Well at a simple level yes, and that's understandable. Anthropomorphism renders the ineffable accessible. It's what the Buddhists call uypaya, an expedient.
In theology however, the idea of 'person' goers far deeper than that, the classic definition: an individual substance of a rational nature' still has currency, but we're not talking about a God with arms and legs, or thoughts or emotions ... we're talking about God as person, but not a human person.
Bold statement. I beg to differ, but there you go. If you accept the classic 'transcendentals', such as the Absolute and Infinite, there is omnipresence, omnipotence, and personhood ... but not human.
I tend to view that as another anthropomorphism. 'Systems' are how we tend to view and classify things to explain them, and especially involves the reading of meaning and value. It takes what one can see, and projects from there ...
Richard Dawkins, for example, made a classic error in assuming God must necessarily being 'ultimately complex' because of his observations of how nature works and how we read 'progress'. He wrote a very thick book in making his argument. The rebuttal was a very slim volume, but honed in right to the point of his error, which was essentially assuming a systematic deity.
