Was it Aquinas or Anselm or somebody influenced by Greek philosophy that makes a big deal about being? We should not confuse metaphysics with morals (technical categories for personal beings; substance vs volition). This is a debated area of theology/philosophy, so we should be informed vs dogmatic.
God's attributes are not in the same category. By way of metaphysics (substance/essence/being/nature), God is uncreated triune spirit/Creator. He does not chose these things. They are His uncreated being, who He is by nature. He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (we vary in our understanding of these things). We are NOT like God in these ways. These are His unique absolutes of wonder.
God is also personal. He has will, intellect, and emotions (vs impersonal). We are in the personal image of God and can also think, act, feel.
God is spiritual/moral (not to be confused with morality). He is righteous, good, loving, faithful, merciful, just, holy, etc. These are volitional (Lex Rex vs Rex Lex ...God does not make up arbitrary laws because He has the power to; He submits to a law of love, right, good, based on His character/being). We can be like God in personal and moral ways because we are in the image of God in this sense (but not in an ontological sense...we are creatures, not uncreated Creator). We can love. We can be faithful. Our choices form our nature, not vice versa.
God is dynamic, not static. Why the aversion to Him being the ultimate free moral (vs immoral) agent with choices, not just being?
Don't even get me going on classical views of immutability, impassibility, aseity, simplicity that are not always biblical or logical.
