I would suggest that there are two ways of concieving god:
-By reading religious texts
-By performing good acts
To what extent is the concieved God different in each case?
I can also concieve ‘God’, by making a bronze statue of a penis, and then burning pig fat near the idol. 
Do concepts mean anything at that level?
Aren’t they even cheaper than words?
Sounds good to me, and there’s plenty of precedent. 
I think learning about God through a religious text, that is, the Bible, and performing good acts go together.
Probably most people do not believe that the Bible is inspired by God and is God’s word, and they do not believe other texts are inspired by God either. But if God inspired the Bible, and I believe He did, then the Bible is God speaking, and God through the Bible defines what “good acts” are.
I do not think our human consciences are a reliable guide to right and wrong, and sometimes we need the Bible to accurately know what good acts are. Proof that humans do not accurately know right from wrong apart from revelation from God is the case of terrorists who think they are serving God by crashing airplanes and blowing up buildings.
We should learn from the Bible what God considers to be “good acts”, then put what we learn into practice by performing those good acts.
I pretty much agree with with everything author@ said. Good acts can be a part of a communion with God, but only after the presence of God has been demonstrated through experience and explained through doctrine. Then one can see the proper place of their acts in relation to God.
I don’t think I understand the question fully here. Please explain deeper.
Dan… what are we going to do with you.