I wrote, I'm just repeating myself.

Ideas are not processed in the body, they are processed in the brain/mind. Conceptualization - that is, the process of forming an idea, is not a something that happens in the hands or feet. The sign concepts that you are talking about here seem to be sign language that represent concepts. They do not form concepts.

The reason I said American Sign Language (not sign language) forms concepts is because it is a language rather than gestures. In ASL, we "think" or form concepts by specific shapes of our hands and how we look that is completely different than English. It's a bit closer to French, actually since that's where the language somewhat originated.

We can process ideas by body language. That is exactly what ASL is. That is how it can be conveyed as a complex language rather than a representation of words. I think this is a better example of the mother/baby one. If you are familiar with ASL, it would be somewhat easier to talk about.

Another way concepts formed by body language is by tradition and ritual. When I chant and pray without speaking, I am mentally (for lack of better spiritual words) an idea or definition of a connection between me and the Gohonzon (our object of worship).

Yes, I can think and formulate how the Gohonzon relates to me, and I find it a lot more personal to form those concepts by body language and mind. It let's me know by body language what the Gohonzon means to be beyond the words represented in Chinese, Japanese, and Sanskrit. Concepts takes on a whole new meaning when done in action and tradition. That's my opinion and experience. Not everyone sees it the same way and that does not mean one or the other is wrong.

That makes sense. But you can understand why I had to ask that since what you actually said was
That doesn't make sense to me.

I can't find which comment this went with. Maybe it's a agree to disagree? It is one thing if it doesn't make sense logically; but if it doesn't make sense via our respective beliefs, I don't know if we can help each other understand unless we can come from our shoes and view it in the other's.

Surely you can understand why I would assume that you are not actually reading what I'm writing when your comment seems to completely ignore half of every response I make? "G-d" is not a proper noun and "Jane" is not a good comparison. "Jane" is a proper noun. Its a name. I gave the example of "father". Which you ignored. You can call your father "father", but the word is describing a relationship, not an intrinsic property of your father.

I used God as a proper noun because in English we capitalize God to donate not just a person but an actual being, a creator. I don't know about Judaism, but from a christian perspective, it is treated as a proper noun. god, lower case, is not. Some Christians change the proper use of God to Jehovah. So, it depends on the person.

I didn't use the "father" example because I didn't see how that related to what you said; and, because I don't think it did it wasn't too important to refer to it in our conversation. We usually do that. We read something, see if it connects, and choose to use it in our reply whether we understand it in itself or not.

There is very little in common between the two.

Okay.

My points are

Since ASL is language, the body language, gestures, and facial expressions do not represent words but are the language they speak or concepts they convey. I mean, we can be technical and say a table represents two arms on top of each other and the top palm patting the elbow. I guess that is fine linguistically. However, in the language itself, that word with others formulates concepts and thereby language.

Back to my original OP point. If I created a concept of god, I can say "god is one" and that would represent who he is. That's not wrong. If I said tried to define god or make an idol representation of him, then that is wrong. I don't understand how, in Judaism, one can talk about god without forming a concept or working language in context for you to do so. By doing so, you're not making an idol, representing god, or defining him. You're just using language to convey messages to get your concept, content, and context to make your point.

If someone asked me "what is your concept of life?" I may say, life is the air we breathe and the earth turning. That's not wrong and I don't see how that could not be allowed if I compared it to Judaism since it's a fact rather than something I created. However, if I defined life by saying, maybe by art or representation, that would be wrong.

The former, I am not making a concept of life. It is what it is without my definition. I'm just conveying what is a fact. That isn't wrong. The latter, I am wrong, because I am conveying the fact/nature of life by my representation of it. I'm just explaining about idolism. I don't understand how one can't be allowed to make a concept of god. It's not your concept. It's just a fact you are conveying by language to another. If it's idolism it's from you; that I can see is wrong.
​

Understand?