I am interested both in comments on my text, in particular, and in observations regarding the question of Creation, in general.

Dear Professor Rob Archer ,

I thank you very much for your observations.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

Dear Rob Archer ,

I thank you very much for your kind appreciation.

Kindest regards,

Gi

The "creation" in the religious-esoteric sense is not a topic of scientific relevance.

Therefore, it has no place in this network.

Anyway, best wishes for your activities.

Gioacchino de Candia I do not think that theological discussions are forbidden in this network. Who decides which piece of research has place in the network? Theological debates are common in all Universities - except for the Italian ones, which perhaps have lost something -. I pray not to troll my discussions.

He speaks without kwowing the sense of the words. Esoteric has nothing to do with the concept of Creation discussed in my paper.

I have blocked the troll Gioacchino de Candia. I deeply apologise with all participants for what happened. Unfortunately, it can happen that, when a discussion is launched, trolls intervene in order to disturb the discussion. It already happened to me: it is not something new. What I really do not understand is the ground why these persons intervens in order to offend both subject of discussion and discussants. Nobody has invited them.

Typical of those like you: you think you know the "truth", but you are just stupid mass media terrorists.

I think that I am going to bring to a tribunal this Gioacchino de Candia.

Good morning.

I launched a discussion on different interpretations of the Theologies of Creation. The discussion proceeded well, with interesting remarksfrom the researchers involved i it, up to the point when Gioacchino a de Candia intervened and began to make offensive remarks against the discussion.

He finally accused me to be a 'mass media terrorist'. This is the quotation:

'Typical of those like you: you think you know the "truth", but you are just stupid mass media terrorists.'

I blocked him from my account, but I would like to know how I can exclude him from the discussion. He is disturbing it.

The discussion has nothing to do with terrorism. It is a discussion regarding the opposite traditions of interpretation of God's giving to the human beings an absolute power on nature or of God's giving to human beings exclusively a stewardship on nature. Thinkers like, for instance, Professor Robin Attfield, member of ResearchGate, if am not mistaken, have engaged themselves in this discussion.

I would like to ask how I can exclude this Gioacchino de Candia from the discussion. I do not accept that the discussion is further disturbed by him. He does not know anything of the questions which are debated.

I really do not undestand why people like this Gioacchino de Candia do not direct their attention to other discussions. Nobody wishes their participation. If a person is not interested in theological debates having relationships with environmental philosophy and with animal ethics, he-she can go to other fields. Nobody will miss them.

I deeply apologise with all participants: I wrote to RG in order to know how this person can be excluded from the discussion. He is only disturbing and writes only in order to disturb.

I should like to thank very much all researchers who are recommending or recommended the discussion. Unfortunately, the discussion is heavily disturbed by this Gioacchino de Candia. I hope he can be expelled from the discussion once and for all.

I deeply recommend all participants and all researchers interested in the discussion to simply ignore all the assertions of Gioacchino de Candia. He exclusively aims to offend and to disturb the discussion. I can guarantee that I have not invited him to the discussion. I do not know how he becomes aware of its existence; I hope anyway that he is excluded from it by the ResearchGate master. I already blocked him from my account, but manifestly he is still able to write offensive remarks in the discussion. Hopefully the situation will change in short time.

Finally, I really do not understand what this Gioacchino de Candia seeks in this discussion. Since he is not interested and considers the discussion as not relevant, he only needs to ignore it. That's all. Nobody will miss him.

I must admit that the accusation of being a 'terrorist', like this Gioacchino de Candia has classified my person, was still lacking up to today in my CV. I am going to put it into my CV, of course, although I can't help doubting that I can be proud of it. It is incredible what trolls are able to say. It is a mystery who has invited him to the discussion, or why he was caught by the unstoppable impulse to participate in it.

The last line just presents a dichotomy of statements, but no solid alternates or solutions. Islam proposes disposal of natural recourses at the hands of humans, but gives a guideline to balance the consumption, avoiding wastage and also sharing the surplus recourses with the needy. This will qualify him in the test and be granted reward of heaven in the eternal life.

Dear Professor Rehan Butt ,

I thank you very much for your observations, which I consider as very interesting and relevant. I am going to meditate on them.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

Dear Professor Rehan Butt ,

if you have further observations, I should be grateful if you added them. I am very interested in the position of Islam. I would very much appreciation your intervention.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

Go away from this discussion. It is not for you. Go simply away.

You have received the answers you deserved. You said this discussion is out of place in this network:

i. This is not true.

ii. You do not establish what is appropriate for this network.

Moreover, the theology of creation has nothing to do with esoteric components. If theology has nothing to do with science, this is a fault of science.

Go away. Nobody needs you.

I deeply apologise for the continuing disturbing action of this Gioacchino de Candia. He firstly offended the whole discussion, theology as discipline and then my person. I blocked him from my account, but unfortunately I did not manage yet to block him from my discussions.

For me we can go up to the infinite. Go away from this discussion, in particular, and from all discussions of mine, in general.

It deals with a non-scientific discussion does it not, in your opinion?

It is not appropriate to this network, in your opinion, is it?

Therefore, you has nothing to seek here. Go to scientific discussions.

Your superior culture and intelligence are out of place here.

We do not need you. Go away.

It is perfect for me if you do not care. This is precisely what I wish. Do not care and go away, o.k.? It is a marvellous solution.

I deeply apologise with all participants. Unfortunately a person who can only despise theology and theological discussions, this Gioacchino de Candia, has began to intervene in the discussion by saying that the subject is not scientific and that it is out of place in this network. I do not think he has the authority to determine which subject is appropriate for the network and which is not appropriate.

He continues to disturb the discussion in spite of all my attempts to expel him.

I hope I will succeed in expelling this person.

For the future I will take information as regards how I can limit the discussions to person who are really interested in them.

He seems now do define a 'bestiality' a discussion concerning the interpretations of the theology of creation. He does not seem to be well informed as regards contemporary theological discussions, does he? I will contact Professor Attfield, who is both environmentalist and theologian, and who is member too of this network.

The second interpretation of all bein part of the creator nd so equal is the deviated concept of the Sufi sect in Islam, borrowing idea from Hindu nd Buddhist ideology where there is no concept of life punishment on the life hereafter. Since there is no eternal life in the hereafter for them, there has to be a significant end to life as we see it. Joining the creator seems to glorify end of this worldly life and gives aa blissful, eternal life to all beings.

However, this has a defect that since everything will end up as pure to rejoin the creator, ultimately there is no real reward or punishment in the end and really no test. The result it seems comes out during the test, if you say all rewards and punishment is in this world. Secondly, there will be no significant aim of creation if there is no testing and result relationship for hereafter life.

My PhD thesis (under process) divides all forms into 3. The Creator and the creation. Creation further differentiates between mankind and devil on one side, and the rest of the creation on the other side. This sub division of creation is on the basis of accountability and lack of accountability, which is due to the sense of awareness of right and wrong n one and lack of it in the others.

Dear Professor Rehan Butt ,

I thank you very much for your message and your information.

I will take more information on the Sufist, since I do not know very well their position.

The subject and the structure of your thesis are very interesting.

If you wish to add observations, you are welcome, since your observations are very interesting. I am meditating on them.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

I am of course interested in all theological positions of all religions regarding the Creation. All researchers are invited to express their own positions, if they like: their intervention is and will be always welcome.

I wish to apologise with all participants for some messages of mine: they are a reaction to a person who had intevened in the discussion in order to disturb it. I do hope that this person has disappaered.

New year, old idiocy.

The further problem is that delusional madness produces proselytes.

Very serious.

This is also why the phenomenon must be fought.

Those who feel the need for such rants will be fought, of course.

Science doesn't need you; far from it: it eliminates you.

I would like to hear view points of other religions as well as secular views as well.

Dear Professor Rehan Butt ,

I thank you very much for your message. There will be further interventions.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

Both interpretations are incorrect. The first focuses on part of scripture without considering the entire text/context, and the actually meaning of the word Mala/replenish. It does not consider that God was speaking to a different audience in Genesis 1:26 versus Genesis 1:28. One must fully understand the definition of the Hebrew/Chalde word Male/Mala converted to English as replenish. Replenish is the command/assignment and dominion is the authority to execute the assignment after you subdue it. Be fruitful and multiple are the natural physical ability of male and female (plants, animals, and humans). Therefore the commandment begins with the word multiply, replenish, and subdue it, and have dominion. So the next words to define are Parah/fruitful, Rabah/multiply, and Kabash/subdue. It does not take a doctorate to understand that these words escalate in order to achieve the authority to have Radah/dominion. God is perfect he would not give man and woman authority without accountability and responsibility to the definite article (the) of his creation, Earth. Man and Woman are to be fruitful in the male and female use of his creation (which includes plants, animals, and themselves), multiply using male and female (plants, animals, and themselves), replenish THE Earth and subdue it. This is the only way to have the authority of dominion. Without the entire creation of heaven and earth, could man and woman exist? Therefore it is their command and assignment to be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it. Once executed (be fruitful, multiply, replenish, and subdue the earth), their authority is to have dominion of beast, flows, and fishes. There is no authority of dominion, without commandment, assignment, accountability, and responsibility (see Jesus prayer for glorification John 17).

Next is the Noah covenant. This may be off based in this discussion because 1. God destroyed what was on the earth because man failed in his original assignment (sin/rebellion against God). 2. You must look at the entire test/context of scriptures beginning Genesis 8:15-9:17 (Noah covenant). 3. Now there is Mora/fear and Chath/dread of man and woman upon every beast of the earth, flows of the air, and fishes of the sea. 4. Sin is now separating man from God who is Holy. Therefore the Noah Covenant is not God's original design for Man, Woman, heaven, and earth. So as a 2nd Adam was needed to redeem man back to the original spiritual relationship with God, the 2nd coming of the Messiah will bring man, woman, heaven, and earth to the original spiritual and physical relationship with God as in the beginning with the 1st Adam before sin/rebellion (see Isaiah 65:25-26) i.e. new heaven, and new earth.

The problem remains. What is the sense of subduing? A dominance or a stewardship? The question is being discussed by many theologians, for instance, Jürgen Moltmann in his Ethik der Hoffnung. Usually, Moltmann knows that which he is speaking about; he has more than a PhD, actually, as far as I know. The question is whether the relations of mankind with earth is to be interpreted as one of dominance or one of stewardship.

I again urge the Researchgate board to eliminate the entire "discussion".

Dear Professor Ernest Polk ,

I thank you very much for your interesting observations.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

https://go.efca.org/blog/understanding-scripture/doctrine-creation-theological-significance-and-implications-part-1,kindly check the link.

https://www.academia.edu/44461125/On_different_interpretations_of_Theology_And_their_consequences_for_nature_and_society,u can follow this link.

Dear Professor Faraed Salman ,

I thank you very much for your message and your indication.

I am going to check the link.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

Dear Professor Faraed Salman ,

if I am not mistaken, the first link is the link of the Evangelical Free Church of America.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

Dear Professor Faraed Salman ,

the second link is my text on Academia.edu. Sooner or later I will propose this discussion on Academia.edu too.

I thank you very much for your message and your indication.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

https://margmowczko.com/the-created-order-nutshell/,kindly check this link.

Dear Professor Faraed Salman ,

I thank you very much for your message and for the indication of the link.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

Creation as per something out of nothing is an original Hebrew idea, to my understanding, with respect to the history of human ideas: ''The creation of a finite world by an absolutely infinite God is a contradiction. Nonetheless, it is rational to suppose that God is absolutely infinite, and it is undeniable that finite things exist. How can one reconcile these two apparently inconsistent facts? The answer is Creation, as this is expounded in the Lurianic notion of tsimtsum (contraction). Even though Creation itself transcends human understanding, Creation is, nonetheless, the only way of giving some semblance of understanding as to how a finite world came to exist.'' (Professor Yitzchok (Irving) Block).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The physical pre-condition for such a cosmological act would have been extra-temporal causality (see: downloadfile.pdf).

--------------------------------------------

In my opinion, the cosmological special relativity of M.Carmeli comes most close to a rational and natural scientific understanding of such an event, which cannot be proven fully by the scientific method, because it would have been a singular event. The ethical implications, e.g. stewardship of 'created' spaceship earth, rest totally on our practiced conscious faith and action.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some more food for thought:

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of nature. This distinguishes it from revealed theology, which is based on scripture and/or religious experiences, and from transcendental theology, which is based on a priori reasoning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To sum it up: it will be very difficult or almost impossible to find a working solution for your query with and within the 'tools' of revealed theology:

The laws of physics that we regard as 'sacred,' as immutable, are anything but.

John Archibald Wheeler

Dear Professor Stephen I. Ternyik ,

Dear Stephen,

I thank you very much for your message and your interesting observations.

I am going to see the text you attached. I did not know them, unfortunately.

I think that a possible source of interpretation of Creation is the Zohar too, which has influenced Luria, anyway, as far as I know.

I thank you very much again.

Best regards,

Gi

Dear Prof. Gianluigi Segalerba. Very unique discourse. I also put my view points in brief, though, i can discuss in detail in later part of discussion. The theology of creation of universes is scientifically explained in Vedas, the books of knowledge and speciallied knowledgeable called vigyan i.e. science. Of course, different religion and culture follow their unique scripture and related texts to explain God, nature and mankind. Different interpretations give rise to different belief systems which deeply impact all dimensions of one's life including his personality, attitude, behavior, and value system. Indian context of describing God, nature and mankind has a special place in various discourses over the world. Vedas and text following Vedas likely six darshana i.e. philosophies, 4 upvedas, 6 vedanga, 11 upnishadas, many sutra, and smritis. All such text have rich knowledge of everything manifested or not. They provide solutions to various modren problems of physics, astronomy, medicine, health, philosophy, mathematics, etc. There is a fine balance of dharma i.e. religion and vigyan i.e. science. I hope we shall also take into account interpretations from this point of view too. Im delighted to be here in such a wonderful discourse on philosophy and religion. My apology, If i wrote something irrelevant. I am willing to learn many new things. Thank you very much.

Has led to the evolution of many religious and belief sectors.

Dear Professor Vidyanand Malik ,

I thank you very much for your message and your interpretation. I am dealing in this period with the Katha Upanishad - particularly, with the image of the chariot in Katha Upanishad One-Three; I probably will speak about this image in a next webinar online organised by a University in Meerut -.

I am going to search for the texts you are mentioning.

I thank you very much again.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

Dear Professor Emmanuel Kobina Mesi Edzie ,

I thank you very much for your message and your observations.

Yours sincerely,

Gianluigi Segalerba

I should like to thank all participants for their interest.

Good article although I have some observations. First, I am wondering if there is any difference between "mankind as the image of God" and "mankind in the image of God." Secondly, I do not see in the text that you quoted in Genesis 1, where it says that man has absolute power. Are you reading into the text, or you can point to something specific in the text that gives man absolute power? I wish you made reference to Genesis 2. Lastly, in your second argument, if the spirit of God is in other creatures, does that imply that other creatures have the image of God?

"The first interpretation, which has, as its central feature, foundation, and principle, the notion of man as the image of God, considers mankind as the centre of creation."

"The second interpretation, which insists on the commonality among all creatures, assigns a common dignity to all creatures. God is seen as being present in all of Creation: through Creation, mankind is assigned the duty of stewardship over all of nature."

In my view, it is precisely the other way 'round. The first interpretation sees humankind as elevated over the rest of creation, a mediator between God and inferior creation. Humankind is steward, i.e. God's representative for creation. The model of stewardship, while it has its merits, has therefore come under criticism, especially from feminist theologians.

Being created in the image of God has been misunderstood in patriarchal terms as being a dominator, a ruler, a subduer. If, however, we see God as a trinitarian, i.e. relational God, a mother, a lover, then being created in the image of God means that humankind too must be at the heart of creation, loving and nurturing all created things.

I thank all participants to the discussion for their interest. I will answer as soon as possible.

Stephen I. Ternyik's belief in the originality of the Judaic creation story is not accurate and can be found first in Egyptian religions, well, if there is an original myth at all.

The myth, in each case concerns the creation of material worlds (Ptah and Amun) and in these earlier versions has little if anything to do with human beings let alone animals. The Judaic myth can be seen as a means of situating animals in the spiritual/material world in a shared or inferior relationship to human beings, not as objects of worship. Human relationships to animals was constructed upon domestication, the creation of a human world behind city walls, with wild animals outside those walls.

An earlier, more interesting myth on this subject, can be found in the Gilgamesh Epic whereby the connection and thereby relationship between human and animal is considered with reference to all three participants, gods, animals and human societies. This incidentally shows what humans lost through their separation of the human environment from the greater, animal world/potentially happiness.

I thank all participants for their interest. I will answer as soon as possible.

I wish to thank very much all persons who are recommending this discussion.

Good article sir

Thank you for your interesting and inviting Question. Dear Dr. Gianluigi Segalerba , I believe that we are getting closer and closer to Mythology as such in the hope of finding some answer to the many questions that are already looming on our horizon.