Please present any evidence or a reasoned argument that might support the thing you claim exists.
For starters, are we in agreement that we are talking about the One whom Jesus referred to as "Father"? Is this not GOD, Creator of all seen and unseen?
No Phat, it is another character in the story that is as so often the case simply undefined.
Remember, The character God that would be referenced in any Bible story of Jesus is NOT the three in one character of contemporary Dogma.
I can see no way that there could ever be any agreement when it comes to some god in the Bible beyond what is the the actual reference. As soon as you try pulling pieces parts out of other areas you end up with the god that you create. In your example it is some undefined but most likely Hebrew concept of a God that could not possibly have a son or be some three in one amalgam.
It's not Jesus that created the father of our Lord Jesus Christ who was, is, and is to come.
No Phat, I was not taught one period, I was exposed to the many god characters that exist.
You are claiming that you have the ability to describe GOD as the god you want. But you never produce any evidence or reasoned argument to support that assertion.
GOD, if GOD exists is whatever GOD actually is; good bad, incomplete, complete, far, unfair, loving, hateful, kind, cruel ... the list goes on and.
No one has ever provided and evidence, model, method, process, procedure or reasoned argument to allow you or any one of us to say what GOD might be like.
But we and you and the various authors and story tellers that created the Bible stories have created god(s) as we want them. So has every other religion, known and unknown that ever existed. All of those God(s) and god(s) are equally plausible or implausible. There is absolutely no reason to think any of them exist.
We can believe that GOD exists and that GOD picked us but it is irrelevant whether that GOD is Vishnu or The Great A'tuin or Coyote or Jesus or God or Ganesh or pick whatever god creation fits you needs and desires.
BUT, if GOD does exist then GOD will be whatever GOD actually is rather than anything we might wish GOD was.
You are conflating yet again religion and reality. They are not the same.
I am a Christian, as you mention a Cradle Creedal Christian and so I accept those things that are in the creeds. By accept, I acknowledge that they are a significant part of the dogma of the religion.
The question of whether or not Jesus is god is one of those things that has no possible answer unless you add a whole laundry list of qualifiers Phat and we have run down that path many many many many times.
The Wiki article states that a minority of Christians are non-trinitarians, and I'm curious if you believe that the Nicene Creed is Trinitarian or not.
The Nicene Creed is neither Trinitarian or Non-Trinitarian but was a significant step in the creation of Trinitraianism.
It's the first Church document that actually seems to acknowledge the Holy Spirit as an actual entity as opposed to some force or attribute and was part of the political struggle opposing Arian Christianity.
Remember, the passage in the "We Believes" that references the Holy Spirit was a later addition to the original Nicene Creed stuck in 56 years after the original version.
(aside: The Nicene Creed is the only one of the Creeds that is almost universally accepted among Club Christian unlike the Athanasian Creed which is the authoritative one regarding Trinitarianism and is another product of unknown origin but from at least another half century after the Nicene Creed.)
The reality is that classic Trinitarianism makes no sense and is another example of mutually exclusive dogma. The traditional drawing of the triangle with the nots on the edges and is pointing to the middle just is plain silly; a representation of an impossibility. It's one of those things that can result in lip service but I have never yet found anyone who can provide reasoned or even rational argument that it is a representation of reality rather than fantasy.
Quite a bit Phat. But you still miss the whole point.
Jesus really didn't think individuals should own anything more than the very basic minimal needs; the clothes they wore and maybe a knife or sword. Jesus was a socialist; he lived in other folks homes, ate other folks food, relied on others to meet his needs.
That is the goal. Our duty is to get as close to that as possible, to do for others.
It's not about how much anyone gives but rather what they deprive others. That includes the basics and actually have been a US Commitment since outlined by FDR as a peroration in his Four Freedoms Speech that really needs to be mandatory reading for every middle schooler.