Aristotle's view of an impassive God

This is complicated to grasp for me, as I am not religious at all (if we stick to the definition of religion in which the worshipping of a deity is implied). I remember hearing about this back in high school, during philosophy class.

I will say this: it is harder for me to consider the existence of an all-loving God than that of an indifferent one. In this way, my opinion aligns with Aristotle's. I think it sensible, and logical, to imagine that God (if God there be) is an all-powerful entity that simply chooses to stay still and let human matters run their course.

However, I can't get behind the idea that this stems from a state of perfection; that God would be a being of such completion that they merely wouldn't strive to give love, and wouldn't need to reach towards us as we reach towards them. If God is indifferent to us, if they let things happen, good and bad, I would surmise it's because it is their way of loving (whatever that means). Or their way of making sure that we continue to be human. They would be loving, but not in the way that we define the verb. If there is a God, they must be above our perception of morals and ethics, of fairness and justice. But that is not to say they would be perfect, on the contrary. In a way, I agree with Aristotle, but I am just unsure about his point regarding perfection and fulfillment.

If God is an indifferent being, then I think we should infer from this that they are also actively choosing indifference, hence meaning that they are not unmoving nor unmovable. And thus imperfect.

I don't know if this makes any sense but anyways. I could probably have written a better answer if I could see your prompt while typing but I can't, so I might've remembered some of it poorly or skipped over some stuff, sorry.