No, not uninformed. The difference between writing God or Allah with a capital is respect. And certainly we can talk of God’s attributes as deities. Then we can say gods and goddesses with small print when we refer to them in number… So Shakespeare’s cool, he’s on the ball here, “a rose by any other name is still a rose” he’s saying effectively.
The Wulfila as you say means “little wolf”, but to my Greek Australian ears it sounds like “wolf pages”. Anyway, Arius didn’t win out at the Council of Nicea and I don’t know that the debate was really not political rather than purely theological.
The Greeks had for a long time debated the nature of the body of Christ and the nature of the Divinity. There were many factions broadly divided into two groups. Along comes Constantine to be emperor in the East and built his city but unlike the Romans, the Greeks were not going to worship him as a god. Worse than that, the Greeks were difficult to rule because of their differences in their Christian beliefs. They were divided. And of course Greeks love to debate. We have a saying in Greek, “where there are two Greeks there are three opinions.” It looked like there may be a split in the empire. And I had read somewhere that there were times when Constantine had to bring in the army into the church to separate the warring factions. Hence he set up the council at Nicaea and was determined to bring everyone on the same side. So the first translation by a “wolf”, was a bit much. Hence the later translations.
What is God is what matters but that is a question that cannot be answered. An element within the system cannot know the system. So you friend is right neti, neti. I was an Orthodox Hindu in the life immediately before this one in India and I can relate to “not this, not that” way of thinking.
I don’t agree with Kabbalah. “Being in itself is actually nothing but God”, is not quite right. There is the Supreme Being, God, but God created other beings, us. This is not possible to understand but I think that the notion that “we are all one”, which is also the position of the New Agers, is faulty because God gave us free will and gave us a physical reality in which to live for a time to test us. Why do that if all being was God? And clearly there are those who are opposed to God, who are God haters.
I don’t agree that God is what is, but rather that God has created all that is. If we imagine something, we have brought it into being, in a sense created it, but whatever it is, it is not who we are, nor really even a part of us as in part of our being. Our being may be of the same essence, homoousion, but it is not the same in the totality of Being.
Your personal preference of the atomic monist version of reality where the Cosmos is infinite and eternal, “where all things meet as One”, is the position of the Old Religion, i.e., pagan religion. And this was also incorporated into Christianity by some of the early Roman emperors when Rome had become Christian in its main religious identity. But I think this view, really relates to the foundation of the physical reality. All things meet within the Mind of God, because the basis of all things is information, the ideas that God chose to uphold thus creating the physical reality. I don’t think it is right to consider that all things meet as One, with the “One” being or meaning, God. But it does in some way point to God.