You seem to have argued yourself into the Arian heresy by over-reliance on created physical categories. For your salvation's sake repent.
The Acta of the Ecumenical Councils and histories of the Arian controversy are readily available. Read them!
And learn the terms of art before arguing theology: economy, as in the phrase 'God's economy of salvation' like the other use of the word is derived from a Greek word meaning the management of a household, and refers to God's dealings with the world, rather than that which is proper to Him alone, which is the subject of theology proper.
As to 'new versions' of the Creed--they are forbidden by the Third Ecumenical Council. Modification to the Creed is the most salient reason for the schism of the Latin church. At least the adjective 'eternal' applied to the begetting of the Son is true, unlike the second procession of the Holy Spirit, but there is no authority to put it into the Creed. Nonetheless, there is no new Creed.
As I said, what I said, doen't even resemble Arianism. I have no idea what "created physical catagories" refers to. Since you are insisting on claimiing what I said is Arianism, you'll have to show why theat is so, because I never even hinted at "God created Himself". I have no need to repent for my thoughts. They do not offend God. They offend those that demand I obey them w/o question.
"And learn the terms of art before arguing theology: economy, as in the phrase 'God's economy of salvation'"
I have no need for the term. I'm only interested in the rational evaluation of evidence for the purpose of gaining knowledge and understanding. I'm am not interested in art, only logic and what is. I do not accept any arbitrary, artificially imposed restictions regarding what is proper, nor do I accept authority, tradition, or democracy as logical operations.
"As to 'new versions' of the Creed--they are forbidden by the Third Ecumenical Council. Modification to the Creed is the most salient reason for the schism of the Latin church."
OK.
"At least the adjective 'eternal' applied to the begetting of the Son is true, unlike the second procession of the Holy Spirit, but there is no authority to put it into the Creed.
The word "true" can only apply if the logic is sound. As I pointed out, such a claim is illogical. One can believe whatever is true, that does not make it so.
"Nonetheless, there is no new Creed."
LOL! Whose right, you, or the Romans?