Part 2
Another point of separate between me and other people (both theists and atheists), is that they all believe in real choices, whereas I do not believe in any actual "free will" or influence upon the experience which is actual, but instead that we are driven in the first place, the decisions we seem to make are those we are "made to make" by what we are basically being forced to experience. The thought though or the notion makes no difference, we still operate exactly the same as people who believe in real choices or influence, and make decisions and all that, except that we believe that it is really the One Intelligent Power responsible for every moment of the experience, including what thoughts occur to us, seeing ourselves thinking and choosing this or that, etc, but it plays out the same regardless, so its mainly irrelevant except for my giving all credit to God for literally everything whatsoever, and other people not really having a complete and thorough reasoning for ever actually saying that God is responsible for all things (and many people also deny God is responsible for absolutely all things).
So, the reason for my explaining all that, is to lead into my next area of discussion, the mechanisms that I believe are involved here with the use of varying names and how I justify their use and reality.
So for a Monotheist, I verge on Monism, except that I don't believe that God is Information (Experience) that we see, and can and does exist without it, but rather that Information (Experience) that we go through is what God produces moment to moment and controls in every detail and nuance as it appears to us and how we see and interpret it is included in that moment of experience or sequence of experiences as well. This can be symbolically represented as "speaking" things into existence, or "writing" things into existence, or "thinking" things into existence, playing them out in every detail like a movie (see Occasionalism, Berkeley's Idealism, Aztec Philosophy, Heraclitus, Descartes' Evil Demon).
It can thus be said, absolutely everything we experience can be considered God communicating, and more so even than God communicating to us, the produced creation, it can even be considered God communicating to God, as God is the first and foremost "Experiencer" and the only truly living thing, whereas we are just appearing in momentary flashes or shots as the experiencers experiencing whatever is being produced like us looking down at our legs, it is the Intelligence behind such a production (out of our actual control) which is viewing this and experiencing this layer of information it has generated that moment, and the next moment, and so on. When one moment is made back into Nothing, it is that Nothing and there in between, and there to generate the next, so one moment we are looking at our hand typing this letter, then that is gone and no longer in existence, then another letter we see ourselves typing, and so on, and behind those and in between all those this intelligence is generating this flash flash flash.
Since everything whatsoever is its production and communication from itself, almost everything can also seemingly be thought of in a spiritual fashion bringing to mind this reality or notion, or qualities of it, and all qualities that do exist are its inventions, all impressions, all things, so it is responsible for every occurrence and sense of "Hardness" or "Softness" whereas it is truly neither Hard nor Soft as it is not really any sort of information or object, but regardless of that, any instance of "Hardness" or "Softness" is due to it. Same goes for Charity, the whole notion of it, any form of it, real or symbolic or however. That makes God not only "The Charitable One" as in "The Only Actual Charitable One" and "Creator of All Charity" but even "Charity" itself, as God controls and generates all instances of it, so that one seeing Charity occur or thinking of Charity, is seeing God in action, moving that information, making that scene. God is "The Charity" in every way, every form, every way that one might be able to say it. Even if its a girl named Charity, and she is dancing around, that even is God doing that, making that whole experience right before your eyes, every motion, and if she has an experience, its God looking through it and doing it as well. There is then no Charity which God is not responsible, which God is not actually performing, which God is not, except that God can wipe out all these things, and God will still be God (Like Nothing) and still capable of bringing it about.
So the difference between an Atheist and Me, is that they look out the window and see the leaves spinning around in the wind and think "that is just the (dead) wind moving (dead) dry fallen leaves, it is meaningless" where as I see it as "that is just the God making the experience of me seeing the leaves moving, and what thoughts can I bring to my mind which may benefit me about this experience/appearance"?
They think it is not happening because of any intelligence, I think that is an impression given to them, and that it is happening deliberately due to an intelligence generating such as my experience that moment. So in that sense, my world is entirely alive, but made up of arbitrary dead things being produced and puppeted around by One Truly Living Thing animating it all, and their world is made up of lots of living and dead things which are arbitrary and nothing is really puppeteering them or animating them except their atoms or biology or whatever (things I also think God has made up and put into play in experiences, but are just novel inventions and anything else could just as easily be made up or invented and none were actually ever necessary at all, everything comes from a Baseless and Unconditioned Nothing that is God the Intelligent Power, according to my beliefs and understandings).
So when I use the word Odin, I am not calling upon some old man in the sky (I don't believe in such) with power, and even if there was such an old man in the sky with supposed or apparent power, that would only be some information put into my experience being controlled entirely by the One Intelligent Power, not God himself. That is why Jesus, no matter what the Christians say, can never be God for me, no matter what Jesus does, because however many miracles Jesus performed or appeared in, he is information, he is being controlled by God like anything and anyone else just the same, so to worship Jesus is like worshipping a rock purposefully and saying "this Rock is God and other Rocks are not God and God is here and not there, and God only controls this Rock and not other Rocks" and other things I find silly and degrading what I consider the Truth concerning Reality itself, in other words, a massive Lie that should never be accepted, which I think is what the main problem was with "idolatry" which God also is responsible for bringing into experiences and minds and in every way, but God is not just a typo for Good, but is responsible for even the notions of Good and Evil and all the things we consider each, even if people differ about these, those differences as well.
So the mechanism would be such:
The One Intelligent Power (OIP) brings to the mind or experience of someone some word or name or idea, and this may be associated with some sound when pronounced, and this sound or word has meanings either already associated with it in use or one injects meanings into it or adds meanings to it, just like any word, and then uses that word to call upon some particular quality or set of qualities and associations they make or which are made with that term, and so they are speaking out to what is immediately present and responsible for what they are experiencing anyway (and it is OIP doing it in the first place, making the person think of all this and pray this way and call out in such a fashion exactly, for better or for worse, having given also all the understandings involved, however correct and logical or incorrect and illogical), and they then invoke the OIP by such an epithet or aspect which then is expected to not only bring to one's own mind certain qualities and empower oneself with certain gifts and advantages, but also meant to be part of the narrative which sees a change or some sort of interaction and influence occurring in the experience, the environment, what comes up, etc.
So someone might say "Oh God of Wealth, Please Make This Deal Go Through and Make it Beneficial For Me and Make The Wealth Flow to Me from every direction safely, without bad consequences, and make the experience great for me, and make me grateful to you, and everything good", or they may say instead of God of Wealth, something like "Oh Kubera" or something, if they have associated such with having to do with Wealth, or Pluto, or Mammon, as OIP is the only True Wealth and Wealth Giver in every sense, even inventor of it. Oh Hermes, Oh Mercury! Whichever name you use, you may make certain associations of qualities with the term, but they can also be used entirely freely as well. You can associate the name Hermes or Kubera with anything at all that you might associate with any other name or OIP in general, since you are speaking to one and the same singular intelligence right there behind your experience and right before your eyes right now, present with you, and the intentions are known anyway, as well as what is being brought to your mind.
There is no conflict between these names, even if stories have been made of conflicts or wet vs dry, OIP is the Wet One, the Dry One, the Wet Maker, the Dry Maker, etc.
So you can call upon "Wet" and be asking for "Wet" to make Dry, or you can call upon "Wet" and be asking for "Wet" to make "Wet" or to make you aroused, make you hungry like in appetite, make you symbolically hungry, make someone else aroused or symbolically hungry, or to wet you with blessings, with knowledge, with gifts, with treasures, whatever, or to make it rain, or to make the rain stop, etc, or nothing at all to do with the word in any way somehow (if you can figure that out), yet it seems logical that one uses a term generally if it can be justified or made to associate with whatever is being called upon for whatever reasoning and might be best for oneself if it makes some sense even.
