Anthropomorphizing, aren't we? Answers.com says that: Dictionary: personality (pûr'sÉ™-năl'Ä-tÄ“) n., pl. -ties. The quality or condition of being a person. The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person. The pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person: Though their personalities differed, they got along as friends. Distinctive qualities of a person, especially those distinguishing personal characteristics that make one socially appealing: won the election more on personality than on capability. God isn't a person; Jesus was and had His own human personality. The Holy Spirit sure isn't a person.
No, we are not anthropomorphizing. We are recognizing that God is a personal being and He created us also as personal beings. If that is not true then you cannot relate to God on any meaningful level. He would be irrational and subject to random chance choices. It would indeed be irrational for us to follow such a being. Do you say, as a Catholic, that your own faith is wholly irrational?
The first two sentences of your dictionary definition are fine. The rest of it relates to humans and their failings. When you deny the personality of God you also deny the Catechism:
198 Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last,1 the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the creation of heaven and earth, for creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God's works. (emphasis added)
If the Catechism recognizes the FIRST Divine person, then it also recognizes that Holy Spirit is a person. That totally contradicts what you are saying.
The Greek word hypostasis does not mean a "person." That is a western corruption. Perhaps "persona" is the closest but not identical and a literal translation substantia (substance) is completely missing the mark.
Calling God (Father, Holy Spirit) a "Person" is anthropomorphism, and in the west it is taken to the extreme, almost pagan level. In fact, among the Mormons it is it taken to mean three separate "Gods" united "in purpose."
We cannot relate to God on any meaningful level, except through Christ's humanity. That is the difference between Judaism Mohammedanism, Buddhism, Hinduism and any other pagan religion and Christianity. We relate to God through Man Jesus.
We don't have a choice vis a vis God's rationality, FK. The Creation is the way it is whether you like it or not. You learn to live with it. It's not a matter of reason. If an asteroid is bound to hit the earth, there is nothing whatsoever we can do about it to stop it. Reason does not rule the Creation. And if it is reason, it's not our reason.
For all this exists for a reason, which may or may not make sense to us. That doesn't make it invalid or valid. The only thing irrational is for the Reformed to try to stuff God into our limited rational box and make him fit our finite minds.
There is nothing rational about God as far as humans are concerned. Even the concept of God itself is irrational. Our minds do not comprehend eternal and limitless. We have to accept it on faith, not reason. We don't know why the Creation exists. WE cannot fathom the reason for galaxies and black holes, the necessity for the world to be the way it is.
***No, we are not anthropomorphizing. We are recognizing that God is a personal being***
God is not a personal being. He is God - the Creator of All. He’s not Joe Sixpack down the street dropping in for a beer and a chat when he’s relaxing after running the Universe for his shift. What’s next? 3 shifts of God running the Universe? The Father gets day shift, Jesus gets afternoons and the Holy Spirit takes midnights?
***If the Catechism recognizes the FIRST Divine person, then it also recognizes that Holy Spirit is a person. ***
I think that Kosta addressed this quite adequately - the term person in the Catechism’s context means persona - the appearance to us of something, or in this case, our interpretation of God.