I can see your point my friend, but it should come as no surprise that I have a good explanation.
There are many stages in the pursuit of spirituality. I know, because I have gone through a great deal of them myself. But before one can even begin considering spirituality, he must come to a simple secular realization. This necessary realization is the fact that all actions must have a prime cause. From there, we can begin to ask questions such as "who executed this prime cause," "what is his nature," and "how does his creation relate to him?" But without first recognizing the necessity of a prime mover, these questions become irrelevant. Does that make sense?
So elsewhere I have described God as a concept, yet here I describe God as a distinct personality. In the first case I was discussing logical conclusions among people who are hesitant to accept even the mere possibility of a prime mover. Here I am discussing spirituality among people who have already accepted the possibility of something greater than themselves: or barring this, who can at least comprehend the possibility. So I give answers according to their relevance to the question posed.
You cannot describe mathemetical theorums to one who does not understand numbers. Similarly, you cannot explain one's spiritual nature if he cannot even accept that he has one. If you were teaching someone about numbers, you might explain them as a simple method of quantification. As your student becomes more advanced, he might learn from you that the mathematical world describes many, many things other than quantities. Armed with this new knowledge and remembering your earlier, more simple lessons, he might call your teachings inconsistent. But would he be right in doing so, or is it just that there is more to be said about mathematics than an elementary lesson can reveal?
I am not inconsistent, I just use terms and arguments which my peers with whom I am discussing these subjects are capable of coming to grips with. If someone has a hard time accepting the possibility of a prime mover, it would be a waste of my time to discuss with him our relationship to that prime mover. So I find a middle ground to explain parts of my beliefs which are easily comprehended using terms with which my fellow discussers are familiar with. This is not being inconsistent, it is helping others to understand my position in as unobtrusive a way as possible.