There is no way to sugar coat my feelings about this - to me (and this is just my opinion on the matter) this is stunningly dishonest. This is like the debate that I got into with some RC friends on another forum where I said that one of the reasons that Universal Salvation is probably true is because God is love and therefore can only act in line with what He is. They then proceeded to bombard me with the exact same kind of thinking shown here - that words don't really mean what they say because God is so different from us. So love, rather than meaning the doing of that which is best for the object of that love, can actually mean any number of different kinds of behaviors, based on the fact that God is really different from us, higher than us, and unknowable.
Well, if God established language, and words have meaning, then it is the intention that when I say "dog" for instance, I don't mean a creature with fins and scales that swims in water. When I say "love," it doesn't mean coming home to my wife and beating her with my fists.
Human words have the meaning that God gave them, not us. He created language, therefore, when the word "repent" is used, it has a certain and distinct meaning. I find this kind of waffling in order to keep one's theological turf safe to be unbelieveable. I am coming to a point where I wonder if there is any honesty anywhere, rather than people who have staked out a theological position and then will do anything they can to defend that position.
For instance, the example given in the link above does not prove your point. In the site linked, the ultimate message is not that God has different behaviors. The post at the end shows that it is one behavior - love - expressed in different forms in order to achieve the same result, the drawing of the sinner to God. The will is the same - the expressions are different.
Repent does not have a different meaning than that which God has given it in human language.