To me "personal" means that which has a personality, distinguishable from others, has the ability to reason and love, and communicates with others. The alternative would be an impersonal God, subject to irrational actions and thoughts, who acts randomly. An impersonal God also would not have much if anything to do with us. He would just sit back and let history play itself out however it did, by chance.
The OT God was very personal. He spoke to His prophets directly and even gave the appearance of bargaining with them on occasion. IOW, He suffered their words without need to. He clearly WANTED to interact with them, AND let us know that He wanted to. An impersonal God wouldn't have bothered. ..... Hugging and kissing are certainly personal, but are not required to be personal.
What Kolo is telling you is that the ineffable OWN is impersonal compared to the human Jesus. A human being is a lot more personal than a burning bush. That's why Christ reminds us that it is only through him that we can see the Father.
I was unaware of any relative comparisons being made. I understood your position to be that God is impersonal, irrational, and unknowable, regardless of any other position. Could you restate your correct position without comparing it to anything else?
Then animals are "persons" as well.
I was unaware of any relative comparisons being made. I understood your position to be that God is impersonal, irrational, and unknowable, regardless of any other position. Could you restate your correct position without comparing it to anything else?
When did I state that God is irrational? His reasons are not our reasons any more than our reasons are reasons of an ant. To claim that God "makes sense" to us is to claim that we make sense to a flatworm, if that much. In order to reveal Himself fully to us lowly flatworms, He humbled Himself and became a flatworm so we could have a personal relationship with Him and know God through our eyes and ears and minds by seeing Him as one of us. Who can love an ineffable entity?