First is the religious justification for man's "manifest destiny" to rule over the earth, and why we are not meant to serve it.
Man is dual natured. He has the physical part normal for any animal and also a supernatural part, a seed, that makes possible the evolutionary results of conscious evolution..
The human condition has turned us upside down. Where consciousness should rule over the mechanics of our bodily reactions or the earth, our body and its acquired modes of reaction rule our higher parts. This is why it is said that man lacks consciousness. Consciousness and will could allow our body to serve us and a human higher perspective rather than us serving the body and our acquired thoughts and reactive emotions that deny consciousness. The Bible is just expressing the initial intent before the fall where things began to be turned around.
Now common sense. You said "if god needs creation". Does he? If he really is omnipotent, which I would expect any god to be, I would say no. This would refute your argument that we are required to serve the earth.
Our animal part serves the earth just as does any other aspect of organic life on earth. What does it do? It eats itself sustaining what we call the balance of nature where plants and animals consume other plants and animals. Organic life eats itself and collectively serves the purpose of transforming substances. Take away our lofty opinions of ourselves and what do we objectively do? We transform substances through our bodily processes as does the rest of organic life.
Why conscious potential or consciousness without contents needs contents of consciousness or "creation" is another question outside of this thread.
If we weren't ready, why did god create us? Pardon my very inappropriate and childish humor, but was this premature appropriation? This furthers my assertion, I believe, that the bible seems to imply that god needs us. This seems in my mind to defeat his omnipotence; does an all-powerful god rely on his own imperfect creation for solace?
You are assuming God created man on earth. I am suggesting that man on earth is a creation of consciousness WITHIN creation (LORD God) and not OUTSIDE of creation from its source.
Consider the universe as a large company. The head which you never see is away. At the top levels we have the infinity of galaxies. Each galaxy has a virtual infinity of suns and many suns have planets and many planets have moons.
Our earth is smaller than a quantum particle in the context of this enormity. The earth is simply not that important to warrant any more then the potential conscious connection to higher consciousness appropriate to its level.
Again it must seem odd that the earth sustains life in a way that seems unnatural to the rest of the universe around it. This I believe to be what was necessary to fix a cosmic problem it would be hard to go into now.
The cosmic need created, presumably, by an impatient god who created a being he knew to be incapable of living up to his intended purpose for them.
Cosmic needs are cosmic needs. it wasn't an impatient God that did anything but higher consciousness corrected a problem. The point is that man was capable of being as intended. I am suggesting that his energies required another use for a temporary time rather then living up to his "being" potential.
But who created these "cosmic conditions"? This is Rand's assertion. We're supposed to believe that a benevolent god established these unfair rules, and put us here with this unfair advantage, but still loves us and wants us to sacrifice our lives and turn to him for mercy? Doesn't seem imprudent in the slightest?
Here I agree with you and Rand. This isn't a matter of a benevolent God but just fixing a problem that required Man's temporary involuntary sacrifice. Now that this sacrifice is no longer necessary the "Ways" including Christianity provide paths normal for different types of people to awaken to the human condition within Plato's cave and strive to leave these psychological confines.
Creation has to include friction so as to continue. This friction Buddha called suffering.
One of the most popular books on Simone Weil is called "Gravity and Grace." It consists of a collection of her writings. She coined the expression gravity and grace to explain two universal pulls. One is gravity and pulls matteriality further into creation and a necessary part of the vertical process of creation. She is using gravity in a different way then the usual. The attraction of Grace is what allows for the help necessary for evolution or the vertical direction of "being" back towards the source.
Christianity is becoming able to open to grace through the conscious willingness to become open to experience the human condition within ourselves.
When Rand denies Christianity she is rebelling against Christendom and its personal God. But this isn't Christianity.
My concern is that so many do not realize that they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater having acquired their understandable negative reactions towards religion.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace