If I can recast Agerg’s opening question in more abstract terms—
I. If I claim that George has, and perhaps can even be in some way defined by, a certain attribute X, you have to understand what X means before you can agree or disagree that George demonstrates said attribute. For example, to say that George is just, we have to have some notion of what behaving justly entails. Only after (1) defining what acting justly entails, and then (2) measuring George’s behavior against such criteria can one say whether, and to what degree, George can be said to have the attribute of justness.
This seems unproblematic if (big “if” ) we can objectively state, and agree upon, what being just entails. Then anyone whose behavior fits the terms can be said to have the attribute of being just.
II. If, on the other hand, one simply says something like “George is by definition perfectly just”, then George’s behavior becomes a kind of template for deciding whether anyone else’s behavior should be considered just. The answer to the question “What entails being just?” is simply, “Whatever George does/would do.”
But, here, “just” becomes no more than a kind of shorthand for “whatever George does/would do”. (As Agerg says, it is simple tautology.) I could just as well say that George is “ishpric”, and when asked what “ishpric” means, respond by saying that it is the attribute of George-behavior. In other words, the word “just” has no normative content at all—since I don’t know what “just” means, other than that it’s “what George does/would do”, I have no idea whether that’s a positive trait, worthy of either respect or emulation, or not.
At that point, we’re back to the problem of just what “just” (or “ishpric” ) entails. Otherwise, any claims about such attributes—X, or being just, or being “ishpric”—are simply vacuous. And failure either to define what attribute X entails—for George or Tim or anyone else—or to simply admit the vacuity, leads to what SwissGambit has labeled “bizarro speech”.
Agerg’s question, it seems to me, boils down to asking theists if they can talk about their god-concepts without resorting to vacuous tautologies (and, I would add, question-begging circularity) or incomprehensible bizarro-speech. It is, in a sense, a gauntlet thrown down.
________________________________________
EDIT: All of this would also apply to Epi's comment about God being worthy of worship because he is "the Truth".