God the father

First off, the Genesis 2&3 story is not of a Fall but of a Rise.In the story man gains the great gift of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the possibility of being moral.And of course forbidding the Tree of Knowledge was just plain stupid. Until mankind ate from the Tree of Knowledge they simply did not have the tools to even know they should obey.Teaching that story as Fall is one of the greatest failures in Christianity.

Have you read Mysterious Stranger?If not, perhaps that would help you.

For the Omnipotent God, all things would be their child.

You honestly don't see how the God character is corrected?And of course man created God; in fact I can't imagine how we could ever talk about a God that we did not create other than to say I believe there is a GOD.And yes, I am a cradle creedal Christian, a very active and devout one.What we see in religious stories is how people of a given era and culture viewed the God appropriate to that era and culture. The God pictured in the much younger Genesis 1 fable is quite different than the God in the older Genesis 2&3 fable as a clear example.

Not quite. Let me try again to describe GOD, God and god.First I believe there really is a GOD, that which created all that is, seen and unseen; but if there is such a critter, it is something that is at least as far above me as I am above pond scum. I have no adequate way to describe such a critter; I am limited.But I can make attempts to describe my beliefs, the God (note case change) of my beliefs. For example in Christianity there are the creeds, the "I believes" such as the Nicene Creed that says:

quote:

---

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

---

If you look at that it is again a pretty generic statement that doesn't give us much detail about God other than that I believe He is like a father, that He is almighty (having ultimate authority) and created all that is, seen and unseen.Note though there is a sex assumed in the believe that that God is a man, which is almost certainly wrong and down right silly.The Nicene Creed is a general statement that was meant to be relatively inclusive while intentionally excluding a particular subset of Christian beliefs that were pretty popular at the time.While GOD is the actuality, the reality (assuming that I am right and GOD does exist), God is a human creation, an attempt by humans to put into words their beliefs about GOD.Although we can say almost nothing about GOD, we can add some more detail at the God level of abstraction since at the God level we are talking about a map, not the territory itself.The Nicene Creed abstraction is broad enough and general enough that both Buz and I can agree that it describes our beliefs but also detailed enough that it eliminates Jews and Muslims and some of the then current Christian sects.Finally there is god (note all lower case) where we have the greatest detail and also the greatest variations. This is a creation of a given people of a given era and given culture; it is the many gods found in the Bible stories, and each of those gods represents a snapshot of how a specific people viewed their relationship at a given point of time. Those gods evolve rapidly and there is lots of change. Let's look at just a few of them.There is the god of Genesis 2&3, a hands on tinkerer, often unsure, learning on the job, working by trial and error, afraid, but also powerful and in command of armies yet personable and intimate. This god walks and talks with the creation and has direct contact with them.Later we see the god of Abraham, again very human, without perfect knowledge who is doing a walk about to confirm or deny rumors He's heard. Still a male and very powerful, still the ultimate authority but subject to questioning and reproof. (note that there is also a change in how man is viewed in these stories)Another god is the one found in the story of the creation of the people "Israel" (not to be confused with the Nation Israel that is often considered apostate) where Jacob wrestles with god and even though the god character doesn't quite fight fair Jacob doesn't give up. Again, in this story the god is a powerful man but we see another slight change in how the relationship between god and man was viewed.In the Gen 2&3 story man is innocent and totally helpless, amoral at first; by the Abraham story man is a moral agent questioning even god and when we get to Jacob man even struggles with god although man cannot overcome god.Then there is the much later story found in Genesis 1 where the god character is entirely different (far more like the god we see in the New Testament stories), overarching, supremely competent, creating by an act of will alone, never hesitating, moving from task to task without trial or error and able at the end to look back at what was done and find it good. But this god is also separate, aloof and does not interact directly with the creation and is not intimate.Does that help you understand my position?

Close enough for government work.On God though, Ganesha would not fall under the definition found in the Nicene Creed as an example. The Nicene Creed though was written to exclude the other current Gods such as the Roman and Indian pantheon while appropriating the Hebrew God but excluding Hebrews by other sections of the Nicene Creed. It was an attempt to build consensus, to outline a minimal set of beliefs that all could say "I can live with that" while opposing the Arian position. And it was almost successful.