differing theologies for differing gods

If you and I were discussing Harold, and Harold was a tall man with white whiskers and rather expanded mid-section, and I described him as a short man, clean shaven and svelte, though I said I was talking about Harold, it would be obvious that I was describing a different man altogether. I guess my guy could also be called Harold, but surely you would recognize that my guy was not the same man as your guy. Suppose we thought we were talking about the same guy and therefore began to argue over who’s description was accurate, all the while unwittingly describing two separate individuals. For that matter, my guy could be called Lenny, but I thought his name was Harold, so I’d argue that Lenny’s description was an accurate portrayal of Harold.

In The Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard states that he’s come to believe that many people who believe in Jesus don’t actually believe in God. Of course, Willard can unpack this statement quite well. But it occurs to me that it makes sense on its own.
I’ve said Before that I think a lot of “Christians” don’t believe anything – that Christianity can become a lifestyle rather than a faith. Tonight I shared Willard’s quote with a friend. As you might guess, the reaction is, how can you believe in Jesus without believing in God? Of course. Your theology won’t allow that. Everything you believe about God is made manifest and finds fulfillment in Jesus. The very Jesus in whom you believe, said that He said nothing on His own, but only what He was told by the Father. My belief in Jesus will not allow me to believe in Him but not the very Father of whom He testified. Surely it would be a conflict to imply that I believed Him, but not what He said aobut Himself. He did also say, You have seen me, so you have seen the Father.
On the other hand, we find no problem accepting that many people believe in God, but not that Jesus was of Him. Why one and not the other? My theology allows that these persons are two simultaneous manifestations of One God. My belief system is such that if one part falls apart, my entire faith would crumble. This is not a weakness of faith, but a requirement that all that I believe to be true, to be true in order for my faith to remain. Even Paul said that if Christ was not risen from the dead, then we (who believe) are, above all, to be pitied. For we would have hung our entire beings upon a lie. That would be pitiful. Any one thing that God said is true, requires for validity that everything He said be true.
So I think that our ability to accept one of these scenarios and not the other is that we do not recognize that the god who can be believed without belief in Jesus, is NOT the same God in whom I believe. For that matter, the Jesus that can be believed without the God who He says sent Him and gave Him power, authority, and teaching, is not the same Jesus in whom I believe.
If I believe in a Jesus that would lie about His Father, my Jesus is really not worth believing – and the God of whom He testifies is not really much of God if He’d send us a liar as savior. Of course it's cyclic. And wrong. My theology requires that Jesus told the truth, therefore, believing in Him implies that I believe in the God to whom He pointed. I can’t get my mind around any other possibility.
My challenge then is to encourage others to believe in my God, not to encourage them to believe about their god what I believe about mine. That may not get them anywhere at all.