With that disclaimer. I think God is MORE than, not less than, "Personal". From this I conclude that it is okay to use "personal language" about Him as long as we're all clear that it's analogical. For example, When I get angry I have physiological events and, generally, my thinking and self-control are diminished. Also, I can get angry without their being a good reason for me to be angry.
If we think those things are of the essence of wrath, we cannot attribute wrath to God, duh. But if we think of wrath as a determination and choice to set right what is wrong (or something like that) then We can say that god is wrathful.
Our Hindu and Buddhists friends, mostly, would say that Karma is something like the 'working out of balance and justice'. THAT's impersonal. WE would say, "God rises up in anger and scatters the foe (Ps 68 or somesuch)". Our language insists on will and choice with an implication that what we technically refer to as the Great Hoo Hoo in the Sky (hereinafter TGHHITS) has something like a will and, at the most hoo-hoo-ish level chooses to be as He is. Whereas for Plotinus and for the Eastern religions I wold VENTURE to say that TGHHITS sort of just is.
For us LOVE, even the kind that involves eros, is one of the highest activities, and not, as in a fantasy of an erotic ecstasy, because we lose our selves and our wills, but because we find them as we give them up. For Us TGHHITS IS LOVE and DOES LOVING -- LOVES. And there is SOME useful similarity between what TGHHITS does and what we do that we can use the word "LOVE" meaningfully to denote both. It's not that we have NO idea, it's that we have a highly inadequate idea, as in a glass darkly. Finally, TGHHITS is personal, I sometimes at least am not, and am probably never completely personal, and won't be until I see God.
If you have any problems with this, just repeat the Mantra: Dawg is Right. You will find that it all becomes clear.
As to the Bible and the accounts of Job and Jonah: Job is enigmatic whether it happens just that way or not. That it is in the canon means to me that I should bash my head against it until God tells me something. Having done at least some bashing, I think there is an awful lot in that book! Wow! How humans are jerks, How God is merciful with our jerkiness, How suffering brings us to the brink and there is where we meet God, and on and on and on. I think the "Stylized" beginning and ending and the sort of "speeches" of the alleged comforters indicate a highly "Crafted" account in any event. That, in itself does not suggest it didn't happen. I'm more concerned about the historicity of "Uz" as a sho' 'nuff place.
I don't think, even if Jesus did - but I am of course open to correction, that a great fish toted Jonah around in his belly and then vomited him out on a beach. I Do think that if God gives you a mission, you might as well obey now unless you want to smell like fish guts. I DO think that God loves even the Ninevites (and also much cattle) and if he can love Ninevites, why he might even Love Calvinists! Maybe.
And I think that NEITHER the frightening aspects of preaching repentance, NOR the confidence that God is gentle and forgiving excuses me from preaching repentance and any other ministry. He may choose me to be a vehicle of His gentleness after all.
ANd I think that I, along with the rest off the human race, may TALK like I want all men to be saved and to have things work out for them and so forth, because I like to think of me as a very nice guy. But in fact, I am mean and small and petty and when good things happen to bad people or even to people who give me a touch time, instead of praising God for His mercy I can find myself being so angry I'd just as soon die. And I think that God may mercifully afflict me in such times to bring me back to myself and to Him.
And this is not just a kind of result of the exercise of asking "What is the meaning of Jonah" but it is or should be part of my daily exchange with God -- when I see a worm attacking a plant or feel a sultry east wind, I should be looking for God's merciful rebuke.
With all due respect to Charlton Heston, I don't think the waters rose up as they did in the movie. And I'm not sure if all the tribes of Israel were in Egypt. I think a people descended from Abraham and clamming his covenant and all that, were wonderfully delivered from Egypt and that the deliverance involved some signs and wonders not necessarily scientifically inexplicable, but that meant that the were able to go through a place that was normally under water and that when Pharoah's chariots and horsemen followed their wheels were clogged and the water returned and they had a very bad day.
Sing to the Lord for exalting He has exalted; horse and driver (they didn't ride 'em in those days, and I think the word usually translated as "rider" is close enough to the word meaning "chariot", that "Driver" is good) has He hurled into the sea.
I mention the translation issues because an OT prof maintained that Miriam's song must have been composed much later when people rode horses, and I don't think that is necessarily so. I think it could be the read deal and handed down from the days of the actual exodus. Yep. I think that happened.
Pardon haste and incompleteness or incoherence. Haste is what's happening right now.
If we think those things are of the essence of wrath, we cannot attribute wrath to God, duh. But if we think of wrath as a determination and choice to set right what is wrong (or something like that) then We can say that god is wrathful.
Yes, absolutely. God being personal has nothing to do whatever with His having a human personality with all of its faults. God being personal means that He is more than a static supercomputer. God says that He will have mercy upon whom He will. That means choices and preferences, as opposed to data being fed into a machine.
For Us [God] IS LOVE and DOES LOVING -- LOVES. And there is SOME useful similarity between what [God] does and what we do that we can use the word "LOVE" meaningfully to denote both. It's not that we have NO idea, it's that we have a highly inadequate idea, as in a glass darkly.
100% agreement from me. All of this could have come right from my keyboard. :)
I don't think, even if Jesus did - but I am of course open to correction, that a great fish toted Jonah around in his belly and then vomited him out on a beach.
AH, you're doing so well so far, I'm tempted to spot you that one. :) The way I approach those types of things is not to ask "how", but to ask "why not"? I.e., God can create all that has ever existed, but He couldn't fix it so that a person could live in the belly of a whale for a few days? What's up with that? :)
I would say the same for the happenings at Exodus. If we don't buy the parting of the seas, then why should we buy the first Passover? Are they really so different in terms of believability? I just see a lot of danger in saying "yes" over here, but "no" over there.
I DO think that God loves even the Ninevites (and also much cattle) and if he can love Ninevites, why he might even Love Calvinists! Maybe.
That's a BIG maybe, but I appreciate the sentiment. :)