Then animals are "persons" as well.
FK: No, the root word is "person", which excludes animals. I thought that much would be clear.
You said "'personal' means that which personality, distinguishable from others, has the ability to reaosn and love, and communicate with others." The animals don't have personalities that are distinguishable from others of their own kind, have ability to reason (primitive as it may seem to us, but pretty much close to a two-year old, and love and communicate with us in their own ways?
Perosnality is a visible aspect of one's character. The character being the traits. The root is the persona and not person.
Kosta: When did I state that God is irrational?
FK: Many times, on this thread
Oh?
Kosta: 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.
FK: OK, there it is. We were both right. What you really meant is that God is irrational TO US. A notion I completely disagree with, but I understand better where you are coming from.
Things can either be reasonable or unreasonable to us. They can eithe make sense or not make sense to us. Because out minds and languages are limited, we know that God, who is beyond everything, is also beyond our comprehension, which is what the Bible tells us when it says that God's ways and throughts are not ours.
Kosta: 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?
FK: If that is all there is, then how do you explain that in the OT God spoke DIRECTLY and had real conversations with His prophets? Did all of those conversations never happen? ...... God reveals enough of Himself to us such that we are able to love Him.
I don't think the OT God had "conversations" with the prophets and patriarchs. It was more like ordering them to do this or that. Jews did not come to God because they loved him, but because they feared him! God had to prove to them that he is the Lord by showing them what he can do to those who don't obey him. In fact, the Jews took every opportunity to run away from their God. I mean, if you didn't listen to him to the tee, he cold turn you into a pillar of salt! Our knowledge of Christ is nothing like the knowledge of the God of the OT!
You're nitpicking and avoiding the central issue of whether or not "God created man in His image" really means anything. :) IF personality is NOT included in that idea, then it means nothing.
I don't think the OT God had "conversations" with the prophets and patriarchs. It was more like ordering them to do this or that.
What??? How about God's "negotiation" with Abraham about Sodom? How about God dealing with Moses' protestations about not being fit? How about God's discussion with David about his punishment? There are tons of examples. What God wanted WAS set, but He DID spend the time to discuss it.
Jews did not come to God because they loved him, but because they feared him!
How can you possibly know that? I don't think you get what "fear of the Lord" means. Fear of the Lord and love for the Lord are very related.
God had to prove to them that he is the Lord by showing them what he can do to those who don't obey him.
God did not HAVE to prove anything to anyone. He ordained all that happened.
Our knowledge of Christ is nothing like the knowledge of the God of the OT!
That's true, but it's not a competition. The revelation of God is complementary, not in conflict. The full revelation gives us the full picture we were meant to have. The OT God and the NT God are FULLY compatible. They are the SAME God.