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.